210 réponses à ce sujet

[Barker673]

I saved the Alliance base, and not the city.



It seemed natural to save the base and keep it's infrastructure intact and give the colony another chance at colonizing. After all, the servicemen in the bases are innocent as well. If you destroy the base, the colonists get shipped out, the Alliance loses a whole base and many servicemen and women and billions of credits.



I would rather save the lives of brave men and women than the faceless masses.

[SharpEdgeSoda]

kalpain wrote...

I must admit I spent some time with this as well. Probably not as long as you but I tried to way the pros and cons and ultimately decided that saving lives was more important that saving the spaceport. If only because I feel that's part of Shepard's mission. Screw the Alliance and the Batarians. The Alliance can build another base and if the Batarians get out of hand as they so often seem to Shepard will be there to deal with them. Though I do appreciate the complexity of the choice. It really forced me exam the issue but I just couldn't stand by and let them die knowing I could have prevented. I was so pissed at Zaeed for wanting to let those workers die just so he could get revenge on one guy. I just wish my Renegade Shepard had the ability to give him a more appropriate response.

On a side note, your comments about the Death Star made me remember this scene from Clerks, http://www.youtube.c...?v=n6lzEhoXads. It speaks more about the one from Return of the Jedi. But it still makes an interesting point. In my opinion...

To defend my apparent "lack of a life," The first time I saw this, I thought for like...20 minutes. Save the Civs. Still was a hard choice.

I saw the second run as an opportunity to start a grand social experiment, which I say has been successful. 

[DuffyMJ]

A human being is worth more than a factory. A single human being is half-responsible for (on average in the US) 7 grandchildren each of whom are half responsible for 7 additional grandchildren and so on and so forth. Any one of those children could be inventors, doctors, lawyers, engineers, artistic geniuses, writers, professors...

[GnusmasTHX]

Save the city. More lives.

[kalpain]

lol, I agree. I believe it is a success. Though I hope you don't think I was implying in anyway that you didn't have a life. Not my intent. And considering I spent 49+ hours on my initial play through I am in no position to accuse anyone of such a thing, lol!.

[kalpain]

Hmm, Baker673, brings up an interesting point. Do you save the soldiers or the people the soldiers have sworn to give their lives to protect? The few or the many? The fact that this game even sparks these kinds of debates is fascinating to me...

[SharpEdgeSoda]

kalpain wrote...

Hmm, Baker673, brings up an interesting point. Do you save the soldiers or the people the soldiers have sworn to give their lives to protect? The few or the many? The fact that this game even sparks these kinds of debates is fascinating to me...

What if saving the few ends up saving many?

What if saving the many ends as only a few saved?

[JJ Long]

If you clearly READ the descriptions of what will be destroyed.
It states that no matter what "Hundreds" will be killed no matter which you choose.
It never gives you numbers, but it does say hundreds for both.
So any argument made that you will save more people is null and void, you simply don't know the numbers.  Maybe more lives will be saved if you save the spaceport/industrial.

Modifié par JJ Long, 14 février 2010 - 07:10 .

[GnusmasTHX]

SharpEdgeSoda wrote...

kalpain wrote...

Hmm, Baker673, brings up an interesting point. Do you save the soldiers or the people the soldiers have sworn to give their lives to protect? The few or the many? The fact that this game even sparks these kinds of debates is fascinating to me...

What if saving the few ends up saving many?

What if saving the many ends as only a few saved?

Of course you'd ask yourself these questions when there's a missile hurtling toward the colony.

[GnusmasTHX]

JJ Long wrote...

If you clearly READ the descriptions of what will be destroyed.
It states that no matter what "Hundreds" will be killed no matter which you choose.
It never gives you numbers, but it does say hundreds for both.
So any argument made that you will save more people is null and void, you simply don't know the numbers.  Maybe more lives will be saved if you save the spaceport/industrial.

You should try reading it again.

Thousands of lives are saved if you divert the missile toward the space port and not the residential area.

[kalpain]

SharpEdgeSoda wrote...

kalpain wrote...

Hmm, Baker673, brings up an interesting point. Do you save the soldiers or the people the soldiers have sworn to give their lives to protect? The few or the many? The fact that this game even sparks these kinds of debates is fascinating to me...

What if saving the few ends up saving many?

What if saving the many ends as only a few saved?

Interesting point but you never really know what the future holds until you make a choice.  I usually try to take what I call the Doctor Who approach.  Basically, keep the loss of life to a minium when at all possible.  And give the bad guys a chance to do the right thing.  When they don't they deal with the consequences.  But, of course, in a game like this you can always go back and see how a different descision plays itself out.  As an example helping Zaeed while listening to the screams of the refinery workers just didn't sit well with me.  Especially, since it was his fault in the first place.  I played that mission several times to play out my choices.  Now that I am playing through again I am really annoyed that me "Renegade" Shepard couldn't be as severe in his criticism as my Paragon was.  And so far as a Renegade (still early in the game with less than one full bar) I have yet to figure out a way to save them and still earn his loyalty like I did as Paragon playing that mission near the end of the game.

[JJ Long]

"Missile 1 Target: Spaceport/Industrial District. Apply kill switch to protect Alliance interests and tactical viability, albeit at the cost of hundreds of lives in the city."

"Missile 2 Target: Captical City. Appy kill switch here to save the city and hundreds of lives. With its industrial area destroyed, however, this colony will no longer be viable and will have to be evacuated"



Well, I was wrong. It never specifies how many will be saved by saving the spaceport.

But it does not say thousands either for the residential area. It says hundreds.

[kalpain]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

JJ Long wrote...

If you clearly READ the descriptions of what will be destroyed.
It states that no matter what "Hundreds" will be killed no matter which you choose.
It never gives you numbers, but it does say hundreds for both.
So any argument made that you will save more people is null and void, you simply don't know the numbers.  Maybe more lives will be saved if you save the spaceport/industrial.

You should try reading it again.

Thousands of lives are saved if you divert the missile toward the space port and not the residential area.

Yes, once you decide to save them it tells you this after the fact.  I have yet to see the other side of the coin on this one though.  Maybe someone that saved the spaceport could tell us what it says once the mission is complete...

[GnusmasTHX]

kalpain wrote...

GnusmasTHX wrote...

JJ Long wrote...

If you clearly READ the descriptions of what will be destroyed.
It states that no matter what "Hundreds" will be killed no matter which you choose.
It never gives you numbers, but it does say hundreds for both.
So any argument made that you will save more people is null and void, you simply don't know the numbers.  Maybe more lives will be saved if you save the spaceport/industrial.

You should try reading it again.

Thousands of lives are saved if you divert the missile toward the space port and not the residential area.

Yes, once you decide to save them it tells you this after the fact.  I have yet to see the other side of the coin on this one though.  Maybe someone that saved the spaceport could tell us what it says once the mission is complete...

I could do that right now, actually, if Sigurd's Cradle would appear on my Galaxy Map.

Anyone know if there is a prerequisite for this cluster to appear on the map?

I've finished the main quest on the character I'm looking for it on (hasn't done the quest yet) but Sigurd's Cradle isn't on the map.

Also it's blatantly obvious that you'd save more if you divert the missile away from a CITY or RESIDENTIAL area.

EDIT: NVm, guess I'd have to complete a lot of quests.

Modifié par GnusmasTHX, 14 février 2010 - 07:28 .

[kalpain]

This one honestly is starting to seem like a trick question to me. And I wish I could think of a TV or Movie example but at the moment I'm drawing a blank. It basically gives you the option do "the right thing" (save the colonists) or "the bad thing" (let them die) but its phrased in such away that gives you a real moral dilemma about what to do. But it seems like it one of those things were saving lives means you saved more than you thought. And not saving them means you lost more than you thought. But I would have to play through and save the space port to know for sure. I really don't think I've phrased this right but I will try to find something more concrete to use as a better example of what I mean.

[PatchWorks]

I take it this quest has been fixed for other people here?



Oddly it's still very much bugged for me (On PC). Whenever I choose the option to save the residential area, my journal log says I saved the spaceport, while the mission review contradicts my journal log by stating I saved the residential area as I initially selected.



It's rather frustrating because I don't know which choice will be considered "valid" for possible consequence purposes in ME3. Is the mission review accurate or is the journal log accurate? Makes me want to pull my hair out.

[VettoRyouzou]

Frankly I saved the people even thou it said they wouldn't they still could rebuild and start over on a later date.

[jolly_rog]

DuffyMJ wrote...

A human being is worth more than a factory. A single human being is half-responsible for (on average in the US) 7 grandchildren each of whom are half responsible for 7 additional grandchildren and so on and so forth. Any one of those children could be inventors, doctors, lawyers, engineers, artistic geniuses, writers, professors...

QFT, I agree.

Saving lives should ALWAYS take precedence over saving infrastructure.

[MutantSpleen]

If the spaceport is lost the colony folds which just encourages more Batarian terrorist attacks. Lose the city and the human colonists die but the colony can be repopulated. It also keeps our presence in the system. If you let the colony fold you are just encouraging the Batarians to come do the same thing somewhere else.



Its pretty clear that if the colony is to be saved the people have die. People are just speculating on what they hope to happen to justify saving the people, lose the industrial complex/spaceport and the colony dies. Any colonist who signs up for establishing a colony in the Terminus systems knows the risks.



Some people can't make the hard choices.

[Keester1]

I saved the Civilians (and gave Cerebus the Collector base).

Cerebus is Pro-Human, so saving them makes the Company look good while weakening the Alliance. Ultimately this leads to a complete take over of the Alliance when in a posistion to financially and publicly have the support.



Human = Krogan, just in a more sly way

[durasteel]

MutantSpleen wrote...
[snip]

Its pretty clear that if the colony is to be saved the people have die. [snip]

Some people can't make the hard choices.

The colony is the people.  Without colonists, the installation is just an automated factory, and doesn't even have a reason to exist.

[Mondo47]

I can see how some people would find this one tough. I never really thought twice about it though (I tend to play the game with my personal morality in mind and damn the fun being Space Commander Selfish Jackass would definately be).

The people that work in the port and industry centre know the risks of working in heavy industry, construction and on/off world transit. Accidents can and do happen, so they know something about potential risk when they signed on for the job. Civilian sector workers don't usually have that on their shoulders. Children certainly don't. And I certainly think the people in the industrial zone, who likely have their families back in the capitol, would you prefer you to save their familes over the continued viability of the colony. If I was one of them, I know what I'd want saving.

And hey, the post-mission breakdown says Cerberus is sending in relief and evac ships (if I remember right). Think they're going to miss out on a PR coup like that? 'Cerberus saves Abandoned Colonists after Batarian Missile Attack'...

[Raptr569]

I don't think it is as simple cut and dry as Renegade or Paragon.



You can let the Majority Die saving the few but allowing them to live comfortably



OR



You can let them live but suffer because there is no industry no space port ect.



There's pros and cons to both my "paragon" shepard choose to save the industry I figured the best choice was them to die rather than them to suffer.



My "renegade" femshep will probably come to the same logical conclusion.

[jklinders]

The whole abandon the colony thing was just stupid. I mean they can't build a new spaceport why?

[glacier1701]

 There really is no choice in this one. You save the people. Having infrastructure without people is not going to help against the Reapers. The Alliance is already in a lot of trouble as you find out from various sources. Its colonisation programs are way behind their schedules, If it comes out that the Alliance supports killing people to save infrastructure it would soon be toppled and replaced. In other words those who say save the infrastructure are letting lose political instability within the Alliance which would divert its already less than stellar attention on the Reapers to the infighting and thus deprive the galaxy of one part of the defence force it needs.

Having people even without the infrastructure allows for hope for the future. While hope is not quantifiable the potential fallout from it can be increased interest in colonisation, willingness to join the Alliance military to get payback from the 'enemy', willingness to pay taxes and so on. It sounds trite to say while there is life there is hope but we already have one prime example of what that means in ME1 with the last Protheans.