210 réponses à ce sujet

[Schneidend]

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

Saving the colony would result in a larger loss of life than letting it get nuked would. A lot of people here are thinking in the short term and not long term. Saving that colony damns that entire region of space. We're only shown one colony in the game. More than likely, there's dozens more. Alliance pulls out, Batarians come in to kill or capture many more people that were present in that single colony.

Yeah, saving those people may be the nice thing to do, but isn't practical in the long run.

The Alliance's presence didn't prevent the initial attack to begin with. The likelihood of batarian attack is already at 1, as they are ATTACKING RIGHT NOW. Shepard's choice in either case will not prevent future attacks. He can, however, save a bunch of people who can either rebuild or simply leave.

[intersect]

Is this an Anomaly Side Mission?

[tsd16]

it completely depends on how you look at lives. Do you look at the colonists as simply a resource that can be replaced? Are you devoid of empathy?



if you dont care that people will be left fatherless motherless, brotherless, sisterless, childless so on and so fourth and care about the grief any surviving family members wiill suffer, by all means save the industry.



On the other hand if human lives matter to you more so than as a form of biological resource, then by all means save the colonists.



After all the industry can be rebuilt too, though not as fast as new colonists could be shipped in. And really from sheps point of view hes not a major player in any sort of military industrial complex, Hes a soldier, he would be about saving lives, even as a renegade since this mission really has no impact on his immidiate mission, its an outside choice.

[this isnt my name]

Wildhide wrote...

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

Saving the colony would result in a larger loss of life than letting it get nuked would. A lot of people here are thinking in the short term and not long term. Saving that colony damns that entire region of space. We're only shown one colony in the game. More than likely, there's dozens more. Alliance pulls out, Batarians come in to kill or capture many more people that were present in that single colony.

Yeah, saving those people may be the nice thing to do, but isn't practical in the long run.


And it's decisions like this that make me wonder why people stick to playing strictly as a Paragon or a Renegade. Doing so leads to impracticalities that eventually will contradict their view of said side.

Generally speaking is Paragon leads to everyone has rights, and you are looking at the rights of the minorities and individuals.  The person right in front of you, does that Krogan deserve to breed, does that Rachni deserve to live, etc.

Renegades are more about "to hell with the needs of the few, focus on the needs of the many."  So people aren't necessarily playing good vs evil with Renegade and paragon, it's not even what it's about.  It's about what morality you follow and what you value more.

A paragon sees the colonists and decides their right to life is priority.

No renegade = mindless psychotic thug
paragon = a niave person who likes to live on the moral high ground.

[DarthCaine]

Think of it like this:

Kill your family or destroy the building they live in (tough choice)

[TheAnima]

I guess I'm the only one here who has no idea what the hell is being discussed?

[ItsFreakinJesus]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...
Yeah, saving those people may be the nice thing to do, but isn't practical in the long run.

What good is a military if it is willing to kill its own people.

You're living in a fantasy.  Simply put.

Okay, let's put it this way.  You're an agent working for the government and discover that some terrorists have launched two missiles toward a city.  This city is reasonably sized, and is well known for its industrial sector on the fringes of town.  At any given time of day, the industrial sector has no more than 4000 people.  The population of the city is 87,000 on average. 

The The city's industry is used to maintain three other cities in the same state/canton/province.  Without City A's industry, City B, C, and D would suffer a terrible economic collapse as they struggle to replace what would be lost from the loss of industry.  Yes, they can import from across the country, but doing so is more costly than it is getting the materials from City A, and they go overbudget in effort to maintain their own cities.  City A is also dependant on B,C, and D.  Those cities buy A's product, with the city can use on other things it may need.

Anyway, back to you.  You're at the computer console for the missiles, you can only stop one missile.  You can either save City A and let the industry sector die, or you can let the city die.  You're unaware of how interconnected everything truly is, but you still possess logical thinking.

You're telling me that you'd still save the city?


Keep in mind that this scenario is EXACTLY the same as ME2's.  The loss of industry will destabilize an entire region of space, which means that entire region of space is largely dependant on that colony's industrial infrastructure remaining intact.

[Schneidend]

this isnt my name wrote...

No renegade = mindless psychotic thug
paragon = a niave person who likes to live on the moral high ground.

It's more like a mindless psychotic thug is a renegade, and a naive person self-righteous person is a paragon.

Similarly, a penguin is a bird, but not all birds are penguins.

[Myrmedus]

Facilities can be rebuilt, individual people cannot (except for Shepard).

[Wildhide]

this isnt my name wrote...

Wildhide wrote...

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

Saving the colony would result in a larger loss of life than letting it get nuked would. A lot of people here are thinking in the short term and not long term. Saving that colony damns that entire region of space. We're only shown one colony in the game. More than likely, there's dozens more. Alliance pulls out, Batarians come in to kill or capture many more people that were present in that single colony.

Yeah, saving those people may be the nice thing to do, but isn't practical in the long run.


And it's decisions like this that make me wonder why people stick to playing strictly as a Paragon or a Renegade. Doing so leads to impracticalities that eventually will contradict their view of said side.

Generally speaking is Paragon leads to everyone has rights, and you are looking at the rights of the minorities and individuals.  The person right in front of you, does that Krogan deserve to breed, does that Rachni deserve to live, etc.

Renegades are more about "to hell with the needs of the few, focus on the needs of the many."  So people aren't necessarily playing good vs evil with Renegade and paragon, it's not even what it's about.  It's about what morality you follow and what you value more.

A paragon sees the colonists and decides their right to life is priority.

No renegade = mindless psychotic thug
paragon = a niave person who likes to live on the moral high ground.

It's more Steve Rogers vs Jack Bauer, but if you want to look at it that way, more power to ya.

[NoUserNameHere]

this isnt my name wrote...

Wildhide wrote...

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

Saving the colony would result in a larger loss of life than letting it get nuked would. A lot of people here are thinking in the short term and not long term. Saving that colony damns that entire region of space. We're only shown one colony in the game. More than likely, there's dozens more. Alliance pulls out, Batarians come in to kill or capture many more people that were present in that single colony.

Yeah, saving those people may be the nice thing to do, but isn't practical in the long run.


And it's decisions like this that make me wonder why people stick to playing strictly as a Paragon or a Renegade. Doing so leads to impracticalities that eventually will contradict their view of said side.

Generally speaking is Paragon leads to everyone has rights, and you are looking at the rights of the minorities and individuals.  The person right in front of you, does that Krogan deserve to breed, does that Rachni deserve to live, etc.

Renegades are more about "to hell with the needs of the few, focus on the needs of the many."  So people aren't necessarily playing good vs evil with Renegade and paragon, it's not even what it's about.  It's about what morality you follow and what you value more.

A paragon sees the colonists and decides their right to life is priority.

No renegade = mindless psychotic thug
paragon = a niave person who likes to live on the moral high ground.

... how is that any different from the above descriptions? 

[ItsFreakinJesus]

Except for that part wherein anyone who could rebuild the colony kind of died when the residential area went up in flames.

Except that that's not the only colony in the region, it's the only colony that was attacked.  It's said in-game that the loss of the industrial sector would cause the Alliance to pull out, destabilizing the sector.  If that colony were the only colony, they wouldn't destabilize the sector, they'd render it fully abandoned. 

[this isnt my name]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

this isnt my name wrote...

Wildhide wrote...

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

Saving the colony would result in a larger loss of life than letting it get nuked would. A lot of people here are thinking in the short term and not long term. Saving that colony damns that entire region of space. We're only shown one colony in the game. More than likely, there's dozens more. Alliance pulls out, Batarians come in to kill or capture many more people that were present in that single colony.

Yeah, saving those people may be the nice thing to do, but isn't practical in the long run.


And it's decisions like this that make me wonder why people stick to playing strictly as a Paragon or a Renegade. Doing so leads to impracticalities that eventually will contradict their view of said side.

Generally speaking is Paragon leads to everyone has rights, and you are looking at the rights of the minorities and individuals.  The person right in front of you, does that Krogan deserve to breed, does that Rachni deserve to live, etc.

Renegades are more about "to hell with the needs of the few, focus on the needs of the many."  So people aren't necessarily playing good vs evil with Renegade and paragon, it's not even what it's about.  It's about what morality you follow and what you value more.

A paragon sees the colonists and decides their right to life is priority.

No renegade = mindless psychotic thug
paragon = a niave person who likes to live on the moral high ground.

... how is that any different from the above descriptions? 

Because a paragon isnt about rights at all otherwise paragons would think how their decesions effect those in the longrun e.g curing krogan ok it get to breed but will probobally kill turians denying their right to life and to live peacefully.
The renegade is never about the longterm the renegade is either "KILL KILL KILL" or thinking of themselves.

[this isnt my name]

Myrmedus wrote...

Facilities can be rebuilt, individual people cannot (except for Shepard).

Cloning.

[Myrmedus]

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...
Yeah, saving those people may be the nice thing to do, but isn't practical in the long run.

What good is a military if it is willing to kill its own people.

You're living in a fantasy.  Simply put.

Okay, let's put it this way.  You're an agent working for the government and discover that some terrorists have launched two missiles toward a city.  This city is reasonably sized, and is well known for its industrial sector on the fringes of town.  At any given time of day, the industrial sector has no more than 4000 people.  The population of the city is 87,000 on average. 

The The city's industry is used to maintain three other cities in the same state/canton/province.  Without City A's industry, City B, C, and D would suffer a terrible economic collapse as they struggle to replace what would be lost from the loss of industry.  Yes, they can import from across the country, but doing so is more costly than it is getting the materials from City A, and they go overbudget in effort to maintain their own cities.  City A is also dependant on B,C, and D.  Those cities buy A's product, with the city can use on other things it may need.

Anyway, back to you.  You're at the computer console for the missiles, you can only stop one missile.  You can either save City A and let the industry sector die, or you can let the city die.  You're unaware of how interconnected everything truly is, but you still possess logical thinking.

You're telling me that you'd still save the city?


Keep in mind that this scenario is EXACTLY the same as ME2's.  The loss of industry will destabilize an entire region of space, which means that entire region of space is largely dependant on that colony's industrial infrastructure remaining intact.

Yes of course you'd save the city and from a logical standpoint aswell if you have the long-sightedness required.,

The entire purpose of industry is to propogate humanity. If you're making decisions that elevate industry above humanity you're getting priorities completely mixed up. When you make a decision like that you have to go to the pure core bone of thinking and evaluate what choice is 'top dog'. In addition you're forgetting the potential for evacuation, which is specifically described in ME2's choice, and the fact the industrial infrastructure can be rebuilt over time.

There's nothing naive about it, in fact it could be argued that a person is naive to believe that industry is more important than humanity and its people when industry solely exists to SERVE humanity and its people.

[Myrmedus]

this isnt my name wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Facilities can be rebuilt, individual people cannot (except for Shepard).

Cloning.

Cloning =/= Rebuilding.

Even with memory transfer we have absolutely no idea if that is the same consciousness or an image - a copy - of that person and their consciousness. One would argue that it must be a copy since a clone and an original can exist simultaneously.

[Nightvision91]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."



Sorry to go Mr. Spock, but imho destroying the colony is the way to go. By destroying the space station you're causing greater damage to the Alliance by having the colony abandoned.

[stefapalooza707]

SharpEdgeSoda, I play the game just like you. The only downside is that you miss certain dialogue and I don't think I'll ever get Morinth

[Wildhide]

this isnt my name wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

this isnt my name wrote...

Wildhide wrote...

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

Saving the colony would result in a larger loss of life than letting it get nuked would. A lot of people here are thinking in the short term and not long term. Saving that colony damns that entire region of space. We're only shown one colony in the game. More than likely, there's dozens more. Alliance pulls out, Batarians come in to kill or capture many more people that were present in that single colony.

Yeah, saving those people may be the nice thing to do, but isn't practical in the long run.


And it's decisions like this that make me wonder why people stick to playing strictly as a Paragon or a Renegade. Doing so leads to impracticalities that eventually will contradict their view of said side.

Generally speaking is Paragon leads to everyone has rights, and you are looking at the rights of the minorities and individuals.  The person right in front of you, does that Krogan deserve to breed, does that Rachni deserve to live, etc.

Renegades are more about "to hell with the needs of the few, focus on the needs of the many."  So people aren't necessarily playing good vs evil with Renegade and paragon, it's not even what it's about.  It's about what morality you follow and what you value more.

A paragon sees the colonists and decides their right to life is priority.

No renegade = mindless psychotic thug
paragon = a niave person who likes to live on the moral high ground.

... how is that any different from the above descriptions? 

Because a paragon isnt about rights at all otherwise paragons would think how their decesions effect those in the longrun e.g curing krogan ok it get to breed but will probobally kill turians denying their right to life and to live peacefully.
The renegade is never about the longterm the renegade is either "KILL KILL KILL" or thinking of themselves.

But that's just it, they ARE about rights and second chances and well... Paragon ways of thinking.  Paladinic (Is that a word?) and Chivalry.  They're noble.  People of that nature care about each individual, and will risk things to give those individuals their equal chances.  Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness and all that jazz.  The whole concept of a Paragon in this game is giving those people right now their chance. 

The consider how their decision effects those in the long run, and decide that these people deserve the same consideration in the long run, and they need someone to give them that consideration.

Renegades are again, more Jack Bauer, if I do this now, and get my hands dirty, it will make things better for the majority of folks.  They accept that someone has to be in the slime doing all those rotten little things we prefer to pretend never go on, and they choose to be that person.

Now, you may decide in your mind as you play one or the other, that your Renegade is nothing more than a serial killer with self-centered views that focus only on himself, but that's not the intent of playing a Renegade.

[rpgchuck]

Well, the people can always be resettled, so the Paragon answer seems clear. Its like evacuating before a flood.



No government in good conscience would let the people die to save the city. Let the people live, then evacuate them.

[Wildhide]

Nightvision91 wrote...

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Sorry to go Mr. Spock, but imho destroying the colony is the way to go. By destroying the space station you're causing greater damage to the Alliance by having the colony abandoned.

Thank you Mr. Spock for summing it up so well.

[tmp7704]

Best part of that mission is it's apparently bugged. Save the capital and the journal says you chose to save the industrial part. Save the industrial part and the journal says you chose to save the capital.



/facepalm

[Conway044]

But we all agree that this was a pretty cool side quest right?

[SteelEagleShane]

Schneidend wrote...

this isnt my name wrote...

Blowing up the industry would stop people repopulating the colony, this would encourage more bartarian attacks.

There was already a batarian attack. You had to fight them. Blowing up the industrial complex will not affect the likelihood of batarian attack if said likelihood is already at 1. If you save the residential area, those people can simply rebuild the industrial complex.

Except they won't. You are told that if the industrial sector is destroyed, the colony is getting evacuated. The colony dies.

I just want to make it clear that I've done both and I view either as a legit choice.