256 réponses à ce sujet

[Asheer_Khan]

@Katarian.

You miss one crucial point.

Shepard was never officially stripped from his/her Spectre status so new Normandy was under Spectre rules protection.

Beside Cerberus is well known black ops organization but not on the watch list or declared as enemys of the state (or i miss that part) so there was no reason for arrest warrant for Normandy crew or ship impounding.



And about new Normandy... who say that Cerberus did not financed developing of first Normandy (just to test some systems) when they build in thier own shipyard bigger and much more advanced version (same hull shape might rise many questions from where comes blueprints of original Normandy) and Shepard's death and reborn give TIM a chance to give him/her command of the new ship whit (perhaps) hope to gain commander's loyality.

[Stofsk]

Caz Neerg wrote...

Really, the only ways blowing the base makes sense are through meta-gaming,

This applies equally to saving the base yielding magical anti-reaper technology. There is absolutely no proof of that.

(as if the reapers would allow anything that can harm them to be in the possession of their throw-away minions)

or if your Shepard honestly believes that it is more important to take morally correct actions than for sentient life itself to continue.

What a disingenuous comment. As if the secrets to defeating the reapers will result in saving that base. I bet it'll be in a nice big box with the label "REAPER SECRETS IN HERE".

When you *know* the writers aren't going to punish Paragon choices, at least not the big ones, then you can safely feel holier-than-thou and look down on people who choose to keep the base.

lol is that it? You think we're being self-righteous? Wow, that's hilarious.

The writers aren't going to let the method of defeating the reapers rest on the decision to save or destroy the base. That's meta-gaming for you - the secret to their defeat will be completely different, will be arrived at through some means we can only speculate at this point, and may well be unexpected (I bet it would probably have something to do with whoever shot that derelict reaper).

If you base your decisions *only* on what your Shepard could possibly know, and guide your actions through pure logic, with no reference to ethics or morality, keeping the base is a no-brainer.

So explain to me how it's logical to keep a base whose sole purpose that has been observed involves turning people into milk shakes? No other technology the Collectors have is useful - particle beams aren't as powerful as the Thanix cannon, and the Collectors don't have defences that can withstand it. Their stasis swarms were also counteracted by Mordin. They don't have anything else that we've seen.

Explain how it is logical to assume that they do, when the Reapers wouldn't be stupid enough to leave the secrets of their destruction in the hands of servants (who Harbinger abandoned when the writing on the wall became clear).

[Abirn]

stofsk wrote...

Caz Neerg wrote...

Really, the only ways blowing the base makes sense are through meta-gaming,

This applies equally to saving the base yielding magical anti-reaper technology. There is absolutely no proof of that.

(as if the reapers would allow anything that can harm them to be in the possession of their throw-away minions)

or if your Shepard honestly believes that it is more important to take morally correct actions than for sentient life itself to continue.

What a disingenuous comment. As if the secrets to defeating the reapers will result in saving that base. I bet it'll be in a nice big box with the label "REAPER SECRETS IN HERE".

When you *know* the writers aren't going to punish Paragon choices, at least not the big ones, then you can safely feel holier-than-thou and look down on people who choose to keep the base.

lol is that it? You think we're being self-righteous? Wow, that's hilarious.

The writers aren't going to let the method of defeating the reapers rest on the decision to save or destroy the base. That's meta-gaming for you - the secret to their defeat will be completely different, will be arrived at through some means we can only speculate at this point, and may well be unexpected (I bet it would probably have something to do with whoever shot that derelict reaper).

If you base your decisions *only* on what your Shepard could possibly know, and guide your actions through pure logic, with no reference to ethics or morality, keeping the base is a no-brainer.

So explain to me how it's logical to keep a base whose sole purpose that has been observed involves turning people into milk shakes? No other technology the Collectors have is useful - particle beams aren't as powerful as the Thanix cannon, and the Collectors don't have defences that can withstand it. Their stasis swarms were also counteracted by Mordin. They don't have anything else that we've seen.

Explain how it is logical to assume that they do, when the Reapers wouldn't be stupid enough to leave the secrets of their destruction in the hands of servants (who Harbinger abandoned when the writing on the wall became clear).

The point is we don't know,  when you don't know you should alwasy error on the side of caution.  Shepard can go back in and destroy the base anytime he feels like it.  But once its gone its gone.  No sense to NOT look for helpful information first.

[Vengeful Nature]

I'll be damned if i'm going to save Citadel Space from the Reapers only to hand the keys of power over to some secretive oligarch.



Still, whether exposure to Reaper technology is worth the risk is a purely speculative until we start getting teased about ME3.



The best option would be to not destroy the station but not let Cerberus have it either. I would have talked to Anderson quietly so he and I could secretly send and personally supervise a small amount of very good and carefully vetted researchers to the station. The team would be kept on a short leash, ready to pull the plug at a moments notice and blow the whole thing if it becomes a threat.



But I didn't get that choice, so I blew it.

[Jzadek72]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Did you see what they were doing in there? It would be like keeping a concentration camp in WWII because it might be 'useful.'

... And the allies never kept any of the data they found there!

[Kileyan]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Did you see what they were doing in there? It would be like keeping a concentration camp in WWII because it might be 'useful.'

I don't really see it that way. In you example, do you mean the base should have been destroyed, simply out of respect for those who lost their lives there? For WWII concentration camps that makes sense. Even then, you can bet the Allied soldiers ransacked the command post and took all the records and such before burning and bulldozing those terrible places.

It would have been great to save the base just for information and new tech that doesn't have to involve melting down people into goo.

Its too bad, the Illusive Mans relentless drive and willingness to sell out anyone and do anything ended up biting him in the ass. I wanted to save the base, even as a paragon, but I couldn't trust IL Man. He'd have been melting down humans of his own(likely including Shep) and rationalizing it. I only hope he has some people he has to answer to, and they find him becoming more of a liability than an asset.

Modifié par Kileyan, 10 février 2010 - 09:50 .

[Stofsk]

Abirn wrote...

The point is we don't know,  when you don't know you should alwasy error on the side of caution.  Shepard can go back in and destroy the base anytime he feels like it.  But once its gone its gone.  No sense to NOT look for helpful information first.

This is the first sensible comment I've read concerning saving the base vs blowing it up.

You're right, we don't know. There might be something there, there might not. I personally arrived at the decision to blow up the base because I didn't think there would be anything worthwhile in the base to discover or use. That, and I wouldn't trust Cerberus to not mess it up somehow.

In any case, this has been a fascinating discussion. I wonder if Bioware had intended this to be such a bone of contention, compared with the ending to the previous game.

[Caz Neerg]

stofsk wrote...

Caz Neerg wrote...
Really, the only ways blowing the base makes sense are through meta-gaming,

This applies equally to saving the base yielding magical anti-reaper technology. There is absolutely no proof of that.
(as if the reapers would allow anything that can harm them to be in the possession of their throw-away minions)

or if your Shepard honestly believes that it is more important to take morally correct actions than for sentient life itself to continue.

What a disingenuous comment. As if the secrets to defeating the reapers will result in saving that base. I bet it'll be in a nice big box with the label "REAPER SECRETS IN HERE".

When you *know* the writers aren't going to punish Paragon choices, at least not the big ones, then you can safely feel holier-than-thou and look down on people who choose to keep the base.

lol is that it? You think we're being self-righteous? Wow, that's hilarious.

The writers aren't going to let the method of defeating the reapers rest on the decision to save or destroy the base. That's meta-gaming for you - the secret to their defeat will be completely different, will be arrived at through some means we can only speculate at this point, and may well be unexpected (I bet it would probably have something to do with whoever shot that derelict reaper).

If you base your decisions *only* on what your Shepard could possibly know, and guide your actions through pure logic, with no reference to ethics or morality, keeping the base is a no-brainer.

So explain to me how it's logical to keep a base whose sole purpose that has been observed involves turning people into milk shakes? No other technology the Collectors have is useful - particle beams aren't as powerful as the Thanix cannon, and the Collectors don't have defences that can withstand it. Their stasis swarms were also counteracted by Mordin. They don't have anything else that we've seen.

Explain how it is logical to assume that they do, when the Reapers wouldn't be stupid enough to leave the secrets of their destruction in the hands of servants (who Harbinger abandoned when the writing on the wall became clear).

There is no proof saving the base will help.  There is no proof saving it will hurt.  The only way there will ever be proof of either of those is through saving it.  You can't get information from a blown up base.

So many assumptions in your last couple of paragraphs that it is hard to know where to start.  The corpse of the Reaper fetus could offer a great deal of information.  The only way to know is to study it.  We also don't know what other information/tech is on the base.  We don't even have an inkling.  The only way to find out is to study it.  Clearly the base doesn't have only Collector tech, because they were birthing a Reaper there.  Knowledge is power, and it is in no way logical to destroy a source of knowledge that may be incredibly substantial because of juvenile moral scruples.

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

Caz Neerg wrote...

Really, the only ways blowing the base makes sense are through meta-gaming, or if your Shepard honestly believes that it is more important to take morally correct actions than for sentient life itself to continue.  

Wrong

There are numerous other evidences within the game that should let Shepard know that the Reapers can be defeated without their technology and in fact, that letting Cerebrus have the base would be very harmful for the galactic community and even humanity.

[Caz Neerg]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

Caz Neerg wrote...

Really, the only ways blowing the base makes sense are through meta-gaming, or if your Shepard honestly believes that it is more important to take morally correct actions than for sentient life itself to continue.  

Wrong

There are numerous other evidences within the game that should let Shepard know that the Reapers can be defeated without their technology and in fact, that letting Cerebrus have the base would be very harmful for the galactic community and even humanity.

Really.  *One* example of a dead Reaper destroyed by an ancient weapon, which dead Reaper and ancient weapon only Cerberus has data on, provides "numerous other evidences" that the Reapers can be defeated without bothering to understand them, and that the help of Cerberus is not needed?  Unless I am missing something.  Can you provide a single other piece of evidence from either game indicating a way to defeat a Reaper fleet without bothering to learn anything about their tech?

[SilverBecker]

I blew it up. I've never trusted TIM/Cerberus and never will. TIM is purely machiavellian; and you NEVER trust a machiavellian. Hell even Martin Sheen says he wouldn't trust TIM.



I feel confident that Shepard and his allies will find a way to beat the Reapers without resorting to using Harby's Ye Ole Fashioned Human Ice Creame Shoppe.

[Thompson family]

Why is saving the base wrong?



Because once the reapers are beaten, it won't self-destruct.



What's the use of saving the universe from the Reapers only to leave TIM in a position to become a Reaper himself? He wouldn't think twice about melting any number of Asari, Turians, Quarians, Krogans, etc., etc. to keep humanity on top of the heap. He also has no problem with genetic manipulation of humans, as Miranda casually mentions. He'd melt himself if that's what he had to do to be a super-human Reaper — the ultimate top of the heap.



The Reapers didn't come from nowhere. At one point, they HAD to be live beings who made the deliberate decision to melt themselves onto machines they had created so they could live forever. What we saw at the end of this game was the answer to the question Shepard posed to Sovereign on Virmire: "Where do you come from? Who created you?"



I didn't like the final boss, which I thought was silly, until I realized it was a clear warning of what humanity would become if Shepard didn't blow up that base.

[Caz Neerg]

SilverBecker wrote...

I blew it up. I've never trusted TIM/Cerberus and never will. TIM is purely machiavellian; and you NEVER trust a machiavellian. Hell even Martin Sheen says he wouldn't trust TIM.

I feel confident that Shepard and his allies will find a way to beat the Reapers without resorting to using Harby's Ye Ole Fashioned Human Ice Creame Shoppe.

Of course Martin Sheen wouldn't trust the Illusive Man, Sheen's political beliefs make Paragon Shepard look like Renegade Shepard.  Nothing says you have to agree with Mr. Sheen, or with Paragon Shep.

[SharpEdgeSoda]

It isn't wrong it's your call.



Ignore paragon/renegade points and go with your gut. Otherwise, I think your doing it wrong. You don't enter your initials for a high paragon score.

[phimseto]

See this thread here:



http://social.biowar...5/index/1103426

[SilverBecker]

Caz Neerg wrote...

SilverBecker wrote...

I blew it up. I've never trusted TIM/Cerberus and never will. TIM is purely machiavellian; and you NEVER trust a machiavellian. Hell even Martin Sheen says he wouldn't trust TIM.

I feel confident that Shepard and his allies will find a way to beat the Reapers without resorting to using Harby's Ye Ole Fashioned Human Ice Creame Shoppe.

Of course Martin Sheen wouldn't trust the Illusive Man, Sheen's political beliefs make Paragon Shepard look like Renegade Shepard.  Nothing says you have to agree with Mr. Sheen, or with Paragon Shep.

The Sheen part was just to place emphasis on my point that I don't trust TIM and thats why I blew up the base. I didn't trust what he was going to do with the base and that was that.  That and I don't think that using tech that was based on the deaths of hundreds of thousands of humans is a particuarly good idea, would it likely give up some useful data? Possibly yes, but its not a certainty. The likelyhood of that base being around still in ME3 and come back to bite you in the ass isn't something I wanted to deal with either.

It's likely that regardless of your choice at the end Shep has SOME data on the Reaper's at the end that EDI probably data mined. That pad Joker gives him has Harbinger on it, which suggests that some useful info was obtained.

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

Caz Neerg wrote...

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

Caz Neerg wrote...

Really, the only ways blowing the base makes sense are through meta-gaming, or if your Shepard honestly believes that it is more important to take morally correct actions than for sentient life itself to continue.  

Wrong

There are numerous other evidences within the game that should let Shepard know that the Reapers can be defeated without their technology and in fact, that letting Cerebrus have the base would be very harmful for the galactic community and even humanity.

Really.  *One* example of a dead Reaper destroyed by an ancient weapon, which dead Reaper and ancient weapon only Cerberus has data on, provides "numerous other evidences" that the Reapers can be defeated without bothering to understand them, and that the help of Cerberus is not needed?  Unless I am missing something.  Can you provide a single other piece of evidence from either game indicating a way to defeat a Reaper fleet without bothering to learn anything about their tech?

1. The Reapers themselves stated that they do not want a united galaxy to fight them
2. The Geth are technological geniuses with the most experience w/ the Reapers
3. So are the Rachni
4. Thus if you did the smart and right decisions you would have a united Geth, Rachni, Krogan, and Quarian fleet ready to help you fight against the Reapers.

Remember, the Reapers have always won by manipulation and isolation, we stopped their ability to isolate each system and by not using technology they are familiar with and know how to counter, we have a far better chance of defeating them.

The Paragon route is just as viable as the Renegade.

[Caz Neerg]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...
1. The Reapers themselves stated that they do not want a united galaxy to fight them
2. The Geth are technological geniuses with the most experience w/ the Reapers
3. So are the Rachni
4. Thus if you did the smart and right decisions you would have a united Geth, Rachni, Krogan, and Quarian fleet ready to help you fight against the Reapers.

Remember, the Reapers have always won by manipulation and isolation, we stopped their ability to isolate each system and by not using technology they are familiar with and know how to counter, we have a far better chance of defeating them.

The Paragon route is just as viable as the Renegade.

Of course the Paragon route is just as viable, from a meta-gaming perspective.  From an in-universe perspective, many of the Paragon choices are hopelessly naive.  Though, to be fair, many of the Renegade choices are just as impractical.  From a meta-gaming perspective, it is reasonable to assume that a pure Paragon will have all the races united and on his side.  From the perspective of an in-universe character, every one of those Paragon decisions you refer to was an incredibly dangerous gamble.  As a matter of logic, the two Geth factions reintegrating with each other could just as easily result in the whole population deciding to be neutral or siding with the Reapers as it could result in the Geth joining Shepard.  The Rachni Queen could easily have been manipulating him, and actually planning to wreak bloody revenge on the galaxy.  If the genophage is cured, the Krogan could easily form an Empire bent on conquering the galaxy.

The "morally right" Paragon decisions will, because the writers want to make both paths workable, likely lead to positive results.  But the *smart* decisions, as a matter of basic logic, are usually the Renegade ones.  Killing the Rachni is the safe move.  Destroying the genophage data is the safe move.  Destroying the Geth heretics is the safe move.  All of those decisions reduce the number of dangerous variables, while the major Paragon decisions increase the number of such variables.

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

Caz Neerg wrote...
Of course the Paragon route is just as viable, from a meta-gaming perspective. 

I only stated evidence that showed in-game evidence of the paragon route being viable, why do you insist that evidence is meta-game?

And stop with the term framing of "morally right* and "smart*. Paragon and Renegade are neither.

Smart people would know how to do the right thing.

Modifié par Mikazukinoyaiba2, 10 février 2010 - 10:51 .

[Caz Neerg]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

Caz Neerg wrote...
Of course the Paragon route is just as viable, from a meta-gaming perspective. 

I only stated evidence that showed in-game evidence of the paragon route being viable, why do you insist that evidence is meta-game?

And stop with the term framing of "morally right* and "smart*. Paragon and Renegade are neither.

Smart people would know how to do the right thing.

You didn't state evidence.  You stated *guesses* about how decisions will turn out in the future.

And what do you mean by the "right" thing?  A smart person is one who makes decisions that are logically appropriate given the information he has available when making the decision.  Morally correct and logically correct are *very* often not the same thing.

[Kileyan]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

Caz Neerg wrote...
Of course the Paragon route is just as viable, from a meta-gaming perspective. 

I only stated evidence that showed in-game evidence of the paragon route being viable, why do you insist that evidence is meta-game?

And stop with the term framing of "morally right* and "smart*. Paragon and Renegade are neither.

Smart people would know how to do the right thing.

I think he means there is zero guarantee that the geth will side with us. No guarantee at all the Rachni will get involved, they may not care about the Reapers and reapers may not care about them.

The other more mainstream races? They aren't even a guarantee, most of them seem very happy to bury their heads in the sand.

Thing is, this isn't an either or thing. It isn't as if all those races and hints at the way to beat the reapers would suddenly not exist if you explored the base before making it a grand funeral pyre for all those who were lost.

In a war of this magnitude, with stakes so high, would anyone decide "ok we have enough going for us, lets blow up millions of tons of tech and intel", or would they strive to find every single advantage possible? This really isn't the time for one of those over used moral dilema scenes of "if we use their tech, we are no better than them!", when the result of failure isn't people patting themselves on the back for sticking to the high road, it is extinction.

[Stofsk]

Caz Neerg wrote...

There is no proof saving the base will help.  There is no proof saving it will hurt.

It's already been used once to liquify tens of thousands of people in aid of creating a baby reaper. I would rather not give it the chance to do so again.

So many assumptions in your last couple of paragraphs that it is hard to know where to start.

Well, you can start by quoting what  I wrote and responding to each point I raised, rather than ignoring them entirely.

The corpse of the Reaper fetus could offer a great deal of information.

Like what? What its made out of? Sovereign's corpse could do the same, and it would have already been analysed as well. How its built? We already know that because EDI datamined the collector mainframe and told us, and we also saw it happen in real time with an unfortunate victim in a pod. What its power source is? This one's iffy, because it was a baby reaper, not even half formed. What its vulnerabilities are? Hitting it with constant firepower seems to work wonders.

We also don't know what other information/tech is on the base.  We don't even have an inkling.  The only way to find out is to study it.  Clearly the base doesn't have only Collector tech, because they were birthing a Reaper there.

Collector tech isn't very useful, that is to say not in countering the reapers. And to repeat myself, I doubt that there is a conveniently placed box with the label "REAPER MYSTERIES REVEALED". It doesn't make sense for Harbinger to leave that information lying around when Vigil makes it clear that indoctrinated servants were merely mindless husks (and Harbinger was the one in charge. The Collector General may have been the only sentient one out of the lot)

Knowledge is power, and it is in no way logical to destroy a source of knowledge that may be incredibly substantial because of juvenile moral scruples.

If you don't want to debate the ethics of this scenario, why are you bothering to debate at all? If you consider the moral implications to be 'juvenile' then what point exactly are you making? 'Might makes right'? Anything goes to survive? That last one can apply equally to the reapers, after all, and they're the logical extention of both philosophies - and they're the goddamn villains of the story.

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

Morally correct and logically correct are *very* often not the same thing.

Incorrect, absolutely incorrect.

If we can't agree on this then I'm done, you seem to believe doing anything morally right is thus the "illogical" thing to do.

Sorry you feel that way. There is always a proper way to get the result you want.

My point was that Renegades aren't the smart choice, neither are Paragons. Both are logical, both have their arguments. Ironically your insistence that Paragon was "morally right" suggested that Renegades are "morally wrong".

Modifié par Mikazukinoyaiba2, 10 février 2010 - 11:09 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Reapers have already infected organic tech enough as is.

If you think its right, talk to Legion, hell set you straight.

Beating the reapers will require organics to actually stand up on their own two feet and earn their right to travel the galaxy. Right now no "advanced" species in the galaxy deserves to be there: they simply piggybacked on a reaper trap.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 10 février 2010 - 11:09 .