582 réponses à ce sujet

[Mister Mage]

TrueRedemption wrote...

To answer the initial question of this thread, first it must be said yet again that there is no "correct" choice. Two undeniable reasons this is true: 1 because we do not know the outcome of either choice (yet); 2 each player defines what they believe "correct" is.

This is the core problem with your entire post, and because it shows up at the very beginning, I will focus on this.  Note that I read the whole post, but this basic logic is the most prevailing and consistent failure of your logic.

You say we can't know what is "right" until we see the outcome, how well we reached the "goal" or what it costs.  That is actually Renegade thinking, right there.  Legion makes it fairly clear that, at least within the moral spectrum set out by the Mass Effect script, the means to an end are JUST AS important as the end itself.  You define right and wrong by the end result, and for that, Mass Effect chastises you.

[TrueRedemption]

Interesting point, I suppose I was too hasty in making that assertion, I'd go back and remove it as I feel the rest of the post is still sound, but I'm not big on loading save states if my choices don't pan out as I'd hoped =P However if you did read the whole thing I'd be interested in your response to any of the other parts, under the impression my actual definition for "correct" being the one I gave at the end of the 2nd paragraph, suggesting any choice is correct if it is the one you felt inclined to at the time. Nice catch.

[Jonny_Evil]

TrueRedemption wrote...

So as for the decision about the reaper base, and each players perspective on what is the correct choice, let me suggest this phrasing of the question. Are you like Luke, driven by ideals, optimistic that you can beat whatever comes your way regardless of how strong it is, and your going to do it being brave and noble? Or are you more concerned with the power of the reaper threat like Han, realizing that you need every bit of help you can get to fight off their technology and numbers?

That's a very interesting and insightful post, but I fear you've oversimplified the potential reasoning behind the action.

For example I accrue a number of both paragon and renegade points during the game, because I tend to view each situation with two sayings in mind and apply whichever seems appropriate, those being "You catch more wasps with honey than vinegar" and "It's better to be feared than loved". Idealism and expediency don't come into the equation at all, just a quick assessment of which stance would yield the best possible result.

So when I encountered the choice at the end I summed up what I knew about the situation, and predicted possible outcomes. I considered the Reapers modus operandi, I thought back to the evidence relating to previous harvested civilisations and I made a judgement on the possible tech available on the Collector station versus the likelyhood of traps. Then I considered the politics of the galaxy and the nature of the Illusive Man.

I came to the conclusion that the station was unlikely to provide technology that would put the galaxy on a par with the Reapers. That it would at worst lead to disaster at the triggering of some indoctrination related trap or at best give an inscrutable and power hungry man an incredible advantage over his enemies without significantly increasing our chances against the Reapers. So I blew it up.

If it was definitely stated that I could defeat the Reapers by rendering down a billion people into human Reapers, then I would have done it. If Shepard could have taken the station himself and used it to bludgeon the galaxy into action then I would have kept it. But given the available data and the limited options it needed to be destroyed.

See, no idealism or expediency, and that's the way I approach decisions in real life. So where does it fit on the Star Wars scale?

And don't say The Emperor.

[senojones]

I've had a pretty good idea on how I think each side will end, and Mister Mage somewhat has the idea. Both sides are correct, either one will end the game with the Reapers defeated. Paragon will have less of an advantage in tech power from leaving Cerebus and destroying the Collector base but most likely use the power of friends and allies to defeat the Reapers, Renegade will have less allies but the power of TIM and Collector tech to defeat the Reapers.



No matter what the ending will be Shepard defeating the Reapers, what will differ from either side is how the galaxy continues. Paragon will have a much more unified ending, most likely with a lot of races becoming friends, wars end, or maybe nothing really changes at all (no change is better than bad change). Renegade will have a much darker fate for the Galaxy, where corruption and power take over, wars and hate continue, maybe even putting humans on the top of the food chain.



Use Legion as an example, you have the choice of destroying or reprogramming his people, he can't make the choice for himself so he turns to Shepard for his opinion. Reprogramming his people and destroying the Collector base could easily show Legion a side or organics he understands, maybe even gaining the Geth as an ally against the Reapers. Doing that would be something to be proud of, guiding an AI into a direction that isn't just about logic and showing it the difference of right and wrong.



Talking to Legion has been one of my favorite characters to understand, a very logical perspective, trying to find its place in the galaxy. He will even say how similar Legion and Shepard are alike after destroying the Collector base.



Shepard's actions will directly effect how the galaxy will continue, I like it.

[senojones]

Jonny_Evil wrote...

If it was definitely stated that I could defeat the Reapers by rendering down a billion people into human Reapers, then I would have done it.

Wow.

[Mak89]

The thing I hate is not knowing what the outcome will be, cause I don't want to screw it up. But everyone seems to think TIM will stab you in the back. I think that since TIM brought me back and helps me, I owe him to listen to what he's saying. Also I'm renegade and I don't like the idea of doing everthing renegade and then making a huge paragon choice.

[Jonny_Evil]

senojones wrote...

Jonny_Evil wrote...

If it was definitely stated that I could defeat the Reapers by rendering down a billion people into human Reapers, then I would have done it.

Wow.

When you get down to basics. Kill or be killed, hunt or starve, sacrifice a billion for 11 billion and the future, then philosophical musings on morality become a pastime for somebody else. Thankfully we are that somebody else and don't, hopefully ever, have to make decisions like that.

[Axx Bytehoven]

Maybe this has been said...

... keeping the base is a renegade choice because you have to liquify humans in order to build the damn thing.

I'd rather find a way to use Tali/Quarians or Legion/Geth to hack the Reapers.

Modifié par Axx Bytehoven, 02 février 2010 - 08:31 .

[Fulgrim88]

Axx Bytehoven wrote...

Maybe this has been said...

... keeping the base is a renegade choice because you have to liquify humans in order to build the damn thing.

I'd rather find a way to use Tali/Quarians or Legion/Geth to hack the Reapers.

Not exactly. Humans were used in order to build the Reaper. The station itself is fueled by love and sunshine.

Keeping it at least ensures that those people died for something

[Soliduck]

I'm disappointed that the most obvious answer to this (false) predicament is unavailable. It's very likely that attempts at studying it would result in indoctrination.

Plus, the odds of learning anything useful are pretty low low. The Mass Relays are Reaper technology and remain a mystery despite centuries of constant use and (presumably) study. When the Reapers actually /do/ come back, how can you possibly prevent them from regaining control of the station? What if any tech you do manage to scavenge is under Reaper control like the mass relays are?



All that being said, I'm happy to have an excuse to break from Cerberus.

[Taura-Tierno]

Mister Mage wrote...

TrueRedemption wrote...

To answer the initial question of this thread, first it must be said yet again that there is no "correct" choice. Two undeniable reasons this is true: 1 because we do not know the outcome of either choice (yet); 2 each player defines what they believe "correct" is.

This is the core problem with your entire post, and because it shows up at the very beginning, I will focus on this.  Note that I read the whole post, but this basic logic is the most prevailing and consistent failure of your logic.

You say we can't know what is "right" until we see the outcome, how well we reached the "goal" or what it costs.  That is actually Renegade thinking, right there.  Legion makes it fairly clear that, at least within the moral spectrum set out by the Mass Effect script, the means to an end are JUST AS important as the end itself.  You define right and wrong by the end result, and for that, Mass Effect chastises you.

But what TrueRedemption is saying isn't renegade thinking. You're right that Paragons take the means into considerations, and that renegades generally do not. However, that should only apply when there's a moral dilemma, or something else where there's a "good" path and a "bad" pass. Such as sacrificing lives to win; a renegade choice. Choosing to save lives, and doing your best to win anyway, is paragon.

But in this case, there are no clear "right" means. If you choose to sacrifice a squadmate to win, you know you're killing a person to win. If you choose to blackmail or use other foul techniques, you know that that is considered a "bad" action.

Saving the station, however, does not harm anyone. It might even be extremely helpful. Also, by saving it, you could argue that at least SOME good might come from all of those colonists who died. If their deaths in the end provides the way to defeat the Reapers, well ... at least they haven't been for nothing.

If you save the station with the intention of giving it to the Alliance and/or the Council (if we had that option) then you would not be doing a renegade choice, IMO. Giving it to TIM is renegade, of course. But saving the station itself? No. Not knowing what "means" to the end is the best way is not renegade, either.

[Axx Bytehoven]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Axx Bytehoven wrote...
Maybe this has been said...
... keeping the base is a renegade choice because you have to liquify humans in order to build the damn thing.
I'd rather find a way to use Tali/Quarians or Legion/Geth to hack the Reapers.

Not exactly. Humans were used in order to build the Reaper. The station itself is fueled by love and sunshine.
Keeping it at least ensures that those people died for something

Keep the human reaper in progress was not the issue, was it?  It was keeping the technology to build more human reapers, which would require killing more human subjects to construct.

Totally Renegade

[Fulgrim88]

Soliduck wrote...

I'm disappointed that the most obvious answer to this (false) predicament is unavailable. It's very likely that attempts at studying it would result in indoctrination.

This has actually been stated quite a lot. There are various, similar obvious reasons why indoctrination won't necessarely hinder studies, or even occur.
First of all, we spent half the game discovering the indoctrination mechanisms the Reapers use. Cerberus is aware of it and has aquired sufficient data from the derelict reaper to countermeasure, Shepard is aware of it and can tell anybody if he chooses to.
The second, more important reason being that the Collector Station is not a sapient Reaper vessel and thereby likely not even able to indoctrinate by itself. There are standalone devices capable of indoctrination, too, as seen in some sidequests, but they can be discovered and destroyed.

And again, the knowledge of the Reapers capability of mind control and possible countermeasures, only comes from studying their technology.

Plus, the odds of learning anything useful are pretty low low. The Mass Relays are Reaper technology and remain a mystery despite centuries of constant use and (presumably) study. When the Reapers actually /do/ come back, how can you possibly prevent them from regaining control of the station? What if any tech you do manage to scavenge is under Reaper control like the mass relays are?

The mass relays and Citadel are clearly part of the Reapers plan to rise up and harvest civilisations. To achieve that, they are easily detectable, to encourage their use by new civilisations.
If the Collectors base was subject to similar plans, they wouldn't go such long ways to hide it in the galactic core, with a IFF to prevent anyone from finding it.

As for wether theres enough time to make some use of salvaged reaper technology, that's hard to know. When it comes to Reaper technology, the games logic is pretty vague, if not flawed.
On the one hand, there are the Citadel and the Mass Relays, which haven't been thoroughly understood in millenia. On the other hand, there are many instances of succesfully adapted Reaper technology, like the various Normandy Upgrades.
So it's hard to tell how much can be learned from that base in the shortage of time. But in any case, it's more than nothing

[AtreiyaN7]

Hooligunn wrote...

All I'd like to add after what I said earlier in the thread is that to all the people saying "Reaper tech is a stupid thing to use against the Reapers! Too risky!" ect, I have yet to see one of you mention anything about the citadel.

The Citadel, as proved by the first game, is probably the biggest risk to the entire galactic community. If even one Reaper came to the Citadel now, with the weakened fleets (which I presume they were trying to do in Mass 2 by building a Human Reaper), there would be no stopping it. It would activate the Citadel and BAM, Reaper invasion plus all the centralised power to the Galactic Community taken out in one fell swoop.

Yet, they hold onto it. They control it. They use it. Why can't it be the same with the Collector Base? As I said in my posts before, the Reapers UNDERESTIMATE humanity and most of the current galactic races. They never thought humanity would be able to fend off Sovereign at the Citadel. They never thought EDI would be onboard the Normandy to fight off the Collector Virus, or escape and shut down the secret signal in the Reaper module. They never would have even thought it possible for a Collector Base to be taken over either, and as evident by Harbinger letting go of control of the station, he expected it to be destroyed when it did happen anyway.

Just thought I'd drop that in there, seems like many people forget that the Reapers might have based their plans off their own technology and using it against the civilizations that utilize it, but they don't plan for the unpredictable.

I have mentioned the Citadel previously, along with the mass relays. The Citadel was specifically a trap placed by the Reapers, and it was only through sheer luck that we avoided disaster in ME1. Even though the Council won't openly acknowledge it, I'm sure they're now well aware about the role of the Keepers, etc. As far as I know, the Reapers can no longer use the Keepers to take direct control of the Citadel or access strategically important information as they did when they destroyed the Protheans ( well, enslaved them really), so we're probably good there. People have been on the Citadel long enough for it to be obvious that there is no Indoctrination going on, either. The Collector base is a big unknown however.

[senojones]

Jonny_Evil wrote...

When you get down to basics. Kill or be killed, hunt or starve, sacrifice a billion for 11 billion and the future, then philosophical musings on morality become a pastime for somebody else. Thankfully we are that somebody else and don't, hopefully ever, have to make decisions like that.

And what if your family and friends are apart of those billions of people sacraficed, is it really that simple? Whats the point of saving the future if you're just gonna destroy all that you've grown to love and care about? Survival is all relative, morality is one of the best parts of being human and sometimes the end result far surpasses any logical choice.

[senojones]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Not exactly. Humans were used in order to build the Reaper. The station itself is fueled by love and sunshine.

Keeping it at least ensures that those people died for something

If that involved giving the technology to someone I truely trust, then I might agree. But your only choice is to let TIM have first hand access to all of it, and to me that will still mean those people died for nothing.

[Taura-Tierno]

senojones wrote...

Jonny_Evil wrote...

When you get down to basics. Kill or be killed, hunt or starve, sacrifice a billion for 11 billion and the future, then philosophical musings on morality become a pastime for somebody else. Thankfully we are that somebody else and don't, hopefully ever, have to make decisions like that.

And what if your family and friends are apart of those billions of people sacraficed, is it really that simple? Whats the point of saving the future if you're just gonna destroy all that you've grown to love and care about? Survival is all relative, morality is one of the best parts of being human and sometimes the end result far surpasses any logical choice.

You might just as well turn that argument the other way: what if you're family and all of your friends are going to live if you sacrifice those 1 billion people? Or if you know they're going to die, if you do not? Tough choice. As somebody else said, it fortunate that most people will never have to make decisions like that.

If that involved giving the technology to someone I truely trust, then
I might agree. But your only choice is to let TIM have first hand
access to all of it, and to me that will still mean those people died
for nothing.

I agree with that: letting TIM have the base is definitely a renegade option, and an unusually crappy one at that. It would have been much better if there had been a choice to give it to the alliance and the council (I take it there really is no way at all to do that?).

[senojones]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

You might just as well turn that argument the other way: what if you're family and all of your friends are going to live if you sacrifice those 1 billion people? Or if you know they're going to die, if you do not? Tough choice. As somebody else said, it fortunate that most people will never have to make decisions like that.

Well, your perspective has a morality aspect tied to both ends, sacraficing people to save the ones you care about or saving billions of innocent people at the cost of losing the ones you love. That is a tough choice, both sides have good moral reasons at the cost of a great loss. My perspective isn't the same, it was to argue the idea of basic thinking and pure survival, there is no morality in that.. its just basic instinct.

If TIM had made it clear that he captured and would kill the ones I care about if I destroyed the Collector base, I would of given it to him.

[Lemonio]

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!

did the allies decide to keep the atomic bomb?
yes.
did they drop it on the japanese and kill millions of people?
yes. 
don't always assume people with power will do the right thing

the idea is that if the illusive man gains control of the station, he will start building reapers and perhaps harvesting aliens to strengthen humanity

[Fulgrim88]

Taura-Tierno wrote...
I agree with that: letting TIM have the base is definitely a renegade option, and an unusually crappy one at that. It would have been much better if there had been a choice to give it to the alliance and the council (I take it there really is no way at all to do that?).

That remains questionable. It would be a pretty poor move on BW's side if they would magically prevent Shep from telling anyone but TIM.
Dragging the information of the Reaper base and thus the information of the Reaper threat right to the Council is the first thing my Shepard will do. It's pretty much the Precondition on which i've based my decision, so i'd be extremely disappointed if that option won't be included.

After all, the Collectors base isn't only a valuable piece of tech, but the one main evidence of the Reaper threat, able to rally the oblivious Council behind the war effort.
However, i fear that it will end up as a simple asset for TIM, while the Council will happily rally behind the Paragon Shep with zero evidence

[senojones]

That remains questionable.

http://masseffect.wi...ki/Illusive_Man



He isn't a good person, there is no question about it.

[aimlessgun]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...
I agree with that: letting TIM have the base is definitely a renegade option, and an unusually crappy one at that. It would have been much better if there had been a choice to give it to the alliance and the council (I take it there really is no way at all to do that?).

That remains questionable. It would be a pretty poor move on BW's side if they would magically prevent Shep from telling anyone but TIM.
Dragging the information of the Reaper base and thus the information of the Reaper threat right to the Council is the first thing my Shepard will do. It's pretty much the Precondition on which i've based my decision, so i'd be extremely disappointed if that option won't be included.

After all, the Collectors base isn't only a valuable piece of tech, but the one main evidence of the Reaper threat, able to rally the oblivious Council behind the war effort.

Yup, that was also my logic. I honestly think that the MAJORITY of the people who saved the station DID NOT intend for TIM to have it. If bioware doesn't acknowledge that possibility then that's just dumb dumb dumb.

However, i fear that it will end up as a simple asset for TIM, while the Council will happily rally behind the Paragon Shep with zero evidence

Sigh so true.

It really might ruin ME3 for me if they can't let you give the base to the council/Alliance.

[Fulgrim88]

senojones wrote...

That remains questionable.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Illusive_Man

He isn't a good person, there is no question about it.

That's neither my point nor my main concern.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Soliduck wrote...
Plus, the odds of learning anything useful are pretty low low. The Mass Relays are Reaper technology and remain a mystery despite centuries of constant use and (presumably) study. When the Reapers actually /do/ come back, how can you possibly prevent them from regaining control of the station? What if any tech you do manage to scavenge is under Reaper control like the mass relays are?

The station is a reaper factory. The chances of learning something useful is very high infact. And there is no threat of indoctrination, as there is no reaper on board or connected to it. Hargbinger controlled the colectors primarly via genetic manipulation and not indoctrination.  

Mass Relays are not reaper factories. The chances of learning something from them about the reapers are low. The Reapers aren't stupid. They won't leave behind the citadel and the mass relays if studying them would result in a great threat (of course the Protheans proved them wrong but they only found out too late). The Station on the otherhand, a reaper factory, is another thing all together.

The Mass Relays are not under Reaper control. Proof? The Alliance fleet used the mass relay to join the battle.
The only relay that can be activated by the reapers is the citadel itself.
 
IT's not an argument to say "chances are the station would be useless". That's irresponsable. You study it first and then determine if it can be useful or not. Is it potentially useless? Maybe. But we don't know that. So better be safe than sorry. Of course I realise that the same sentence can be used vis a vis TIM acquiring the Station. But it will dpeend on perspective. I personally share alot of beliefs with TIM, and I trust him with the tech more than I trust the Alliane or the council (whether human centric or not). But that's just me.  

[ashmiranda3waymm]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

IT's not an argument to say "chances are the station would be useless". That's irresponsable. You study it first and then determine if it can be useful or not. Is it potentially useless? Maybe. But we don't know that. So better be safe than sorry. Of course I realise that the same sentence can be used vis a vis TIM acquiring the Station. But it will dpeend on perspective. I personally share alot of beliefs with TIM, and I trust him with the tech more than I trust the Alliane or the council (whether human centric or not). But that's just me.  

This.

Good to see not everyone on these forums is an idealistic paragon fanboy that thinks Cerberus should burn and all power should be handed over to the Citadel.

Modifié par ashmiranda3waymm, 02 février 2010 - 10:35 .