315 réponses à ce sujet

[Barquiel]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

I demand a better Morinth romance! No seriously, I do.

I support this:wub:

[Panda Warlock]

I actually can really see how saving DA is understandable and valid option. For at least three reasons.

1. As it was said - DA was probably most powerful ship around the Citadel, second only to good ol' Sovereign. I assumed that saving ship that can rip through any Alliance ship easily (something like that was mentioned when we first arrive at the Citadel) can make the victory simpler. Though we know this didn't really work out, but at the moment of choice it was a possibility. Especially since after the Alliance comes to the rescue, DA priorities should change from "rescue the Council" (it is already as safe as can be in that situation) to "save the Citadel".

2. DA was under attack from geth. If you don't destroy them on your way to Citadel, that means they will not only kill the Council, but later they are free to shove some torpedos up your **** when you are fighting Sovereign. With Reaper being powerful as it is, you don't really need Alliance ships to get fired at from two sides at the same time. This means taking some heat from allied forces can not only allow them to help you shooting that bastard, but also makes it possible to really concentrate on Sovereign.

3. When making the decision I assumed we are going to win. But there are more Reapers out there. Citadel races are going to need strong leaders, and can't afford all the chaos and political shifts when new Council is being chosen. They should act immediately and with strenght. Saving the Council was a choice meant to give results in a longer run. (Sadly we know how that worked out...)

So yeah, I don't think saving DA was stupid or anything like that. In my eyes, it was a gamble. Risk giving the Reaper a little more time, but greately increase your chances of victory. Just like not doing this makes you attack him faster, but without tipping odds that much in your favor.

Both approaches seem valid for me. And this shows how Paragons are not always right, since those assumptions of mine didn't really happened.

Modifié par Panda Warlock, 27 mai 2010 - 06:41 .

[lovgreno]

Dean_the_Young wrote...Effective alliances are built on common interests and mutual strategic goals, not mere friendship and naivete.
Hard and experienced diplomats are the ones who put together real alliances.

And without genuine trust those allies will backstab eachother when things get tough. We are not always rationaly thinking creatures, like it or not. To get someone to trust you you need to get to know them and for that you need a little naivete. To be naive is not always a weakness as some insecure people think, if we couldn't be naive we would never learn anything new.

[Dean_the_Young]

lovgreno wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...Effective alliances are built on common interests and mutual strategic goals, not mere friendship and naivete.
Hard and experienced diplomats are the ones who put together real alliances.

And without genuine trust those allies will backstab eachother when things get tough. We are not always rationaly thinking creatures, like it or not. To get someone to trust you you need to get to know them and for that you need a little naivete. To be naive is not always a weakness as some insecure people think, if we couldn't be naive we would never learn anything new.

The historical reason countries have not turned on allies is the continuing need for those allies. When needs vanish, so does closeness. Even when those needs are still there, unilateral movement exists: take the Suez Crisis, on multiple levels.

Naivete is not required to know someone, or to trust them, or to build alliances. Naivete is the wrong path to take for those goals because naivete blinds you to an objective analysis: how much do you really know, are they lying to you, is this alliance worth the investment and the cost?


Perhaps you should list what you consider to be the successful political alliance built on naivite, as opposed to rationalism (or, at least, ideology)? 

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

 You can't just sit on your thumb and wait. 

Well, renegades hold back the fleet.

I think it's a terrible idea to ignore the geth fleet, allowing them to attack Hackett's ships from behind while they are trying to engage Sovereign. The citadel fleets are unable to defend their own flagship, they couldn't stop the geth (who worship Sovereign).

A tactical pause (and it's not even a pause, really, since the arms open at the same time anyway) is not the same as a strategic lolygag (there being no rush).

The game simplified the situation enough for you to understand which situation was tactically superior and which one wasn't. Everything else, all conjecture, flows from that. Not being able to defend the Destiny Ascension, a target ten times the size of any other ship short of the Reapers, does not mean the rest of the Citadel forces engaged would not keep the Geth busy.

[Antikas_S]

My take on saving the Destiny Ascension is based on that I trusted the Council far more than Udina's lust for power (his hunger was evermore present the closer he got to his objective).

Also, I figured it would be useful to have the council around to help rally all of the races in the galaxy when the Reapers arrive; Udina would be aggressive without poise. The Renegade act of putting Udina to the Council (or if the council was dead, he would begin humanity's rise to power while neglecting the Reaper threat) made me shutter. I understand that (to some) a Renegade is a "get the job done at all costs" point-of-view. It's the linear consequences that made me feel uneasy.

I certinaly felt the fate of the galaxy was down the tube more-so if Udina was focused on his lust and his almost human-secular view. When one needs all of the races of the galaxy to unite against a threat, I certainly didn't want a leader to turn their back.

However, the Council seemingly does so on a more personal level regarding Shepard's allegiance with Cerberus. At least the galaxy isn't in turmoil.  

Modifié par Antikas_S, 27 mai 2010 - 07:46 .

[Lisa_H]

Panda Warlock wrote...

2. DA was under attack from geth. If you don't destroy them on your way to Citadel, that means they will not only kill the Council, but later they are free to shove some torpedos up your **** when you are fighting Sovereign. With Reaper being powerful as it is, you don't really need Alliance ships to get fired at from two sides at the same time. This means taking some heat from allied forces can not only allow them to help you shooting that bastard, but also makes it possible to really concentrate on Sovereign.

This was the reason I saved the council the first time I played the game.

I tend to play more paragon then renegade. But the saving the council decision is the same no matter if I play as a paragon or renegade Shepard. While I agree that maybe sometimes paragon seem a bit naive, and rengade a bit to pure evil. Some choices like saving the Council and destrying the Collector base is what different players view as the most strategic decision. I usually destroy the collector base, because I don't trust the reaper technology. Most use of reaper technolgy in the game has turned out badly. And I don't trust Cerberus to be able to handle such technology. Are these choices nicer? Maybe they are. But these are the choices that for me makes most sense from a stategic point of view.

[Nizzemancer]

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

Paragon is wrong if you let that one merc go free. Renegade has it right. Blown that Bleach away.

If you go for pure paragon then the Renegade have more immediate rewards in interrupts (mirandas mission, Elise the mercenary, Garrus Loyalty-mission etc.).

And in any case: How often does being a dick work in your favor? You ever gotten invited to a barbecue by being a complete jerk?

[Antikas_S]

Nizzemancer wrote...

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

Paragon is wrong if you let that one merc go free. Renegade has it right. Blown that Bleach away.

If you go for pure paragon then the Renegade have more immediate rewards in interrupts (mirandas mission, Elise the mercenary, Garrus Loyalty-mission etc.).

And in any case: How often does being a dick work in your favor? You ever gotten invited to a barbecue by being a complete jerk?

I agree.

In response to SpiderFan's comment, I find it amusing that it's "wrong" to do that paragon act. Essentially, the Paragon way of doing that part of Thane's mission actually helps you find out about Thane; information on Thane's whereabouts is your immediate goal. That contradicts some of what other people of said about Rengades' "getting-the-job-done" mentality.

Modifié par Antikas_S, 27 mai 2010 - 08:23 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Nizzemancer wrote...

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

Paragon is wrong if you let that one merc go free. Renegade has it right. Blown that Bleach away.

If you go for pure paragon then the Renegade have more immediate rewards in interrupts (mirandas mission, Elise the mercenary, Garrus Loyalty-mission etc.).

And in any case: How often does being a dick work in your favor? You ever gotten invited to a barbecue by being a complete jerk?

Never seen the military at work, have you? Men love their rough sergeants for reasons that make no sense at times. Oh, it can be taken overboard, but there is plenty to be said about not being the nicest guy.

(Other alternatives: girls liking bad boys.)

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 27 mai 2010 - 08:34 .

[Gavinthelocust]

because Paragons aren't ****s

/thread

[Barquiel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The game simplified the situation enough for you to understand which situation was tactically superior and which one wasn't. Everything else, all conjecture, flows from that. Not being able to defend the Destiny Ascension, a target ten times the size of any other ship short of the Reapers, does not mean the rest of the Citadel forces engaged would not keep the Geth busy.

Shepard doesn't know...
- How many geth ships are left
- How many council ships are left
(Admiral Hackett knows...and he thinks attacking the geth fleet is an acceptable tactical option)
We know: no council ship defends the DA. If these geth ships decide to defend their "god", nobody can stop them.

The alliance lost 3-4 cruisers against the geth...it is very unlikely that these ships would make a difference.

Modifié par Barquiel, 27 mai 2010 - 08:52 .

[Nizzemancer]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nizzemancer wrote...

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

Paragon is wrong if you let that one merc go free. Renegade has it right. Blown that Bleach away.

If you go for pure paragon then the Renegade have more immediate rewards in interrupts (mirandas mission, Elise the mercenary, Garrus Loyalty-mission etc.).

And in any case: How often does being a dick work in your favor? You ever gotten invited to a barbecue by being a complete jerk?

Never seen the military at work, have you? Men love their rough sergeants for reasons that make no sense at times. Oh, it can be taken overboard, but there is plenty to be said about not being the nicest guy.

(Other alternatives: girls liking bad boys.)

Yeah I've seen the military at work up close and personal for the last 4 or so years and then some a couple of years before that as well, I've been to Afghanistan and am on my way to Kosovo soon and being a dick has never been an option, you have to be just as much a diplomat to get anywhere, you just need to know when it's time to stop being nice and start to unload into peoples faces..

[Dean_the_Young]

Nizzemancer wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nizzemancer wrote...

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

Paragon is wrong if you let that one merc go free. Renegade has it right. Blown that Bleach away.

If you go for pure paragon then the Renegade have more immediate rewards in interrupts (mirandas mission, Elise the mercenary, Garrus Loyalty-mission etc.).

And in any case: How often does being a dick work in your favor? You ever gotten invited to a barbecue by being a complete jerk?

Never seen the military at work, have you? Men love their rough sergeants for reasons that make no sense at times. Oh, it can be taken overboard, but there is plenty to be said about not being the nicest guy.

(Other alternatives: girls liking bad boys.)

Yeah I've seen the military at work up close and personal for the last 4 or so years and then some a couple of years before that as well, I've been to Afghanistan and am on my way to Kosovo soon and being a dick has never been an option, you have to be just as much a diplomat to get anywhere, you just need to know when it's time to stop being nice and start to unload into peoples faces..

Thanks for your service, by the way. Yes, there's always room for diplomacy, but you know what I was talking about: there are people who respond well to dicks, who don't take it personally, who even respect it. Lord knows why, but you can be invited to the BBQ despite (or because) of being an ****, depending on which sort you are.

Heck, a number of Renegade options aren't even really dickish as much as 'I don't have time for your ****.'

It's sort of like that joke: "There are three types of people in this world: dicks, ******, and ****s..."

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The game simplified the situation enough for you to understand which situation was tactically superior and which one wasn't. Everything else, all conjecture, flows from that. Not being able to defend the Destiny Ascension, a target ten times the size of any other ship short of the Reapers, does not mean the rest of the Citadel forces engaged would not keep the Geth busy.

Shepard doesn't know...
- How many geth ships are left
- How many council ships are left
(Admiral Hackett knows...and he thinks attacking the geth fleet is an acceptable tactical option)
We know: no council ship defends the DA. If these geth ships decide to defend their "god", nobody can stop them.

The alliance lost 3-4 cruisers against the geth...it is very unlikely that these ships would make a difference.

There are ships defending the DA: you can see them in the cut scenes.

What you are told, and reminded by your teammates, is everything you need for that choice. It's the Alliance that is in position to attack Sovereign as the Citadel opens. The tactical situation is simplified, for story reasons, to all you need to know. How many geth ships is irrelevant, because they won't be in a position to attack you from behind (or else it wouldn't be the tactically superior choice in the scenario). The number of Council ships is irrelevant, because they aren't in a position to attack Sovereign. What you know is all you need to know: you can waste your forces against saving the Council, or you can focus on Sovereign and have stronger forces. Everything else flows from the narrative.

Admiral Hackett will agree with you regardless, and he's been farther away from the combat than you.

You don't know that the Alliance will only lose 3-4 ships ahead of time, or have any idea that they won't make a difference. Fighting the Reapers is always going to be a near-thing, and the margin for error is miniscule.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 27 mai 2010 - 09:51 .

[OneDrunkMonk]

I saved the Destiny Ascension and the Council because I knew the Council, if we all managed to survive Sovereign, had the experience to lead better than any alternative. Too by humanities sacrifice we show we are able to become a valuable member of the intergalactic community. What I disliked in ME2 was how Bioware seemed to skip the importance of that decision in ME1. More so I was shocked at the Council's attitude towards Shepard.



A lot of what was to carry over into ME2 took a back seat to making the game n00b friendly.

[lovgreno]

And despite everything else I couldn't let the turian councilour die, such a epic character.

[ObserverStatus]

You know, I've always thought that there was a fine line between being a "realist" and always assuming the worst to be true.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

bobobo878 wrote...

You know, I've always thought that there was a fine line between being a "realist" and always assuming the worst to be true.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 28 mai 2010 - 09:40 .

[Nightwriter]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Stuff I said.

When forced with a tactical decision in the middle of a time-sensetive mission, you do not get time to sit and contemplate the overall consequences to every decision. 

Things like sacrificing the Council versus saving them are an excellent example.  You have literally seconds to decide whether or not to send in your fleet, risking a good portion of them to save a crippled dreadnaught from an immediate threat.  The problem with the Paragon decision here is that you're taking a big risk and further decreasing your odds of success against the unquantified, but undoubtedly powerful, strength of Sovereign.

Take metagaming out of the equation.  Assume for a moment that BioWare isn't going to guarantee victory for you and you actually have to earn it.  What if those 8 cruisers lost saving the Ascention were just enough firepower to allow Sovereign to eradicate the rest of your fleet?  Congratulations.  You took the moral high-ground... and doomed the galactic population to extinction.  The entire time you sit there thinking, "What if I still had those cruisers I wasted to save the Council..."  On the other hand, if you lost even with your entire fleet, you at least have *some* solace in the fact that you did everything you possibly could.

This is one of those decisions where things like "post-battle politics" are meaningless.  If you can't win the battle, then there's no one left to govern anyway.  Stopping Sovereign was the only thing that mattered in that battle at all.  Saving the lives of trillions is more important than the 10,000 on the DA and the 3 Councilors.

Lol. So my logic is invalid because I'm not *supposed* to have had enough time to think it through?

You make this argument about the game and you invalidate the whole decision-making process. The truth is we do have time to think this over, and we're meant to; it's pointless pretending we don't. This is the nature of videogames.

If I looked at absolutely everything realistically it would limit the power of choice and kill my enjoyment of the game.

Beyond that, I don't feel that even in real life my Shepard would've needed long at all to realize that with Saren dead there was no one to upload the codes to turn the Citadel over to Sovereign, meaning Sovereign was still locked out and unable to open the relay - my Shepard would've made the same decision.

Also: knowing it took 8 cruisers is metagaming itself, isn't it? I didn't know I was sacrificing exactly 8 cruisers at the time. I didn't know the ship logistics of the battle at all. Sovereign could do nothing, he was a sitting duck for the moment with a very big gun. And I'm honestly curious: why is saving the Council taking the moral high ground?

[lovgreno]

What my Shepard thought the first time he saw Sovereign: "We are going to need a big gun to kill that"

What my Shepard thought when he saw Destiny Ascension the first time: "The main gun can rip through the shield of any Alliance ship you say? That could be good to have against Sovereign. I better threat asari good from now on if I can. That might mean I have to think of how popular my actions are to the public. But I can swallow my pride for the greater good."

At the endgame battle: "DA is here and still fuctional? Sweet! Hopefully they can help killing Sovereign if I help them".



Someone elses Shepard might think something else like: "Oh no the asari have a bigger d... ship than humanity (=me). My ship is so small when I compare them! My humans must dominate everything with our big... ships. Asking for help is weakness."

Or perhaps: "Only the ruthless and badass survives. No exeptions. Therefore I must always choose the the most badass and ruthless sollution."

If that works for some, sure, no problem. Different Shepards with different methods.

[Dean_the_Young]

That would be impressive, if saving the Destiny Ascension were a method to beat Sovereign. Since the game was rather clear that it wasn't going to stick around...

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Lol. So my logic is invalid because
I'm not *supposed* to have had enough time to think it through?

Decisions that have to be made on the fly, yes, have to be made
quickly.

If I looked at absolutely everything
realistically it would limit the power of choice and kill my enjoyment
of the game.

If you tried, you would find that it doesn't.

Beyond
that, I don't feel that even in real life my Shepard would've needed
long at all to realize that with Saren dead there was no one to upload
the codes to turn the Citadel over to Sovereign, meaning Sovereign was
still locked out and unable to open the relay - my Shepard would've made
the same decision.

Saren was never needed to return control over
to Sovereign after you uploaded Vigil's file. Saren's primary role was
to close the arms of the Citadel. Vigil himself said that seizing
control of the Citadel for Sovereign was only a temporary delay before Sovereign seized it back.

Also: knowing it took 8 cruisers is metagaming itself, isn't it? I didn't know I was sacrificing exactly 8 cruisers at the time. I didn't know the ship logistics of the battle at all. Sovereign could do nothing, he was a sitting duck for the moment with a very big gun. And I'm honestly curious: why is saving the Council taking the moral high ground?

Paragon =/= moral high ground.

That said: it isn't.

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Decisions that have to be made on the fly, yes, have to be made quickly.

It doesn't have to be made on the fly. I can sit at the dialogue wheel for minutes on end mulling this decision over.

Anyway it doesn't matter as this is a decision I could have made quickly based on the logic I used.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you tried, you would find that it doesn't.

Nah, realism can get out of hand. I can honestly say I feel like some of the people I talk to tend to take it too seriously.

Saren was never needed to return control over to Sovereign after you uploaded Vigil's file. Saren's primary role was to close the arms of the Citadel. Vigil himself said that seizing control of the Citadel for Sovereign was only a temporary delay before Sovereign seized it back.

From Mass Effect Wiki:

"After killing the operators of Citadel Control, Saren made his way toward the Citadel's master control unit. He intended to transfer control of the Citadel to Sovereign to activate the latent mass relay, paving the way for the rest of the Reapers to enter through from dark space, but was interrupted when Shepard and the Ilos ground team rushed in."

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, I'm in the not-common position of admitting you are completely correct on your last piece. My apologies, and my concession: you did have some time to weigh in.