315 réponses à ce sujet

[lovgreno]

Nightwriter wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

You save the Destiny Ascension to save the Council, not for any other reason. So it isn't inaccurate to say that you sacrificed human lives and gambled with the survival of galactic civilization to save three people.

Perhaps others did. I know the lives aboard the Ascension weighed heavily upon me.

I knew it was a large ship and it had a huge crew.

It was also large ship with a large gun. I figured that could be usefull against Sovereign. Sure it turned out we didn't need it but Shepard didn't know that at the time. Also it was a valued weapon and symbol of the popular and powerfull asari, people I sure would like to have pointing their guns, money, politics and science at my enemies instead of against me. Yeah I'm one of those "soft and naive diplomats" that somehow manages to be very effective in the real world anyway.

Does this mean a Shepard destroying Destiny Ascension is stupid? Certanly not, we write our own stories about Shepard. Destroying the ship makes sense for Shepard x but not for Shepard y.

But destroying it because it's the "badass" thing to does seem like limited imagination actualy. Especialy if you say anyone not doing the same must be stupid.

Sure this doesn't make much change in the game except for a few dialogues. But think about it as a book or film: Not everything can be explained and described on the pages. It's up to you to fill in the rest. So to answer the original question: Make your own story that rewards or punishes your hero like you want it to be. All it takes is a little imagination. If you think that everyone must follow the same(=yours) canon this probably isn't the right game for you.

[DarkSeraphym]

Massadonious1 wrote...

I wonder how upset people would of been if the Ascension's main gun was the best/only way to take Sovereign out. So much for your tactical decision, eh?

Very much so, but I assumed this was not the case for three reasons:

1. Even though the Destiny Ascension is a warship, I doubted very much that the ship would have turned around and joined in the battle. It is carrying 3 of the most important beings in the galaxy on top of most of the politicians who would have taken their place in the event of their deaths (or so the Codex claims). It would not have been prudent to turn around and risk taking on the Geth Armada, which had weaponry that none of the Council races are necessarily able to comprehend (this is why Cerberus is willing to pay such a huge bounty on a live geth in ME2).

2. I assumed there was a possibility that they would have already tried firing the main gun on some of the Geth ships on their way out to keep some of the Geth off of their back. Likewise I assumed that since Sovereign was so much larger than any of the other Geth ships that the crew on the Destiny Ascension would have assumed it was the Geth's capital ship and attempted to open fire on it first.

3. This is actually a stretch, but I knew that the mass relays were designed by the Reapers as a trap after Vigil told us so at Illos and I knew the Asari were the first to come across the Citadel after the Protheans were all murdered. I thought that perhaps the reason this warship was so uber and powerful was because when the Asari stumbled on the Citadel, they found some technology purposely left by the Reapers and this was how the Ascension was built. I sort of made a guess that if this were the case, the Destiny Ascension would have been a liability.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 27 mai 2010 - 11:45 .

[Massadonious1]

True, it seemed like they were more concerned about escaping, but the Geth ships seemed more maneuverable. A shot from such a wide beam probably would of sucked out the remaining energy the ship had, especially if they missed.



Although, they could of thrown in another decision at that point after you saved them. You could either allow them to flee, or force them to use their cannon at that point at the risk of being fodder for whatever defenses were left.

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Actually, I felt the same way my very first play-through. However what Sovereign wanted was for Saren to close the arms around him so that he could hack the Citadel in peace. Once he's attached to the station it is likely that Saren is no longer needed.

We do not know that; that is speculation. Saren is going to the Citadel to return control of the station to Sovereign.

We have no reason to think this is not his plan or that he fought all the way to the tower just to give a warship that can breeze through dreadnoughts a bit of extra protection.

Shandepared wrote...

You do not know that. Why exactly Sovereign took control of Saren to attack you is not known. It might have been that getting rid of you and using Saren to interface with the Citadel would speed things up. After all by this point Sovereign was under heavy fire and his shields may have been weakening. Otherwise he'd have taken control of Saren much earlier I imagine.

If Sovereign needed Saren to access the station for him to open the relay then Sovereing itself never would have needed to be present.

No, Sovereign needed to be present because Saren was a known traitor and a rogue Spectre and he could hardly waltz up to the Council chambers at the heart of the Citadel and start fiddling with consoles.

Beyond that Sovereign needed to be right there when control was returned to him so that he could activate the relay as soon as possible.

[Dean_the_Young]

Massadonious1 wrote...

I wonder how upset people would of been if the Ascension's main gun was the best/only way to take Sovereign out. So much for your tactical decision, eh?

Since it never did, and saving it only meant it would continue fleeing the battle as it had from the moment the Council was being evacuated, the tactical decision is even more justified in hindsight.

[Nightwriter]

lovgreno wrote...

It was also large ship with a large gun. I figured that could be usefull against Sovereign.

That's an interesting point, lovgreno. I remember we do hear mention of the Ascension making a victory cruise, it's still around and is apparently doing well.

[Dean_the_Young]

Since the ship with the big gun was dedicated to running away from the battle in order to protect the Council...

[Nightwriter]

Doesn't mean the gun can't be used later. And I never got why the Council races couldn't just elect new Councilors (if you let the Council die). Seems like they wouldn't just let humanity step in.

[Massadonious1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

I wonder how upset people would of been if the Ascension's main gun was the best/only way to take Sovereign out. So much for your tactical decision, eh?

Since it never did, and saving it only meant it would continue fleeing the battle as it had from the moment the Council was being evacuated, the tactical decision is even more justified in hindsight.

"In hindsight" is metagaming. Of course we know what eventually happens, this isn't about that. This is about the validity and plausibility of the situations as they are presented to us.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 27 mai 2010 - 01:37 .

[mopotter]

StrawberryViking wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I don't see Paragon as Naive and Renegade as realist, IMO that thinking is trying to justify your actions to yourself.

Neither are the wrong direction, one strengthens humanity for itself, the others strengthens it for a community (in regards to the big decisions).

Paragon represents more cooperation, while Renegade represents more action

Talking you way through situations or intimidating your way through

I will admit that I did get a bit off-topic with that little rant, but my main gripe was with the decision with the council. The first time I played, I "focused on Sovreign", because I didn't have the knowledge that I'd survive either way. I thought that the lives of the council don't matter next to the fate of the entire galaxy, and it made more sense to me at the time to focus on the immediate threat.

i also think it's just a matter of outlook.  The fist time I played I did the things I felt were right.  I killed the rac. queen and saved the council.  I  agreed with Garrus killing the guy holding the Doctor and I killed Fist.     I don't think paragon is always right just as I don't think the renegade is always right.   I do think the paragon responses are usually more polite.   

I think playing the way it makes sense to you is the best way to play.  
 

[CmdrFenix83]

STG wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

6400 dead to save 10,000.  Stated in ME2 when talking to the punchable reporter.  It's a perfect example of how the paragon choices always end up witht he best possible result.

True most of the time they do. But it kind of goes without saying really. If you treat people well and try to do the "right" thing you will always do better in life. Pushing everyone away and playing the "alone against the world" card will have you just that, alone.

Speaking of paragon results I got a mail from Toombs. He heard that I am working "for" Cerberus and said that if we ever meet again, he will shoot me on sight. It's minor, true and it's one in a hundred but it still shows that not every paragon action is better.

That's not even remotely true in the real world.  There's a reason the phrase "No good deed goes unpunished" was coined.  I'm not saying playing full out Renegade is the way to go, I'm usually full Paragon in my playthroughs with just a bit of Renegade as I tend to think more pragmatically than optimistically. 

The point was that there are many Paragon choices that go beyond 'idealist' and into the realm of the "Lawful Stupid".  It would be nice if this naive idealism didn't *always* pay off, exactly how it was with Dragon Age(Dwarven Kingship).

[lovgreno]

Shandepared wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

Yeah I'm one of those "soft and naive diplomats" that somehow manages to be very effective in the real world anyway.

Since when?

Read the political and commercial news and make your own conclusions. Without many allies no one lasts long.

[CmdrFenix83]

Nightwriter wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

What is or is not a bad Spectre is as open to interpretation as the merits of renegade vs. paragon.

No, it isn't. A spectre is supposed to put the mission ahead of all else. Ahead of innocent lives, ahead of moral actions, ahead of anything that might hinder the mission in any way. That's why they have immunity from the law.

Laziness. That seems to be your style of renegade Spectre. Laziness under the guise of practicality.

You must look for the absolute best solution and fight to achieve it. You forget that your "mission" is actually galactic peacekeeping, which is about the welfare of the people of Council space. You are a servant of the people and it is your job to save lives when possible, not take shortcuts.

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Someone who shows an error in judgment by placing less important things before the mission.

Too bad that's exactly what a Paragon Shepard is.

We both know both paragon and renegade Shepards always complete the mission. Just in different ways. This argument is invalid.

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.

[STG]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...
What if those 8 cruisers lost saving the Ascention were just enough firepower to allow Sovereign to eradicate the rest of your fleet?

And what if all geth ships were butterflies and Sovereign was a pink bunny?

We can play the guessing game all day long but at the end both renegade and paragon got the job done.

[lovgreno]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since the ship with the big gun was dedicated to running away from the battle in order to protect the Council...

Was it? It seems to me that it couldn't run away from the many and fast geth. Why would it if it could? It's the flagship of the Citadell Fleet, it was built for the purpose of protecting the Citadel. The council can be replaced, the citadel can not. It would make more sense to stay and fight.

Shepard X sacrifices Destiny Ascension and hope many Alliance ships can grind down Sovereigns defences. Makes sense since Shepard must make a fast decision based on a little information.

Shepard Y saves Destiny Ascension and hope its guns plus surviving human ships can break Sovereign. Also makes sense.

We can keep saying "what if" but in the end both X and Y won the battle anyway.

Modifié par lovgreno, 27 mai 2010 - 04:00 .

[CmdrFenix83]

Nightwriter wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Essentially, the problem with the system is that because BioWare has implemented a policy of "both are justifiable" and does not attach consequences to the decisions in the game (or at least has not done this yet), they have distorted the system of "Renegade not being equatable to evil" to being just that. If in my above example there were no consequences and any Paragon could simply resolve the dilemma peacefully, the Renegade option just looks needless, reckless, and merciless.

Your whole post was very good, but this in particular I found very well-worded. I can agree with this. I'm not such a paragon that I wouldn't enjoy diversity and fairness in the game mechanic. This isn't to say, though, that some people don't complain about this issue for the reasons m14567 listed.

Regarding the decision to save the Council, about the lives of three figures not being more important than the lives expended to protect them: we know that 2000 human lives were lost to save the Ascension, right? But the Ascension itself had a crew of 10,000. So we are saving more lives than just three people. We sacrificed 2000 lives to save 10,000, which is an acceptable sacrifice (it might even qualify as renegade). I try to keep this in mind.

Aside from all that, despite myself I involuntarily feel like it's natural that good behavior is to be rewarded, perhaps a way of thinking carried over from lessons learned in childhood. For instance rewarding the player for saving the Council by having it result in a more stable galaxy seems a logical outcome to me. Installing an all human Council is going to ruffle some feathers.

First off, you don't have to install an all-human Council if you sacrificed the DA.  You can tell Udina clearly that this wasn't meant for a power grab and a new multi-species Council will be formed and include your choice of Anderson/Udina. 

The problem with decision to save the Council isn't about saving the number of lives in the battle.  It's a matter of risking the trillions in the galaxy by sacrificing combat-ready vessels for one that's seconds from destruction.  Personally, I choose to worry about the trillions over the lives of 10,000 and three Councilers.

[CmdrFenix83]

Massadonious1 wrote...

You rush in right away, only to find out that you can't significantly affect Sovereign without Shepard and his team destroying Mecha Monkey Saren.

I'm pretty sure Joker could of manuevered long enough and taken the kill shot when it was appropriate. The other Human ships in that part of the battle just seem like cannon fodder.

Of course, it's all metagaming at that point, but would you really think a Reaper wouldn't have super advanced technology to protect it from your pew pew lazors? It's been destroying civilizations more advanced than ours since god knows when.

Okay, so the Reaper is super-powerful.  Shall we just not send in the fleet at all then and just hope it all works out?  Or do we try to hit it with everything we have and hope for the best?  You can't just sit on your thumb and wait.  You have to act while you can.  It's all you can do.  Vigil even told you that Sovereign isn't invincible.  Barriers drain from every hit.  The logical choice is to pour as much fire into him as possible as fast as possible.

[Dean_the_Young]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

I wonder how upset people would of been if the Ascension's main gun was the best/only way to take Sovereign out. So much for your tactical decision, eh?

Since it never did, and saving it only meant it would continue fleeing the battle as it had from the moment the Council was being evacuated, the tactical decision is even more justified in hindsight.

"In hindsight" is metagaming. Of course we know what eventually happens, this isn't about that. This is about the validity and plausibility of the situations as they are presented to us.

Of course it is. But the point was that you don't even have hindsight to support you. Even in foresight, it doesn't look any better: the Destiny Ascension was trying to flee with the Council.

[Dean_the_Young]

lovgreno wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since the ship with the big gun was dedicated to running away from the battle in order to protect the Council...

Was it? It seems to me that it couldn't run away from the many and fast geth. Why would it if it could? It's the flagship of the Citadell Fleet, it was built for the purpose of protecting the Citadel. The council can be replaced, the citadel can not. It would make more sense to stay and fight.

The Destiny Ascension was fleeing with the Council: the Destiny Ascension's commanding officer had already issued order already went out to abandon the Citadel.

Shepard X sacrifices Destiny Ascension and hope many Alliance ships can grind down Sovereigns defences. Makes sense since Shepard must make a fast decision based on a little information.

Shepard Y saves Destiny Ascension and hope its guns plus surviving human ships can break Sovereign. Also makes sense.

We can keep saying "what if" but in the end both X and Y won the battle anyway.

Except there was no Shepard Y: if you save the Destiny Ascension, it doesn't take part in the firefight against Sovereign. It continues it's mission to run away.

[Dean_the_Young]

lovgreno wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

Yeah I'm one of those "soft and naive diplomats" that somehow manages to be very effective in the real world anyway.

Since when?

Read the political and commercial news and make your own conclusions. Without many allies no one lasts long.

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.

[mopotter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since the ship with the big gun was dedicated to running away from the battle in order to protect the Council...

Was it? It seems to me that it couldn't run away from the many and fast geth. Why would it if it could? It's the flagship of the Citadell Fleet, it was built for the purpose of protecting the Citadel. The council can be replaced, the citadel can not. It would make more sense to stay and fight.

The Destiny Ascension was fleeing with the Council: the Destiny Ascension's commanding officer had already issued order already went out to abandon the Citadel.

Shepard X sacrifices Destiny Ascension and hope many Alliance ships can grind down Sovereigns defences. Makes sense since Shepard must make a fast decision based on a little information.

Shepard Y saves Destiny Ascension and hope its guns plus surviving human ships can break Sovereign. Also makes sense.

We can keep saying "what if" but in the end both X and Y won the battle anyway.

Except there was no Shepard Y: if you save the Destiny Ascension, it doesn't take part in the firefight against Sovereign. It continues it's mission to run away.

The Destiny Ascension is not supposed to stay and fight Sovereign.  Their job is to get the council to safety.  I don't remember hearing anything about hoping the Destiny will assist n the fight.  But I'm playing thru ME1 again so I'll pay more attention.  

[incinerator950]

I would like to see more negative repercussions for Paragon actions.

[Barquiel]

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).