152 réponses à ce sujet

[Tlazolteotl]

Shandepared wrote...

Don't blame my country for having a
spine, blame your own for being that easily coerced.

And countries that aren't "easily coerced" are the ones that think flying planes into buildings is a good idea.
Throwing your weight around is the bad idea, dude.

[FlintlockJazz]

Quick question: has anyone done a runthrough with the council saved in ME1 and Udina chosen as Councillor? How does it play out different in ME2? Do you still get the option to be reinstated as a spectre?



The reason why I ask is because I have a feeling that the best results comes from not going all out Paragon or Renegade when it comes to determining the council:



Council Saved + Udina = possibly good, Udina knows how to deal with them as the council is supposedly good at politics while preventing Udina from having absolute control, he still needs you as a result.

Council Saved + Anderson = possibly bad, Anderson isn't a politician, and seems to be sidelined alot, could end up with humanity being the pet of the other three.

Council Killed + Udina = possibly bad, Udina apparently fills the council with yes-men and is obviously on a power trip, he shows in the renegade ending for ME1 that he also wants human supremacy, and may be power mad.

Council Killed + Anderson = possibly good, the council is weakened and Anderson is in a position of authority where he can push things through without the support of the council (reinstating you as a spectre for instance), and isn't likely to abuse his position like Udina would. Still ignored alot, but able to get away with it.

[Nozybidaj]

Nightwriter wrote...

And I was wondering, why do the Council want Udina there?

Beacuse BW knows most people don't like Udina and they used it as a cheap way to immediately put players at odds with the Council.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[ThisIsMadness91]

Shandepared wrote...

It's make you petulent children.

Real mature. Good to see there's no point in arguing with you.

Nozybidaj seems to have it right.

[Dean_the_Young]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Quick question: has anyone done a runthrough with the council saved in ME1 and Udina chosen as Councillor? How does it play out different in ME2? Do you still get the option to be reinstated as a spectre?

The reason why I ask is because I have a feeling that the best results comes from not going all out Paragon or Renegade when it comes to determining the council:

Council Saved + Udina = possibly good, Udina knows how to deal with them as the council is supposedly good at politics while preventing Udina from having absolute control, he still needs you as a result.
Council Saved + Anderson = possibly bad, Anderson isn't a politician, and seems to be sidelined alot, could end up with humanity being the pet of the other three.
Council Killed + Udina = possibly bad, Udina apparently fills the council with yes-men and is obviously on a power trip, he shows in the renegade ending for ME1 that he also wants human supremacy, and may be power mad.
Council Killed + Anderson = possibly good, the council is weakened and Anderson is in a position of authority where he can push things through without the support of the council (reinstating you as a spectre for instance), and isn't likely to abuse his position like Udina would. Still ignored alot, but able to get away with it.

If the Council survives OR Anderson is chosen, then you can at least get your SPECTRE status restored: either Anderson does it as your friend, or the Council does it as gratitude. The only way you don't get status restored is if it's an all-human Udina council, because Udina doesn't want any more rogue spectres like Saren.

Regardless of whether you saved the Council or not, Anderson is more or less tied up in political gridlock, which Udina is forced to help with. Udina as Councilor is smoother politically, but is busy balancing politics to do what you want.

If the Council survived, then the Council is indifferent to the colony abductions and whichever Councilor can't get a Citadel fleet sent to the systems because the Human fleet is still rebuilding. However, relations with the Turians are very good, and the Asari (and Destiny Ascension) are still part of galactic defense.

If the Council died, then Humanity is stretched thin after having taken up so much of the galactic defense burden: with the loss of the Destiny Ascension the Asari have withdrawn from Galactic Defense, leaving a vacuum that the Turians and Humans are rushing to fill.

Depending on Paragon/Renegade ending, relations with the Turians are good or bad. Good with paragon, especially if you saved Destiny Ascension. Bad with Renegade, especially if it's an all-human council: both species have started an arms race, building dreadnaughts past their treaty limits.


I think that's right, at least.

[FlintlockJazz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If the Council survives OR Anderson is chosen, then you can at least get your SPECTRE status restored: either Anderson does it as your friend, or the Council does it as gratitude. The only way you don't get status restored is if it's an all-human Udina council, because Udina doesn't want any more rogue spectres like Saren.

Regardless of whether you saved the Council or not, Anderson is more or less tied up in political gridlock, which Udina is forced to help with. Udina as Councilor is smoother politically, but is busy balancing politics to do what you want.

If the Council survived, then the Council is indifferent to the colony abductions and whichever Councilor can't get a Citadel fleet sent to the systems because the Human fleet is still rebuilding. However, relations with the Turians are very good, and the Asari (and Destiny Ascension) are still part of galactic defense.

If the Council died, then Humanity is stretched thin after having taken up so much of the galactic defense burden: with the loss of the Destiny Ascension the Asari have withdrawn from Galactic Defense, leaving a vacuum that the Turians and Humans are rushing to fill.

Depending on Paragon/Renegade ending, relations with the Turians are good or bad. Good with paragon, especially if you saved Destiny Ascension. Bad with Renegade, especially if it's an all-human council: both species have started an arms race, building dreadnaughts past their treaty limits.


I think that's right, at least.

That sounds about right to me as well, I'm just curious as to how it will carry on to ME3.  I think we can agree that, regardless of the reason behind why you may choose to abandon the Destiny Ascension, getting the council killed is going to lead to a human-dominated Galaxy.  How that may play out seems to be different depending on who you chose, since Captain Bailey makes mention that Udina (if you chose him) has filled the council with yes-men, and I can't see Anderson being able to take on the original council politically.

[Kid_SixXx]

I agree with the people that say that it is there to remind you as a player that you that Udina is a tool.

[Dean_the_Young]

He's a diplomat. Diplomats, by job description, are meant to keep good relations with other nations while advancing the interests of their own. Calling him a tool is about as insightful and stigmatizing as noting that water's wet, guns shoot bullets, and fat people are overweight.

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

ThisisMadness91 wrote...

He knows from experience how ruthless and self-serving Saren is. He handles the situation with reason and rationale, Udina barks orders at the Council.

"That just let you catch him off-guard!"

What the hell is wrong with that comment? It was a single passing statement and it was the truth. It paled in comparison to Udina.

"THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!"
"I DEMAND ACTION!!"
"SEND YOUR FLEET IN!!"
"I'M TIRED OF THIS COUNCIL AND IT'S ANTI-HUMAN BULL - !!"

Shandepared wrote...

ThisIsMadness91 wrote...

So you're saying that Shepard's rants were driving the Council away, but Udina's were making them feel closer to humanity? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Udina's threats got the Council moving. When he has his outburst during the second meeting the Council is forced to make a concession. To keep Udina on their side they decide to make Shepard a Spectre and send him after Saren. On the contrary Shepard's outbursts later were not swaying them in the least since he had nothing to bargain with. What they'd have done if Udina didn't intervene was (probably) revoke Shepad's spectre status. Such a move would embarass humanity on the galactic stage.

I disagree that it was Udina's wild rants and his wild rants alone that spurred them into action. There are ways to make a push without ranting, to put one's foot down and still come off looking reasonable, too. He could've achieved the same thing without screaming.

It was his job as Ambassador to push for humanity, just as it was Ambassador Goyle's job before him - and she was able to move the Council to action with strong statements and compelling argument and conviction. She could've achieved the same thing without coming off like a lunatic. Udina's not special.

Shandepard wrote...

ThisIsMandess91 wrote...

Udina and the Council's skepticism when you had no proof was understandable, I can't deny that.

You've never had proof, you still don't have proof after ME2.

Anderson has more than just a "little bit of faith" in Shepard. He supports everything Shepard does without question.  It is a fault. Shepard is making some serious demands and to be taken seriously he needs to have proof. The only reason we know Shepard is telling the truth is because we're the player.

Again you insult positive traits and praise negative ones. Anderson trusts us, and it's not a fault. It's the only beacon of decency and hope in a whole freaking game filled with nothing but politicians and leaders who don't believe us.

Shandepard wrote...

ThisIsMadness91 wrote...

I understand he was doing what he felt was necessary, but it's because we were there and we knew what was truly at stake that we are angry when he keeps us from doing our duty. If not agreeing with you or Udina makes us narrow-minded, so be it.

It's make you petulent children.

^ All your arguments eventually devolve into this statement, so it has lost its meaning.

Look, it's simple - I don't care what political reasons are floating around in Udina's head, the Reapers are real and we simply need someone on that Council who knows the truth and can fight for it competently. We can't afford to have a guy up there who's got his head up his ass and whining about the political sh*t storm taking place in there.

We need someone who will listen and who knows what's important, and who isn't blind to the real threat.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 19 avril 2010 - 05:43 .

[Nightwriter]

[quote]Shandepared wrote...

Oh, I didn't think you wanted to play. Well, it's on then.

[/quote]

I know. I didn't, but then you started talking to some other guy and I scented blood again and the old thirst came back and I couldn't resist.

It's all your fault.

[quote]Shandepard wrote...
[quote]Nightwriter wrote...

What the hell is wrong with that comment? It was a single passing statement and it was the truth.[/quote]

So were all of Udina's. Regardless, Anderson's outburst brought attention to himself and gave the Council further reason to dismiss the charges against Saren. On the contrary Udina's demanding the fleet be sent in was quite reasonable considering hostile A.I.'s were invading human (and thus Council) territory. All he was doing was holding the Council to their obligations. When they refused to do that he threatened to withdraw from their government; which got their attention. [/quote]

The Council is under no obligation to defend colonies in the Traverse, you know that. And sending a fleet after Saren would've triggered open war in that area of space, you'd thnk Udina would've known this as a politician too.

Bringing Anderson into the meeting was a mistake, no question, but his single "outburst" paled in comparison to Udina's many ones.

[quote]Shandepard wrote...
[quote]Nightwriter wrote...

I disagree that it was Udina's wild rants and his wild rants alone that spurred them into action. There are ways to make a push without ranting, to put one's foot down and still come off looking reasonable, too. He could've achieved the same thing without screaming.[/quote]

Perhaps, but his threats still worked.

I would remind you that Ambassador Goyle ultimately was made a fool of by the Council, despite her single victory. It is also worth noting that her greatest victory was when she basically threatened to pull the Alliance from the Citadel, which as it later did for Udina, provoked the Council to come back to the negotiating table. [/quote]

Yes, and it was exquisite. Probably my favorite scene in the book.

And she still  did it better than Udina.

[quote]Shandepard wrote...
[quote]Nightwriter wrote...

Again you insult positive traits and praise negative ones. Anderson trusts us, and it's not a fault. It's the only beacon of decency and hope in a whole freaking game filled with nothing but politicians and leaders who don't believe us. [/quote]

The problem is that Anderson doesn't challenge you; Udina does. Ironic that Udina is said to have filled the Council with yes-men when Anderson is the ultimate yes-man. [/quote]

Ugh, why do you keep saying this! A yes-man can only be a yes-man to the people in power! To the establishment, the authority! That's the Council!

That means Udina is the yes-man and Anderson isn't, since he doesn't kowtow.

[quote]Shandepard wrote...
[quote]Nightwriter wrote...

^ All your arguments eventually devolve into this statement, so it has lost its meaning.[/quote]

The truth must hurt; it often does. [/quote]



Oh jeez, here we go...

[quote]Shandepard wrote...
Udina doesn't cater to your every whim or nod his head every time you speak. He instead demands hard proof and he also has obligations to other people. You hate him for that and that makes you selfish and arrogant, as I said. [/quote]

Selfishness and arrogance come into play every time Udina refuses to acknowledge the Reapers in favor of his own political interests.

Humanity is in danger, and his interests should be toward them; failure to think of them first is selfishness, and the belief that we are safe because he thinks we are is arrogance.

[quote]Shandepard wrote...

Certainly it is a fault against Udina that in ME2 he has convinced himself that the Reapers don't exist; but again, you still don't really have proof. I'll even make another concession and admit that he should be devoting resources to verify the Reapers, even if he is skeptical. What he should know is that Sovereign was not a geth ship and his top priority should be to find out where Sovereign came from. However his politics are nonetheless sound and he isn't any less effective than Anderson.
[/quote]

Udina threatens the safety of the galaxy. That is all I hold against him. I understand he is a politician.

But people's lives are at stake, and he endangers them time and time again because he will not see the truth past his own office. But really, no more blame can be placed upon Udina than can be placed upon the rest of the Council, who really should know better, even more than him.

In ME2, politicians are all the same - that's why I put Anderson up for the job. He's not a politician.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 19 avril 2010 - 06:23 .

[exterminator_]

kaimanaMM wrote...

Udina is a stupid **** not fit for rule
I prefer Anderson
Cause the army dictator is always the best choice a goverment can have

MILITARY MIND ALWAYS

[ThisIsMadness91]

If Udina wants proof, why doesn't he accompany us on our missions ?



Okay, I know full well that his job makes this impossible, but the only reason we don't have proof is because it keeps blowing up. It seems that the powers that be don't want us to prove to Udina that the Reapers are real.

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Actually the Council is obligated to defend those colonies and whether they want a war or not they already have one. The future of the human race is at stake but typically the Council will only take action when the its own interests are directly threatened.

"Humanity knew the risks when you went into the Traverse." Humanity was exploring, expanding, settling new areas. This is what I'm referring to.

I don't disagree with you about the last line.

Shandepard wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Yes, and it was exquisite. Probably my favorite scene in the book.

And she still  did it better than Udina.

Hardly. She failed to keep Sidon secret and she failed to get a human in the Spectres. Udina succeeded in every place that she failed. In fact Udina had to work even harder to get a human into the Spectres and in the process he had to expose the Council's top Spectre as a traitor.

You mean I  had to expose the Council's top Spectre as a traitor. Udina did not do sh*t but sit on his ass and bark and shout and b*tch. Then he presented the evidence against Saren after I'd brought it to him like he'd personally uncovered it.

Shandepard wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

That means Udina is the yes-man and Anderson isn't, since he doesn't kowtow.

Wait a minute, is Udina a yes-man who easily earns the Council's favor or shouting loon who constantly riles them? Pick one, you can't have both.

Udina will disagree with the Council so long as they don't give him what he wants. But as soon as they do give him what he wants - power, political clout - he will pretty much go along with them so long as it is politicaly rewarding. That's why he's a yes-man.

Shandepard wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Selfishness and arrogance come into play every time Udina refuses to acknowledge the Reapers in favor of his own political interests.

It has nothing to do with selfishness, arrogance, or Udina's own ambitions. It has everything to do with the political realities of interstellar relations and the interests of the human race. That Udina doesn't believe Shepard's ranting about the Reapers does not mean he does not have humanity's interests at heart. In fact he faulted by some for his dedication and ruthless pursuit of human interests. Udina has never demonstrated a lust for power. When you reccomend Anderson to lead after the Council has been killed he doesn't even complain.

If he had humanity's interests at heart, why didn't he care about the Reaper threat? Why isn't he investigating them? Why the hell are human colonies vanishing unnoticed?

Shandepard wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Udina threatens the safety of the galaxy. That is all I hold against him. I understand he is a politician.

But people's lives are at stake, and he endangers them time and time again because he will not see the truth past his own office.

You've never given him reason enough too. All you have is your word. What is needed is physical proof, of which you are sorely lacking. Even discovering that Sovereign is not geth technology does not prove that the Citadel is relay or that thousands of dreadnaughts are waiting in dark space to destroy galactic civilization.

And what I am telling you, Shand, is that the safety of the galaxy depends upon having someone behind that bench who simply has the sense to take my god damn word for it that the Reapers are coming and that we need to mobilize.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 19 avril 2010 - 08:17 .

[primero holodon]

Well it would let me beat the crap out of him faster... thats productive right?

[Dave of Canada]

RhythmlessNinja wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

In my playthrough, the Council says this to Anderson just before you walk into the meeting.

And I was wondering, why do the Council want Udina there? It really didn’t seem like there was any love lost between them in the first game, he was an angry ******.

Then suddenly they want him present, which kind of irritated me - like they would’ve preferred to deal with him instead of Anderson. Is it because they just consider Udina to be more politically savvy?

And according yo Anderson Udina was better with the political bs.

Udina enjoys the politics, of course he does better than Anderson who hates them. That doesn't mean Udina is the better councilor, though - Udina couldn't give two ****s for what other people want, while Anderson supports you. If there's a choice to kill the Council again in ME3, I wouldn't even consider it if Udina was onboard.

Udina places his own ranking and reputation above the rest, while Anderson presses his beliefs.

[Dean_the_Young]

Udina's ranking and reputation is the representation of 11 odd billion people. Are you really going to say he should throw eleven billion to the wind for one's personal beliefs?

[OverlordNexas]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Udina's ranking and reputation is the representation of 11 odd billion people. Are you really going to say he should throw eleven billion to the wind for one's personal beliefs?

When it has no adverse affect on any of those 11 billion people sure. Say Shepard is crazy, and the Normandy finds nothing about the Reapers on Ilos. Nothing bad happens beyond wasting a couple of peoples time. But Shepard isn't crazy. The Reapers are real, and by preventing Shepard from going to Ilos Udina is putting the entire galaxy at danger.

[Nightwriter]

OverlordNexas wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Udina's ranking and reputation is the representation of 11 odd billion people. Are you really going to say he should throw eleven billion to the wind for one's personal beliefs?

When it has no adverse affect on any of those 11 billion people sure. Say Shepard is crazy, and the Normandy finds nothing about the Reapers on Ilos. Nothing bad happens beyond wasting a couple of peoples time. But Shepard isn't crazy. The Reapers are real, and by preventing Shepard from going to Ilos Udina is putting the entire galaxy at danger.

Nice response.

[Goodwood]

As for the topic question, I'd have to agree that it's just an excuse for the Council to mention Udina. Anderson, as Councilor, quite rightly reminds them that he is the representative of humanity now, not Udina. And he does it calmly; gently, yet firmly.



One thing that has bugged me about this thread, particularly the Anderson v. Udina debate, is that no one has yet mentioned the humongous risk that Anderson takes to get the Normandy "out of hock" as it were, and Shepard back on her mission. Merely on faith, he risks high treason, a capital crime, to ensure that Shepard can do everything in her power to stop Saren and prevent the Reaper invasion. No matter what side of the debate you fall on, it should be pretty clear that such a choice takes real cajones. If Shepard is wrong, both she and Anderson face total ruin; both of them would likely have been court-martialed, and possibly shot as traitors.



Trillions of sentient beings owe their lives to that faith-based gamble, from a man who some uncharitably call an "ass-kisser." Shame.