170 réponses à ce sujet

[DPSSOC]

Hukari wrote...

But, again, it comes down to whether you think/act like a Paragon or a Renegade. A Paragon is willing to take that risk, if it means saving lives. A Renegade, on the other hand, will start flipping out and trying to get things done as quick as possible, no matter how many die. It all comes down to the core philosophical arguments of the game, whether you get things done right, not quick, or whether you get things done quick, but screw things up later.

By waiting, by wasting time saving the Ascension, you risk trillions upon trillions of innocent lives to save 10,000 most of whom are most likely soldiers well aware of the risks they take in choosing to defend people.

That is what the Paragon/Renegade view comes down to; not getting it done right or quick but whether you are willing to risk the many to save the few, or sacrifice the few to save the many.

[Saint Op]

DPSSOC wrote...

Hukari wrote...

But, again, it comes down to whether you think/act like a Paragon or a Renegade. A Paragon is willing to take that risk, if it means saving lives. A Renegade, on the other hand, will start flipping out and trying to get things done as quick as possible, no matter how many die. It all comes down to the core philosophical arguments of the game, whether you get things done right, not quick, or whether you get things done quick, but screw things up later.

By waiting, by wasting time saving the Ascension, you risk trillions upon trillions of innocent lives to save 10,000 most of whom are most likely soldiers well aware of the risks they take in choosing to defend people.

That is what the Paragon/Renegade view comes down to; not getting it done right or quick but whether you are willing to risk the many to save the few, or sacrifice the few to save the many.

Plus anyone with half a brain would see the DA the largest ship around as a huge f'n target so why was the counsil on it anyway, with no escape pods....really. 

[Hukari]

Saint Op wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Hukari wrote...

But, again, it comes down to whether you think/act like a Paragon or a Renegade. A Paragon is willing to take that risk, if it means saving lives. A Renegade, on the other hand, will start flipping out and trying to get things done as quick as possible, no matter how many die. It all comes down to the core philosophical arguments of the game, whether you get things done right, not quick, or whether you get things done quick, but screw things up later.

By waiting, by wasting time saving the Ascension, you risk trillions upon trillions of innocent lives to save 10,000 most of whom are most likely soldiers well aware of the risks they take in choosing to defend people.

That is what the Paragon/Renegade view comes down to; not getting it done right or quick but whether you are willing to risk the many to save the few, or sacrifice the few to save the many.

Plus anyone with half a brain would see the DA the largest ship around as a huge f'n target so why was the counsil on it anyway, with no escape pods....really. 

Yeah, I'll give you that evaccing on a -battleship- is one hell of a wicked-retarded move. Then again, apparently the Reapers don't understand these things called Escape Pods, since the Collectors seemed to be gentlemanly enough to let them go. Even when their supposed target could be on it. Yay, plotholes.

[The Sapien]

Saint Op wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Hukari wrote...

But, again, it comes down to whether you think/act like a Paragon or a Renegade. A Paragon is willing to take that risk, if it means saving lives. A Renegade, on the other hand, will start flipping out and trying to get things done as quick as possible, no matter how many die. It all comes down to the core philosophical arguments of the game, whether you get things done right, not quick, or whether you get things done quick, but screw things up later.

By waiting, by wasting time saving the Ascension, you risk trillions upon trillions of innocent lives to save 10,000 most of whom are most likely soldiers well aware of the risks they take in choosing to defend people.

That is what the Paragon/Renegade view comes down to; not getting it done right or quick but whether you are willing to risk the many to save the few, or sacrifice the few to save the many.

Plus anyone with half a brain would see the DA the largest ship around as a huge f'n target so why was the counsil on it anyway, with no escape pods....really. 

Anyone who has the renegade/paragon duality solved doesn't understand the duality. Else, they're much smarter than I.

[DPSSOC]

Could be they can tell Shepard's still on the Normandy. Or maybe they're relying on the Captain going down with the ship.

[Hukari]

Still, why wouldn't they take the escape pods anyway? I mean, they had been trying to operate somewhat stealthily. Leaving 20-30 witnesses does not a stealthy attack make.

[DPSSOC]

The Sapien wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Hukari wrote...

But, again, it comes down to whether you think/act like a Paragon or a Renegade. A Paragon is willing to take that risk, if it means saving lives. A Renegade, on the other hand, will start flipping out and trying to get things done as quick as possible, no matter how many die. It all comes down to the core philosophical arguments of the game, whether you get things done right, not quick, or whether you get things done quick, but screw things up later.

By waiting, by wasting time saving the Ascension, you risk trillions upon trillions of innocent lives to save 10,000 most of whom are most likely soldiers well aware of the risks they take in choosing to defend people.

That is what the Paragon/Renegade view comes down to; not getting it done right or quick but whether you are willing to risk the many to save the few, or sacrifice the few to save the many.

Plus anyone with half a brain would see the DA the largest ship around as a huge f'n target so why was the counsil on it anyway, with no escape pods....really. 

Anyone who has the renegade/paragon duality solved doesn't understand the duality. Else, they're much smarter than I.

I iz sooper jeanyos.

And while that's certainly not the universal Para/Ren split that's how I see it for that particular situation.  On Feros it is more of a right vs easy split.

[DPSSOC]

Hukari wrote...

Still, why wouldn't they take the escape pods anyway? I mean, they had been trying to operate somewhat stealthily. Leaving 20-30 witnesses does not a stealthy attack make.

True but they don't know what the heck just happened.  An unidentified vessel attacked and wiped out the Normandy, that's about all they got.  Could have been anyone's advanced giant ship.

[Hukari]

DPSSOC wrote...

The Sapien wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Hukari wrote...

But, again, it comes down to whether you think/act like a Paragon or a Renegade. A Paragon is willing to take that risk, if it means saving lives. A Renegade, on the other hand, will start flipping out and trying to get things done as quick as possible, no matter how many die. It all comes down to the core philosophical arguments of the game, whether you get things done right, not quick, or whether you get things done quick, but screw things up later.

By waiting, by wasting time saving the Ascension, you risk trillions upon trillions of innocent lives to save 10,000 most of whom are most likely soldiers well aware of the risks they take in choosing to defend people.

That is what the Paragon/Renegade view comes down to; not getting it done right or quick but whether you are willing to risk the many to save the few, or sacrifice the few to save the many.

Plus anyone with half a brain would see the DA the largest ship around as a huge f'n target so why was the counsil on it anyway, with no escape pods....really. 

Anyone who has the renegade/paragon duality solved doesn't understand the duality. Else, they're much smarter than I.

I iz sooper jeanyos.

And while that's certainly not the universal Para/Ren split that's how I see it for that particular situation.  On Feros it is more of a right vs easy split.

Eh, the real thing is it can be justified either way. You could go down my Paragon-centric justification, saying it's tactically, politically, and morally sound. Or, you could go down what you and the others have been arguing, a ends-justify-the-means kind of philosophy, sacrificing others to get the job done. Actually, I would say the best analogue is actually the Zaeed mission, but there I go off in fantasy land. But, I think that's Bioware's point. They want Renegades and Paragons to both be the 'right' way of thinking, it just makes different assumptions and world-views.

[kraidy1117]

Nope, letting the council die is very selfish and stupid. The council brings balance to the Galaxy, even if they are dicks they are needed. If you bring a new council in it consisting of all humans you are dooming the Galaxy. No other races want to trade with them anymore, Turrians are now making alot of Dreadnaughts, the Salarians pulled out STG help and the Asari gave them the cold shoulder. Not to mention, every non human (expect for few) is not happy with what has been going on for the last two years. Saving the council is the best choice, yes you lose humans but those humans are viewed as heros and there sacrifice is what got humans a seat and alot of respect. Letting the council die, you are responsible for thousands of lives that you could have saved but did not because either



1: you are cold hearted

2: Thought you would not be able to take down Nazzara (which is a dumb excuse)

3: You are pro-human



Saving the Council is a very smart decision, even if hundred of humans die.

[The Sapien]

marshalleck wrote...

The Sapien wrote...

Agreed. But, now you're arguing against a strawman. No one saved the DA for political reasons, did they? My Shep didn't even consider the political ramifications. It was more like, OMG, I don't know, I'm down here fighting Saren while all of you guys up there with a bird's eye view of the battle are asking me what to do? Obviously, no one wanted to make the call.

I'm not arguing against a strawman. Several people have cited post-conflict political motivations for saving the Council in this very thread.

My bad. There really are Shep's out there who would save the DA for purely political reasons. They're just as bad as those who let the DA get destroyed because they didn't like 3 people on that ship. Hopefully, these Sheps are the minority.

Still, I just wanted to point out that my Shep didn't save the council. My Shep saved the lives on the DA, which also happened to be where the council was hiding, probably put there just to taught me into letting them go.

[thegreateski]

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...
Now what I don't understand is, why does this decision carry such negative weight in Mass Effect 2?  I can understand most alien species being angry simply because of their own ignorance towards humans, regardless of reasoning, but humans? Anderson? Shepherd is constantly chastised for letting the council die and I don't understand why emphasis wasn't put on the point that it was done to save lives, and not because of Shepherds selfish goals for humanity.

Because it means you let the 10,000 + crew of the Ascension also die.

[DarthCaine]

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...

So it was an option between sacrificing lots of lives or saving a few members of the council.

Wrong, it was a choice of either sacrificing a few hundreds human lives or sacrificing nearly 10 000 alien lives

[The Sapien]

Hukari wrote...

Saint Op wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Hukari wrote...

But, again, it comes down to whether you think/act like a Paragon or a Renegade. A Paragon is willing to take that risk, if it means saving lives. A Renegade, on the other hand, will start flipping out and trying to get things done as quick as possible, no matter how many die. It all comes down to the core philosophical arguments of the game, whether you get things done right, not quick, or whether you get things done quick, but screw things up later.

By waiting, by wasting time saving the Ascension, you risk trillions upon trillions of innocent lives to save 10,000 most of whom are most likely soldiers well aware of the risks they take in choosing to defend people.

That is what the Paragon/Renegade view comes down to; not getting it done right or quick but whether you are willing to risk the many to save the few, or sacrifice the few to save the many.

Plus anyone with half a brain would see the DA the largest ship around as a huge f'n target so why was the counsil on it anyway, with no escape pods....really. 

Yeah, I'll give you that evaccing on a -battleship- is one hell of a wicked-retarded move. Then again, apparently the Reapers don't understand these things called Escape Pods, since the Collectors seemed to be gentlemanly enough to let them go. Even when their supposed target could be on it. Yay, plotholes.

Didn't the Alliance arrive shorty after with enough backup to scare the Collectors off? I thought that was how the escape pods survived. They didn't arrive in time to save the Normandy but in time to save most of the crew. No?

[DPSSOC]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Nope, letting the council die is very selfish and stupid. The council brings balance to the Galaxy, even if they are dicks they are needed.

 
It's a funny thing about dicks, you can always find more.

kraidy1117 wrote...
If you bring a new council in it consisting of all humans you are dooming the Galaxy. No other races want to trade with them anymore, Turrians are now making alot of Dreadnaughts, the Salarians pulled out STG help and the Asari gave them the cold shoulder. Not to mention, every non human (expect for few) is not happy with what has been going on for the last two years.

 
All valid points, none of them are things Shep (or many players) could have known at the time.

kraidy1117 wrote...
Letting the council die, you are responsible for thousands of lives that you could have saved but did not because either

1: you are cold hearted
2: Thought you would not be able to take down Nazzara (which is a dumb excuse)
3: You are pro-human

1. Check
2. Check (how is that a dumb excuse?)
3. Check

kraidy1117 wrote...
Saving the Council is a very smart decision, even if hundred of humans die.

Yes because we know it turns out ok.  Bioware made a mistake in that they made a choice that ended up having a wrong answer.  They did that with a few choices from ME1 that takes away the value of the choice.  If you know that there's a right choice why would you choose the wrong one?

Modifié par DPSSOC, 04 avril 2010 - 05:37 .

[In Exile]

I liked the way this choice turns out, actually. Irrespective of what Shepard's motives were for not saving the Council, the reality is that following the attack on the citadel the political centre of the galaxy has just been gutted. The asari, salarians and especially the turians are not going to be happy that their chosen de facto galactic leaders are dead. Moreover, humanity moves to fill the power vacuum caused by the loss of the Council. We don't just wait for the other species to elect a new Council - we form a new Council. Even if we bring other species onboard, even if we try to reach out to the turians, salarians and asari, the basic reality of everything is that we're doing this while dictating terms. We want to 'lead' the Council? That means political and military force.



The turians are the military arm of the Council and we're replacing them. There's a lot of bad blood between us and the turians over the first contact war and the Council coddling us in their eyes, and now the Council is suddenly dead because the human fleet held back to defeat a get warship during a geth invason of Citadel space. Following this, humans excepect the rest of the races to fall behind our illustrious leadership.



Uniting the galaxy to fight the reapers is one thing, but that was never on the table. All the other races see humanity holding back fighting the geth to destroy a geth flagship and preserve their fleets. This is not something anyone will take well.



Any outcome other than the rest of the galaxy working against us makes absolutely no sense.



Basically, without debating the actual battle, I think that from Shepard's+humanity's perspective the best move by far is to stop Sovereign at all costs, because Sovereign poses an existential threat that makes the future not matter. At the same time, the political reality is that doing so is basically a coup d'etat by the Alliance.



It's a good portrayal, and IMO it drives home what it means to make a tough choice for the sake of having a future.

[marshalleck]

In Exile wrote...

 Irrespective

Good post made great by virtue of not being an internet troglodyte and using the correct word here instead of "irregardless."

[DPSSOC]

And I get and like that taking the Renegade option pisses off the aliens and there are hard times ahead for humanity. What bothers me is that nothing goes wrong with the Paragon choice. You lose ships and waste time to save the Council and nothing goes wrong. I'm not saying the Paragon choice should result in your failure but there should be some downside to making that choice just like there should be some upside to going Renegade.

Without that kind of balance you don't have a Paragon and a Renegade decision anymore you have a right one and a wrong one.

Edit: And when I say balance I don't mean both choices should have equal good and bad results I mean that there should be a "but" for both of them.

Renegade: Anti-human sentiment is high, alien species seem to be drifting away, but...
Paragon: Humans are viewed as heroes, everyone's getting along, but...

It doesn't bother me that more is going right in the Paragon than the Renegade it's that nothing is going wrong in the Paragon or right in the Renegade.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 04 avril 2010 - 06:40 .

[Napalm Jim]

Seemed to me that saving the Destiny Ascension was good both strategically and morally, even if the Council hadn't been on it. It's the largest dreadnought in Citadel space, has a crew of nearly 10K and it packs firepower that's the equivalent a small fleet. The fact that the Council happens to be aboard at the time is just icing on the cake, really.



Also, how is the Alliance wasting time by attacking the Geth? The humans can't get to Sovereign while the blast shield is down, so the only thing they would be doing otherwise is hanging about. The Geth aren't just gonna go away like a bad dream after all, so combining forces with the ships that are already engaging the Geth takes them out quicker and saves you from having to worry about them robots coming up and shooting lazers up yer chimney once you've finally engaged Sovereign.



As for the weakened fleet thing, it's true that by engaging the Geth you're gonna draw some of their fire and suffer some casualties. On the other hand, you're drawing that fire away from other ships that would have been destroyed if the Alliance had done nothing at all. A larger combined force is going to suffer less losses overall, even if it does mean that you'll lose more humans in the fight. Then, when the doors do finally open, you'll have more surviving ships overall with which to engage the Big Bad.



Heck, for all we know at that point, the firepower from the DA might've been the only thing strong enough to dent Sovereign at all. Up to this point in the story that spooky ship had seemed purty nigh indestructible and, without any metagame knowledge of the battle ahead, keeping the Ascension afloat just might've been the best way to blast a hole in that pesky reaper.

[Nu-Nu]

Paragon role - having trust in others. Renegade - not trusting others and thinking you're the only hero.



What was on the table was that you weren't never going to stop them completely, just stop them from coming through to the citadel, you still had the threat even after you closed of the portal. You still had to deal with them after you stop the reaper jumping space and you can deal with them with or without the council help. I go with their help.

[Hukari]

DPSSOC wrote...

And I get and like that taking the Renegade option pisses off the aliens and there are hard times ahead for humanity. What bothers me is that nothing goes wrong with the Paragon choice. You lose ships and waste time to save the Council and nothing goes wrong. I'm not saying the Paragon choice should result in your failure but there should be some downside to making that choice just like there should be some upside to going Renegade.

Without that kind of balance you don't have a Paragon and a Renegade decision anymore you have a right one and a wrong one.

There -is- a negative consequence to the Paragon option. 700 or so dead humans. I'd consider that a serious downside, as the Alliance is somewhat weakened. There are always going to be consequences for actions, some positive, some negative. Don't use Renegade interrupts? You're gonna be having harder battles. Also, you're not gonna engender much in the way of diplomacy if you shoot everyone you meet. Paragon has harder battles, but they make friends.

Modifié par Hukari, 04 avril 2010 - 06:45 .

[The Sapien]

DPSSOC wrote...

And I get and like that taking the Renegade option pisses off the aliens and there are hard times ahead for humanity. What bothers me is that nothing goes wrong with the Paragon choice. You lose ships and waste time to save the Council and nothing goes wrong. I'm not saying the Paragon choice should result in your failure but there should be some downside to making that choice just like there should be some upside to going Renegade.

Without that kind of balance you don't have a Paragon and a Renegade decision anymore you have a right one and a wrong one.

It seems pretty well balanced to me because I keep changing my mind over it. No matter what my Shep decides, she always second guesses herself later. 

[marshalleck]

DPSSOC wrote...

And I get and like that taking the Renegade option pisses off the aliens and there are hard times ahead for humanity. What bothers me is that nothing goes wrong with the Paragon choice. You lose ships and waste time to save the Council and nothing goes wrong. I'm not saying the Paragon choice should result in your failure but there should be some downside to making that choice just like there should be some upside to going Renegade.

Without that kind of balance you don't have a Paragon and a Renegade decision anymore you have a right one and a wrong one.

Edit: And when I say balance I don't mean both choices should have equal good and bad results I mean that there should be a "but" for both of them.

Renegade: Anti-human sentiment is high, alien species seem to be drifting away, but...
Paragon: Humans are viewed as heroes, everyone's getting along, but...

It doesn't bother me that more is going right in the Paragon than the Renegade it's that nothing is going wrong in the Paragon or right in the Renegade.

The difference may come into play in ME3. A new Council may be more willing to act decisively, while paragon Shep will have to deal with the three stooges doing air quotes and trying to isolate their new human council counterpart.

Modifié par marshalleck, 04 avril 2010 - 06:53 .