170 réponses à ce sujet

[FlyingBrickyard]

DPSSOC wrote...
.  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?

I disagree here.

As much as saving the Council was the "best" choice, letting them die isn't a "wrong" choice.  It's not the optimal solution to the problem, but it's not the end of the Galaxy if you hung them out to dry. 

Things can still work out if you let the council die, but it's going to be tougher down the road than if you'd saved them.  It's not a wrong answer, it's just different, and if you went that way it's just something else you'll have to deal with and resolve later on.

It's kind of like the Rachni Queen choice in ME1.  Let her go, and it's looking very likely that you'll have some additional and probably powerful allies against the Reapers in ME3.  If you killed her off, well, there's going to be no help there.  That doesn't mean that you'll fail in ME3 without Rachni assistance, but I imagine it's going to make things tougher and ultimately even more people will die to stop the threat.

That's what I really like about the series.  You can go through the game being a total jerk to everyone you meet and still get the job done, but at the end of the day, you'll have to deal with the repercussions of that approach.  As that snowballs through the series, I'd expect the Renegade to be more likely to be standing alone and have a much harder time of it in the final battle than the Paragon who took the time to make allies and build relationships.

Neither approach is technically more "right" than the other, but one is arguably "better".  Paragon takes more work up front, eschewing the "easy way out" in favor of honor and principles, and treating people with respect.  Renegade makes the hike up quick and easy, but just offloads all the really hard work until the end of the trip.

It's really just a matter of how you want to play it. 

[wizardryforever]

marshalleck wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

My original question has still not been addressed, I see.  What if there were no way to stop Sovereign?  It was a lose-lose situation in which you either have a government or you don't.  In that situation, would you rather save the council, or let it die?  Again, this is how things are at the end of ME2, so it really isn't that far out there.  You either save the council and DA, or you flee, saving as many human ships as you can.  Give me order versus chaos anyday.  Besides, Shandepared and I have argued this to death already, here.  So I'll not go into all the different reasons why it makes sense to save the council.

Okay, you asked several questions in that post I was responding to. If you wanted a specific answer you should have told me specificially which question you wanted an answer to. I'm not psychic.

Answer: if Sovereign were going to open the relay no matter what, I would still say focusing on him would be the best option. At least then you know that the current species put up the most resistance they could muster and it was still not enough; in that situation, saving the Council would serve no benefit at all.

Besides, it's a question which requires meta-game knowledge and I am arguing from the perspective of my Shepard, who is not omnipotent, so I think your question ultimately has little bearing on the conversation.

From Shepard's point of view, there is no evidence that we could stop Sovereign either way, so how is thinking long-term irresponsible?  It isn't.  That is the whole point I was trying to make.  Maybe I need to work on making my argument a bit more coherent. 

[Gravity Bun]

With my first playthrough of ME I thought it was the best decision to (2nd option) concentrate on Sovereign, from a purely logical point of view; the needs of the many, etc. In ME2 I learned that because of this decision, I was a genocidal xenophobe. Most formidable warship in the galaxy my a**.

[marshalleck]

wizardryforever wrote...

From Shepard's point of view, there is no evidence that we could stop Sovereign either way, so how is thinking long-term irresponsible?  It isn't.  That is the whole point I was trying to make.  Maybe I need to work on making my argument a bit more coherent. 

It's not irresponsible, it just doesn't really matter since everyone in the Milky Way is as good as dead if Sovereign lets the rest of the Reapers in from dark space.

Modifié par marshalleck, 04 avril 2010 - 11:16 .

[jxd73]

It's multiracialism and multiculturalism run amok, blame today's ultra PC society.

[wizardryforever]

marshalleck wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

From Shepard's point of view, there is no evidence that we could stop Sovereign either way, so how is thinking long-term irresponsible?  It isn't.  That is the whole point I was trying to make.  Maybe I need to work on making my argument a bit more coherent. 

It's not irresponsible, it just doesn't really matter since everyone in the Milky Way is as good as dead if Sovereign lets the rest of the Reapers in from dark space.

There are sound tactical and logical reasons for picking either one.  It just depends on what type of person your Shepard is.

[FlyingBrickyard]

wizardryforever wrote...

There are sound tactical and logical reasons for picking either one.  It just depends on what type of person your Shepard is.

Yep.

And even with my very Paragon Shepard, I still go with the Renegade option at times.

I definitely took the interrupt on Miranda's loyalty mission after the Merc spoke the most misleading line in the entire game, which was something to the effect of

"The whole time we've been talking my men have been busy lining up shots."

My first reaction was, "Woohoo!  I should win this easy, because it takes Ryncol to drop me!"  Then I realized that's not what he meant, so I blew them up.  It was sad.

[chaos_Shadow15]

Bigdoser wrote...

FlyingBrickyard wrote...

Varyen wrote...

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?).

Agreed.  For now at least.  If you step back from it a bit, it'd be kind of like someone half your age coming in and seemingly getting a bunch of stuff just handed to them after you worked really hard most of your life to attain the same.  I imagine that wouldn't sit well with most people.  Respect is earned, and humans just haven't been around long enough yet to have earned very much of it. 

However, humanity is never going to earn any respect if you run around acting like a selfish, irresponsible child, so laying the groundwork for gaining that respect has to start somewhere.  Reapers aside, saving the Council takes a good step in that direction because it shows very clearly that like the other races, you're willing to put your own on the line for the greater good of the whole.  Even if it had failed and the DA was lost anyway, the attempt would have been significant, politically.

Not that I entertained politics when there was a Reaper at the door, but it was nice that the two coincided well on this one.
 

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 dunno, it makes sense to me.  Keep in mind, they're politicians - they lie and cheat and backstab each other as a matter of course for any political gain.  Their primary concern is self preservation and keeping their jobs.  If you tossed the Council once because you felt it was necessary in a crisis, I'd say it's pretty likely you'd do so again (and I think someone above even mentioned they'd do as much).  If anything, all you've done is proven beyond any doubt that you view the Council as an entity to be expendable.  They may not know that much about you as a person, but they definitely know that much.  And I'm pretty sure that's what they most care about. 

All of that aside, Shepard would be political poison for what is probably an already well disliked Council.  Getting all buddy-buddy with you upon your return would probably make an already difficult situation for them even worse.  Remember, their primary motivation is purely self-interest. 

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.

It paid off for me a few times in ME2, although it wasn't in a huge way.  Helping out the Quarian and the two Asari on the Citadel come to mind.  But ME2 wasn't really about being a Spectre (ME1 wasn't either, but ME2 even less so).  I get the sense that in ME2 things have become much larger than the dealings of the Citadel, that the usual troubles and interests of even the Spectres pale in comparison to the level of "game" you're involved in now.  In short, Shepard and crew have moved well beyond the Spectre days, so it understanably carries even less weight and focus than before.

As for the rest, I chalked it all up to the general ignorance of the populace, the overall rarity of Spectres and the fact that most humans probably look mostly the same to every other species out there, just as we're hard pressed to identify specific Salarians, Asari, Elcor, Vlus, etc unless we deal with them on a regular basis.

For perspective, look at how unknown Asari Justicars were to non-Asari, and they've been around forever, comparatively.

I always liked your comments, i think mass effect is about trying to show wether humanity or shepard is willing to make scarifices for the greater good. Will humanity join the galatic stage as equals or crush every other races under their heel to be on top?

But this is what I hate. You're told by your allies that saving the DA would be a bad idea because you were going to lose LOTS of lives if you did. There was no telling that the DA had more than 3-4 people on board, but it seems that Shepherd was misinformed at that last moment. That's what annoys me. You make that decision, but you don't want it to be so humanity can be on top. I never wanted that. But alas...

[chaos_Shadow15]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...

One of the downsides of course is that the Council is still living in denial, but again.... policticians.  It's what they do.  At least with them still around you don't have various races on the edge of war with each other over who gets to be in charge and how things are run, leaving Shepard in a much better position to win friends and allies for the coming battle.

Hah, don't worry. Even when you let the council die, the new council is just as quick to dismiss Sovereign as a Geth ship and the reaper threat a fantasy tale. Goes to show that deep thought processes don't work in the game, and Bioware takes the easy way out. I'm sure many people thought deeply when sacrificing the council that a new council would be more motivated and wouldn't have the same lethargy that the old one did. Unfortunately, this was not at all the case. Nothing's changed.

[cronshaw8]

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.

Please share your thoughts on the issue here.

I haven't had a ME2 playthrough with a "let the council die" ME1 import. So i'm not familar with all the dialouge you are talking about. My impression though is that Shepard's affiliation with Cerberus, combined with his decision to let the council die makes most people think the worst. It can't be easy for the new all human council to lead with the man who let the alien dominated council die running around. And they certianly would be less inclined to show him any support because all of their non-human  constituents hate Shepard. Basically it is much more politically expedient for the human council to ignore shepard, Anderson included. Though like i said i'm not sure how harsh Anderson's dialouge actually is, or if he refuses to see shepard too.

[FlyingBrickyard]

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...

Hah, don't worry. Even when you let the council die, the new council is just as quick to dismiss Sovereign as a Geth ship and the reaper threat a fantasy tale. Goes to show that deep thought processes don't work in the game, and Bioware takes the easy way out. I'm sure many people thought deeply when sacrificing the council that a new council would be more motivated and wouldn't have the same lethargy that the old one did. Unfortunately, this was not at all the case. Nothing's changed.

I know, and ultimately that comes down to meta-gaming and the simple fact that BW has to assume certain things to even make a game.  A lot of the stuff really is just the illusion of choice - at least on the major scale of events.  Details can be tweaked here and there, but by and large our Shepard's "destiny" is well set before we even start playing.

That said, the fact that we're even having this conversation (let alone that it spans several pages) suggests that BW did a rather good job at making it feel like a lot of these decisions carry actual weight and have real consequences.  With people here debating the merits of one path over the other, and looking at the decisions from tatical and political standpoints both in the long and short term, I think that says a lot for the quality of game that was created.

If it was all very simple black and white answers we wouldn't be on for 7+ pages about it all, analyzing every minute detail and possible outcome.  I've been around the gaming scene for a long while now (30 years), and I think the fact that a game can get people seriously thinking this much about their choices is a pretty amazing thing.

There's a surprising amount of depth to the game considering how limited your options and outcomes really are.

[chaos_Shadow15]

thegreateski wrote...

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 wrote...

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

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. At that exact moment where you are given the decision, Garrus and Liara both tell me that going after the DA would be a bad idea, because if I did, thousands of people would die. There was not once a mention of the fact that the DA would have 10,000 people on board. There was not once the mention that the lives sacrificing themselves to save the DA would be human only. There was no mention that the council would become an all-human body. I just feel like the whole decision was supported by very little information, and I what I thought I was doing right turned out to be met with hostility and anger.

[Ultai]

thedoncarnage wrote...

You know, I understand the hostility in making an all-human council. I also understand that if you rebuild a multi-race council with a human chair then the other races could view their politicians as puppets of humanity.

What I DON'T understand is why there wasn't an option to simply elect a new multi-race council without humanity as the chair.

Think about real life. Even if the American President and his entire cabinet died there's still a line of succession. An interim President would be put in charge to serve out the remainder of the term. Did the aliens simply never think about the fact that their politicians could be assassinated one day? Don't they have a backup plan?

So a few politicians die. So what? Why do the aliens need humanity to rebuild the government? If the White House was destroyed do you think the US would turn to Canada for a new President? Pfft, no. Canada might help the US rebuild but they wouldn't try to assume control of government.

This.  It does boggle the mind to think they had absolutely ZERO replacements from their races.  Then again I guess that's why humans would take the top spot, since we actually think of backup plans. <_<

[FlyingBrickyard]

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. At that exact moment where you are given the decision, Garrus and Liara both tell me that going after the DA would be a bad idea, because if I did, thousands of people would die. There was not once a mention of the fact that the DA would have 10,000 people on board. There was not once the mention that the lives sacrificing themselves to save the DA would be human only. There was no mention that the council would become an all-human body. I just feel like the whole decision was supported by very little information, and I what I thought I was doing right turned out to be met with hostility and anger.

Put bluntly, welcome to real life.  I don't mean that to be harsh, but I think that's sort of what Bioware was going for with that.  Sometimes you have to make tough choices with very little time or notice and even less information.  In cases like that, all you can really do is use your "gut feeling" and moral compass as a guide. 

Do the ends justify the means, or is anything worth doing worth doing right?

The DA was a very large ship - by that alone it should have been obvious that it probably wasn't running a skeleton crew.  Exact numbers didn't really matter much at the time.  What was clear is that a lot of people were going to die either way. 

Essentially you were given the ability to decide who took the brunt of it - minimize human casualties at the expense of all other races, or accept that all races are in it together and stand (and die) right alongside them as part of the galactic community.

How the council would be or was replaced shouldn't really factor into it at all.  It's something that would have been out of Shepard's control either way.  In the greater sense the choice boiled down to "is humanity ready, willing and able to stand as a full, adult member of the galactic community or not?"

Otherwise it just sort of puts humanity in that awkward adolescent stage where they want all the freedom and rights of adults, but don't yet want to deal with the burdens of adult responsibilities that go along with them.

Of course, I could be overthinking it, but that's the sense of the situation that I got at the time.  If we (humanity) wanted to be taken seriously by the other, older races, we had to step up and take all the same responibilities and resulting consequences along with the "adults".

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 05 avril 2010 - 02:12 .

[chaos_Shadow15]

Well I just finished ME1 again, and it's funny. Anderson makes a great speech saying that the rest of the galaxy will look up to humanity now that the council is gone - we don't be seizing power, they will be welcoming it. Shepherd is now a hero to everyone and they will need a new council to step up and guide them.



Too bad that the speech is pretty much all for nothing when it comes to ME2. It's kinda just thrown out the door. Makes it feel like a cheap speech designed by Bioware to make you feel good and then ME2 comes along and there's no continuity whatsoever.

[FlyingBrickyard]

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...

Well I just finished ME1 again, and it's funny. Anderson makes a great speech saying that the rest of the galaxy will look up to humanity now that the council is gone - we don't be seizing power, they will be welcoming it. Shepherd is now a hero to everyone and they will need a new council to step up and guide them.

Too bad that the speech is pretty much all for nothing when it comes to ME2. It's kinda just thrown out the door. Makes it feel like a cheap speech designed by Bioware to make you feel good and then ME2 comes along and there's no continuity whatsoever.

There is, Anderson addressed that when you talk to him upon returning.

Once Shepard was gone, there wasn't really anyone to continue to push the "Reaper agenda" - for lack of a better term - with the Council, at which point they rapidly backpedaled and tried to pass it off as a one time incident, they actively tore down most of what Shepard had accomplished and then tried to distance themselves from it all and bury it.

The key there was apparently losing Shepard.  As long as he was around, he had too much support and pull for the Council to do all of that.  But once he was dead it became a lot easier to simply wait things out and then brush them under the carpet.

[chaos_Shadow15]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...

Well I just finished ME1 again, and it's funny. Anderson makes a great speech saying that the rest of the galaxy will look up to humanity now that the council is gone - we don't be seizing power, they will be welcoming it. Shepherd is now a hero to everyone and they will need a new council to step up and guide them.

Too bad that the speech is pretty much all for nothing when it comes to ME2. It's kinda just thrown out the door. Makes it feel like a cheap speech designed by Bioware to make you feel good and then ME2 comes along and there's no continuity whatsoever.

There is, Anderson addressed that when you talk to him upon returning.

Once Shepard was gone, there wasn't really anyone to continue to push the "Reaper agenda" - for lack of a better term - with the Council, at which point they rapidly backpedaled and tried to pass it off as a one time incident, they actively tore down most of what Shepard had accomplished and then tried to distance themselves from it all and bury it.

The key there was apparently losing Shepard.  As long as he was around, he had too much support and pull for the Council to do all of that.  But once he was dead it became a lot easier to simply wait things out and then brush them under the carpet.

Now that you remind me, I suppose that does make sense. But even though at times I do regret the decision, I think I did the right thing. And yeah, it's amazing how many theories and thought processes people can go through when it comes to Mass Effect, and it is a testament to the games greatness. Here's hoping that Mass Effect 3 will truly round things out with a bang, and that we will all feel satisfied with our decisions. I think ME2 kinda intended to make us brood about alot of this, because the overall theme of the game does revolve around a kind of melancholy and dark theme, knowing that survival is grim. So hopefully that bridges the gap to a more triumphant and grandiose Mass Effect 3!

[Collider]

I would not trust that technology with TIM. Or anyone really.

[Sunnie]

chaos_Shadow15 wrote...

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. At that exact moment where you are given the decision, Garrus and Liara both tell me that going after the DA would be a bad idea, because if I did, thousands of people would die. There was not once a mention of the fact that the DA would have 10,000 people on board. There was not once the mention that the lives sacrificing themselves to save the DA would be human only. There was no mention that the council would become an all-human body. I just feel like the whole decision was supported by very little information, and I what I thought I was doing right turned out to be met with hostility and anger.

Actually, I believe there is a conversation between a couple on the Citadel that talked abotu the DA as it passed by, and one of them said there were over 10,000 crew on board. I suppose only the most explorative (nosey?  lol) people would have heard that conversation...  I had heard that conversation long before the battle so I knew what was at stake when the call came for help and the decision was put on my shoulders.

Modifié par Sunnie22, 05 avril 2010 - 04:09 .