72 réponses à ce sujet

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I recently did a paragade game where I sacrificed the Council but got the Paragon Ending. Which was what I was aiming for.



In ME 2, it was all pretty much all straight up "human's took over the citadel" everywhere.



I'd come to think that there was no actual multi-racial council transfer option. And that the "new human led council" text was just exclusive to default games. It was written like it was intended to get new players up to speed unlike the other two.



Although doesn't the default game pretty much just have humans taking over everything anyway?



If there was indeed some way to get a paragon council-less intro to Mass Effect 2 before the patch, shouldn't it be easy to test?

[Manic Sheep]

It’s a glitch? I always figured it was meant to be that way. I mean you may have only sacrificed the council to stop sovereign but most won’t believe that (hell I probably wouldn’t) and the alliance doesn’t answer to your wishes. I would expect the alliance to take the opportunity to seize power when the old council died.

What your intentions are at the time don’t really matter. Whether the council died because you thought it was a necessary sacrifice or because you wanted to advance human interest it would still likely result in the same thing.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 24 octobre 2010 - 09:33 .

[Gleitfrosch]

in my game, the humans took over the council (concentrate on the...), even after i told udina that we need a mixed council. so they used/betrayed me to strenghten their position. i can live with that as long as i will be able to play it that way.



i mean:

-i wanted to restore the old council with a fourth, human member. i would restore the old order if i could, i would like to have the chance to clarify my decision at some points in the game.



-the alliance, especially udina betrayed me (again) and i want to kick hiss ass for that or turn against them to restore the old order.



surely the other races will hate me anyway for what i did but i want to have at least the chance to clarify why i did not save the council.

[maxernst]

Gleitfrosch wrote...

in my game, the humans took over the council (concentrate on the...), even after i told udina that we need a mixed council. so they used/betrayed me to strenghten their position. i can live with that as long as i will be able to play it that way.

i mean:
-i wanted to restore the old council with a fourth, human member. i would restore the old order if i could, i would like to have the chance to clarify my decision at some points in the game.

-the alliance, especially udina betrayed me (again) and i want to kick hiss ass for that or turn against them to restore the old order.

surely the other races will hate me anyway for what i did but i want to have at least the chance to clarify why i did not save the council.

That was more or less how I was thinking as well.  Actually, if my Shepard had his way, all the intelligent spacefaring species would have representation on the council. 

[derTraumer]

Same here. I did a full Paragon playthrough, even a 'mostly' Paragon playthrough, and several other full paragons, two renegades. Each time I've chosen to focus on Soverign(as another poster pointed out, there is no way for Shepard in the moment to know whether they could stop Soverign AND save the Council). Bigger things than saving a ship and a council--like the galaxy.



Each time, it shows all the signs of having become a power-grab all-human council. "Former council races", the intro, etc. It's quite frustrating, especially with the dialogue options offered after the credits(even if the save is before) about working together with the races of the Citadel. Either it's a major bug or a serious writing error, and it stinks.

[Enareu]

I was just coming onto these forums to make this exact topic. It seems like most everything has already been covered but I'll throw in my two cents anyway.

In ME1 I was straight up paragon and elected to focus fire on Sovereign as opposed to saving the council. My thought behind this decision was twofold. First I wasn't sure that the council would die if I chose to focus on Sovereign and secondly I looked at it like I was at war and sometimes in war you have to make sacrifices. It is really annoying that in ME2 Cerberus picks you up and looks at you like you're a human supremacist and someone they can get along with. My decision had absolutely nothing to do with wanting to take an opportunity to improve humanity's standing on the galactic scale all I was thinking at the time was if we don't make a stand now there won't be anyone left to get to the choppa. Sorry for that I just had to find a way to put that in there.

Some people earlier in this thread argue that the game makes sense the way it handles the scenario because no one can read Shepherd's intentions, they can only see the outcome. That outcome is either council lives or the council dies. I can see that, but I think it's one of those things that if you want it to make sense it makes sense but if you don't try it doesn't. All I really want is for Shepherd to have the opportunity to defend himself and his actions at some point. If the alien races don't believe me that's fine they don't seem to believe anything Shepherd says anyway. But at least if Shepherd gets the opportunity to defend himself at some point I feel like the game acknowledges my decision instead of forgetting about it.

Modifié par Enareu, 13 décembre 2010 - 09:34 .

[Manic Sheep]

Enareu wrote...

I was just coming onto these forums to make this exact topic. It seems like most everything has already been covered but I'll throw in my two cents anyway.

In ME1 I was straight up paragon and elected to focus fire on Sovereign as opposed to saving the council. My thought behind this decision was twofold. First I wasn't sure that the council would die if I chose to focus on Sovereign and secondly I looked at it like I was at war and sometimes in war you have to make sacrifices. It is really annoying that in ME2 Cerberus picks you up and looks at you like you're a human supremacist and someone they can get along with. My decision had absolutely nothing to do with wanting to take an opportunity to improve humanity's standing on the galactic scale all I was thinking at the time was if we don't make a stand now there won't be anyone left to get to the choppa. Sorry for that I just had to find a way to put that in there.

Some people earlier in this thread argue that the game makes sense the way it handles the scenario because no one can read Shepherd's intentions, they can only see the outcome. That outcome is either council lives or the council dies. I can see that, but I think it's one of those things that if you want it to make sense it makes sense but if you don't try it doesn't. All I really want is for Shepherd to have the opportunity to defend himself and his actions at some point. If the alien races don't believe me that's fine they don't seem to believe anything Shepherd says anyway. But at least if Shepherd gets the opportunity to defend himself at some point I feel like the game acknowledges my decision instead of forgetting about it.

You have a chance to defend yourself when talking to the reporter assuming you don't punch her in the face, tho oddly its the pargaon line that makes is sound more like you killed the council for political reasons.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 13 décembre 2010 - 10:55 .

[jlim]

Enareu wrote...
My decision had absolutely nothing to do with wanting to take an opportunity to improve humanity's standing on the galactic scale all I was thinking at the time was if we don't make a stand now there won't be anyone left to get to the choppa. Sorry for that I just had to find a way to put that in there.

It's ok, I forgive you, for you made me laugh out very loud I know it was heavy risk, but...



He forgives you, too.

About the main topic, I agree with many people here: (in one of many runs) I also chose to focus on Sovereign. I only wanted to kill that damn reaper no matter what, even sacrificing the Council, but I didn't mean to impose the human rule in the Citadel. However, that's what I found when I transferred to ME2. Not really fair I think. I don't really care that much, tho.

[Enareu]

Manic Sheep wrote...

You have a chance to defend yourself when talking to the reporter assuming you don't punch her in the face, tho oddly its the pargaon line that makes is sound more like you killed the council for political reasons.

I'll be honest I had totally forgotten about that encounter with the reporter until you mentioned it just then and  I haven't played ME2 enough to know all the possible conversation outcomes so what probably happened is I just went paragon on the reporter and got the line that you were mentioning. 

However, I just went back and looked up the endings to ME1 and I think there are some things worth noting there.  At the beginning of the final scene of the game we see Sovereign closing in on the Citadel and it looks like nothing in the world can stop that thing.  The thing just flat runs through a ship like it isn't even there.  So then Sovereign is inside the Citadel all alone getting ready to make lots of bad things happen when Shepherd regains control of the arms and has the opportunity to tell Joker and the Arcturus fleet what to do.  When you choose to save the council Shepherd tells Joker that we have to save the council at all costs.  That's a pretty daft move in my opinion seeing as how Shepherd is the only dude (or dudette) in the galaxy who knows exactly what's going on and especially after seeing how easy Sovereign got into the Citadel.  On the other hand when you choose the renegade ending Shepherd makes the comment that he/she doesn't want to sacrifice human lives to save the council and that they should hold back until they get a shot on Sovereign.  This sounds rather human supremacist I agree, but after saying that Liara says that this is a sacrifice for the greater good and that she hopes it is not in vain.  Note that Liara is by far the most biased one there seeing how it is an Asari ship.  So that’s interesting to me that Liara takes that approach.  Finally, in the neutral choice, Shepherd tells Joker to wait until the arms open and then focus fire on Sovereign, even if it means sacrificing the council.  After this Liara makes the same comment that she did for the renegade ending.

I guess the point I’m trying to make with all this is that Mass Effect prides itself on having morally gray decisions where you just don’t know right from wrong.  That’s one of the reasons that we see the introduction of a paragon and renegade options as opposed to light vs dark or good vs evil.  It isn’t necessarily supposed to be about what is right and what is wrong but instead it’s about how you get the job done.  Are you Liam Neeson as Bryan Mills in Taken[/i] who gets the job done even if it means shooting another man’s wife or are you Commissioner Gordon from Batman who embodies what it means to be a good cop? In some instances I would imagine Bryan Mills not being the best decision when you’re going around electrocuting and capping people all the time, but at the same time Commissioner Gordon isn’t going to travel to Europe and single handedly murder a crime syndicate.  I’m beginning to stray from my point, let me bring it back.  Morally gray doesn’t just mean that you have to make difficult decisions where you have something to gain or lose in each scenario it means that sometimes the best decision comes at a heavy price.  The best decision might be the most morally vile.  I think Mass Effect captures this spirit when you select your psychological profile at the beginning of the game.

War Hero:  Early in your military career you found yourself facing an overwhelming enemy force.  You risked your own life to save your fellow soldiers and defeat the enemy despite the impossible odds.  Your bravery and heroism have earned you medals and recognition from the Alliance fleet.

Sole Survivor:  During your service, a mission you were on went horribly wrong.  Trapped in an extreme survival situation, you had to overcome physical torments and psychological stresses that would have broken most people.  You survived while all those around you fell, and now you alone are left to tell the tale.

Ruthless:  Throughout your military career, you have held fast to one basic rule:  get the job done.  You’ve been called cold, calculating, and brutal.  Your reputation for ruthless efficiency makes your fellow soldiers wary of you.  But when failure is not an option, the military always goes to you first. 

All of these profiles describe great soldiers.  Some who are tough as nails, some who are team players, and some who always play to win.  The game doesn’t seem to show favoritism towards which one you choose it
just points out how others receive you.  Although this is the initial vibe you get from the game after you’ve completed the game you realize it’s not true.  The game does in fact play favorites and its favorite is war hero.  You can get every single thing you want in the game (unless you want to be evil of course) by simply going straight paragon, war hero, self-sacrificing soldier.  You get to save Wrex, you get to save the council, you get to kill Saren,
you get to kill Sovereign, you get to gain every crew member’s loyalty in ME2, and you’re able to save every one of those crew members at the end of the game.  The point I’m trying to make is that there is no point in either game where “But when failure is not an option, the military always goes to you first” comes into play in the paragon path.  I think I made the right decision in going for the kill on Sovereign and hoping the council could find a way to survive.  Unfortunately the game disagrees and thinks that war hero is the only way to play paragon.

Sorry that the post ended up super long and sort of rant-like. 

Modifié par Enareu, 14 décembre 2010 - 03:02 .

[Manic Sheep]

Well here is the renegade line for the reporter if you haven’t seen it already. It is much more fitting for the “sacrifice the council” option at the end on ME1




*spoiler alert for those who have not finished ME2*

I personally have only never done a full renegade or paragon run tho I did mess about allot to see what all the dialogue options and outcomes are. I consider both to extreme in certain aspects. The paragon seems to follow rigid morals where there are thing that are inherently wrong and will always be wrong regardless of the outcome (deontological ethics)  and the renegades seem to follow the idea that the method dose not mater only the outcome (consequentialism).To give what is probably a very stupid example on the topic of testing things on animals. A paragon causing animals to suffer in experiments wrong without question all the time no matter what it is you are trying to achieve. The ends do not justify the means. A renegade would think that it doesn’t matter how much suffering the testing causes to get the desired outcome. The ends justify the means. Most people are in the middle somewhere. Not completely against but will reach a certain point where it crosses the line and is no longer acceptable no matter the outcome.

I tend to try and ignore the point, whether a line is blue or red and just pick witch ever fits with a character (or me) more. All 4 of my characters are paragade for different reasons and I find this much more satisfactory. The paragon is too perfect and the renegade is too much of an ****

Tho the game dose seem to have some favouritism towards paragon I’ll admit. they allways seem to get the best of both worlds and have a bit more content than renegades (tho the cameos are not great so renegades are not missing much with that). However I don’t think it’s as bad as allot of people seem to say it is. I can’t think of anything major that has truly backfired for either the paragons or renegades. The renegade options have more negative consequences than the paragon but none of these where unexpected. If you shoot someone obviously you are not going to see them again. I was initially annoyed that none of the paragon risks ever backfire and that even things like Zaeeds loyalty (that he is loyal to you just because you gave him a short speech is a bit ridicules IMO) and all and all the paragon world seem allot brighter and to be doing allot better than the renegade but after a while I figured maybe that’s just how it’s meant to be and hell I don’t want things to be that nice anyway. I would have been annoyed if everyone was fine and dandy with me sacrificing the council and the alliance had played nice. Since most things are morally grey perhaps they don’t want to have things backfire because it would be like saying that decision was wrong?

As I’ve said elsewhere many times (I probably sound like a broken record by now) the paragon renegade thing seems to me to be more to customise the story rather than having right or wrong answers. I like darker stories and anti heroes so I pick renegade on big decisions more often than not where as if I wanted something more light hearted and ‘feel good’ I pick paragon (tho I would still like some to backfire TBH). One of my characters is mostly paragon in personality but I didn’t want everything turning out great so I have her fail certain things by not picking the instant win coloured lines on purpose. I don’t know if this is how the game is meant to be played and perhaps I’m just trying to make light of a system plagued with favouritism but so far this approach is working pretty well for me and viewing it like makes the paragon vs renegade thing less annoying. The only major problems with the current system is that for the most part we are restricted to only 2 options when it comes to major decision with no mid ground and because you speech is base on pra and ren points it forces you to farm point rather than make decision naturally. Luckily that hasn’t screwed me over much tho.

The only time I have ever felt shafted for making a renegade decision is with the collector base. Where every single SM disapproves regardless of what they said during the actual mission itself (Mordin, Garrus, Grunt and Legion all support keeping the base during the mission) and you get massive evil foreshadowing from TIM but the paragons got congratulated by everyone in the crew and a nice satisfying explosion and a badass resignation from Cerberus.



TL;DR: The Para/Ren system is easier to swallow if you view it as just a way to customise the story and don’t stick to strictly one or the other.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 14 décembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[derTraumer]

I'm with Enareu. If, at some point, Shepard gets to speak for himself concerning his decisions and actions--to defend himself--I'll live with it. I kept thinking of what Shepard would say to someone who asked why he focused on Soverign, and it keeps coming back to "I didn't do it for me or my status, or some idiotic revenge. I didn't do it for humanity to grab power or look tough. I didn't make my decision to be popular. The galaxy was at stake. There was so much more on the line than politics." As it stands, flaws or weirdness involved with the Para/Rena system aside, the biggest flaw to the games is that Shepard is always the one stuck getting ridiculed and criticized for his actions, while wholly unable to defend himself beyond inconsequential replies(Nobody stabs me in the back Udina! comes to mind).



Dumb. If he's gonna be the one left cleaning up the mess and punching the bad guys, at least give him some real support, or a way to rally it.

[michael1983]

I still believe that it wasn't played out that well, what with the decision to either save "Destiny Ascension" and sacrifice most of the fleet, or just "close off communications" and concentrate on Sovereign. I mean, the most logical thing to do would be to hold back and attack on the primary target. It really doesn't look too renegade to me. And that comes from someone who always ends the games as (mostly) paragon.

[nipsen]

That part of the ending took me by surprise as well.. I had just talked to the head of fifth fleet - we didn't discuss an intense dislike for aliens, none of us supported human space-colonisation at any price. And he was happy I didn't cause an incident with the reporter. Meanwhile, my half-way renegade Shepard had just been grounded by Udina's power-grab, and letting any of these people take over didn't seem like a good idea even to a speciesist like Anderson (who I specifically told to go through Udina rather than upset the council races).

Eventually I'm back at Citadel, the Sovereign is stuck in the station - and the full army of the Geth, along with everything Saren has managed to piece together, is swarming on the outside. The impression I get is that anything on the outside is going to be decimated sooner or later. And I get two choices: tell the fifth fleet to hold back until the station arms open, but doom the council and everyone who evacuated on the Ascension - they can't escape on their own. Or call in the fifth fleet to save the council, but leave everyone to be decimated anyway if I can't get the arms open in time.

So I agonise for a bit about it, and tell Joker to meet up with fifth fleet, and hold back until the arms open (this is what I thought "focus on the Sovereign" meant), then hit the Reaper ship in the last desperate attempt. I'm basically thinking that if they should waste their lives, they should at least be doing it for something worthwhile. Such as avoiding the genocide of all races in known space.

But of course the arms basically open right away, the fifth fleet jumps in.... and they cruise past the Ascension while it's being eaten by a Geth ship. They're in the middle of the firing zone, but they cruise past as a demonstration of some sort, even taking losses themselves, but not breaking off. They even cut off the communications.

So in a way it's not that it didn't make sense - the Alliance were not fond of the council races, and would easily exploit that situation, specially if they knew what was at stake.

But I missed an option to call the fifth fleet admiral and maybe Udina together, and tell them to adopt a low profile towards a new council, or something like that. We had, after all, just killed off more or less everyone left on the Citadel when the attack hit, and I did not buy Udina's idea about how the council races wanted Humanity to step in because they were scared (or even if that was true, my Shepard would not have approved).

..it made sense, is what I'm saying, and placed Shepard as a symbol and someone who just was there at the right time, more than someone who had actual influence. And I liked that. But since the game didn't explore that path at the time, or didn't allow you to do a "oh, well, at least it gives me space to operate with impunity"/"bastard politicians are taking advantage of this"/"I couldn't care less, just give me back the Normandy" -- it did seem as if it didn't hang together.

I mean, if you knew when you make the call that the arms of the station open in about.. three seconds.. then you are making a value call on whether to include the council or not. If you don't know, then there might be good reasons to expect it to be necessary to sacrifice the entire human fleet..

[titusrsoooooo1337]

i think most of you are forgetting that there was in fact a fleet of geth ships outside. whether you chose to save the DA or let it be destroyed they'd still come after the Arcturus fleet and still deal damage to them, especially since they'd be attacking from behind your ships in an environment where there is no room to manouver if you chose to ignore them the first time around..

besides...the cutscene of saving the DA is too Fawesome to pass up

Modifié par titusrsoooooo1337, 30 décembre 2010 - 12:06 .

[Karuda]

My Shep is usually pragmatic... thus, he dealt with the reality of the situation and decided to focus on Sovereign solely, no matter the cost. He didn't care about the Council in the slightest, but he certainly didn't condemn them to death...

I hope a flag for this actually exists, so that this might be acknowledged in Mass Effect 3.

As quoted on the wiki, how does one get this introduction blurb?

If the Councilors are killed in Mass Effect, and replaced by a multi-racial group led by the humans, the following text is displayed:
“In 2183, the heart of the galactic community suffered a devastating attack.

The Citadel space station was invaded by a synthetic geth army attempting to open a portal for the Reapers: enormous machines that eradicate all organic civilization every 50,000 years. Commander Shepard led the defense, but the Citadel Council was lost.

Now, the new human-led Council attempts to quell rumors of the Reapers' return. Hoping to ease public concern, they've sent Commander Shepard and the starship Normandy to wipe out all remaining geth resistance.”

[E-MailA.K.A.Mr.Fox]

i never get a neutral ending, except for the first time i played the game, now its either of the two extremes.

[Asari Commando]

actually read this interesting article on wiki. i was reading up on the first contact war, and found this little gem.

In Mass Effect 2, if Commander Shepard chooses to save the Citadel Council in the first game, a news report can be heard claiming that the Turian Hierarchy is considering additional reparations to humans whose ancestors died during the Relay 314 Incident. Up until the Battle of the Citadel, the Turian Hierarchy had refused to pay interest on top of the reparations already paid. Alternatively, if the Citadel Council is not saved, various news reports suggest a resurgence of distrust between the two races, and a buildup of turian military forces in response to 'human aggression'.

[Berkilak]

E-MailA.K.A.Mr.Fox wrote...

i never get a neutral ending, except for the first time i played the game, now its either of the two extremes.

I found that odd, as well. The very first time I loaded a save, I had the "neutral" beginning scrawl. Odds are, though, given references to the choice we've seen by BioWare reps, is that the "Concentrate on Sovereign!" option is tantamount to the Renegade. They either see it as you saving the Council or not, unfortunately.

[Berkilak]

So I just did my Insanity run on ME1 (finally). Went Paragon, Concentrated. I got the "neutral" human-led multi-racial ending, but the Renegade outcome in ME2. The wiki is a lie.

[Anvos]

Unable to answer on the ME2 opening part yet, as I'm currently downloading it.

As for the end of ME 1 decision though, part of me thought saving the Ascension also seemed like the option that was cripple the geth fleet, and since the prothean AI said Sovereign was only afraid of full fleet attacks it seemed like the battle with Sovereign was going to be a long fight, meaning after the Ascension was gone the geth would move in to try and save their "god" making things all the more desperate for us.  Also I was hoping saving the Ascension would let the councial members send messeges to the rest of their races' fleets to send in more ships while the relays were reopened to help in the attack on Sovereign.

[Berkilak]

Sadly, it seems this option wasn't an option at all.

[AstralStorm]

Fake choices with same outcome, who doesn't love them?

Both games kind of hate neutral anyway, ME2 even more so - if you stray just a bit too much, you won't be able to use the persuasive choices at all, further digging yourself into the neutrality.
It doesn't even attempt an excuse by giving you options in most places - major difference being Tali's trial in ME2.