256 réponses à ce sujet

[CarolSephard]

Collector's base is used to make reapers. If you want to use it to make your own reaper, then you will have to kill millions of people. That's not quite a good idea i think.

[FlintlockJazz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@nitefyre410
Let's assume that TIM indeed wants to be like Sidious (which I doubt). Still whatever he does will be preferrable to the Reapers exterminating everyone.
Only through meta-gaming can you be objectively sure that you don't need him to win. Just like I could know that I don't need anyone in order to win really. I can get all my alies killed, let the krogans die, let the Quarrian and geth kill each other and exterminate the rachni and I can still win. (well presumabely, unless Me3 makes it impossible, which I doubt).

From in-universe perspective, you can't know. So it's only logical that you acquire as much help as you can. TIM is willing and capable of helping, regardless of his motives.

@Sturmwulf

That's why I said it's very unlikely that Cerberus will reveal itself or the base to anyone, not even the alliance, until maybe the Reaper threat is clear and obvious to everyone.

And a Krogan Reaper would be something. A Hanar reaper is overkill.

I disagree that it's meta-gaming, but obviously this is going nowhere now so I'm just gonna leave it at that.

[Xandurpein]

Say that you want to have it all. Save the galaxy and not risk giving Cerberus the chance to take over the galaxy either. That is a morally reasonable goal to be sure. The problem is that you have no way of knowing if that is posible or not. You can hope that it's possible, but you do run the risk that the galaxy misses on some key technology to defeat the Reapers can be reversed from examining it.



How ever bad Cerberus would be if it got to run the Galaxy, it pales in comparison with the Reapers. If Cerberus can use the technology to control humanity or even the Galaxy (somewhat far-fetched, but possible) a war of liberation can free us in the future, if they turn out to be the tyrants I would fear they would be. But if the Reapers win, we KNOW there is no one left to do anything at all.



So, without knowing the odds, you have to weigh the chances that Cerberus can use the technology to something really horrible, versus the chance that it contains that vital information that could change the outcome of a war against the Reapers. I for one would not want to pass judgement on anyones choice in such a dilemma, regardless of what they choose.

[Fulgrim88]

Xandurpein wrote...

Say that you want to have it all. Save the galaxy and not risk giving Cerberus the chance to take over the galaxy either. That is a morally reasonable goal to be sure. The problem is that you have no way of knowing if that is posible or not. You can hope that it's possible, but you do run the risk that the galaxy misses on some key technology to defeat the Reapers can be reversed from examining it.

How ever bad Cerberus would be if it got to run the Galaxy, it pales in comparison with the Reapers. If Cerberus can use the technology to control humanity or even the Galaxy (somewhat far-fetched, but possible) a war of liberation can free us in the future, if they turn out to be the tyrants I would fear they would be. But if the Reapers win, we KNOW there is no one left to do anything at all.

So, without knowing the odds, you have to weigh the chances that Cerberus can use the technology to something really horrible, versus the chance that it contains that vital information that could change the outcome of a war against the Reapers. I for one would not want to pass judgement on anyones choice in such a dilemma, regardless of what they choose.

Exactly. It's the smart choice by any means. Not a good one, certainly not the best one, but the only viable one given what we know. Blowing it up is basically rolling the dice that we'll survive without it.

Sadly, the chances are high that both is possible, as seen with the Paragon Ending of ME1.
We can only hope that Bioware won't pass on equal consequences for either choice this time.

[Daewan]

It isn't just that giving the base to Cerberus is wrong, it's that learning to beat them yourselves - with the data that you take from the base, with the experience you already have - is the right way. It's the reason why teachers hate Cliff Notes and things like that. You don't learn anything that way; you just regurgitate the same crap you picked up.

My Shepard in-game knew that keeping the base would be wrong. It's a giant trap. In-game, we've been told repeatedly that the Reapers set up organic life to develop along certain lines. The Protheans who made Vigil managed to screw up the Reapers just a little bit at the end. We've already come farther than the Protheans have in this go-round. We don't need to compromise now.

More than that, we take a huge risk (can TIM be trusted? can every Cerberus op resist indoctrination?) for almost no reward (we already beat them senseless twice and they still haven't made it out of dark space).

Our best assets were really EDI and the team - it is possible to win even without doing any upgrades of the Normandy, so technically you could win without using a single thing influenced by Reaper tech. But you can't win without at least two loyal squadmates. It's not worth it.

[Gemini1179]

I have a feeling that the Paragon path to victory involves uniting the galaxy against the reapers, whereas the Renegade path to victory simply involves superior firepower.

[Giantevilhead]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Say that you want to have it all. Save the galaxy and not risk giving Cerberus the chance to take over the galaxy either. That is a morally reasonable goal to be sure. The problem is that you have no way of knowing if that is posible or not. You can hope that it's possible, but you do run the risk that the galaxy misses on some key technology to defeat the Reapers can be reversed from examining it.

How ever bad Cerberus would be if it got to run the Galaxy, it pales in comparison with the Reapers. If Cerberus can use the technology to control humanity or even the Galaxy (somewhat far-fetched, but possible) a war of liberation can free us in the future, if they turn out to be the tyrants I would fear they would be. But if the Reapers win, we KNOW there is no one left to do anything at all.

So, without knowing the odds, you have to weigh the chances that Cerberus can use the technology to something really horrible, versus the chance that it contains that vital information that could change the outcome of a war against the Reapers. I for one would not want to pass judgement on anyones choice in such a dilemma, regardless of what they choose.

Exactly. It's the smart choice by any means. Not a good one, certainly not the best one, but the only viable one given what we know. Blowing it up is basically rolling the dice that we'll survive without it.

Sadly, the chances are high that both is possible, as seen with the Paragon Ending of ME1.
We can only hope that Bioware won't pass on equal consequences for either choice this time.

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.

[klossen4]

Well what if this reaper after we defeat them in me3 awake and indocrinate them, maybe thats what happend to the reapers creators in first place.

[Fatal34Frame]

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..

Modifié par Fatal34Frame, 11 février 2010 - 05:11 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Say that you want to have it all. Save the galaxy and not risk giving Cerberus the chance to take over the galaxy either. That is a morally reasonable goal to be sure. The problem is that you have no way of knowing if that is posible or not. You can hope that it's possible, but you do run the risk that the galaxy misses on some key technology to defeat the Reapers can be reversed from examining it.

How ever bad Cerberus would be if it got to run the Galaxy, it pales in comparison with the Reapers. If Cerberus can use the technology to control humanity or even the Galaxy (somewhat far-fetched, but possible) a war of liberation can free us in the future, if they turn out to be the tyrants I would fear they would be. But if the Reapers win, we KNOW there is no one left to do anything at all.

So, without knowing the odds, you have to weigh the chances that Cerberus can use the technology to something really horrible, versus the chance that it contains that vital information that could change the outcome of a war against the Reapers. I for one would not want to pass judgement on anyones choice in such a dilemma, regardless of what they choose.

Exactly. It's the smart choice by any means. Not a good one, certainly not the best one, but the only viable one given what we know. Blowing it up is basically rolling the dice that we'll survive without it.

Sadly, the chances are high that both is possible, as seen with the Paragon Ending of ME1.
We can only hope that Bioware won't pass on equal consequences for either choice this time.

I really shouldn't bother, but I will just add this thing in.  First off, both will be possible yes, the human race will survive whether you blow up the base or not, however that does not mean there will be not be repercussions for blowing up the base or that keeping it is indeed bad, despite what those who claim that blowing it up is pure meta-gaming say, there can be some very bad results for blowing it up, such as Shepard having to sacrifice himself to stop the reapers as opposed to getting the 'Big Gun' to defeat them without dying (it's the last one in the trilogy, they can kill of the main character if they so choose and have caused that option in DA:O). 

I have already explained why I feel that it is possible ingame to decide to blow up the base logically without metagaming, so let me just end with the fact that keeping the base can also be taken as metagaming: you know nothing bad will come of it because they can't cause an autoloss from having it, despite the possible threat keeping a Reaper base like that is to everyone.  So let's just agree we all have our own reasons to believe that the course of action we have each taken is legit now.

[DiggingistDog]

Abirn wrote...

Ibby1kanobi wrote...

You're giving a weapon to a terrorist organization which professes Human dominance in the universe over other races by any means. Furthermore, the weapon is fueled by LIQUEFYING SENTIENT BEINGS.

Need any more explanation about why it's considered the "bad" choice?

Do you guys not understand the concept of a galatic holocaust.  I find it Ironic with people comparing TIM to Hitler in that everybody arguing against keeping the base seems to think that there is something more important than preventing galactic wide genocide.  

Preventing genocide with genocide.  I like it.

[Chris H. Fleming]

This is very relevant.

http://www.dimaggio....mer/Shermer.htm

There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them, well documented in the new book SuperSense (HarperOne, 2009) by University of Bristol psychologist Bruce Hood. Examples: children believe that the sun can think and follows them around; because of such beliefs, they often add smiley faces on sketched suns. Adults typically refuse to wear a mass murderer’s sweater, believing that “evil” is a supernatural force that imparts its negative agency to the wearer (and, alternatively, that donning Mr. Rogers’s cardigan will make you a better person). A third of transplant patients believe that the donor’s personality is transplanted with the organ. Genital-shaped foods (bananas, oysters) are often believed to enhance sexual potency. Subjects watching geometric shapes with eye spots interacting on a computer screen conclude that they represent agents with moral intentions.

Experimental psychologist Bruce Hood would argue that destroying the base because it is the result of great evil is itself a line of thinking which results from the human brain being "hardwired for religion". I suppose it is reasonable to imagine that other intelligent, social species might think the same way as they might have experienced the same sort of evolutionary pressures.

[Dark Specie]

We have often seen how Reaper-based technology is outright dangerous - not counting the fact that leaving in the hands of a ruthless man like the Illusive Man may be a very bad idea, Reaper technology has so far been shown to have it's dangers - indoctorination, booby-trapped and so forth, making it seem like a very bad idea to preserve it - the Illusive Man seems to think it's the salvation of Mankind, but I wonder - from what we've seen so far, the very thing which he believes could save us could also very likely doom us...

[Gabey5]

you are giving to the man.

[Zemore]

why does anyone actually want thier tech its obviously not very good for example

Collector ship is what ... like 100 times the size of the normandy and gets obliterated by the normandys gun.



Collectors base no sensors on the outside and inside its just a giant bee hive and explodes farly easily when it has like millions of troops inside and 12 people attack it 12 people TWELVE



collector tech is gaint sweaty bollocks why the hell would it be useful.

[Tamcia]

Zemore wrote...

why does anyone actually want thier tech its obviously not very good for example
Collector ship is what ... like 100 times the size of the normandy and gets obliterated by the normandys gun.

Collectors base no sensors on the outside and inside its just a giant bee hive and explodes farly easily when it has like millions of troops inside and 12 people attack it 12 people TWELVE

collector tech is gaint sweaty bollocks why the hell would it be useful.

Cerberus interested in how to make reapers out of humans, or other races, since the human reaper larva was made out ofliquid colonists. Troubling thought aint it?

[Zemore]

Tamcia wrote...

Zemore wrote...

why does anyone actually want thier tech its obviously not very good for example
Collector ship is what ... like 100 times the size of the normandy and gets obliterated by the normandys gun.

Collectors base no sensors on the outside and inside its just a giant bee hive and explodes farly easily when it has like millions of troops inside and 12 people attack it 12 people TWELVE

collector tech is gaint sweaty bollocks why the hell would it be useful.

Cerberus interested in how to make reapers out of humans, or other races, since the human reaper larva was made out ofliquid colonists. Troubling thought aint it?

yeah but to me that goes against what cerberus apprently wants to advance humanity and one thing about humans is that we have a huge empthasis on individuality (i know it doesnt always work that way but we try to promote this as a species)

other than the reaper the collector base is pretty much crap utter crap/

Modifié par Zemore, 11 février 2010 - 06:10 .

[Kendra Kirai]

NYG1991 wrote...

i never thought it was wrong while i was deciding. the main thing that made me destroy it was because of seeing what reaper technology does to organics. the derelict reaper wasn't even alive and it still wrecked the science team on it just from being in contact with the tech. keeping the base just seemed like a bad idea that would blow up in my face, while ,at the same time, not keeping it for use against the reapers felt like i was potentially bringing a knife to a gun fight.

i sat there for a few minutes thinking about it lol. neither choice seemed wrong, also neither choice seemed right

Personally, Iblew it up just to keep it out of TIM's hands.  If I'd had the option of handing it over to the council, maybe as a 'Look, see? Jerks.' instead of to an organization that wants humans to dominate the galaxy and a man who shows no remorse at the loss of tens of thousands of people....

TIM's just a putz, and I enjoyed talking back to him at every opportunity.

[Xandurpein]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Say that you want to have it all. Save the galaxy and not risk giving Cerberus the chance to take over the galaxy either. That is a morally reasonable goal to be sure. The problem is that you have no way of knowing if that is posible or not. You can hope that it's possible, but you do run the risk that the galaxy misses on some key technology to defeat the Reapers can be reversed from examining it.

How ever bad Cerberus would be if it got to run the Galaxy, it pales in comparison with the Reapers. If Cerberus can use the technology to control humanity or even the Galaxy (somewhat far-fetched, but possible) a war of liberation can free us in the future, if they turn out to be the tyrants I would fear they would be. But if the Reapers win, we KNOW there is no one left to do anything at all.

So, without knowing the odds, you have to weigh the chances that Cerberus can use the technology to something really horrible, versus the chance that it contains that vital information that could change the outcome of a war against the Reapers. I for one would not want to pass judgement on anyones choice in such a dilemma, regardless of what they choose.

Exactly. It's the smart choice by any means. Not a good one, certainly not the best one, but the only viable one given what we know. Blowing it up is basically rolling the dice that we'll survive without it.

Sadly, the chances are high that both is possible, as seen with the Paragon Ending of ME1.
We can only hope that Bioware won't pass on equal consequences for either choice this time.

I really shouldn't bother, but I will just add this thing in.  First off, both will be possible yes, the human race will survive whether you blow up the base or not, however that does not mean there will be not be repercussions for blowing up the base or that keeping it is indeed bad, despite what those who claim that blowing it up is pure meta-gaming say, there can be some very bad results for blowing it up, such as Shepard having to sacrifice himself to stop the reapers as opposed to getting the 'Big Gun' to defeat them without dying (it's the last one in the trilogy, they can kill of the main character if they so choose and have caused that option in DA:O). 

I have already explained why I feel that it is possible ingame to decide to blow up the base logically without metagaming, so let me just end with the fact that keeping the base can also be taken as metagaming: you know nothing bad will come of it because they can't cause an autoloss from having it, despite the possible threat keeping a Reaper base like that is to everyone.  So let's just agree we all have our own reasons to believe that the course of action we have each taken is legit now.

I agree completely with the last sentence. We have imperfect knowledge, and because of that it's possible to argue either way. Neither keeping the base nor blowing it up can be dismissed as the obviously worst or most evil choice. Both choices can potentially result in disaster or salvation.

[Fulgrim88]

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.

FlintlockJazz wrote....
I really shouldn't bother, but I will just add this thing in.  First
off, both will be possible yes, the human race will survive whether you
blow up the base or not, however that does not mean there will be not
be repercussions for blowing up the base or that keeping it is indeed
bad, despite what those who claim that blowing it up is pure
meta-gaming say, there can be some very bad results for blowing it up,
such as Shepard having to sacrifice himself to stop the reapers as
opposed to getting the 'Big Gun' to defeat them without dying (it's the
last one in the trilogy, they can kill of the main character if they so
choose and have caused that option in DA:O). 

I have already
explained why I feel that it is possible ingame to decide to blow up
the base logically without metagaming, so let me just end with the fact
that keeping the base can also be taken as metagaming: you know nothing
bad will come of it because they can't cause an autoloss from having
it, despite the possible threat keeping a Reaper base like that is to
everyone.  So let's just agree we all have our own reasons to believe
that the course of action we have each taken is legit now.

Heh. Looks like the frustrating part about this threads got you, too.
I didn't mean to. Guess my anger about the ME1 ending and the more shortsighted members of the "blow it up"-crowd got me again. While a part of me wishes that people, who blew the only piece of proof & information to bits just to say ":P" to TIM get punished, i can't demand the same for people who came to the same conclusion out of actual reasoning. The stuff i wrote back on page 8 is still paramount.
Equally bad & good consequences for both decisions, and i'm satisfied

[Caz Neerg]

"Right" and "wrong" are not something individuals trying to prevent the end of all life should waste time thinking about. They should think only of whether something potentially increases, or potentially decreases their power. From this perspective, pure Paragon choice-making and pure Renegade choice-making are both fundamentally flawed, but as regards the Collector Base, given what it is possible for Shepard to know at the time he made the decision, it isn't even a choice about right and wrong. It is about smart and stupid. And blowing the base when you have no idea how much it could help isn't just dumb, it is so incredibly dumb that it makes Conrad Verner look like a genius.



A lot of people use the Illusive Man's reaction *after* you blow or keep the base as "proof" of the right choice. The same with squad reactions. Shepard would not know those reactions before he made the decision, so none of them are relevant. Especially given that some of those squad members, at the time of the decision, will advocate keeping the base. At the point of decision, Shepard has absolutely zero reason to doubt the Illusive Man's dedication to ending the Reaper threat, not one single idea about how to defeat the Reapers, and no clue how much helpful information might be on the collector base. No matter how "morally praiseworthy" blowing the base might seem, for a character trying to stop the Reapers, who lacks the out-of-universe knowledge that BioWare will make both paths lead to victory, it is an intellectually crippled decision.

[Sharn01]

Caz Neerg wrote...

"Right" and "wrong" are not something individuals trying to prevent the end of all life should waste time thinking about. They should think only of whether something potentially increases, or potentially decreases their power. From this perspective, pure Paragon choice-making and pure Renegade choice-making are both fundamentally flawed, but as regards the Collector Base, given what it is possible for Shepard to know at the time he made the decision, it isn't even a choice about right and wrong. It is about smart and stupid. And blowing the base when you have no idea how much it could help isn't just dumb, it is so incredibly dumb that it makes Conrad Verner look like a genius.

A lot of people use the Illusive Man's reaction *after* you blow or keep the base as "proof" of the right choice. The same with squad reactions. Shepard would not know those reactions before he made the decision, so none of them are relevant. Especially given that some of those squad members, at the time of the decision, will advocate keeping the base. At the point of decision, Shepard has absolutely zero reason to doubt the Illusive Man's dedication to ending the Reaper threat, not one single idea about how to defeat the Reapers, and no clue how much helpful information might be on the collector base. No matter how "morally praiseworthy" blowing the base might seem, for a character trying to stop the Reapers, who lacks the out-of-universe knowledge that BioWare will make both paths lead to victory, it is an intellectually crippled decision.

To be fair, there are a lot of reason's to not trust TIM, a whole lot just from playing ME1 and a ton more if you are familiar with any Mass Effect lore, you can argue that Shep does not now this, but its not like the information is not readily accessible in news,  or the future equivalent of google.

Basicly your argument's for keeping the base all revolve around "what if" scenareo's. 
What if we can get tech to help against the Reaper's? 
What if we can get information on the Reaper's to understand their goals?

The reality is that the paragon decision is just as justifiable in a what if scenareo.
What if TIM starts kidnapping people to liquify in to weapon's?
What if TIM really only wants the power for himself to force his agenda?

Its really not a question of intelligence as it is a question of morality. 
Do you take a chance and trust TIM completely with out any oversight to use this base, along with what ever useful tech may, or may not come from it, to use against the Reaper's, or do you blow it up, taking the chance of losing what may, or may not, be useful tech to use against the Reaper's, but ensureing the base is never used for the wrong reasons, such as a place to melt people down for research?

Argueing that morality is useless makes no sense at all, morality and compassion is part of what we are, if you are not willing to factor in morality, seeing it as a crutch and survival as the only possible solution, then you may as well die and let the Reaper's win, since they are already the epitome of what you wish to become.  A setient race that bases its decision's completely on logic and survival, with no concern for morality. 

Modifié par Sharn01, 11 février 2010 - 08:58 .

[Caz Neerg]

Sharn01 wrote...
To be fair, there are a lot of reason's to not trust TIM, a whole lot just from playing ME1 and a ton more if you are familiar with any Mass Effect lore, you can argue that Shep does not now this, but its not like the information is not readily accessible in news,  or the future equivalent of google.

Basicly your argument's for keeping the base all revolve around "what if" scenareo's. 
What if we can get tech to help against the Reaper's? 
What if we can get information on the Reaper's to understand their goals?

The reality is that the paragon decision is just as justifiable in a what if scenareo.
What if TIM starts kidnapping people to liquify in to weapon's?
What if TIM really only wants the power for himself to force his agenda?

Its really not a question of intelligence as it is a question of morality. 
Do you take a chance and trust TIM completely with out any oversight to use this base, along with what ever useful tech may, or may not come from it, to use against the Reaper's, or do you blow it up, taking the chance of losing what may, or may not, be useful tech to use against the Reaper's, but ensureing the base is never used for the wrong reasons, such as a place to melt people down for research?

Argueing that morality is useless makes no sense at all, morality and compassion is part of what we are, if you are not willing to factor in morality, seeing it as a crutch and survival as the only possible solution, then you may as well die and let the Reaper's win, since they are already the epitome of what you wish to become.  A setient race that bases its decision's completely on logic and survival, with no concern for morality. 

The difference between the sets of what if scenarios is that the "what ifs" driving the Renegade decision involve the ability to survive the Reaper invasion.  The "what ifs" driving the Paragon decision involve what might happen *after* surviving the Reaper invasion.  Just like the final choice in ME1, the decision relies on the completely unfounded assumption that just because a decision is "Right" that it will have positive consequences.  Saving the Destiny Ascension when doing so might have resulted in not being able to take down Sovereign, and blowing the base when keeping it might result in useful tech, are both collosally stupid decisions which could only be made by a pie-in-the-sky optimist with no appreciation for how thoroughly screwed the sentients of the galaxy appear to be.

And your argument about factoring in morality comes across a little silly.  If you embrace amoral reasoning, the Reapers should win?  Huh?  If you embrace amoral reasoning, then *your* side should win, because who is right isn't relevant to you.  Saying that whatever side best exemplifies your philosophy should win would be, well, reasoning more in line with a moralist than an amoralist.

I'm not saying that reasonable minds can't disagree about what the best decisions are in the context of knowing that any decision BioWare lets you make will potentially lead to victory.  I am just saying that a reasonable *Shepard* simply would not make some of the big Paragon decisions.  Soldiers understand that being "Right" doesn't matter if it gets *everybody* killed, and saving the council/blowing the base are *huge* gambles that carry a substantial risk of causing the war to be lost, given what Shepard can possibly know.

[eldon_tyrell]

BlaiseVoltaire wrote...

They...they melted people and funneled them through tubes.

That's enough of a reason for me to be completely honest.

so...

this has prob been discussed to death in other story-based threads (and sorry for going off-topic), but speaking of melting/funneling people: at the end when shepard is inspecting the tubes and says "this is one of the colonists!" this was the chick chattin' up my kaiden alenko when the collectors hit horizon, yes?

i'm playing a femshep and am on a second playthrough; just realized it was that NPC. based on his email about going out for drinks with some girl in the colony, i would assume it was her? and, does having her liquified clear the path for more shep/alenko sexytimez in me3? i've never played with a male shep so i wouldn't know what the alternate scenario would be. 

Modifié par eldon_tyrell, 11 février 2010 - 09:25 .

[Malanek]

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.