256 réponses à ce sujet

[Sharn01]

If a man run's in to a burning building to save some trapped children, if he is successful he is a hero, if he dies , he was stupid, I guess we will have to wait and see what Shepard is.



You are still stuck in an anything goes to survive philosphy though, so I will pose a question, at what point do you feel, would be going to far to "try" to unsure survival, remember there is no guarantee that anything you do will result in succes, just that it will increase your chance of being successful.



If there is any line that you can eventually reach that is not worth crossing, then the decision to blow up the base is not entirely out of the realm of reality even for you. For instance, are you willing to wipe out all sentient life in the galaxy, trillion's of lives to save a few hundred human's who would be enough genetically to restart the human race after the fiasco is over? At what point is the "right" decision more important then the survival of your race?



As to the game, sometimes decisions in ME are far to black and white. If I could give the collector base to the council or alliance I may have had to think about my decision, but that was not an option.



Same with saving the Council in ME1. Look at it from a tactical standpoint, you where given two option's.



Sit there and do nothing, wait for the council to be destroyed, then move through the Geth fleet that will no longer be fighting a powerful target to attack Sovereign.



The other option is to Do everything you can to save the council no matter the losses.



How about the real option, move through the relay and gain the tactical advantage of surprise, flanking the Geth while they are working over the Ascension, possibly even saving it and the lives of the crew, but be willing to pull away and take out Sovereign, who is the real threat, when I get the Citadel arms open.



Of course the game wont let you do that because it makes way to much sense.

[Caz Neerg]

Sharn01 wrote...

If a man run's in to a burning building to save some trapped children, if he is successful he is a hero, if he dies , he was stupid, I guess we will have to wait and see what Shepard is.

You are still stuck in an anything goes to survive philosphy though, so I will pose a question, at what point do you feel, would be going to far to "try" to unsure survival, remember there is no guarantee that anything you do will result in succes, just that it will increase your chance of being successful.

If there is any line that you can eventually reach that is not worth crossing, then the decision to blow up the base is not entirely out of the realm of reality even for you. For instance, are you willing to wipe out all sentient life in the galaxy, trillion's of lives to save a few hundred human's who would be enough genetically to restart the human race after the fiasco is over? At what point is the "right" decision more important then the survival of your race?

As to the game, sometimes decisions in ME are far to black and white. If I could give the collector base to the council or alliance I may have had to think about my decision, but that was not an option.

Same with saving the Council in ME1. Look at it from a tactical standpoint, you where given two option's.

Sit there and do nothing, wait for the council to be destroyed, then move through the Geth fleet that will no longer be fighting a powerful target to attack Sovereign.

The other option is to Do everything you can to save the council no matter the losses.

How about the real option, move through the relay and gain the tactical advantage of surprise, flanking the Geth while they are working over the Ascension, possibly even saving it and the lives of the crew, but be willing to pull away and take out Sovereign, who is the real threat, when I get the Citadel arms open.

Of course the game wont let you do that because it makes way to much sense.

Fair question.  Given that the consequences of failure would be the end of all non-Reaper sentient life, in the context of Mass Effect there is no such thing as "going too far."  Even if all you managed to save was a few hundred humans, given the choice between a guarantee of a few hundred humans surviving with the Reapers wiped out, or the Reapers winning, I would go with the few hundred humans.  To me, at no point is the "Right" decision more important than the survival of your race.  If every single person who embraced a given school of moral thought ends up dead as a result of following it, then from an evolutionary standpoint, it can fairly be considered "wrong."

That being said, a conversation I was having in another thread did lead me to realize that there is one way that a pure Paragon Shepard's decisions could be considered logical.  If he were devoutly religious, all of his decisions would make sense, with one additional assumption: he is profoundly selfish, and cares more about making sure his decisions get him access to the good side of the afterlife than he does about making sure the Reapers lose.

[Malanek]

Sharn01 wrote...

If a man run's in to a burning building to save some trapped children, if he is successful he is a hero, if he dies , he was stupid, I guess we will have to wait and see what Shepard is.

I would argue that live or die he was still a hero.

[Offkorn]

Sharn01 wrote...

How about the real option, move through the relay and gain the tactical advantage of surprise, flanking the Geth while they are working over the Ascension, possibly even saving it and the lives of the crew, but be willing to pull away and take out Sovereign, who is the real threat, when I get the Citadel arms open.

Flank them? Gain the element of surprise? The Alliance came through the Relay directly behind the Geth. They already had both surprise and favorable positioning on their side.

The Geth stand directly between the Fleet and the Citadel. This is why you have the option to either let the Alliance save the Ascension on its way to stopping Sovereign, or simply go right through the Geth while they're busy destroying the Council.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Caz Neerg wrote...
That being said, a conversation I was having in another thread did lead me to realize that there is one way that a pure Paragon Shepard's decisions could be considered logical.  If he were devoutly religious, all of his decisions would make sense, with one additional assumption: he is profoundly selfish, and cares more about making sure his decisions get him access to the good side of the afterlife than he does about making sure the Reapers lose.

Depends on what kind of God / gods that person believes in. If his beliefs completely reject intentions / ends as relevent to the morality of the person ("road to hell paved with good intentions" cliche), then yes it would make sense. If his beliefs compeltely refuse the concept of pragmatism, then his actions would make sense.

However I know religions that judge intentions and results and not really the act itself, and allow for a certain amount of flexibility when necessary. 

So it will depend on his / her beliefs. It's not like we have one "paragon" faith. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 février 2010 - 10:02 .

[Sharn01]

Then we have different fundamental values. That does not make either of us stupid, nor does it make either of us truly wrong. I just have ideal's that I believe are worth dying for.

I was a soldier in my youth and I did serve during a war, and saw combat. While of course my decision's never held the signifigance of the final decision's in Mass Effect, I never compromised by ideal's, and had I died, I would just be dead, I dont fear death, but I would have a hard time living with my self if I survived because I was willing to commit atrocities.

Thing is, I am not religious, my morale compass of right and wrong are more based on honor and integrity, if survival is your only goal then life just is not worth living, because I do not feel that surviving and living are the same thing, we moved above that when we gained reasoning and emotion as a species.

Modifié par Sharn01, 11 février 2010 - 10:03 .

[Fulgrim88]

Malanek999 wrote...

Fulgrim88 wrote...

True. However, the reason why people doing the "Renegade" choice are concerned is, that the Paragon ending of ME1 turned out to be Win/Win.

While it sounds like either saving the council, loosing the battle (or having much higher casualties), you end up winning the battle AND saving the council, with zero bad consequences.
In retrospective, Bioware pretty much made Renegade the "wrong" decision. And we don't want that to happen with the end of ME2 again.

This is actually debatable. Replacing the council with a human led council could actually present unintended advantages when the Reapers arrive. In times of war, those who are ready for war are always better off. The strife and discord created by humans ascending to galactic leaders has for instance made the Turians much more prepared war with a massive increase in dreadnought production and army recruitment. So although those forces were not intended to be used against the Reapers, it is a happy coincidence that they are there. In contrast the original council is better in peace times but annoyingly complacent towards the real threat.

While the last part is also debatable (the Human lead Council being just as oblivious as the Alien-lead was), i never looked at the Turian incidents that way. I rather compared the possible outcomes in a plain ME1->ME2 context. Would be a pleasant surprise to see something good come out of the final Renegade decision of the first game

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 11 février 2010 - 10:18 .

[Malanek]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Fulgrim88 wrote...

True. However, the reason why people doing the "Renegade" choice are concerned is, that the Paragon ending of ME1 turned out to be Win/Win.

While it sounds like either saving the council, loosing the battle (or having much higher casualties), you end up winning the battle AND saving the council, with zero bad consequences.
In retrospective, Bioware pretty much made Renegade the "wrong" decision. And we don't want that to happen with the end of ME2 again.

This is actually debatable. Replacing the council with a human led council could actually present unintended advantages when the Reapers arrive. In times of war, those who are ready for war are always better off. The strife and discord created by humans ascending to galactic leaders has for instance made the Turians much more prepared war with a massive increase in dreadnought production and army recruitment. So although those forces were not intended to be used against the Reapers, it is a happy coincidence that they are there. In contrast the original council is better in peace times but annoyingly complacent towards the real threat.

While the last part is also debatable (the Human lead Council being just as oblivious as the Alien-lead was), i never looked at the Turian incidents that way. I rather compared the possible outcomes it in a plain ME1->ME2 context. Would be a pleasant surprise to see something good come out of the final decision of the first game

I agree with that, the Human led council is no better, but their existence has stirred things up and made the galactic community more ready for war. Through none of their own doing.

[Sharn01]

Offkorn wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

How about the real option, move through the relay and gain the tactical advantage of surprise, flanking the Geth while they are working over the Ascension, possibly even saving it and the lives of the crew, but be willing to pull away and take out Sovereign, who is the real threat, when I get the Citadel arms open.

Flank them? Gain the element of surprise? The Alliance came through the Relay directly behind the Geth. They already had both surprise and favorable positioning on their side.

The Geth stand directly between the Fleet and the Citadel. This is why you have the option to either let the Alliance save the Ascension on its way to stopping Sovereign, or simply go right through the Geth while they're busy destroying the Council.

You are using prior knowledge of the game to base your decision on, you have no way to know if waiting would have allowed the Geth to finish off the Ascension before you got the arm's open, the logical thing to do would be to flank them, if they destroyed it before you got the arm's open, you would have had a fleet of Geth standing in your way completely ready to stop you.

[Caz Neerg]

Sharn01 wrote...

Then we have different fundamental values. That does not make either of us stupid, nor does it make either of us truly wrong. I just have ideal's that I believe are worth dying for.

I was a soldier in my youth and I did serve during a war, and saw combat. While of course my decision's never held the signifigance of the final decision's in Mass Effect, I never compromised by ideal's, and had I died, I would just be dead, I dont fear death, but I would have a hard time living with my self if I survived because I was willing to commit atrocities.

Thing is, I am not religious, my morale compass of right and wrong are more based on honor and integrity, if survival is your only goal then life just is not worth living, because I do not feel that surviving and living are the same thing, we moved above that when we gained reasoning and emotion as a species.

Never argued that the players were stupid or wrong.  Only that some of their Shepards were, if you operate from the assumption that the most important goal is defeating the Reapers.  Obviously if you proceed from a different fundamental assumption, you will reach different conclusions.

[Sharn01]

Caz Neerg wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Then we have different fundamental values. That does not make either of us stupid, nor does it make either of us truly wrong. I just have ideal's that I believe are worth dying for.

I was a soldier in my youth and I did serve during a war, and saw combat. While of course my decision's never held the signifigance of the final decision's in Mass Effect, I never compromised by ideal's, and had I died, I would just be dead, I dont fear death, but I would have a hard time living with my self if I survived because I was willing to commit atrocities.

Thing is, I am not religious, my morale compass of right and wrong are more based on honor and integrity, if survival is your only goal then life just is not worth living, because I do not feel that surviving and living are the same thing, we moved above that when we gained reasoning and emotion as a species.

Never argued that the players were stupid or wrong.  Only that some of their Shepards were, if you operate from the assumption that the most important goal is defeating the Reapers.  Obviously if you proceed from a different fundamental assumption, you will reach different conclusions.

Perhaps I should read every post it the thread fully again as I must have missed some, it is fairly convoluted.

I will agree with you then, if you are looking at the final decision of the game solely from a perspective of what is most beneficial in defeating the Reaper's, and only that, then saving the base is the choice obviously. 

My argument's where not based on what is solely the best thing to do in order to defeat the Reaper threat, but the reason why blowing the base is also a logical decision.

[Caz Neerg]

Clearly what is logical depends on what your goals are. I just felt it was somewhat reasonable to assume that Shepard's primary goal is (or at least should be) stopping the Reapers, ironically because of the meta-game perspective that that is the entire point of the trilogy.

Modifié par Caz Neerg, 11 février 2010 - 10:35 .

[Sharn01]

I like to think of Shep as a bad ass soldier who was got thrust by circumstances in to a situation that was way over her head and is doing her best to help, making decision based on what the person would do, depending on how the player wants to guide him/her.



Meta Gaming just ruins the story, its why I dont look at boards or hints until I have played through the game. I will not argue the "story" of Mass Effect 2 here, as that is for a different discussion, but lets just leave it at I was not happy with a lot of ME2's story based element's.

[Giantevilhead]

Fatal34Frame wrote...

some of you forget that the base
itself is based on reaper technology but is not reaper technology
itself.. Also why would they include indoctrination devices on a base
that was never meant to house any beings capable of independant
thoughts?

Mordin states quite clearly at some point that the
collectors are nothing but drones, brain activity replaced by tech,
digestive organs replaced by tech, etc so the argument that the base
would inevitably indoctrinate ppl working on it is flawed.

The
comparison with other reaper tech is flawed as well.. Dragon's teeth
were specifically designed to attract humanoids in order to create
husks so it's only logical ppl are drawn to them.

Having said
that I find it highly unlikely the collector base has indoctrination
technology considering it was built around and more importantly for
mindless drones who didn't need indoctrination in the first place..

The problem is that we don't know when the Protheans were actually turned into Collectors. If they were turned into Collectors before the base was built then the base probably wouldn't have any indoctrination tech in it. However, considering the fact that the Omega 4 relay predate the Protheans, it is likely that the Collector base also predate the Protheans. That would suggest that the Protheans were turned into the Collectors inside the base.

Also, if the Collectors are truly mindless then that could potentially make the base even more dangerous since it  would mean all the Collectors' actions are controlled directly by the Reapers. It would mean that the Reapers have ways to project their thoughts into the base.

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Giantevilhead wrote...
It's only a smart choice if Cerberus can actually use the tech. That's a roll of the dice right there. The derelict Reaper was just as valuable and in a location that's easy to access and they failed to preserve it. They should have anticipated the effects of indoctrination but they didn't. The Collector base is in an extremely dangerous part of the galaxy and they have to go through the Terminus system to get to it. If Cerberus wasn't able to properly monitor their teams on the derelict Reaper, what makes anyone think that they'll be able to do it to the people they send to the Collector base? The people on the Collector base will have a much harder time communicating with Cerberus than the people on the derelict Reaper. Getting through the Omega 4 relay is risky even with the IFF, the Normandy almost crashed into some debris. Sending a lot of ships through the Terminus system is also going to draw the attention of the pirates and mercenaries.

Even assuming that the Collector base doesn't have anything that could indoctrinate people, which is highly unlikely since even the dragon's teeth caused the people on Chasca to crazy, there is still the problem that Harbinger can communicate with the base. That would, at the very least, allow the Reapers to send a virus.

But that's the point. Even if no one is able to figure that base out, at least we tried. Throwing away a valuable asset out of the mere possibility that it ends up being of no use, is just a gamble.
The funny thing is, that you might be right about all your points, but still wouldn't convince me to blow the place up, for as long as i haven't tried, theres no way i'd know.

But the problem is that there are risks involved in trying to study the base. Given the Reaper's ability to communicate with the base, there might actually be a chance that they can still use it.

It's not the same thing as studying weapons created by the enemy after the enemy has been defeated. It's more like capturing an enemy base during the war when there's a chance that the enemy could still take it back.

Even if the Reapers have no control over the base and Cereberus is able to utilize it, the Reapers can still take it back. They have other agents in the galaxy, and judging by the beginning of the game, it's not far fetched for the Reaper's lackies to be able to infiltrate Cerberus. A Wilson-esque incident would be far more likely to occur with the Collector base. The Lazarus Project was top secret and very few people were involved. A lot more people are going to know about the Collector base. Shepard has pretty much been spreading the word. Cerberus is also sending a lot more people to it and since they only have 150 members, they're going to need to recruit some more, that's going to open the way for infiltration.

Modifié par Giantevilhead, 11 février 2010 - 10:53 .

[Doug84]

The way I see it, its not saving the base thats wrong in of itself (though I'll mention that later), its who you have to give it too. About the closest equivalent I can think of is during the cold war - Communism, big-bad global enemy. Now, imagine you had the chance to get your hands on a Russian missile base - you'd be able to crack Russian communications codes, examine their missile tech, and so forth - the problem? You'd have to give control of it to Neo-****'s. They are technically on you're side in the 'Commie vs non-commie' Cold War, but you really don't see them as allies.



For starters, there's numerous risks of them using it on their own enemies, countries you might be allied with - like Israel, for example.



Handing the base over to the Illusive man is a decision for a short term benefit but that will cause a long term problem. And thats assuming the Illusive man doesn't jump the gun and start wars with other races, like the Batarians, or others.



Basically, its a case of a) do you think humans should rule the galaxy, do you think that the Collector base is the ONLY way to stop the Reapers, and c) do you think the Illusive man can be keep focused on the Reapers only. Also, its clear the Illusive man doesn't have humanity's best interests at heart - he has his own interests at heart and justifies his actions to himself and his backers as being necessary for 'The Good of Humanity', and given he explicitly stated "Humanity IS Cerberus", its clear he thinks his own advancement is inline with humanity's interests.



As for why the base itself would be a risk, bear in mind its ultimately a Reaper tool. There is the direct risk of indocration, the risk of booty trapped tech (like the Reaper IFF), or worse that the Reapers thought up. On top of that, like the Mass Relays and the Citadel, the Collector base funnels Humanity further down the paths the Reapers want humanity to go down. Alternatively technologies that the Reapers haven't thought of could be missed altogether.



So...yeah, thats why destorying the base is the 'right' thing to do.



As for why you can't hand it over to the Alliance or the Council - Ships travelling to the base have to pass through the very heart of the Terminus systems - Omega itself. Both the Alliance and the Council are not welcome in those area's and its likely to lead to war if the Batarians or other Terminus races discovered the potiental treasure trove of technology lying beyond the relay. Cerberus can manage it because they are inte

[Coughee Brotha]

I decided to save it because it seemed to me like a necessary evil. I gave me another thought when I got back and all my crew was telling me I shouldn't have did it.

[Ziggeh]

Coughee Brotha wrote...

I decided to save it because it seemed to me like a necessary evil.

Ooh, that thought is what led me to the opposite. It will likely help defeat the reapers, but will definitely not be a deciding factor in whether or not you can complete ME3, so it's no longer necessary, just convenient evil. Like Microsoft.

[Doug84]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Coughee Brotha wrote...

I decided to save it because it seemed to me like a necessary evil.

Ooh, that thought is what led me to the opposite. It will likely help defeat the reapers, but will definitely not be a deciding factor in whether or not you can complete ME3, so it's no longer necessary, just convenient evil. Like Microsoft.

Or Apple.

[Myounage]

I destroyed it under the assumption that something would go horribly wrong.  Think Derelict Reaper, Feros, Noveria, etc.  It just seemed like it would come back to bite Shepard in the ass in Mass Effect 3.

[Doug84]

Myounage wrote...

I destroyed it under the assumption that something would go horribly wrong.  Think Derelict Reaper, Feros, Noveria, etc.  It just seemed like it would come back to bite Shepard in the ass in Mass Effect 3.

This and the points I listed above 

[Wynne]

Sharn01 wrote...

Thing is, I am not religious, my morale compass of right and wrong are more based on honor and integrity, if survival is your only goal then life just is not worth living, because I do not feel that surviving and living are the same thing, we moved above that when we gained reasoning and emotion as a species.

I agree with this.

While I can see the Renegade side, and understand it completely, I wonder if it won't just bring serious forest fires into Mass Effect 3.

Every species that's tried to study Reapers--even a DERELICT Reaper, a dead Reaper--has ended up shish kebab. Just from BREATHING NEAR a dead Reaper, people went insane and died. You play around with that Collector base and regardless of what you think you did right, all you're going to be doing is providing the Reapers with more indoctrinated cannon fodder.

That's my take on it, personally. I have characters who'll disagree with me. But that's what I think.

It's not a Paragon decision--it's not a principle I'm listening to. It's my personal pragmatic voice telling me this. You don't open Pandora's Box just because you're curious and scared that it might be the only way. You ask yourself, first, whether this "only way" is just your terror talking.

I can think of one person who thought that he knew the "only way" for organic life to survive in the face of the Reaper threat. It was madness born of fear that drove him, regardless of how logical and reasonable it sounded. Saren. And how wrong he was.

I think the Illusive Man is just as wrong--I think that keeping the Collector base would be just as much a trap as surrendering to the Reapers. The Reapers wouldn't be kind, and I don't think their tech would be any more kind to someone who doesn't understand its workings.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But I'd rather be destroyed than start the Reaper equivalent of a galactic zombie apocalypse. If Harbinger could possess the Protheans living on that base, who can say what it can do to someone else who lives there in order to research the tech? 

While I can understand completely the motivations behind keeping the base, and I would ALMOST agree with those who want to save it--I just think it's too dangerous. I think the risk of slow and clever indoctrination from prolonged proximity to any form of Reaper tech is far too great in the first place, outweighing the possibility that you'll need the tech and that it will turn out you're able to use it--and furthermore, even if we DID defeat the Reapers, anyone knowing enough to have the information available to create a Reaper of their own would be as great a danger as the Reapers themselves.

So, with honest respect to the other side, I personally judged that if we can't find a way to defeat the Reapers without that tech, then we've already as good as lost. Better dead than brainwashed. Better dead than twisted into parodies of ourselves. Better dead than more mindless cannon fodder for the Reapers. And certainly better dead than melted down to become one of them. That was how I felt playing the end of Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Wynne, 11 février 2010 - 11:47 .

[Hopefire]

Indoctrination technology may or may not exist and be active on the base. While the base is not in a position where it's expected to be attacked, there are still good reasons to expect such a thing there.

-The base could serve as a Reaper warehouse or factory. They may want some place to stash their stuff while they sleep, and that base could have hundreds or thousands of indoctrination devices on it, patiently waiting to be used. Alternatively, it could be where such things are made, and someone pressing the wrong button could cause the factory to start churning them out post-haste.

-Indoctrination devices might be a standard part of some part of Reaper equipment, Similar to how my laptop has a web cam I never use and how my car has a CD player that's never used, Reaper technology might include indoctrination devices as a standard feature, whether the equipment specifically needs one or not. It could be tied to the communications systems, or life support, or the main computers, or who knows what. Basically, if you're going to install a communications system, and 99% of them need a certain feature, why make two models when it'll probably be cheaper and more flexible overall to use one design?

-The base could have been created to serve as a giant processing plant, and part of what it processes is sentient beings. Beyond to turn them into Reapers, that is. The base might be designed to convert a sentient race into a client slave race. Dump some humans on board, and they might start getting slowly processed too.



From a superstitious and religious angle, I look at it the same way I'd look at things if I found a copy of the Necromonicon: sure, it's got plenty of good information. But seriously, DO NOT WANT. What's discovered there might help, or it might doom the galaxy just as surely as opening up the Citadel Relay and throwing out the welcome mat. Not worth the risk.

Finally, if that base is the site of Reaper construction, I would assume that destroying it REALLY pisses off the Reapers. 

Modifié par Hopefire, 11 février 2010 - 11:54 .

[Psython]

If the base ends up being the only thing that can save organic life from the reaper threat, would that change anyone's opinion about the decision? Hindsight is 20/20. At this point in the game, it is impossible to tell whether the base is truly dangerous without the human reaper and impossible to tell what useful information can be found. Basically, its not a moral decision at this point because its such a toss up. Its not a kill 100 to save 1000 type choice but more of a gut feeling type of thing.



I chose to save the collector base. Why? Humanity and all organics are obviously at a disadvantage in this fight. They are playing the championship game at home against the champions for the billionth year running. No one has ever defeated the reaper invasion. In this fight, every sort of advantage is needed. Reapers cant be stopped in a conventional war, even with the geth and the rachni. The collector base has the reaper technology secured and vulnerable. There is no evidence that the base can indoctrinate without its reaper host. From what I understand about the reapers, I would say its likely that the base is extreamly dangerous and probably has links to the reapers and deadly countermeasures. Worse case senario, everyone on the base gets indoctrinated and they start producing a new human reaper or it gets retaken by the collectors. Best case senario, the base gives us a chance to win and save everyone. The moral duty to save all life is worth the risk. I think there is more of a chance that more people will die without the base than with. Its either elimination by the reapers or elimination by base we are facing, but by saving the base there is a greater chance for sucess also. The fallout from TIM having the base is less important than stopping the reapers. TIM also does not want to kill off all life mercilessly and would probably use the tech for control and coercsion rather than strait up genocide (?) Since the base is where organics are processed, there could be a huge asset there. Since the reapers are partially organic that means they are vulnerable. Could biological warfare disrupt the reapers? The collectors and the husks should be vulnerable to biological attacks. I am guessing the indocrination is caused by an advnanced nervous system, such as esp. If you can affect that nervous system in the reapers, perhaps you can turn off indoctrination and get the collectors and husks on your side! That would be a big advantage.



Desperate times call for desperate measures. Stopping the reapers means making tough decisions and not getting bogged down in moralizing. Besides, there is no such thing as right or wrong anyways, its all relative.

[Ziggeh]

I believe the reason they were making a human Reaper was due to something Legion says. Using Reaper technology, the mass effect generators and the Citadel is the entire basis of the Reaper plan, forcing technological evolution down pre-defined paths. While not something left for that purpose, it is based on the same sets of technology,

Humans, according to multiple characters, apparently defy the advancement curve. A capacity for genius that creates the unexpected and moves their culture in leaps rather than marathons. It's this, the potential for the unexpected, falling outside of a programs probability (Joker is still a better pilot than EDI), that makes humans the best hope for defeating the Reaper threat once and for all. The endgame Big Bad was, I feel, an attempt to combat this threat by recreating the capacity in one of their own.

I felt saving the base would be defying humanity, yes, prothean tech is largely responsible for them being in space (to that extent), but now they're there, the more human they can be, the better.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 12 février 2010 - 12:02 .

[Herethos]

Coughee Brotha wrote...

I decided to save it because it seemed to me like a necessary evil. I gave me another thought when I got back and all my crew was telling me I shouldn't have did it.

I did that too, Legion said something like I should keep the base, then after the mission he says  that keeping the base might be a bad idea, everyone does. Made another save where I destroyed it instead and everyone seems to agree with the decision. Also if you notice just after harbringer leaves the collector general, the general transmits the specs on the reapers or perhaps just on harbringer, before either blast wave hits him, so you'll get some data either way atleast thats what I think he does. And you see shepard or Joker looking at the pad in the end.