619 réponses à ce sujet

[screwoffreg]

BurstAngel75 wrote...

I can't believe this. The base is inheritly evil. Its technology is base on murder, on genocide. You and your crew have seen what it does and you still want to keep it?!? The reason there is no other option other than Cereberus is because the outcome will be the same whether you give it to the Alliance or to the Council. That kind of power will corrupt even the best organizations in the traverse. So the question your asking yourself is whether to stand against all odds, to win or lose on your own merits as a civilization. Or become the enemy to defeat and then replace them.

You'd be surprised how much medical science is based on genocide.  Either way you are going to have to deal with someone unpleasant to defeat the Reapers.  If not TIM, then perhaps the Shadow Broker, who was close to the Collectors and probably has some information.  There is no way even a Paragon Shepard will get away scot free from dirtying his/her hands to get rid of the greatest menace the Galaxy has faced.  At least with TIM, you can be sure it benefits the human race.

[Meglivorn]

No it won't. It will benefit Cerberus.

[rabbitchannel]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Default137 wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Default137 wrote...

Because its obvious TIM wants to use the base to make a Reaper, right, despite the fact its said quite a few times during the course of the game that the Colonies together wouldn't have even completed the one they were working on, and that they would have to raid Earth to finish it, and since he'd be starting fresh, he'd have to raid most of Earth just to get the thing started.

The Paragon option in this case just looks really stupid to be honest, this may just be the fact I was raised Military Style, but if a Paragon Shepard was under my command, I'd have his ass courtmarsheled in a second, he destroyed something that could have given us a huge fighting chance against galactic genocide to "stick it to the man" with no real proof that guy was anything more then an inconsiderate ****. Yeah sure, TIM is a dick, but you don't blow up the greatest chance we have to stop the reapers because your commanding officer was an ass to you, thats preschool level thinking right there, and his talk of "I WON'T LET FEAR COMPRIMISE WHO I AM" just felt so painfully forced and shallow it was pathetic.

The entire game was built to getting this tech, every sacrifice every character made was to get this tech to help stop the Reapers, you may not have known that, but thats what the Illusive Man was doing, every scientist, crewmember, and squadmember that died, did so in an attempt to help you get to that base, so we could use its technology against the Reapers and a Paragon Shepard just sticks his finger up his ass, goes DURR, and blows it up because TIM called him names.

Shepard makes his/her reasoning for blowing it quite clear.  "It liquified people!"  Every single crew member agrees with destroying it.  Miranda even quits Cerberus over TIM's ravings when Shepard goes to destroy it, and she was his biggest supporter, even supporting the atrocities that Cerberus did with their Husk, Rachni, and Thorian Creeper experiments.

The entire game was *not* about obtaining this technology.  Until EDI relayed the info about the base to TIM, it wasn't even known that this radiation pulse could be set off at all.  The point was to stop them from abducting people.  Mission Accomplished. 

You have no way of knowing what that base could do other than liquify people to make Reapers.  No idea whatsoever.  You can't even guarantee that what's in there would be helpful against the Reapers.  All that's there is blown-up shell of a Reaper in its' beginning stages of construction.  It didn't have its' outer shell, no kinetic barriers, no armor, nothing.  You can take it down with a pistol.  What good is studying it going to accomplish?  That data might not even be in the base, Harbinger could be doing everything from his own memory banks.  You have no way of knowing.

The *only* thing we know that the base is capable of, is liquifying people to make Reapers.  That's it.  The end.  Shepard has maybe 30 seconds or so to choose.  (S)he can choose to act on the information (s)he knows for sure, that it's a horrific device meant to slaughter millions to make Reapers, or (s)he can base the decision on what it 'might' hold beyond that.  So it's simple.  Act on what you know, and destroy this lil shop of horrors, or risk things like indoctrination, Cerberus Reapers at the cost of millions, etc, for the chance of learning something of value to beat the Reapers. 

It's painfully obvious which choice is the idealist, and which is the 'at any cost' mindsets here.

So your saying its better to destroy something because IT MIGHT BE EVIL/TIM IS A BAD MAN, rather then to hold on to it, see what happens, and if it is evil, blow it up later?

You realize destroying the base removes all what if situations, all of them, with it gone, so is all the advanced tech that can be reverse engineered, all the Collector Data on the Reapers, all the information of Collector Tech, all the guns, ammo, ships, and other stuff the Collectors stored there, stuff that was well known to be several years advanced from the rest of Galatic Civilization, all of that is gone because there is also a liquefying machine. Yes, holding the base is a risk, but someone who was raised through the Military would NEVER destroy such a treasure trove of information, even if it was used to liquefy people, the chance of finding advanced tech would be to great to pass up, and the Military STRESSES that in situations like this, you take that base, and when and if problems occur, you handle them in kind.

Lets say the ****'s found a cure for Cancer in the Concentration Camps, would you destroy them posthaste to because they are evil places, and because the only thing that seems worthwhile is the giant gas chambers? Well good for you, you just blew up the cure for Cancer, and probably killed thousands more people then the ****'s did in your blind stupidity.

You realize your entire post is the defining point of view of the Renegade, right?  Risks and costs be damned, whatever it takes.  The only thing we know the base does, is liquify people.  That's it.  That's the only fact we have.  Choose to keep a base based on that, or 'what if's'.  The base juiced people to make Reapers, the paragon(and *every* squadmate agrees!) believes that whatever you *might* learn from the base isn't worth the risk.

I'm confused. I thought I saw you supporting the keep the base movement. Anyway, since I've addressed several of these points already and nobody is addressing/is able to address my rebuttals...

The chance of finding something useful in the base is better than none at all. If you destroy it, what have you done? You have just willingly deprived yourself of the probability of increasing your survivability against the Reapers. Not too bright, it seems to me. It can't believe arguments that the base is evil hold sway here. It's like saying, "A man was murdered in this room and I refuse to sleep in it because... it might be haunted! :o". It is fear driven by superstition and emotion, clouding judgement. Using it doesn't change the fact that they were juiced. If I were juiced can you imagine my reaction? "WTF I got juiced in this place and you blow it up!? You could have used it to get revenge for me! Now I got juiced for nothing! You're such a douche, Shep."

Also, I want to stress Default137's point of "So your saying its better to destroy something because IT MIGHT BE EVIL/TIM IS A BAD MAN, rather then to hold on to it, see what happens, and if it is evil, blow it up later?"

If I'm wrong and the base is bad, I can always destroy it. If you are wrong and it turns out you needed the base... what then?

Modifié par rabbitchannel, 02 mars 2010 - 08:27 .

[tropicalwave]

Two reasons: Indoctrination and TIM. The likelihood of Cerberus becoming like Saren are too great (after all his whole team lost it on the dead reaper, shows that TIM doesn't know how to deal with that tech).

[CmdrFenix83]

rab****annel wrote...

I'm confused. I thought I saw you supporting the keep the base movement. Anyway, since I've addressed several of these points already and nobody is addressing/is able to address my rebuttals...

The chance of finding something useful in the base is better than none at all. If you destroy it, what have you done? You have just willingly deprived yourself of the probability of increasing your survivability against the Reapers. Not too bright, it seems to me. It can't believe arguments that the base is evil hold sway here. It's like saying, "A man was murdered in this room and I refuse to sleep in it because... it might be haunted! :o". It is fear driven by superstition and emotion clouding judgement. Using it doesn't change the fact that they were juiced. If I were juiced can you imagine my reaction? "WTF I got juiced in this place and you blow it up!? You could have used to get revenge for me! Now I got juiced for nothing! You're such a douche, Shep."

Also, I want to stress Default137's point of "So your saying its better to destroy something because IT MIGHT BE EVIL/TIM IS A BAD MAN, rather then to hold on to it, see what happens, and if it is evil, blow it up later?"

If I'm wrong and the base is bad, I can always destroy it. If you are wrong and it turns out you needed the base... what then?

You must have misread my previous posts then.  I've never advocated keeping it.  Even my characters that are more morally grey than the pure paragons have destroyed it.  The risks outweigh the potential gains.  You're assuming nothing bad will happen from the base.  That no one could become indoctrinated or huskified.  There's a chance that someone there could very well end up under the control of Harbinger and turn around and put us right back at square one.  We simply don't know what the base holds. 

You're also assuming that when you realize the base is bad, you're capable of doing somethign about it.  What if he has his personal Reaper guarding the inside of the Relay, ready to crush your Normandy(the only ship capable of getting there)?  What are you going to do?  Not to mention getting said Reaper requires the sacrifice of millions, something TIM wouldn't hesitate to do. 

You're risking all of that, because you *might* find something of value in there, just because you're arrogant enough to believe you can handle it?  What makes you think the Normandy doesn't have an explosive hidden on it? Once Shepard has finished his/her job and taken out the Reapers, if (s)he doesn't fall in line behind TIM, he could just press the detonation code.  Then TIM has control of the galaxy.

The unknowns are too numerous to play the 'what if' game.  The only *fact* we have, is that the base juices people to make Reapers.  We don't even know if it's possible to do that with the information left in the base, either.  That data could even be inside of Harbinger.  Fact 2, we know TIM experiments with things, causing atrocities and achieving nothing but failures. 

To a Renegade, the *possibilities* outweigh the risks.  To a Paragon, the risks outweigh the possibilities.  Metagaming, either choice will allow for the Reapers to be destroyed in ME3, it's just a matter of how much do you sacrifice to get there.

[addiction21]

Meglivorn wrote...



No it won't. It will benefit Cerberus.

This. TIM is a powermonger and is showing clear signs of megalomania by the end. It would be like going back to 1940 and giving stalin the plans to build nuclear weapons, jet engines, modern armor, and computer processors.

Sure it would be a good thing to deal with the immediate threat but it will turn out very badly in the long run.

[BurstAngel75]

In the last 20 years, embryonic stem cell research has yet to yield viable medical solution. Adult stem cell reseach has yielded 20 patent medical treatment to various medical conditions. And yet we pour money into something that the sceintific community has already claimed as a failure. Genocide has yet to prove that its is justifable.

Shep did get his hands dirty, at the end of ME, he/she had to make a decision to save the council and sacrifce countless lives in the process or sacrifice the Council to destroy an known enemy. There was no right or wrong in that scenerio. But a hard descision had to be made, and as a leader, Shep has to carry that decision the for the rest of his life. The price of leadership is that you are responsible of every life that lives under your authority, whether you are a paragon or renagade.

I forgot who post an earlier comment, but he's right. We have to deal with facts, not the grandeur of infinite possiblities.

And besides, would those generals that inspected those concentrasion camps, really thought "WOW, those gas chambers were a feat of engineering, corporal take notes" no, they said, "Lets get those b@$!@&ds!"

[FlammableSlinky]

I was convinced that just like the dead reaper there was a VERY good chance of something surviving the bio only blast and capturing anyone searching the base.. Hell the human reaper might have just fallen and not died, maybe it would be immune.

[frokenscheim]

Quite simply, we don't need their technology; we can stand on our own two feet. Also what Legion said.

[rabbitchannel]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

rab****annel wrote...

I'm confused. I thought I saw you supporting the keep the base movement. Anyway, since I've addressed several of these points already and nobody is addressing/is able to address my rebuttals...

The chance of finding something useful in the base is better than none at all. If you destroy it, what have you done? You have just willingly deprived yourself of the probability of increasing your survivability against the Reapers. Not too bright, it seems to me. It can't believe arguments that the base is evil hold sway here. It's like saying, "A man was murdered in this room and I refuse to sleep in it because... it might be haunted! :o". It is fear driven by superstition and emotion clouding judgement. Using it doesn't change the fact that they were juiced. If I were juiced can you imagine my reaction? "WTF I got juiced in this place and you blow it up!? You could have used to get revenge for me! Now I got juiced for nothing! You're such a douche, Shep."

Also, I want to stress Default137's point of "So your saying its better to destroy something because IT MIGHT BE EVIL/TIM IS A BAD MAN, rather then to hold on to it, see what happens, and if it is evil, blow it up later?"

If I'm wrong and the base is bad, I can always destroy it. If you are wrong and it turns out you needed the base... what then?

You must have misread my previous posts then.  I've never advocated keeping it.  Even my characters that are more morally grey than the pure paragons have destroyed it.  The risks outweigh the potential gains.  You're assuming nothing bad will happen from the base.  That no one could become indoctrinated or huskified.  There's a chance that someone there could very well end up under the control of Harbinger and turn around and put us right back at square one.  We simply don't know what the base holds. 

You're also assuming that when you realize the base is bad, you're capable of doing somethign about it.  What if he has his personal Reaper guarding the inside of the Relay, ready to crush your Normandy(the only ship capable of getting there)?  What are you going to do?  Not to mention getting said Reaper requires the sacrifice of millions, something TIM wouldn't hesitate to do. 

You're risking all of that, because you *might* find something of value in there, just because you're arrogant enough to believe you can handle it?  What makes you think the Normandy doesn't have an explosive hidden on it? Once Shepard has finished his/her job and taken out the Reapers, if (s)he doesn't fall in line behind TIM, he could just press the detonation code.  Then TIM has control of the galaxy.

The unknowns are too numerous to play the 'what if' game.  The only *fact* we have, is that the base juices people to make Reapers.  We don't even know if it's possible to do that with the information left in the base, either.  That data could even be inside of Harbinger.  Fact 2, we know TIM experiments with things, causing atrocities and achieving nothing but failures. 

To a Renegade, the *possibilities* outweigh the risks.  To a Paragon, the risks outweigh the possibilities.  Metagaming, either choice will allow for the Reapers to be destroyed in ME3, it's just a matter of how much do you sacrifice to get there.

You're assuming something bad WILL happen. It's POTENTIAL risks against POTENTIAL gains. Of course there is the chance that someone could end up under the control of Harbinger and put us back at square one. But... how is that a problem? We would then know the base is dangerous for sure (or we could even prevent it from happening again) and refrain from using it. We have gained nothing but also lost nothing. On the other hand if nothing bad happened and we gained something useful, we are better for it. Look at it this way: pretend you have a pan. You don't know if it's hot or cold. You could leave the pan alone and not get burned or you could put your hand on it and entertain the possibility of getting burned. However, if you know there is a possibility of getting burned, wouldn't you do it so that you minimize or extinguish that possibility? Just because people have gotten indoctrinated doesn't mean we cannot take steps to make it otherwise. 

Now this is wild speculation. What if, what if. If we're making wild guesses about possible hidden threats like a sleeping Reaper inside a Relay, we are going to get nowhere at all. Stick to what we know. Sacrifice millions? What happens if Shepard tells everyone about the Reapers and the Collectors? Then what will TIM do? Making our own Reaper is ludicrous, if you ask me. Harvesting humanity to save humanity is backwards. TIM is PRO-human. Those millions cannot be easily obtained especially when the eye of the galactic community is upon you and they know it's coming.

There is nothing arrogant about this decision. There is only survival. Just like, "the base is eeeeevil" this is another decision driven by emotion. There is no, "oh, but maybe we won't be able to handle it!". If there is an opportunity, reach for it. I won't say, "no matter what the cost" because I don't think this is right. But in this case, the opportunity is a good and valid one. 

Bomb on the Normandy. Again, wild speculation. I can just as easily say, "what if there ISN'T a bomb!?"

There are only a few unknowns. The worst case scenario is out-weighed by the best possible outcome. That is my opinion. We don't know if it's possible, for sure. But if we destroy it, we never will. If we don't, we hold on the possibility of gaining an advantage. Juicing is not the only fact. Stuff in the base: Collector bodies, husk bodies, scion bodies, praetorian bodies, all Collector weapons, beam weapons, the Human Reaper, etc. If you played through the suicide run you'll notice we are able to salvage info from hubs. There is also that possibility. It is impossible that the base is totally devoid of tech. Even though statistical data and operating systems are gone, tech experts will still be able to salvage some and mechanical/non-software based technology will STILL BE THERE. 

The TIM has committed some terrible acts but there are some, like Jack, that are unintentional. As for the others, well, that is what Shepard is there for. Even if TIM will do terrible things with the base and use it for evil after, we can still take him out. He will not cause problems before the Reaper threat is gone. Once they are defeated, taking care of TIM should be easy for Shepard in comparison. If the Reapers overwhelm us well then, there is no point in taking him out anyway. 

I think giving the galaxy the best chance of survival is the smartest thing to do. Deliberately throwing away something that could aid this is not wise at all. 

Modifié par rabbitchannel, 02 mars 2010 - 09:16 .

[Steel Dancer]

My main view on the base is "It liquefied people" plus...

MantisN1nja wrote...

scxenophobe wrote...

Because I love explosions.

This, and to ****** off TIM

...a healthy amount of this.

That said...

Imagine you have a nuke that you've derived from enemy technology that seems to be able to take out any-damn-thang you want taken out. Pretty cool right?

Now imagine that they can trigger it at any time and they always know precisely where it is.

Why? Because it's built from their technology and they wanted you to have it for precisely that purpose.

I'm not saying this is the case, but the Reapers have done this kind of thing for millions of years, against hundreds of races. Don't underestimate them, or you'd end up the same way as all those other races.

[CmdrFenix83]

rab****annel wrote...

You're assuming something bad WILL happen. <snip>

I'm not *assuming* anything.  I'm making a decision based solely on what we know for certain.  The base is a giant blender to turn individuals into a smoothie to make a Reaper.  That's it.  Period.  You're the one *assuming* that there's something of value in the base.

"Our decisions need to be based on facts, not wild imaginings and speculations."  Hate the man or not, he has a point.  A leader cannot make decisions based on feelings and guesses.  That's how you end up with planets missing colonists from Cerberus experiments like in ME1. 

The Paragon/Renegade system is perfect in this choice.  Risks outweight the potential gains to a Paragon.  Where the risks mean little to nothing for a Renegade.

[addiction21]

rab****annel wrote...

You're assuming something bad WILL happen.  

Well lets look at the track record of what happens to people that play around with the Reapers and technology they do not want to sapiant races to have...  looks like a shut out of bad **** happening.

Even the stuff they want the races to use (The Citadel and Relays) are there to help them achieve their goals.

It is really not an assumption when you know the reapers want the races to use their technology and when they use it they fall under the sway of the Reapers or it helps to further the Reapers plans.

Modifié par addiction21, 02 mars 2010 - 09:31 .

[rabbitchannel]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

rab****annel wrote...

You're assuming something bad WILL happen.

I'm not *assuming* anything.  I'm making a decision based solely on what we know for certain.  The base is a giant blender to turn individuals into a smoothie to make a Reaper.  That's it.  Period.  You're the one *assuming* that there's something of value in the base.

"Our decisions need to be based on facts, not wild imaginings and speculations."  Hate the man or not, he has a point.  A leader cannot make decisions based on feelings and guesses.  That's how you end up with planets missing colonists from Cerberus experiments like in ME1. 

The Paragon/Renegade system is perfect in this choice.  Risks outweight the potential gains to a Paragon.  Where the risks mean little to nothing for a Renegade.

That's your reply? :|

You DON'T know for certain that something bad will happen. If we did nobody would choose to keep the base, we wouldn't be having this discussion and this thread wouldn't even exist! I never assumed anything. I said there is a possibility of finding something of value. We don't know anything about the base. Therefore, your arguments that something bad will happen is about as strong as mine that something will not or that something good will happen. We don't KNOW! Don't claim your side to be fact and mine opinion when they are two sides of the same coin.

Our decisions should exactly be based on facts. What, then, do you call your scenarios of a Reaper in the relay and a bomb on the Normandy? That's exactly what wild imaginings and speculations are!

Even a Paragon should be able to recognize when sacrifice or risk must be made for good to ultimately triumph in the end. There is no victory without cost, risk, or sacrifice. 

I normally play pure Paragon. 100%. This was the only Paragon choice to me (only important one) that seemed foolish.

[Sabre120]

I believe he blew it up more on the idea that CERBERUS owning it could do more harm than good, I'm sure it went through his mind about the tech available, but with a corporation like Cerberus, no one can tell what could happen

[rabbitchannel]

addiction21 wrote...

rab****annel wrote...

You're assuming something bad WILL happen.  

Well lets look at the track record of what happens to people that play around with the Reapers and technology they do not want to sapiant races to have...  looks like a shut out of bad **** happening.

Even the stuff they want the races to use (The Citadel and Relays) are there to help them achieve their goals.

It is really not an assumption when you know the reapers want the races to use their technology and when they use it they fall under the sway of the Reapers or it helps to further the Reapers plans.

Wow. It seems people read the first line and totally discard the rest. What is the point of making arguments if people don't read in their entirety? I explained that in the SAME paragraph. I've made arguments against that so many times already but people keep parroting each other.

Anyway, I have to study now. See you guys some other time. Please think about what I've said. And peace. 

Modifié par rabbitchannel, 02 mars 2010 - 09:39 .

[CmdrFenix83]

rab****annel wrote...

That's your reply? :|

You DON'T know for certain that something bad will happen. If we did nobody would choose to keep the base, we wouldn't be having this discussion and this thread wouldn't even exist! I never assumed anything. I said there is a possibility of finding something of value. We don't know anything about the base. Therefore, your arguments that something bad will happen is about as strong as mine that something will not or that something good will happen. We don't KNOW! Don't claim your side to be fact and mine opinion when they are two sides of the same coin.

Our decisions should exactly be based on facts. What, then, do you call your scenarios of a Reaper in the relay and a bomb on the Normandy? That's exactly what wild imaginings and speculations are!

Even a Paragon should be able to recognize when sacrifice or risk must be made for good to ultimately triumph in the end. There is no victory without cost, risk, or sacrifice. 

I normally play pure Paragon. 100%. This was the only Paragon choice to me (only important one) that seemed foolish.

Fact 1:  The base liquified people to make a Reaper.
Fact 2:  100% of using tech directly involving a Reaper has resulted in indoctrination and casualties.
Fact 3:  100% of the experiments run by Cerberus have been disasterous as far as we're aware.

Those are the only facts.  Now, let's keep a base(Fact 1) of Reaper tech(Fact 2) and hand it to Cerberus for research and experiments(Fact 3).  This sounds like a good decisions?  You're basing your choice on what if's.  I'm looking purely at these three facts and coming tot he conclusion that the risks of Facts 2 and 3 are simply not worth it.

[macrocarl]

In a way it would've been awesome if I decided to hand over the station to TIM and then in ME3 he uses the power of the weird boogery-nostril-decorated-giant-Reaper-baby-station/ factory to build an enormous TIM with an enormous version of his fancy hair do.

But instead I decided that anything TIM wants is bad for Fonzerlli Shepard!

Sit on it TIM!

[Acero Azul]

Collider wrote...

Being around Reaper technology is like asking to be indoctrinated. The Collector base and its reaper was also constructed with thousands of people's lives.

yeah what he said

[rabbitchannel]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

rab****annel wrote...

That's your reply? :|

You DON'T know for certain that something bad will happen. If we did nobody would choose to keep the base, we wouldn't be having this discussion and this thread wouldn't even exist! I never assumed anything. I said there is a possibility of finding something of value. We don't know anything about the base. Therefore, your arguments that something bad will happen is about as strong as mine that something will not or that something good will happen. We don't KNOW! Don't claim your side to be fact and mine opinion when they are two sides of the same coin.

Our decisions should exactly be based on facts. What, then, do you call your scenarios of a Reaper in the relay and a bomb on the Normandy? That's exactly what wild imaginings and speculations are!

Even a Paragon should be able to recognize when sacrifice or risk must be made for good to ultimately triumph in the end. There is no victory without cost, risk, or sacrifice. 

I normally play pure Paragon. 100%. This was the only Paragon choice to me (only important one) that seemed foolish.

Fact 1:  The base liquified people to make a Reaper.
Fact 2:  100% of using tech directly involving a Reaper has resulted in indoctrination and casualties.
Fact 3:  100% of the experiments run by Cerberus have been disasterous as far as we're aware.

Those are the only facts.  Now, let's keep a base(Fact 1) of Reaper tech(Fact 2) and hand it to Cerberus for research and experiments(Fact 3).  This sounds like a good decisions?  You're basing your choice on what if's.  I'm looking purely at these three facts and coming tot he conclusion that the risks of Facts 2 and 3 are simply not worth it.

Should be working on my essay but I can't resist! Damn you BW!

Your 1st fact does not mean anything. Just because something terrible happened in a certain location does not increase the probability that it will happen again in the same location, much less transforming that probability to 100%. Drawing one card out of a deck without replacement DOES increase the probability of drawing a certain card. They liquified people there. So what? Statistically incorrect.

Fact 2. Certainly, to my knowledge, that is true. However, this does not mean that this probability cannot be reduced. Again, I'm making the pan argument. This is what, the third time? If the pan is hot don't touch it. But if you can cool it a little or make it not hot at all, then you can. See, if there is a 100% chance of getting burned, why would you do it? If you can go in and make it less hot, then it becomes a viable alternative. We've already discovered indoctrination devices. All we need is to search for them and destroy them. Don't fill the base with people and have them stay there for extended periods of time. Have a small team scour a small section of the base then leave. With enough persistence, you should be able to find the indoctrination device/s.

Fact 3. If 100% of Cerberus experiments have been disastrous then why do they still exist? This is a conclusion drawn on select information. If Cerberus is such a failure, why are they so powerful? Why is TIM still in control? Do you count Shepards ressurection as a failure? The logical conclusion is that while only a small percentage of Cerberus' experiments have been unsuccessful, 100% of what has been exposed to Shepard is unsuccessful.

3 facts. One irrelevant. One malleable. One wrong.

The base is useful. Opinion.
The base is useless. Opinion.
The base is either useful or useless. Fact.

Speculations as to how useful or useless or to what extent help in measuring the potential risks against the potential benefits. Odds can always be manipulated. Odds of 100% doesn't make it a fact. It is a probability that can be altered.

[ME1292]

It's WAY too risky to keep in existence. I destroyed it as soon as I could. Cerberus would use it to save the galaxy, sure, but think of all the aliens, and even some humans, they would use it against to hurt and torture.

[CmdrFenix83]

rab****annel wrote...

Should be working on my essay but I can't resist! Damn you BW!

Your 1st fact does not mean anything. Just because something terrible happened in a certain location does not increase the probability that it will happen again in the same location, much less transforming that probability to 100%. Drawing one card out of a deck without replacement DOES increase the probability of drawing a certain card. They liquified people there. So what? Statistically incorrect.

Fact 2. Certainly, to my knowledge, that is true. However, this does not mean that this probability cannot be reduced. Again, I'm making the pan argument. This is what, the third time? If the pan is hot don't touch it. But if you can cool it a little or make it not hot at all, then you can. See, if there is a 100% chance of getting burned, why would you do it? If you can go in and make it less hot, then it becomes a viable alternative. We've already discovered indoctrination devices. All we need is to search for them and destroy them. Don't fill the base with people and have them stay there for extended periods of time. Have a small team scour a small section of the base then leave. With enough persistence, you should be able to find the indoctrination device/s.

Fact 3. If 100% of Cerberus experiments have been disastrous then why do they still exist? This is a conclusion drawn on select information. If Cerberus is such a failure, why are they so powerful? Why is TIM still in control? Do you count Shepards ressurection as a failure? The logical conclusion is that while only a small percentage of Cerberus' experiments have been unsuccessful, 100% of what has been exposed to Shepard is unsuccessful.

3 facts. One irrelevant. One malleable. One wrong.

The base is useful. Opinion.
The base is useless. Opinion.
The base is either useful or useless. Fact.

Speculations as to how useful or useless or to what extent help in measuring the potential risks against the potential benefits. Odds can always be manipulated. Odds of 100% doesn't make it a fact. It is a probability that can be altered.

I'm not making speculation.  I don't care what tech *might* be found in there.  Fact 1 only stated what the facility did.  Not what its' history is, not what happened there, what it *is*.  It's a giant blender to turn people into Reaper smoothie.  That is fact.  What else it could be, we don't know, and would be speculation.  Again, going by the fact and that alone.

Your counterpoint to Fact 2 is 'we might be able to change that?'  Again.  "Those who do not remember the mistakes of the past are condemned to relive them."  I don't remember where that quote came from, but I know it's famous.  The only fact you have is that Reaper tech has proven dangerous every single time.  That's it.  You can't say 'what if' without making it no longer a fact.  Your point is you're willing to risk it, that makes your stance Renegade right there.  You're willing to risk lives for potential success.  That's the definiton of Renegade!  The Paragon, instead of testing to see if he burns himself, will get a thermometer and check the temperature, or just wait until enough time has passed that the pan *will* be cool.  "We don't sacrifice lives for the sake of the mission, there's always a better way."  - Paragon Shepard in at least two situations in the game.

Yes, fact three is drawn from select information... the only information we have.  You can't derive facts from stuff you don't know.  That's speculation.  The only thing we *know* is that Cerberus is willing to commit atrocities, has done so in the past, and every single one we've seen turned into a horrible disaster. 

That's it, no speculation, no what if's, nothing but cold, hard facts.  Fact, the base's purpose was to juice living beings.  Fact, it's Reaper tech, and Reaper tech has always resulted in bad things.  Fact, Cerberus experiments are horrific and as far as we know, have always ended in failure.  The most likely scenerio is that... Cerberus uses facility, juices a bunch of people, get indoctrinated, and end up killing thousands more.  That's a reasonable conclusion based on what we *know*. 

[Bigdoser]

Sharn01 wrote...

I normally do not make reaper tech argument's because I think it is the least important factor in keeping the base, perhaps not even a factor at all if you remove TIM from the equation, but something to think about.

Does anyone actually know what the Collector's plan was? They where kidnapping colonist's to make a Reaper, if we assume the end result of the reaper would be anything like Sovereign, it was no where near completed after hundred's of thousand's of colonist's where kidnapped. There is no way they could have gotten enough people to finish it without forcing the coucil and alliance to take action no matter how inept they seem to be portrayed in ME2.

What if their plan was not to make a reaper at all, what if the plan was for us to get the base all along?

#

That would be interesting.

[tropicalwave]

We have another fact that is being over looked. There is a person we have dealt with that though they could control and learn something from the Reapers. Saren. We know for a fact (well if you did the Paragon way which would solidify the Para thinking) is that when we convinced Saren of the evil of Soverign he was 'chipped' to prevent him from being weak again.



So in our experience when we encountered someone that thought they could control Reaper tech we ended up killing him. We also know that TIM will flat out lie to us and we know that he sent a team to a Reaper vessle and they became husks.



If you gave over the ship to TIM you'd have to believe that history would vindicate you (just like TIM thinks).



It may very well be that the only way to beat the Reapers is to give it over to TIM but there is nothing that I have experienced as Shepard that would make me believe that.

[CmdrFenix83]

tropicalwave wrote...

We have another fact that is being over looked. There is a person we have dealt with that though they could control and learn something from the Reapers. Saren. We know for a fact (well if you did the Paragon way which would solidify the Para thinking) is that when we convinced Saren of the evil of Soverign he was 'chipped' to prevent him from being weak again.

So in our experience when we encountered someone that thought they could control Reaper tech we ended up killing him. We also know that TIM will flat out lie to us and we know that he sent a team to a Reaper vessle and they became husks.

If you gave over the ship to TIM you'd have to believe that history would vindicate you (just like TIM thinks).

It may very well be that the only way to beat the Reapers is to give it over to TIM but there is nothing that I have experienced as Shepard that would make me believe that.

BioWare isn't going to screw over so many of their customers by making that one decision be *that* important one way or the other.  Keeping the base won't result in the imperial march being played as TIM marches through the Citadel with Cybord-Zombie-Shepard on his right.  Destroying it won't result in "Critical Mission Failure, congrats, for making a paragon choice at the end of last game lololol!". 

In both instances, the Reapers will be destroyed based on what you do throughout the next game.  Somethings will be more difficult, based on your choices, but I'm positive they won't screw anyone over.  Just like this 'suicide mission', you'll have to work at it to fail at the end of ME3.