58 réponses à ce sujet

[Mresa]

Anderson, he's badass for punching Udina

[Dean_the_Young]

Lemon, considering that Anderson did take to punching Udina to resolve a disagreement, that's a very valid thing to bring up.



Or do you think the Council will turn another cheek if Anderson punches one of them because he didn't get his way?

[RyrineaNara]

Anderson is the one who I pick even in my renegade play though. At least Anderson never stabs you in the back.

[Lemonwizard]

Mostly I think they turned a blind eye because Anderson and Shepard had the "Hey, we told you so!" side of the argument, but that's not an argument I want to get into.

[The Governator]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Lemon, considering that Anderson did take to punching Udina to resolve a disagreement, that's a very valid thing to bring up.

Or do you think the Council will turn another cheek if Anderson punches one of them because he didn't get his way?

Yeah, and he was also willing to die to get Shepard out of there and he knew the consequences for his actions.  He did not do it lightly.  That's a disingenuous argument.  It was an act of desperation, and if it were real, we should be thankful he had the wisdom to see the truth of what Shepard was saying.  Politicians are notorious for 'playing it safe' and hedging bets.  That's why Anderson is the proper choice.  And he didn't do it for humanity, but for the whole of Citadel space and beyond. 

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Lemon, considering that Anderson did take to punching Udina to resolve a disagreement, that's a very valid thing to bring up.

Or do you think the Council will turn another cheek if Anderson punches one of them because he didn't get his way?

What the hell are you talking about? That turian councilor NEEDS to get punched.

Go Anderson!

[IccaRa]

While I almost always choose Anderson, I think the game played Udina off as too much of an antagonist. He shouldn't be portrayed as such a "bad guy," IMO.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Governator wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Lemon, considering that Anderson did take to punching Udina to resolve a disagreement, that's a very valid thing to bring up.

Or do you think the Council will turn another cheek if Anderson punches one of them because he didn't get his way?

Yeah, and he was also willing to die to get Shepard out of there and he knew the consequences for his actions.  He did not do it lightly.  That's a disingenuous argument.  It was an act of desperation, and if it were real, we should be thankful he had the wisdom to see the truth of what Shepard was saying.  Politicians are notorious for 'playing it safe' and hedging bets.  That's why Anderson is the proper choice.  And he didn't do it for humanity, but for the whole of Citadel space and beyond. 

No one questions Anderson's bravery. People question Anderson's political wisdom, which is rather more important for position of most powerful politician in the galaxy, is.

There's a reason politicians are disinclined to buy into doomsayer threats, and that's because doing so on a regular basis would be messy, costly, and accomplish absolutely nothing. Politicians who get rapped into existential threats easily make poor leaders.

People make it a mark of pride that Anderson was so quick to believe in Shepard, when that's exactly what should be leery of. Anderson does believe everything you say, almost as soon as you say it. It's nice to have that in a leader in degrees... but a very poor trait in a politician to whom lots of people will say anything. Anderson believes Saren is behind it all for a personal vendetta before there's any proof besides a single traumatized dock worker who could have simply misheard, Anderson believes about the Reapers before there's any real proof about them either. Quite frankly, Anderson trusts you far too much, far too quickly. That he was right is irrelevant to that: being right for the wrong reasons isn't qualification. He wasn't wise enough to trust in Shepard's words, he trusted in Shepard before Shepard even spoke.

It's not even that Udina did nothing while Anderson was the only one to act. Udina was instrumental in getting the Council fleet mobilized, setting a blockade of all the Mass Relays leading from Ilos to Citadel Space. No one, not Anderson, not Shepard, knew that the Conduit was a back door into the Citadel proper, and that Saren would be able to use it to take control of the station and mass relays. Udina pushed and got entirely reasonable preparations.

If you want to argue solely on grounds of actions, consider what would have happened had Shepard had his way, that the Council and Alliance would gather a fleet to assault Illos. Even the delay to gather forces would have meant Shepard would have been delayed more than he was. Shepard either would have arrived after Saren closed the door on Illos, unable to get through and return to the Citadel, or Shepard would have been stuck on the Citadel and never have gotten Virgil's program to seize control of the Citadel and expose Sovereign to attack. Either way, the Reapers would have won.

So, if we want to judge by actions accomplished, the one who was most instrumental in driving the Commander to leave as rapidly as he did was... Udina. And Shepard would have destroyed the Galaxy in his haste.


Between a choice of two persons who disagreed on an issue, one who was right for the wrong reasons and one who was wrong for right reasons, the one who was right is not automatically the better choice.

[Dean_the_Young]

IccaRa wrote...

While I almost always choose Anderson, I think the game played Udina off as too much of an antagonist. He shouldn't be portrayed as such a "bad guy," IMO.

Udina isn't a bad guy. It takes a lot of jumping to reach the position that he's a bad guy. What Udina is is unsympathetic and he disagrees with you. Anderson stands behind you regardless, thick or thin, and while the thick or thin is admirable the regardless aspect is troubling. But he agrees with you and is sympathetic, so most people don't care. I don't care so much, I just don't ignore it.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 avril 2010 - 06:33 .

[Nightwriter]

IccaRa wrote...

While I almost always choose Anderson, I think the game played Udina off as too much of an antagonist. He shouldn't be portrayed as such a "bad guy," IMO.

I agree they went a little too far, they gave you too much reason to hate him.

There were little things about Udina that actually gave me more insight into his character that they could've expanded on - like when he says, "Sometimes I envy you, Shepard, out there on the frontlines. I'm the one who has to look at the big picture, and it's never pretty."

[Slayer299]

I picked Anderson because you can't trust Udina not to stab you in the back if it is politically expedient for him to do so. Anderson's show himself to be trustworthy.

[Xanthor]

"The Council already has enough politicians" -Shepard

[Nightwriter]

Slayer299 wrote...

I picked Anderson because you can't trust Udina not to stab you in the back if it is politically expedient for him to do so. Anderson's show himself to be trustworthy.

QFT

[IccaRa]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

IccaRa wrote...

While I almost always choose Anderson, I think the game played Udina off as too much of an antagonist. He shouldn't be portrayed as such a "bad guy," IMO.

Udina isn't a bad guy. It takes a lot of jumping to reach the position that he's a bad guy. What Udina is is unsympathetic and he disagrees with you. Anderson stands behind you regardless, thick or thin, and while the thick or thin is admirable the regardless aspect is troubling. But he agrees with you and is sympathetic, so most people don't care. I don't care so much, I just don't ignore it.

I don't think he's a bad guy either. Only saying the game goes a bit far in making him look like a jerk and playing ambient Sith music when he's around doesn't help. There are moments where you can see where he's coming from -- a couple of his dialogs are insightful, and that slow pan-out of him as you're rejected by the Council the first time always got me -- but otherwise you're not given any incentive to value him. Which is a shame because Udina has some valid points and I'm glad he didn't jump on the Shep Train like Anderson did.

[eternalnightmare13]

Udina. He knows how to work within the system.

[Lemonwizard]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Governator wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Lemon, considering that Anderson did take to punching Udina to resolve a disagreement, that's a very valid thing to bring up.

Or do you think the Council will turn another cheek if Anderson punches one of them because he didn't get his way?

Yeah, and he was also willing to die to get Shepard out of there and he knew the consequences for his actions.  He did not do it lightly.  That's a disingenuous argument.  It was an act of desperation, and if it were real, we should be thankful he had the wisdom to see the truth of what Shepard was saying.  Politicians are notorious for 'playing it safe' and hedging bets.  That's why Anderson is the proper choice.  And he didn't do it for humanity, but for the whole of Citadel space and beyond. 

No one questions Anderson's bravery. People question Anderson's political wisdom, which is rather more important for position of most powerful politician in the galaxy, is.

There's a reason politicians are disinclined to buy into doomsayer threats, and that's because doing so on a regular basis would be messy, costly, and accomplish absolutely nothing. Politicians who get rapped into existential threats easily make poor leaders.

People make it a mark of pride that Anderson was so quick to believe in Shepard, when that's exactly what should be leery of. Anderson does believe everything you say, almost as soon as you say it. It's nice to have that in a leader in degrees... but a very poor trait in a politician to whom lots of people will say anything. Anderson believes Saren is behind it all for a personal vendetta before there's any proof besides a single traumatized dock worker who could have simply misheard, Anderson believes about the Reapers before there's any real proof about them either. Quite frankly, Anderson trusts you far too much, far too quickly. That he was right is irrelevant to that: being right for the wrong reasons isn't qualification. He wasn't wise enough to trust in Shepard's words, he trusted in Shepard before Shepard even spoke.

It's not even that Udina did nothing while Anderson was the only one to act. Udina was instrumental in getting the Council fleet mobilized, setting a blockade of all the Mass Relays leading from Ilos to Citadel Space. No one, not Anderson, not Shepard, knew that the Conduit was a back door into the Citadel proper, and that Saren would be able to use it to take control of the station and mass relays. Udina pushed and got entirely reasonable preparations.

If you want to argue solely on grounds of actions, consider what would have happened had Shepard had his way, that the Council and Alliance would gather a fleet to assault Illos. Even the delay to gather forces would have meant Shepard would have been delayed more than he was. Shepard either would have arrived after Saren closed the door on Illos, unable to get through and return to the Citadel, or Shepard would have been stuck on the Citadel and never have gotten Virgil's program to seize control of the Citadel and expose Sovereign to attack. Either way, the Reapers would have won.

So, if we want to judge by actions accomplished, the one who was most instrumental in driving the Commander to leave as rapidly as he did was... Udina. And Shepard would have destroyed the Galaxy in his haste.


Between a choice of two persons who disagreed on an issue, one who was right for the wrong reasons and one who was wrong for right reasons, the one who was right is not automatically the better choice.

While I agree with you completely in terms of real politics, I'd still go with Anderson in terms of Mass Effect, purely because the Reapers ARE real and Udina won't be around to be the better leader if we don't get somebody to stop them. Within the context of the game, the person Shepard (whose #1 priority is stopping the Reapers) wants on the council is the one who will stand against the Reapers with him. It's as simple as that.

[MaaZeus]

Anderson, for both Paragon and Renegade. I mean, who the heck would choose Udina? On Paragon POV, he is powerhungry and obviously a model example of bad self centered politician who stabs you in the back the moment you have done your purpose.

From Renegade POV, he just stabs you in back. And thats the last thing you want to do for renegade Shepard who has no qualm in making you pay for it.

[mentosman8]

Anderson in every playthrough. Udina cares about his career more, and hence will bend easily to keep it. Anderson doesn't have that attachment to his job, so he'll be willing to stand up for himself.

[Collider]

All I'm hoping is that Udina doesn't turn out to the epic fail choice where he fails all the time and doesn't do anything right. Doesn't make the choice at the end of ME1 much of a choice.

[MaaZeus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Governator wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Lemon, considering that Anderson did take to punching Udina to resolve a disagreement, that's a very valid thing to bring up.

Or do you think the Council will turn another cheek if Anderson punches one of them because he didn't get his way?

Yeah, and he was also willing to die to get Shepard out of there and he knew the consequences for his actions.  He did not do it lightly.  That's a disingenuous argument.  It was an act of desperation, and if it were real, we should be thankful he had the wisdom to see the truth of what Shepard was saying.  Politicians are notorious for 'playing it safe' and hedging bets.  That's why Anderson is the proper choice.  And he didn't do it for humanity, but for the whole of Citadel space and beyond. 

No one questions Anderson's bravery. People question Anderson's political wisdom, which is rather more important for position of most powerful politician in the galaxy, is.

There's a reason politicians are disinclined to buy into doomsayer threats, and that's because doing so on a regular basis would be messy, costly, and accomplish absolutely nothing. Politicians who get rapped into existential threats easily make poor leaders.

People make it a mark of pride that Anderson was so quick to believe in Shepard, when that's exactly what should be leery of. Anderson does believe everything you say, almost as soon as you say it. It's nice to have that in a leader in degrees... but a very poor trait in a politician to whom lots of people will say anything. Anderson believes Saren is behind it all for a personal vendetta before there's any proof besides a single traumatized dock worker who could have simply misheard, Anderson believes about the Reapers before there's any real proof about them either. Quite frankly, Anderson trusts you far too much, far too quickly. That he was right is irrelevant to that: being right for the wrong reasons isn't qualification. He wasn't wise enough to trust in Shepard's words, he trusted in Shepard before Shepard even spoke.

It's not even that Udina did nothing while Anderson was the only one to act. Udina was instrumental in getting the Council fleet mobilized, setting a blockade of all the Mass Relays leading from Ilos to Citadel Space. No one, not Anderson, not Shepard, knew that the Conduit was a back door into the Citadel proper, and that Saren would be able to use it to take control of the station and mass relays. Udina pushed and got entirely reasonable preparations.

If you want to argue solely on grounds of actions, consider what would have happened had Shepard had his way, that the Council and Alliance would gather a fleet to assault Illos. Even the delay to gather forces would have meant Shepard would have been delayed more than he was. Shepard either would have arrived after Saren closed the door on Illos, unable to get through and return to the Citadel, or Shepard would have been stuck on the Citadel and never have gotten Virgil's program to seize control of the Citadel and expose Sovereign to attack. Either way, the Reapers would have won.

So, if we want to judge by actions accomplished, the one who was most instrumental in driving the Commander to leave as rapidly as he did was... Udina. And Shepard would have destroyed the Galaxy in his haste.


Between a choice of two persons who disagreed on an issue, one who was right for the wrong reasons and one who was wrong for right reasons, the one who was right is not automatically the better choice.

Indeed, if Shepard would have had his way results would have been disasterous, very likely anyway. BUT REMEMBER THAT THEY GROUNDED SHEPARD! Equally disasterous choice, and if it werent for Anderssons brave actions (perhaps rash but sometimes desperate times require desperate actions, no?) council would have been doomed. Remember that there was always third option which was also brought up: not send the fleet for obvious reasons but still let Shepard silently go after Saren with Normandy that is best Stealth ship in the galaxy, (and which Shepard did after fleeing Citadel) but instead they decided to stab him in the back with lame reasons. (Virmires bomb was a goddamn necessity and ONLY option damnit!)

My point is that I agree with Shepard, there are too much politicians in the council. Council full of men-of-actions is not good, no matter how idealistic and good natured. They get things done yes, but also a lot of crap happens that might be disasterous in the long run. But full of politicians is another extreme, too many things get stuck in the bureucratic (how the heck is that spelled in english anyway) wheels and too many things get never done or done too late. Balance IMHO is good. Politicians are needed, but there has to be some men-of-action in the mix to keep pushing some things forward that desperately need doing and fast. Hence my choice of Andersson to the council, a balancing factor in these times where a lot of bad things are happening with the Reaper threat and all.


This is just my view on the subject.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 20 avril 2010 - 07:31 .

[MrNose]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

People make it a mark of pride that Anderson was so quick to believe in Shepard, when that's exactly what should be leery of. Anderson does believe everything you say, almost as soon as you say it. It's nice to have that in a leader in degrees... but a very poor trait in a politician to whom lots of people will say anything. Anderson believes Saren is behind it all for a personal vendetta before there's any proof besides a single traumatized dock worker who could have simply misheard, Anderson believes about the Reapers before there's any real proof about them either. Quite frankly, Anderson trusts you far too much, far too quickly. That he was right is irrelevant to that: being right for the wrong reasons isn't qualification. He wasn't wise enough to trust in Shepard's words, he trusted in Shepard before Shepard even spoke.

Anderson doesn't trust you far too much at all.  You were a valuable member of his crew and a trusted friend.  That's like saying that your brother trusts you far too quickly.  Shepard is an honourable soldier, and skilled beyond belief, who wouldn't make **** up.  Anderson knew that.

[Nightwriter]

For me it just isn't about who's the more politically qualified. At the end of the day, I simply need someone I can trust.

Because of the way the game is set up, everything about mobilizing the galaxy seems to come down to trust - there is simply no proof that we will be able to produce that will sway the Council one way or the other.

Therefore, I need a dependable person there who knows the truth and will take me at my word, so that he will do what needs to be done.

[Alraiis]

Anderson. Because, goddamn, Keith David is awesome.

[Jax Sparrow]

Anderson... because BioWare has yet to give me an option to give Udina a brain hemorrhage