170 réponses à ce sujet

[AntiChri5]

Saint Op wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

Nu-Nu wrote...

You end up saving more lives then the humans lost to save them, about 10,000 beings were on the council ship. All the other aliens sacrificed their own ships as well so it looked bad if the humans didn't value all the lives equally.

Yeah the reaction is understandable but we have no way of knowing this would happen until after the fact.  Plus it wasn't even a given you would stop the reaper at all, I was thinking we kill Saren and escapse as the Citadel it taken over setting up ME2.  But I don't read spoilers or metagame either before I finish the game once.

What good would that do?

If you kill Saren but they still have the citadel they can still open up the way for the Reapers.

Well again I figured there are 2 more games comming and at this point, well untill the end of ME2 we don't know how many there are or where the story was going.  So it may have been ME2 save the Cidadel from 2 or 3 more reapers and regain it but fail to stop the "boss" reaper from coming (A real "dark" middle chapter), then in ME3 defeat it with help from the entire galaxcy.

But if they hold the citadel ALL the reapers come through.

[chaos_Shadow15]

Nu-Nu wrote...

Yeah, well this is where you have to trust your troops to be able to do what they're trained to do.

I only wish that such an in-depth thinking process existed in the game - but half the time it doesn't. If I could rationalise and choose a deliberated and sensible decision in Mass Effect 2, then well... I wouldn't have any dead squad mates by the end of the game!

Unfortunately, pretty much everything in Mass Effect tends to be pretty two dimensional, no matter how much illusional choice Bioware dangles in front of you. Heck, half the decisions in Mass Effect one were simply greeted with E-Mail in Mass Effect 2, and some of the more weighted decisions, such as the council (which we're discussion now) were simply greeted with nothingness!  They just dissapeared! Sure, you get to hear the effects it has on a very minor section of galactic society (through general chatter no less, a slight step above E-Mail) but it's obviously just an easy way out for Bioware.

I could sure see my characters actions and subsequent consequences on
the galaxy taking place there, eh?

Modifié par chaos_Shadow15, 04 avril 2010 - 02:54 .

[AntiChri5]

I had no dead squaddies in ME 2. Well....unless we are still counting Kaidan.

[Saint Op]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

Nu-Nu wrote...

You end up saving more lives then the humans lost to save them, about 10,000 beings were on the council ship. All the other aliens sacrificed their own ships as well so it looked bad if the humans didn't value all the lives equally.

Yeah the reaction is understandable but we have no way of knowing this would happen until after the fact.  Plus it wasn't even a given you would stop the reaper at all, I was thinking we kill Saren and escapse as the Citadel it taken over setting up ME2.  But I don't read spoilers or metagame either before I finish the game once.

What good would that do?

If you kill Saren but they still have the citadel they can still open up the way for the Reapers.

Well again I figured there are 2 more games comming and at this point, well untill the end of ME2 we don't know how many there are or where the story was going.  So it may have been ME2 save the Cidadel from 2 or 3 more reapers and regain it but fail to stop the "boss" reaper from coming (A real "dark" middle chapter), then in ME3 defeat it with help from the entire galaxcy.

But if they hold the citadel ALL the reapers come through.

Yeah but without knowing the future what exactly was ALL. WE did not know how many there were.  If we can't stop 1 then 2 or 3 more and a boss would be more then enough.

Don't get me wrong so far I think there story is better but I played game 1 with no knowledge of the future as you seemed to do.

[Nu-Nu]

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...

Nu-Nu wrote...

Yeah, well this is where you have to trust your troops to be able to do what they're trained to do.

I only wish that such an in-depth thinking process existed in the game - but half the time it doesn't. If I could rationalise and choose a deliberated and sensible decision in Mass Effect 2, then well... I wouldn't have any dead squad mates by the end of the game!

Unfortunately, pretty much everything in Mass Effect tends to be pretty two dimensional, no matter how much illusional choice Bioware dangles in front of you. Heck, half the decisions in Mass Effect one were simply greeted with E-Mail in Mass Effect 2, and some of the more weighted decisions, such as the council (which we're discussion now) were simply greeted with nothingness!  They just dissapeared! Sure, you get to hear the effects it has on a very minor section of galactic society (through general chatter no less, a slight step above E-Mail) but it's obviously just an easy way out for Bioware.

I could sure see my characters actions and subsequent consequences on
the galaxy taking place there, eh?

I feel it'll have a bigger role in me3.  I think me2 was just about doing recon work and getting more information on the reapers that will help you find weakness for me3.

[marshalleck]

Saint Op wrote...

Yeah but without knowing the future what exactly was ALL. WE did not know how many there were.  If we can't stop 1 then 2 or 3 more and a boss would be more then enough.

Don't get me wrong so far I think there story is better but I played game 1 with no knowledge of the future as you seemed to do.

The decision to focus on Sovereign doesn't require meta-game knowledge or Shepard having a personal vision of the future. All it requires is a steadfast determination to not gamble with the survival of galactic civilization, and to reduce risk and uncertainty as much as possible. Hence, attempt to destroy Sovereign as soon as possible, and at all cost.

[AntiChri5]

Saint Op wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

Nu-Nu wrote...

You end up saving more lives then the humans lost to save them, about 10,000 beings were on the council ship. All the other aliens sacrificed their own ships as well so it looked bad if the humans didn't value all the lives equally.

Yeah the reaction is understandable but we have no way of knowing this would happen until after the fact.  Plus it wasn't even a given you would stop the reaper at all, I was thinking we kill Saren and escapse as the Citadel it taken over setting up ME2.  But I don't read spoilers or metagame either before I finish the game once.

What good would that do?

If you kill Saren but they still have the citadel they can still open up the way for the Reapers.

Well again I figured there are 2 more games comming and at this point, well untill the end of ME2 we don't know how many there are or where the story was going.  So it may have been ME2 save the Cidadel from 2 or 3 more reapers and regain it but fail to stop the "boss" reaper from coming (A real "dark" middle chapter), then in ME3 defeat it with help from the entire galaxcy.

But if they hold the citadel ALL the reapers come through.

Yeah but without knowing the future what exactly was ALL. WE did not know how many there were.  If we can't stop 1 then 2 or 3 more and a boss would be more then enough.

Don't get me wrong so far I think there story is better but I played game 1 with no knowledge of the future as you seemed to do.

It is made very clear that if they hold the citadel they will open the relay. That was the entire point. If they have the relay the win (unless you find a way to disable it somehow, but nothing like that ever comes up) Why would only one or two come through? I had no future knowledge considering i first did this the week the game came out.

[AntiChri5]

Nu-Nu wrote...

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...

Nu-Nu wrote...

Yeah, well this is where you have to trust your troops to be able to do what they're trained to do.

I only wish that such an in-depth thinking process existed in the game - but half the time it doesn't. If I could rationalise and choose a deliberated and sensible decision in Mass Effect 2, then well... I wouldn't have any dead squad mates by the end of the game!

Unfortunately, pretty much everything in Mass Effect tends to be pretty two dimensional, no matter how much illusional choice Bioware dangles in front of you. Heck, half the decisions in Mass Effect one were simply greeted with E-Mail in Mass Effect 2, and some of the more weighted decisions, such as the council (which we're discussion now) were simply greeted with nothingness!  They just dissapeared! Sure, you get to hear the effects it has on a very minor section of galactic society (through general chatter no less, a slight step above E-Mail) but it's obviously just an easy way out for Bioware.

I could sure see my characters actions and subsequent consequences on
the galaxy taking place there, eh?

I feel it'll have a bigger role in me3.  I think me2 was just about doing recon work and getting more information on the reapers that will help you find weakness for me3.

In other words: "they were stalling"

[Saint Op]

marshalleck wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

Yeah but without knowing the future what exactly was ALL. WE did not know how many there were.  If we can't stop 1 then 2 or 3 more and a boss would be more then enough.

Don't get me wrong so far I think there story is better but I played game 1 with no knowledge of the future as you seemed to do.

The decision to focus on Sovereign doesn't require meta-game knowledge or Shepard having a personal vision of the future. All it requires is a steadfast determination to not gamble with the survival of galactic civilization, and to reduce risk and uncertainty as much as possible. Hence, attempt to destroy Sovereign as soon as possible, and at all cost.

I believe you took my post out of context as I agree with your statment fully and did not save my counsil.  I was simply reinforcing your argument also by stating that there was no way to know we would even be able to stop Sovereign at all so we had to hit him hard and fast.

[marshalleck]

Ah, I see. Duly noted then!

[DPSSOC]

Saint Op wrote...

Yeah but without knowing the future what exactly was ALL.

Well knowing the past, enough to systematically wipe out an entire species.  Doesn't matter if it's 1 or 1,000 it's too damn many.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 04 avril 2010 - 03:08 .

[Nu-Nu]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Nu-Nu wrote...

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...

Nu-Nu wrote...

Yeah, well this is where you have to trust your troops to be able to do what they're trained to do.

I only wish that such an in-depth thinking process existed in the game - but half the time it doesn't. If I could rationalise and choose a deliberated and sensible decision in Mass Effect 2, then well... I wouldn't have any dead squad mates by the end of the game!

Unfortunately, pretty much everything in Mass Effect tends to be pretty two dimensional, no matter how much illusional choice Bioware dangles in front of you. Heck, half the decisions in Mass Effect one were simply greeted with E-Mail in Mass Effect 2, and some of the more weighted decisions, such as the council (which we're discussion now) were simply greeted with nothingness!  They just dissapeared! Sure, you get to hear the effects it has on a very minor section of galactic society (through general chatter no less, a slight step above E-Mail) but it's obviously just an easy way out for Bioware.

I could sure see my characters actions and subsequent consequences on
the galaxy taking place there, eh?

I feel it'll have a bigger role in me3.  I think me2 was just about doing recon work and getting more information on the reapers that will help you find weakness for me3.

In other words: "they were stalling"

Maybe me2 was a filler, but it was a very good filler and you get to see the beginning of your decisions and the ripples will get bigger in me3 I think.

[Saint Op]

[/quote]

It is made very clear that if they hold the citadel they will open the relay. That was the entire point. If they have the relay the win (unless you find a way to disable it somehow, but nothing like that ever comes up) Why would only one or two come through? I had no future knowledge considering i first did this the week the game came out.
[/quote]

Ok your missing the point.  You would need to know the future to know the number of Reapers.  I was thinking alot less then there are, as were alot of people based on the oh S*** statments about the end of ME2.

Also who ever said we would win and save the Citadel at all or that this was required to make a second and third game is all I'm saying.

[chaos_Shadow15]

ATKT wrote...

It's the paradox of power, something powerful nations/empires/whatever must deal with as they expand. They inevitably draw criticism simply for having power, and people will find whatever reasons to justify their hatred of power after the fact.

It's been neurologically proven that people will use emotions to get a gut feeling and THEN use reason to justify their feelings. Basically, reasoning can be used to prove anything. So in this case, the aliens are reacting to THEIR government that has been around for millenia being destroyed and humans, who have been around for less than a single human's lifespan, taking the helm. But they rationalize it as saying that humans are making a bloody coup, ignoring the fact that you had the best of intentions and was acting in the interest of all galactic life.

Also, you have to look it at from a non-meta-gaming point of view, as another thread began to say. People who saved the Council had no guarantee that doing so would still leave enough forces remaining to kill Sovereign--they were taking a huge gamble. Therefore it is highly irrational, IMHO, to do anything BUT tell the Alliance to focus on Sovereign.

Edit: And to answer the question, yes, I am annoyed by the way your decision was portrayed. Even choosing the neutral option made you a renegade. But since this is how they want to tell their story, I'm happy to oblige by it.
Edit 2: Space between paragraphs.

I'd have to say you give one of the best reasonings to the situation. Now that you remind me, the fact that you get renegade for it did tick me off too, but luckily you get a little paragon too. 

[FlyingBrickyard]

Eh, it was a fairly easy choice for me. While I had no love at all for the Council and thought they were completely ineffective, they did form the "head" of the leadership of the respective races. The game lore was also pretty specific in saying that a lot of the success of the Reapers was based on their ability to wipe out the seat of goverment for all of the races (ie, the "council") by striking at the Citadel first.



So it seemed to me that if I'm going to try to break the cycle, I'd want as many dissimilar outcomes as possible, and having the council survive would definitely be a big one.



It's the same reason why I scrapped the Collector base at the end of the game as well. The Reapers keep everyone on a set technological track (likely with built-in weaknesses that they can exploit) via the technology they slowly feed to the various races. Getting a bunch of that same "tainted technology" in one big shot probably isn't going to help in the long run. Other, unpredictable solutions must be found. Something the Reapers won't expect.



So while it was tempting to say "Yeah, we may need this" and keep it, I decided to blow it up.



Besides, intact the base was still a significant potential threat, and if for whatever reason even 2 Reapers showed up later to retake it, they probably could do so without much hope of stopping them. Then we're pretty much back at square one.



The way the story is set up, it's pretty much an all or nothing game. As the saying goes, "Scared money never wins", so it makes a bit of sense to take the route of forging your own path rather than taking the "easy" route via following the paths the Reapers have laid down.

[marshalleck]

Well I'm not sure the Collector base was tainted tech in the same way the Citadel and relays were. I doubt the Reapers intended to let their shipyard fall into the greedy hands of ambitious organics trying to escape their own imminent extinction.



That said, I'd agree that the base would be such a poorly defensible position that it's better to let EDI salvage what she can and then blow the thing up. I viewed it more as a hit and run, sabotage style operation than an actual land grab. Poor TIM. Oh well, he'll just have to deal with it.

[Saint Op]

DPSSOC wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

Yeah but without knowing the future what exactly was ALL.

Well knowing the past, enough to systematically wipe out an entire species.  Doesn't matter if it's 1 or 1,000 it's too damn many.

Right so stopping one was top priority not saving a counsil.  All I'm saying is that, that should have been taken into account.  Maybe we don't  stop him if we choose wrong.  In the end I was wrong about that and we may not even see the full reaper fleet in ME3 but I was going on the premise that you can screw up big time and lose in the first game with the wrong choice.  Take into account I also did not know that was the very end of the game.

[chaos_Shadow15]

Very thought provoking post FlyingBrickyard, and I'd hope that Bioware gave it as much thought as you did, because what you have said does make alot of sense. I just wonder if the pieces will fall into place in ME3, or if Bioware will just take the lazy road and have similar outcomes for extremely different choices.

[AntiChri5]

[quote]Saint Op wrote...


[/quote]

It is made very clear that if they hold the citadel they will open the relay. That was the entire point. If they have the relay the win (unless you find a way to disable it somehow, but nothing like that ever comes up) Why would only one or two come through? I had no future knowledge considering i first did this the week the game came out.
[/quote]

Ok your missing the point.  You would need to know the future to know the number of Reapers.  I was thinking alot less then there are, as were alot of people based on the oh S*** statments about the end of ME2.

Also who ever said we would win and save the Citadel at all or that this was required to make a second and third game is all I'm saying.[/quote]

The entire game was built around the relay and the fact that it opening was certain doom. We are trying to stop saren so the relay does not open (not because he is ugly). What benifit would there be in killing him but leaving the citadel in Sovereign's hands? The relay would still get opened.

[Saint Op]

[quote]AntiChri5 wrote...

[quote]Saint Op wrote...


[/quote]

It is made very clear that if they hold the citadel they will open the relay. That was the entire point. If they have the relay the win (unless you find a way to disable it somehow, but nothing like that ever comes up) Why would only one or two come through? I had no future knowledge considering i first did this the week the game came out.
[/quote]

Ok your missing the point.  You would need to know the future to know the number of Reapers.  I was thinking alot less then there are, as were alot of people based on the oh S*** statments about the end of ME2.

Also who ever said we would win and save the Citadel at all or that this was required to make a second and third game is all I'm saying.[/quote]

The entire game was built around the relay and the fact that it opening was certain doom. We are trying to stop saren so the relay does not open (not because he is ugly). What benifit would there be in killing him but leaving the citadel in Sovereign's hands? The relay would still get opened.
[/quote]

OK 1. this was known to be a trilogy. So losing partially in game 1 is not "the end of the world"
2. I was merely discribing a situation that could have happened if we didn't focus on him making it the only viable option.
3 would it be to hard to believe that you could have made the wrong choice and failed with it ironicly being the paragon option just like you can die in ME2.
$. we are really talking about two sides of the same coin here as I am saying we might not have been able to win and stop Soverien and you are saying then we would have lost.

[Bigdoser]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...

Eh, it was a fairly easy choice for me. While I had no love at all for the Council and thought they were completely ineffective, they did form the "head" of the leadership of the respective races. The game lore was also pretty specific in saying that a lot of the success of the Reapers was based on their ability to wipe out the seat of goverment for all of the races (ie, the "council") by striking at the Citadel first.

So it seemed to me that if I'm going to try to break the cycle, I'd want as many dissimilar outcomes as possible, and having the council survive would definitely be a big one.

It's the same reason why I scrapped the Collector base at the end of the game as well. The Reapers keep everyone on a set technological track (likely with built-in weaknesses that they can exploit) via the technology they slowly feed to the various races. Getting a bunch of that same "tainted technology" in one big shot probably isn't going to help in the long run. Other, unpredictable solutions must be found. Something the Reapers won't expect.

So while it was tempting to say "Yeah, we may need this" and keep it, I decided to blow it up.

Besides, intact the base was still a significant potential threat, and if for whatever reason even 2 Reapers showed up later to retake it, they probably could do so without much hope of stopping them. Then we're pretty much back at square one.

The way the story is set up, it's pretty much an all or nothing game. As the saying goes, "Scared money never wins", so it makes a bit of sense to take the route of forging your own path rather than taking the "easy" route via following the paths the Reapers have laid down.

I agree when i decided to save the council i just decided to gamble and the gamble paid off.

[FlyingBrickyard]

marshalleck wrote...

Well I'm not sure the Collector base was tainted tech in the same way the Citadel and relays were. I doubt the Reapers intended to let their shipyard fall into the greedy hands of ambitious organics trying to escape their own imminent extinction.

I agree in that I doubt all of it was, but again the game lore had mentioned that the Collectors would often trade advanced technology for slaves/people, and that's how they got a lot of the races to sell each other out when they needed subjects for their experiments.  So the tech in question was most likely coming from that (or similar) base(s).

And all tech on the base would have come from the Reapers so it's all going to be tainted to some degree.  The tech that would be least tainted, I expect, would also be of the least use in the fight against the Reapers, and it's probably so far advanced it would take decades to centuries to sort out.  In which case, it's essentially useless. 

Once the Reapers are dead though, we'd have all the time we need to pick through what remained of their technology base if desired - and what we find then would probably be even better than anything we could have gotten from the Collector base.

Again, it's tempting to give in to the idea of "Look at all this good stuff, we need to keep this!" and salvage the Collector base, but considering what's at stake, the only logical solution is to blow it all up.  Besides, even if you put all of that aside, you'd still have to accept (and worry) that any tech derived from that find would always be FAR better understood by the Reapers themselves, which suggests they'd know about any little 'tricks' or weaknesses we hadn't yet discovered. 

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 04 avril 2010 - 03:37 .

[The Sapien]

marshalleck wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

Yeah but without knowing the future what exactly was ALL. WE did not know how many there were.  If we can't stop 1 then 2 or 3 more and a boss would be more then enough.

Don't get me wrong so far I think there story is better but I played game 1 with no knowledge of the future as you seemed to do.

The decision to focus on Sovereign doesn't require meta-game knowledge or Shepard having a personal vision of the future. All it requires is a steadfast determination to not gamble with the survival of galactic civilization, and to reduce risk and uncertainty as much as possible. Hence, attempt to destroy Sovereign as soon as possible, and at all cost.

I hope you don't reduce all of your moral decisions to "success at any cost." Some of us believe that it is more important how you live your life rather than whether you continue. My Shep once told Saren that he'd rather die than be a slave.

I don't think there is a right answer. Us softies could lose the entire galaxy trying to always do the right thing. My Shep had to make a decision on the fly with limited knowledge (common in the real world, I hear) and was not about to taint humanity's most important role.

Yeah, in hindsight, saving the council wins the numbers game, saving more lives than lost, but we're cheating if we include this future knowledge in the decision.

[Varyen]

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. Either way, humans are seen as the scum of the universe (next to the vorcha) by many regardless of what you do. The other races didn't like our fast track up the hiearchy (spell check?). I did expect the human council to be a little more understanding but being told something along the lines of " you let the other council die & we're supposed to trust you?" kind of thing was complete BS imo.



I was annoyed by the fact that being a specter in ME1 meant NOTHING!. Poeple still regraded you as a lowly human & ignored the fact that you were a specter. And the 1st Human spector for that matter. I was also shocked that the salarian DR. ( can't think of his name right now) in ME2 said humans wen't specters while recruiting him.

[The Sapien]

To help with our moral thinking here, what if the outcome were a lose-lose instead of a win-win? How would you feel about your decision just before you died? Would you rather be a softy-loser or a cold hearted loser?