416 réponses à ce sujet

[dan107]

jmood88 wrote...
The Citadel and relays haven't led to indoctrination, they were traps that got turned into useful tools.

Great point. Any rational person saying that the base should be destroyed because it's Reaper tech and thus might be dangerous, must also insist that the Citadel and the relays ought to be destroyed as well. Destroying one and not the other is not logically consistent.

Modifié par dan107, 03 février 2010 - 10:49 .

[Stofsk]

What's preferable - a galaxy enslaved by humanity with TIM at it's head or a galaxy with life wiped out by the Reapers? (Keeping in mind that if you're not meta-gaming, you DON'T KNOW that it's all going to be ok anyway).

I don't know it's all going to be ok - destroying the base is the outcome I selected because ultimately, that's the decision I felt was correct. You can argue moral relativism til the cows come home, neither one of those options are optimal - you're forcing a choice between two evils, one greater than the other, when my choice is to reject both evils (since that's what destroying the base actually means).

I don't know how the reapers will be destroyed, but one base in the centre of the galaxy won't be the answer to it. Because if you want to meta-game, the only reason to keep the base intact is to pull a rabbit out of the hat - finding some deus ex machina solution to the reapers through whatever technology that can be salvaged.

You have all the moral fibre of Joe Stalin buddy.

I'm not a big fan of Stalin, but if not for him, there's a good possibilty we'd all be going "Heil Hitler!" right now. That's all I'll say on the subject of real life politics however.

Well sacrificing half the galaxy to save the other half, which you advocated, is a Stalin-esque thing to say. And the Soviets weren't the only ones fighting Hitler, to imply if not for them the rest of the world would have fallen under Hitler is unbelievable. What, America would somehow miraculously capitulate, when neither Germany or Japan could directly harm it through invasion? Hell, Hitler couldn't even invade Great Britain ffs. And it would also inconceivably lose the race to get the atom bomb? 

Everyone was more afraid of Stalin anyway, and considering the multitude of Russians he was ruthlessly happy to throw at the ****s, it's not surprising.

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...

jmood88 wrote...
The Citadel and relays haven't led to indoctrination, they were traps that got turned into useful tools.

Great point. Any rational person saying that the base should be destroyed because it's Reaper tech and thus might be dangerous, must also insist that the Citadel and the relays ought to be destroyed as well. Destroying one and not the other is not logically consistent.

False analogy. There isn't a dead reaper sitting in the middle of the presidium, but there IS one sitting in the Collector base, and there IS a direct link between the Collector base and Harbinger.

[pelhikano]

marshalleck wrote...

Hardly. The IFF alone contained viruses of such complexity that it required an AI to combat them. To think that humans can take control of that base and use it 'responsibly' with no risk is pure hubris.

It might also be a little hubris-y to expect anyone in the galaxy to be able to battle the Reapers head-on without some significantly upgraded tech.

[Darthnemesis2]

I kept the base. There were several reasons for doing this. First, the only Reaper tech that we've seen indoctrinating people are actual Reapers (the other one wasn't dead). Even if the base does turn out to be indoctrinating people, they will be Cerberus people (as in crazy pro-human zealots). The benefits of learning how Reapers work, and how to combat them is much greater than the chance that the people will become indoctrinated. Plus we already know the Reapers are coming, and we know conventional weapons are nearly useless against them, we need every edge we can get.

[hgroce15]

I was baffled to find that keeping the base was the "Renegade" decision. I my char has been following the Paragon path and in my mind keeping the base would be a Paragon choice. Yes a lot of people died, but many many more could die if we don't use any available assets....

Well I guess when saying my reasoning it would be the "Renegade" choice. But thats why I love ME2 SO much more than ME1. In ME1 I did straight 100% Paragon because all the choices were so black and white. However ME2 really does a good job of making several of the decisions lay in the grey area. In ME2 I still primarily played a Paragon, but I was amazed at how my character Ideals have slowly changed from ME1 to ME2. I found my Paragon Shep turning more into a Paragade Shep, but I love it!!  

Modifié par hgroce15, 03 février 2010 - 10:54 .

[Abriael_CG]

Thaddeus Mynor wrote...
You get extra dialogue with Miranda and the Illusive Man if you destroy the
base, and on top of that EVERY SINGLE ONE of your party members
tells you that you made the right choice in destroying that base.

This should easily tell you which one is the right choice to take. If you want to be renegade (or chaotic stupid, which is basically the equivalent to ME2's renegade) you can, but can't expect to meet people's approval

hgroce15 wrote...

I was baffled to find that keeping the
base was the "Renegade" decision. I my char has been following the
Paragon path and in my mind keeping the base would be a Paragon choice.
Yes a lot of people died, but many many more could die if we don't use
any available assets....

What many people seem not to understand is that to use "any available asset" you'd have to actually use that technology, effectively having to kill tons more humans (or individuals from other species maybe) given that you just destroyed the human reaper, you'd have to create another, and to create it, you'd need "fuel".

keeping the base is evidently a borderline psychotic choice badly masked behind the IM's no-nonsense appearence.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 03 février 2010 - 10:57 .

[DBHolm]

I chose to destroy the base and will continue to do so in every playthrough I do.



Despite this, I think it would be a great idea to have the base greatly simplify the battle against the Reapers. Let TIM be right -- let it be an invaluable asset. Paragons are getting their own things to bring to the table. Let Renegades have some too.

[Gill Kaiser]

Too true. Paragons get the Rachni. Maybe Renegades need an asset to tip the balance for the big finale.

[Emperor Muad-Dib]

stofsk wrote...

What's preferable - a galaxy enslaved by humanity with TIM at it's head or a galaxy with life wiped out by the Reapers? (Keeping in mind that if you're not meta-gaming, you DON'T KNOW that it's all going to be ok anyway).

I don't know it's all going to be ok - destroying the base is the outcome I selected because ultimately, that's the decision I felt was correct. You can argue moral relativism til the cows come home, neither one of those options are optimal - you're forcing a choice between two evils, one greater than the other, when my choice is to reject both evils (since that's what destroying the base actually means).

I don't know how the reapers will be destroyed, but one base in the centre of the galaxy won't be the answer to it. Because if you want to meta-game, the only reason to keep the base intact is to pull a rabbit out of the hat - finding some deus ex machina solution to the reapers through whatever technology that can be salvaged.

You have all the moral fibre of Joe Stalin buddy.

I'm not a big fan of Stalin, but if not for him, there's a good possibilty we'd all be going "Heil Hitler!" right now. That's all I'll say on the subject of real life politics however.

Well sacrificing half the galaxy to save the other half, which you advocated, is a Stalin-esque thing to say. And the Soviets weren't the only ones fighting Hitler, to imply if not for them the rest of the world would have fallen under Hitler is unbelievable. What, America would somehow miraculously capitulate, when neither Germany or Japan could directly harm it through invasion? Hell, Hitler couldn't even invade Great Britain ffs. And it would also inconceivably lose the race to get the atom bomb? 

Everyone was more afraid of Stalin anyway, and considering the multitude of Russians he was ruthlessly happy to throw at the ****s, it's not surprising.

I don't want to get super involved here, but as a master's student of Russian Studies I feel compelled to speak up.

You're giving Stalin too much credit. Don't forget he initially signed a non-agression pact with **** Germany, so its not even as if he was all gung ho about saving the world. In fact, they even secretly began dividing territories up between the 2 nations ahead of time, so Stalin is far from some great anti-****.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

That being said, I believe that If the Soviets hadn't been on our side, we really probably would have been in deep trouble. Invading the USSR was just plain stupid. Its never been pulled off, and if Napolean couldn't do it, why they thought they could is still beyond me. Forcing a war on another front and holding that front, even at the cost of untold lives, probably did buy us the time and leeway to win in Europe.

Modifié par Emperor Muad-Dib, 03 février 2010 - 10:58 .

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...
I don't know it's all going to be ok - destroying the base is the outcome I selected because ultimately, that's the decision I felt was correct. You can argue moral relativism til the cows come home, neither one of those options are optimal - you're forcing a choice between two evils, one greater than the other, when my choice is to reject both evils (since that's what destroying the base actually means).

Not it doesn't. Destroying the base is not rejecting both evils, it's chosing the greater one. The Reaper threat does not disappear if you stick your head in the sand and aren't willing to make the sacrifices to fight it.

And it's not moral relativism. Moral relativism is saying that you don't have the right to pass judgment on other people if their morals disagree with yours. That has nothing to do with the discussion. (And incidentally I will very happily pass judgement on other if I believe their actions to be wrong or stupid)

Well sacrificing half the galaxy to save the other half, which you advocated, is a Stalin-esque thing to say. And the Soviets weren't the only ones fighting Hitler, to imply if not for them the rest of the world would have fallen under Hitler is unbelievable. What, America would somehow miraculously capitulate, when neither Germany or Japan could directly harm it through invasion? Hell, Hitler couldn't even invade Great Britain ffs. And it would also inconceivably lose the race to get the atom bomb? 

Everyone was more afraid of Stalin anyway, and considering the multitude of Russians he was ruthlessly happy to throw at the ****s, it's not surprising.

Like I said, I'm not going to argue real life history or politics, so let's get back to my initial example. Suppose a very simple set up: An agent is coming that will destroy all life. You have the choice - destroy half of all life yourself in order to save the other half, or do nothing and watch everything be annihilated. No third option available. What would you do?

[marshalleck]

pelhikano wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Hardly. The IFF alone contained viruses of such complexity that it required an AI to combat them. To think that humans can take control of that base and use it 'responsibly' with no risk is pure hubris.

It might also be a little hubris-y to expect anyone in the galaxy to be able to battle the Reapers head-on without some significantly upgraded tech.

EDI already data-mined the base for relevant data about the Collectors and Reapers. That's the point of Shepard looking at the PDA with the Reaper schematics on it.

Think about why that base existed. It wasn't a Reaper library. It was built to process organic species and use them in the manufacture of more Reapers.

If your answer to the Reaper threat is to continue the work of creating human-Reaper hybrids, that's up to you. And for the record I hope that the plot paths of ME3 do radically diverge--that would be amazing.

It's just not my answer. And I maintain that there's too much risk of things going catastrophically wrong when considering what might be gained from studying it.

[Darthnemesis2]

DBHolm wrote...

I chose to destroy the base and will continue to do so in every playthrough I do.

Despite this, I think it would be a great idea to have the base greatly simplify the battle against the Reapers. Let TIM be right -- let it be an invaluable asset. Paragons are getting their own things to bring to the table. Let Renegades have some too.

This I actually agree with, a Paragon shep will likely have Rachni, Krogan and Geth on his side (probably Quarians too), while a Renegade will have likely killed the Rachni, deleted the Genphage cure, blown up the 'heretic' Geth and advised the Quarians to attack the real Geth and take back the Quarian homeworld. In this case the Renegade has some sort of an edge that he's lost by taking out other threats to the Galaxy.

[Abriael_CG]

Darthnemesis2 wrote...
This I actually agree with, a Paragon shep will likely have Rachni, Krogan and Geth on his side (probably Quarians too), while a Renegade will have likely killed the Rachni, deleted the Genphage cure, blown up the 'heretic' Geth and advised the Quarians to attack the real Geth and take back the Quarian homeworld. In this case the Renegade has some sort of an edge that he's lost by taking out other threats to the Galaxy.

That's what chaotic stupid characters do. They destroy valuable assets (and punch people in the face at the worst possible time) just to show the world how "badass" they are. I wouldn't say there's any need of a reward for utter stupidity, is there?

On the other hand, the base is quite evidently not a valuable asset, as much as a probable weapon of self destruction. I don't doubt that a pure renegade path will lead to a very, very bad ending in ME3.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 03 février 2010 - 11:02 .

[Darthnemesis2]

Abriael_CG wrote...

That's what chaotic stupid characters do. They destroy valuable assets just to show the world how "badass" they are. I wouldn't say there's any need of a reward for utter stupidity, is there?

The Rachni and Krogan have already proved that they don't know how to play nice with the other species, why would you want to put them into a position where they can F everyone over again, while at the same time trying to fight off the Reapers?

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...

dan107 wrote...

jmood88 wrote...
The Citadel and relays haven't led to indoctrination, they were traps that got turned into useful tools.

Great
point. Any rational person saying that the base should be destroyed
because it's Reaper tech and thus might be dangerous, must also insist
that the Citadel and the relays ought to be destroyed as well.
Destroying one and not the other is not logically consistent.

False
analogy. There isn't a dead reaper sitting in the middle of the
presidium, but there IS one sitting in the Collector base, and there
IS a direct link between the Collector base and Harbinger.

You don't know that the Citadel won't all of a sudden wake up and indoctrinate everyone. It says in the Codex that its core is unexplored and inaccessible. The arguement presented by those that favor destroying the base is simple: "Using Reaper technology can have disastrous consequences". The Citadel is Reaper technology. The analogy holds.

Modifié par dan107, 03 février 2010 - 11:04 .

[pelhikano]

Regarding that point, I'm kinda wondering what the galaxy is supposed to do anyway against the Reapers. What the hell are we supposed to do to fight these things? The only reason Sovereign could be destroyed using an entire fleet of ships and at huge losses was because its shields failed due to that thing with Saren, a one-time fluke. The only way I could see to gain the firepower and scientific understanding needed to battle the Reapers was by keeping the base and studying it, even at the risk of indoctrination. Before the destruction of Baby Arnold we didn't even know what Reapers even ARE exactly, for example the bio-sludge thing wasn't mentioned in ME1 at all. If every Reaper is filled with organic goo, then maybe it's enough to be able to punch a small hole in one and inject a "poison" to kill it rather than having to blast the entire thing into tiny pieces. What kind of "poison" you need and what it takes to blast even a small hole in one is totally unknown, but presumably could be found out if you take a look at Arnold's remains. Maybe the parts of the incredibly powerful shielding system were ready to be installed, but now are lying on a workbench so to speak, ready to be looked at by researchers to find out if they have any weakness whatsoever.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I honestly don't give a damn about what the sheep that follow me say. I think I did the right decision and I would do it again anytime.

[marshalleck]

dan107 wrote...

stofsk wrote...

dan107 wrote...

jmood88 wrote...
The Citadel and relays haven't led to indoctrination, they were traps that got turned into useful tools.

Great
point. Any rational person saying that the base should be destroyed
because it's Reaper tech and thus might be dangerous, must also insist
that the Citadel and the relays ought to be destroyed as well.
Destroying one and not the other is not logically consistent.

False
analogy. There isn't a dead reaper sitting in the middle of the
presidium, but there IS one sitting in the Collector base, and there
IS a direct link between the Collector base and Harbinger.

You don't know that the Citadel won't all of a sudden wake up and indoctrinate everyone. It says in the Codex that its core is unexplored and inaccessible. The arguement presented by those that favor destroying the base is simple: "Using Reaper technology can have disastrous consequences". The Citadel is Reaper technology. The analogy holds.

I've already posted on this before. As soon as it became apparent what the Citadel represents, the Council should have been relocated. There is no good reason for the head of galactic government to be sitting on a relay to dark space.

And it's not a question of blowing up the Citadel or the Relays. It's simply out of the question. A supernova merely pushed the Mu relay out of its normal location, but otherwise didn't phase it.

That the Council ignores the risk and maintains their wishful thinking and chooses to stay on the Citadel is pure folly.

I've also considered since I first completed ME1 that it may be the only way to stay safe is to abandon the relay network and live off the grid, although now I think that's obviously less plausible given what we see in ME2.

Modifié par marshalleck, 03 février 2010 - 11:10 .

[dan107]

Emperor Muad-Dib wrote...
Invading the USSR was just plain stupid. Its never been pulled off, and if Napolean couldn't do it, why they thought they could is still beyond me.

Again, I won't get into a political argument but would just like to point out that that's not correct. Russia was successfully invaded and conquered by the Mongols (in winter no less). That's just general knowledge that a Master's student in Russian history ought to know IMO.

[jmood88]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Thaddeus Mynor wrote...
You get extra dialogue with Miranda and the Illusive Man if you destroy the
base, and on top of that EVERY SINGLE ONE of your party members
tells you that you made the right choice in destroying that base.

This should easily tell you which one is the right choice to take. If you want to be renegade (or chaotic stupid, which is basically the equivalent to ME2's renegade) you can, but can't expect to meet people's approval

hgroce15 wrote...

I was baffled to find that keeping the
base was the "Renegade" decision. I my char has been following the
Paragon path and in my mind keeping the base would be a Paragon choice.
Yes a lot of people died, but many many more could die if we don't use
any available assets....

What many people seem not to understand is that to use "any available asset" you'd have to actually use that technology, effectively having to kill tons more humans (or individuals from other species maybe) given that you just destroyed the human reaper, you'd have to create another, and to create it, you'd need "fuel".

keeping the base is evidently a borderline psychotic choice badly masked behind the IM's no-nonsense appearence.

I don't know where you got the idea that the Reaper needed to be alive for you to use it's technology. If you read the codex it tells you that the Turians used fragments of Sovereign to create the Thanix cannon that's on the Normandy 2.

[Gill Kaiser]

dan107 wrote...

Emperor Muad-Dib wrote...
Invading the USSR was just plain stupid. Its never been pulled off, and if Napolean couldn't do it, why they thought they could is still beyond me.

Again, I won't get into a political argument but would just like to point out that that's not correct. Russia was successfully invaded and conquered by the Mongols (in winter no less). That's just general knowledge that a Master's student in Russian history ought to know IMO.

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

[jmood88]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Too true. Paragons get the Rachni. Maybe Renegades need an asset to tip the balance for the big finale.

I was a Paragon all the way through both games so I guess I'll get the Reaper technology and the Rachni.

[dan107]

marshalleck wrote...
I've already posted on this before. As soon as it became apparent what the Citadel represents, the Council should have been relocated. There is no good reason for the head of galactic government to be sitting on a relay to dark space.

And it's not a question of blowing up the Citadel or the Relays. It's simply out of the question. A supernova merely pushed the Mu relay out of its normal location, but otherwise didn't phase it.

That the Council ignores the risk and maintains their wishful thinking and chooses to stay on the Citadel is pure folly.

I've also considered since I first completed ME1 that it may be the only way to stay safe is to abandon the relay network, although I think that's obviously less plausible given what we see in ME2.

In that case your position is logically consistent. I disagree with it, but it's consistent. However, I don't think that most people that destroyed the base realize that they then would have to abandon the Citadel and the relays for it to make sense. It's the run and hide option. Not the best one IMO, but a viable one.

[Phobius9]

My guess is that you'll win ME3 by using some kinda of virus (Computer or biological) that wipes out/destroys the entire fleet. You'll probably have to go aboard the main vessel to do this which is where the last mission will play out.



I imagine there'll be some hot ship-on-ship action to bring on the explosions but there's no way anyone could conceivably imagine taking down the entire Harbinger fleet via naval warfare.