380 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

While I understand where you're coming from... the greater good is not an ally... or the council, the greater good is the survival of the galaxy. Galactic life most certainly takes precedence over gaining an ally (because all life in the galaxy includes them). "The Council" never dies... just those 3 specific people. The institution of the Council was never at stake by those individual members being attacked by the Geth. The DA is already out of commission.

The Paragon choice is not willing to sacrifice those Council members (or the out-of-commission DA... however you look at it) just to justify stopping Sovereign (the end, which is preventing galactic annihilation) "no matter what the cost."

Casey also says he wants to make it unclear what's right or wrong because of the fact that Paragon/Renegade is not Good/Evil. Naturally, Paragon would be the one considered Good/Right and Renegade would be the one considered Evil/Wrong.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 18 juin 2011 - 05:56 .

[Rip504]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

While I understand where you're coming from... the greater good is not an ally... or the council, the greater good is the survival of the galaxy. Galactic life most certainly takes precedence over gaining an ally (because all life in the galaxy includes them). "The Council" never dies... just those 3 specific people. The institution of the Council was never at stake by those individual members being attacked by the Geth. The DA is already out of commission.

The Paragon choice is not willing to sacrifice those Council members (or the out-of-commission DA... however you look at it) just to justify stopping Sovereign (the end, which is preventing galactic annihilation) "no matter what the cost."

Casey also says he wants to make it unclear what's right or wrong because of the fact that Paragon/Renegade is not Good/Evil. Naturally, Paragon would be the one considered Good/Right and Renegade would be the one considered Evil/Wrong.

Agreed,but an ally be it Krogan,Rachni,or the Alien council,is helping to save the galaxy overall in the future. "Greater Good". We all know after ME1 ends Shepard states, Sovereign was just the Vanguard,the Reapers are Still coming. Meaning any sacrifice we make for allies to help save the galaxy in the future, could be considered helping the "greater good".The future safety of the Galaxy.

Shepard was in control of the Citadel in ME1,Sovereign would have to kill Shepard to open the Citadel as a Mass Relay. My Shepard knew this would never happen. Call it confidence. Renegades are unwilling to sacrifice human lives to save the DA & alien council. Sovereign is on the verge of being defeated in both cases. Based on the info given at the time,My Shepard considered Sovereign as being close to death either way. An entire fleet minus 8 ships should be more then enough to kill one ship. And it was more then enough.(Even if I didn't know how many ships would be lost,an entire fleet with help should be enough.)

So if you kill Sovereign or not,Kill the DA or not. The Reapers are still coming. So even if you sacrifice the DA and alien council you are only helping the  safety of the galaxy "here and now", as the rest of the galaxy is still under a impending Reaper Invasion. Now alien races may be more unlikely to help Shepard & Humanity after Humanity has shown the rest of the galaxy what Humanity thinks of Aliens. "Let Aliens die for Human benefits.!.

Edit:
The Alien council(which has existed for 1,000's of years is being destroyed and replaced by an all human council.) It's more then just those 3 aliens being lost. It's changing the entire workings of the Citadel Council and galactic relations. The Alien Council & Culture of Citadel Space is in jeopardy of being Lost. The Human Council still denies the Reapers exist, just as the Alien council does. So as they are doing nothing to help,and alien races now consider Humanity as bullies. What "Greater Good" is being helped in this situation? None.!.

Allies help ensure the future safety of the Galaxy. "Safety of the Galaxy is the greater good." So by your own definition future Allies helping save the future safety of the Galaxy is helping the "greater good". Which is the safety of the galaxy. Reapers are still coming after ME1 & ME2. The galaxy is not safe after ME1,no the Renegade sacrifices Aliens for the safety of "here and now" if anything.!. Or is it simply Human dominace, which is considered by most to be a personal gain or victory over the alien council. Cerberus & Shepard sharing goals, both parties think they are right and are helping the "greater good" by hurting everything they touch.!. I do not.

Modifié par Rip504, 18 juin 2011 - 11:59 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

If you want a more detailed response I can give it but hopefully this will sum it up.

Nothing that happens after Sovereign is stopped matters... if Sovereign is not stopped. If the Reapers arrived then, it wouldn't matter who was in power or what racial hegemony was available. The greater good is ensuring that there's a chance to do something... regardless of what that may be... as opposed to being completely destroyed by the Reapers (which the Council almost allowed to happen).  What you're referring to is the benefits of the Paragon decision post-Sovereign, but to factor that outcome before Sovereign was stopped is not taking Sovereign very seriously.

Which brings us back to the point of the Paragon decision not taking Sovereign's threat to all life as seriously as Renegades or Paragons felt that there was enough time to do other things before preventing Sovereign from retaking the station.

It really does come down to that.

And we already know the story of Paragon Favoritism across the last 2 games.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 19 juin 2011 - 12:18 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

If you want a more detailed response I can give it but hopefully this will sum it up.

Nothing that happens after Sovereign is stopped matters... if Sovereign is not stopped. If the Reapers arrived then, it wouldn't matter who was in power or what racial hegemony was available. The greater good is ensuring that there's a chance to do something... regardless of what that may be... as opposed to being completely destroyed by the Reapers (which the Council almost allowed to happen).  What you're referring to is the benefits of the Paragon decision post-Sovereign, but to factor that outcome before Sovereign was stopped is not taking Sovereign very seriously.

Which brings us back to the point of the Paragon decision not taking Sovereign's threat to all life as seriously as Renegades or Paragons felt that there was enough time to do other things before preventing Sovereign from retaking the station.

It really does come down to that.

And we already know the story of Paragon Favoritism across the last 2 games.

I there is more than one way to accomplish something and both are similar risk, the one with the lower cost is the better. One quick way to prevent a bank robbery is to blow up the bank, and it pretty much guarantees prevention but that doesn't make it the best way.

[Rip504]

Yes now you are denying that the Renegade killed Sovereign for the safety of the galaxy "here and now".? Nothing matters after? You are complaining about long term benefits and goals.Paragons being favored down the road AFTER the Sovereign choice. We are talking about what happens after. Nothing after matters, if it beheads your theory.Yes everything after matters. It is what our choice brought us. The game doesn't end with Sovereign. To say nothing after that matters is to say ME2 and the choice itself doesn't matter. It does.

I have shown you why the Paragons have sacrificed the "here and now" for the "greater good",and all you can tell me is what happen after the decision doesn't matter because it doesn't influence the decision? Wrong our potential outcomes do influence our potential choices in life and in the game. Sovereign has to kill Shepard to accomplish it's mission. As I said before this would never happen. Call it Confidence.

I based my choice off of sacrificing humans for aliens,not the safety of the galaxy. As the Reapers are coming no matter what. All I can do is stop Sovereign and maybe save the DA,or let Humanity take over. Guess what ? I was right. I saved the DA and stopped Sovereign. What happens after definitely matters. It is the potential we are basing our choice off of. You can not tell me that I risked all life in the galaxy to save the DA. I did not. I sacrificed humans to save the DA,while defeating Sovereign. And that's exactly what my endgame playthrough represents. Never does it represent my Shepard being ignorant and risking all life. NO PARAGON WOULD DO THAT.

Renegades use "focus on Sovereign" as an excuse to kill the council. End game can represent that. Both Heros save the galaxy. The only difference is the DA & Alien council are either dead or alive. The safety of the galaxy is not what imports. The decision to save or kill the DA does. If this is the imported choice,it must mean this is what the choice was in ME1.

Modifié par Rip504, 19 juin 2011 - 01:39 .

[Moiaussi]

Confidence is a judgement call. The assumption that Sovereign can't act with you there is a judgement call. Simply assuming your judgement is always sound without weighing the evidence is overconfidence and is usually bad judgement.

[Rip504]

Moiaussi wrote...

Confidence is a judgement call. The assumption that Sovereign can't act with you there is a judgement call. Simply assuming your judgement is always sound without weighing the evidence is overconfidence and is usually bad judgement.

Usually,but not in this case as Shepard wins.


Edit:
Explained a little better. My Shepard will never allow this to happen. Sovereign will have to kill me first.
It didn't. I (Shepard) killed it(Sovereign) first and won. I saved the DA & Killed my first Reaper.!.

Edit 2:
Also you just assumed Shepard didn't weigh the evidence and assumed his/her judgment was sound.(It could or couldn't be sound,but Sovereign will have to kill me before I let it happen. I'm not basing it off of,if Sovereign can or not. No I am basing it off of, if I will allow it or not.) An example of an assumption being wrong.!.

You can be confident in your decision after weighing the options and evidence. Isn't this what makes one confident. Random assumptions while pounding on your chest, seems more Renegade to me.!. I am simply saying I would not allow this to happen. "No matter the cost" and at the end of the game. I was the hero who saved the DA & killed Sovereign. I Didn't care if Sovereign could activate the Citadel with me on it or not. No I cared that I would not allow it to happen while I was alive. What I was saying was about Shepard not Sovereign. Nor was it the main or only reasoning behind the decision.

Modifié par Rip504, 19 juin 2011 - 02:26 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

I there is more than one way to accomplish something and both are similar risk, the one with the lower cost is the better. One quick way to prevent a bank robbery is to blow up the bank, and it pretty much guarantees prevention but that doesn't make it the best way.

It doesn't prevent money from being taken... except now it's taken by explosion fire.  A better example is needed.

Here's a similarly questionable example:

A bomb is about to go off, destroying all life everywhere... you don't know how long the bomb has (and the rush is on stopping it quickly... before it blows).  On the other end, the press and media are gathering outside.  The media has strong sway over your career.  One could focus on the bomb being disarmed and face the media wearing the dirty clothes that were worn to disarm the bomb (putting him at lower esteem by the media).... Or... he can leave the bomb for a moment and dress into something nice so that the media world will love him and his hollywood persona can endure.

Not choosing to disarm such a bomb first... just to ensure media normalsy... puts everyone at risk...



@Rip504, the Paragon chioce stands on the ideals you mentioned, absolutely.  "I won't let that happen,"  "I WILL have my cake and eat it too."  "I can save the Council (well... they can anyway) and stop Sovereign before he regains control of the station... I don't know for sure... but I believe that much."  And that faith was rewarded.

Still, it doesn't make the move any less of a risk to all galactic life due to the amount of time available before Sovereign retook control of the station, summoned all his Reaper compatriots, and wiped out the galaxy. 

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 19 juin 2011 - 04:15 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

It doesn't prevent money from being taken... except now it's taken by explosion fire.  A better example is needed.

It prevents the money from being used by the robbers. Relating this back to the Citadel, if you have two viable options to stop Sovereign and one leaves you with enough to beat the Reaper's followup attack and the other doesn't, the fact that you survive now doesn't change the fact that you just eliminated your ability to survive later.

You need to win both battles, not just the first one. If you commit too many resources to winning the first you might not have enough left to win the second.

Here's a similarly questionable example:

A bomb is about to go off, destroying all life everywhere... you don't know how long the bomb has (and the rush is on stopping it quickly... before it blows).  On the other end, the press and media are gathering outside.  The media has strong sway over your career.  One could focus on the bomb being disarmed and face the media wearing the dirty clothes that were worn to disarm the bomb (putting him at lower esteem by the media).... Or... he can leave the bomb for a moment and dress into something nice so that the media world will love him and his hollywood persona can endure.

Not choosing to disarm such a bomb first... just to ensure media normalsy... puts everyone at risk...

That one is extreme in the other direction though. There could be a risk of bank robbers using money from one heist to fund an even bigger heist or worse. It is a lot harder to make an arguement that someone being roasted for poor choice of clothes would have a significant detrimental subsequent effect. Now if his girlfriend forced him to take a day off to shop so he wasn't available to disarm the second universe destroying bomb, it might be comperable in one manner, but that wouldn't be predictable enough to be a good analogy.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi,

If you don't win the first, the 2nd doesn't matter. The first victory is not guaranteed and the options aren't a sure-thing for success. Ensuring that the first victory (which hinges on stopping Sovereign before he summons the rest of the Reapers... not just defeating Sovereign himself) is completed shouuuld take priority in such a situation unless the player is just confident that the first victory is in the bag (or atleast that the threat will wait until you're ready). The second battle allows for considerably more time for a plan by default (as the Reapers will still be in dark space).

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 19 juin 2011 - 05:43 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Whoops, better talk about those analogies too

As far as the analogies, the point was that neither really work as analogies. Shepard would not destroy the galaxy himself just so the Reapers couldn't do it... that would defeat the point.  Shepard isn't fighting just to save a handful of people, he's fighting to save the entire galaxy.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 19 juin 2011 - 05:54 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Moiaussi,

If you don't win the first, the 2nd doesn't matter. The first victory is not guaranteed and the options aren't a sure-thing for success. Ensuring that the first victory (which hinges on stopping Sovereign before he summons the rest of the Reapers... not just defeating Sovereign himself) is completed shouuuld take priority in such a situation unless the player is just confident that the first victory is in the bag (or atleast that the threat will wait until you're ready). The second battle allows for considerably more time for a plan by default (as the Reapers will still be in dark space).

And again you miss my point entirely. If you lose the 2nd the first doesn't matter either. You are presenting this as if the 2nd doesn't matter at all or that it is guaranteed that you will be able to be ready for the 2nd. You don't know the timeline for the 2nd or what it will take. You seem to approach everything with tunnel vision, seeing only one threat at a time. Just because one is more immediate doesn't mean the other isn't there. You need to ensure you have enough troops in reserve to deal with it too.

In chess you are playing an all or nothing game, but unless you can think multiple moves in advance you will lose. You will respond to the obvious immediate threat without setting yourself up for the eventual win. More likely you will set yourself up for an eventual loss. This doesn't mean ignoring the immediate threat but does mean dealing with it in a way that puts you in the more advantageous position.

[AngelicMachinery]

Paragons are full of tiger blood, bi-winning, etc, etc, etc...

[Dane Seagal]

I agree with the OP and a lot of the arguments he presents.

We have 3 main arguments here.

1) Renegades are given less content (i.e. cameos) for the choices they've made
2) Renegades don't have any indication their choices have served a greater good
3) Paragons, with some minor exceptions (the Eclipse merc) have always had good outcomes.

There are different levels of paragons and renegades (a lot of situations can be resolved paragon, and commented on as renegade) but the big choices present paragon as the idealistic one. ''We can't sacrifice innocent lives and we should put faith in people.'' vs. ''We need to make sacrifices for the greater good, and we can't trust everyone for the negative consequences it could bring.''

http://tvtropes.org/...mVersusCynicism

For balance, the Mass Effect world should be right in the middle in terms of tone. Paragons are idealists and Renegades cynics. But because the universe should favour neither, certain paragon options should bite you in the ass, and renegade options should bite you in the ass. Makes sense to me.

Bioware would effectively place the whole storyline on the highly idealistic end if they continue having the paragon as the win-in-the-nicest-way option. Let everyone live? No matter, they're now good guys. Trust everyone? No matter, you're so totally awesomely good, no one will stab you in the back. Talking nicely to everyone works. That's the direction paragon seems to be heading and seems to be portrayed. I'm not suggesting the complete opposite, just suggesting that the idealistic side, as well as the cynical side, should both come crashing down in certain situations. That would give decisions weight. Two games in, and looking back at renegade decisions and their paragon counterparts, it appears Renegade has become  ''LOL Shepard acts like a douche.'' rather than ''The end justifies the means.'' and ''I make sacrifices for the greater good.''

Modifié par Dane Seagal, 19 juin 2011 - 06:06 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

And again you miss my point entirely. If you lose the 2nd the first doesn't matter either. You are presenting this as if the 2nd doesn't matter at all or that it is guaranteed that you will be able to be ready for the 2nd. You don't know the timeline for the 2nd or what it will take. You seem to approach everything with tunnel vision, seeing only one threat at a time. Just because one is more immediate doesn't mean the other isn't there. You need to ensure you have enough troops in reserve to deal with it too.

Not quite... if you're not personally able to beat Sovereign, it's not as big of a deal (as long as someone else is called in later to take care of it.  What matters is that Sovereign is prevented from summoning the rest of the Reapers.  Beating Sovereign himself was always the secondary objective... to "just" beat sovereign makes no difference... and failing to beat Sovereign doesn't matter as long as he's prevented from using the station to summon the Reapers.  Did I miss your point?  I don't think so, consider carefully what I'm saying... and relax.. I'm not attacking you, lol.

In chess you are playing an all or nothing game, but unless you can think multiple moves in advance you will lose. You will respond to the obvious immediate threat without setting yourself up for the eventual win. More likely you will set yourself up for an eventual loss. This doesn't mean ignoring the immediate threat but does mean dealing with it in a way that puts you in the more advantageous position.

Again, no matter what you plan, no matter what your reasoning, no matter what action you take.... if you do not stop Sovereign in time... it makes no difference what becomes of Sovereign.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 19 juin 2011 - 09:19 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Dane Seagal wrote...

I agree with the OP and a lot of the arguments he presents.

Thanks man.  I'm glad more people notice this issue.

I also agree with your points.

I'm personally not even a Renegade player (though not a "pure" anything either), and I still noticed this.


The Renegade may do something edgy, but also has proven able to explain his actions as being more than acting like a "douche."  Example:

Mass Effect 1, knocking out that scientist on Eden Prime. 

Shepard:  "Say goodnight Manuel"

Kaiden:  "That might've been a little extreme, Commander."

Dr. W.  "You can't just go around wacking people in the head!"

Shepard:  "It was only a matter of time before he did something crazy.  And dangerous."

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 19 juin 2011 - 09:33 .

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Dane Seagal wrote...

I agree with the OP and a lot of the arguments he presents.

Thanks man.  I'm glad more people notice this issue.

I also agree with your points.

I'm personally not even a Renegade player (though not a "pure" anything either), and I still noticed this.


The Renegade may do something edgy, but also has proven able to explain his actions as being more than acting like a "douche."  Example:

Mass Effect 1, knocking out that scientist on Eden Prime. 

Shepard:  "Say goodnight Manuel"

Kaiden:  "That might've been a little extreme, Commander."

Dr. W.  "You can't just go around wacking people in the head!"

Shepard:  "It was only a matter of time before he did something crazy.  And dangerous."

Same here, I'm a Renegon player that has a good amount of Paragon meter filled up for my canon(even in my more extreme Renegon pseudo-canon) and I'm having to stick up for Renegade choices I didn't even take cause they get shafted so hard.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Agreed, I'm a Paragade myself.

[Dane Seagal]

Seboist wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Dane Seagal wrote...

I agree with the OP and a lot of the arguments he presents.

Thanks man.  I'm glad more people notice this issue.

I also agree with your points.

I'm personally not even a Renegade player (though not a "pure" anything either), and I still noticed this.


The Renegade may do something edgy, but also has proven able to explain his actions as being more than acting like a "douche."  Example:

Mass Effect 1, knocking out that scientist on Eden Prime. 

Shepard:  "Say goodnight Manuel"

Kaiden:  "That might've been a little extreme, Commander."

Dr. W.  "You can't just go around wacking people in the head!"

Shepard:  "It was only a matter of time before he did something crazy.  And dangerous."

Same here, I'm a Renegon player that has a good amount of Paragon meter filled up for my canon(even in my more extreme Renegon pseudo-canon) and I'm having to stick up for Renegade choices I didn't even take cause they get shafted so hard.

My first playthroughs of both games are renegon, and I'm planning the same for ME3. The morality is flexible enough to create variations in Shep moralities. My renegon isn't xenophobic. Didn't kill the Feros colonists. SAVED the council. I modelled him after Jack Bauer, Dirty Harry and the Punisher, all anti-heroic characters.

There are different variations of renegade, it isn't necessarily one thing. But the big choices do end up as practicality vs. 'righteous' options. But when renegade ends up not being a pragmatic solution (with the exception of some renegade interrupts), what's the point? That's how renegade gets (falsely) accused of being the 'douche alignment'. Hell, even the douchier dialogue can be justified by saying that Shepard isn't out there to be nice. My renegon doesn't like people obstructing his mission and believes intimidation is key into getting what you want. Not too far away from respected characters like Jack Bauer and Dirty Harry.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Not quite... if you're not personally able to beat Sovereign, it's not as big of a deal (as long as someone else is called in later to take care of it.  What matters is that Sovereign is prevented from summoning the rest of the Reapers.  Beating Sovereign himself was always the secondary objective... to "just" beat sovereign makes no difference... and failing to beat Sovereign doesn't matter as long as he's prevented from using the station to summon the Reapers.  Did I miss your point?  I don't think so, consider carefully what I'm saying...

And how are you preventing Sovereign from summoning the Reapers? By defeating it. You are equivocating and trying again to change the arguement to something completely irrelevant.

After Sovereign is stopped from allowing the Reapers to arrive immediately via the Citadel you find out they are still coming. You have only bought time. The real fight is yet to come. By the end of ME2 (Arrival) we learn that they are getting here sooner rather than later. As of the promos from ME3, we know that they are hitting home systems. This is only approximately 3 years after the Citadel battle. If you don't have sufficient forces now, it won't have mattered that you didn't stop Sovereign at the Citadel.

and relax.. I'm not attacking you, lol.

You aren't overtly, but when you keep going so far to misprepresent my arguements and  grinning every time I challenge you on it, you are trolling. It is a particularly annoying type of trolling since there is nothing openly insulting in your posts. Spotting the insult requires a moderator to review not just your posts but the entire discussion. Also, if your misrepresentations aren't challenged, others reading your posts get the impression that your version of my words is the correct one. It is possible that you believe what you are saying, but it is unlikely.

Again, no matter what you plan, no matter what your reasoning, no matter what action you take.... if you do not stop Sovereign in time... it makes no difference what becomes of Sovereign.

This has nothing to do with what becomes of Sovereign. Again, quit trying to change the arguement to something you can easily dismiss. The battle is against the Reapers. If Sovereign succeeds and they capture the Citadel, you lose, but if you don't have sufficient forces when they show up later (ME3), you still lose. Sovereign is a couple years gone by that point, but there is an entire fleet of Reapers to replace it. You are likely to need every ship you can field against them. If you lose more than you could have at the Citadel in ME1, you will have less to face the threat in ME3. As in chess it doesn't matter if you are checkmated in 3 or checkmated in 23, you lose either way. You have to play wisely and be set up to avoid being all your opponent's ploys while setting the state to checkmate your opponent.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

And how are you preventing Sovereign from summoning the Reapers? By defeating it. You are equivocating and trying again to change the arguement to something completely irrelevant.

Defeating it is the natural first thing you'd try... but not the only option available... should it fail.

After Sovereign is stopped from allowing the Reapers to arrive immediately via the Citadel you find out they are still coming. You have only bought time. The real fight is yet to come. By the end of ME2 (Arrival) we learn that they are getting here sooner rather than later. As of the promos from ME3, we know that they are hitting home systems. This is only approximately 3 years after the Citadel battle. If you don't have sufficient forces now, it won't have mattered that you didn't stop Sovereign at the Citadel.

You do find out they're still coming, and then you'll have that time to prepare for that.  Now you have an extended time table... much longer than what you have from the "game over" scenario Sovereign presented.  And sufficient forces at the Citadel is completely irrelevant to the combined might of the galaxy.  And all of it is irrelevant to stopping Sovereign in time.  No matter what happens afterwards, stopping Sovereign made a difference... if for nothing else but buying time.

You aren't overtly, but when you keep going so far to misprepresent my arguements and  grinning every time I challenge you on it, you are trolling. It is a particularly annoying type of trolling since there is nothing openly insulting in your posts. Spotting the insult requires a moderator to review not just your posts but the entire discussion. Also, if your misrepresentations aren't challenged, others reading your posts get the impression that your version of my words is the correct one. It is possible that you believe what you are saying, but it is unlikely.

You're taking this waaay too seriously, I put those smilies in there to try and get you to relax.  And there's no need to review my posts for insults, I never insulted you.  And I fully believe what I'm saying... as do some others.  Don't make this bigger than it is... the Paragon is a "heroic" choice... a "despite all odds, I won't sacrifice the coucil/DA" kind of choice... sure it put the galaxy at risk because of the time crunch... but it paid off in success.

This has nothing to do with what becomes of Sovereign. Again, quit trying to change the arguement to something you can easily dismiss. The battle is against the Reapers. If Sovereign succeeds and they capture the Citadel, you lose, but if you don't have sufficient forces when they show up later (ME3), you still lose. Sovereign is a couple years gone by that point, but there is an entire fleet of Reapers to replace it. You are likely to need every ship you can field against them. If you lose more than you could have at the Citadel in ME1, you will have less to face the threat in ME3. As in chess it doesn't matter if you are checkmated in 3 or checkmated in 23, you lose either way. You have to play wisely and be set up to avoid being all your opponent's ploys while setting the state to checkmate your opponent.

The arguement has not been changed... and this scenario is far from chess.  Again, if you don't stop Sovereign in time, it's over.  Even the entire combined might of Citadel and Arcturus forces fighting alongside a fresh Destiny Ascension is not enough for the entire Reaper Armada and their indoctrinated drones.  Just because I can see past your points doesn't mean I'm not considering them... I'm saying that if Sovereign brings the Reapers over in that critical moment... it's over... regardless of any other plan, preparation, or contingency.

If you insist on using chess as an analogy, however, then consider this.  Sovereign put the galaxy in check.  Lets also consider that this game allows you a set amount of time before you forfeit your turn (which fits the game's scenario).  You're no longer allowed by the rules of chess to move your pieces anywhere outside of protecting the king, so trying to save a castle that's in jeapardy at the same time will not be possible.  The castle will be sacrificed to keep the king alive.  Still though, to restate, that scenario doesn't fit chess. 

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 20 juin 2011 - 04:00 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Defeating it is the natural first thing you'd try... but not the only option available... should it fail.

And what is the sign that you failed to defeat Sovereign? Reapers arriving via the Citadel after your death.

You do find out they're still coming, and then you'll have that time to prepare for that.  Now you have an extended time table... much longer than what you have from the "game over" scenario Sovereign presented.  And sufficient forces at the Citadel is completely irrelevant to the combined might of the galaxy.  And all of it is irrelevant to stopping Sovereign in time.  No matter what happens afterwards, stopping Sovereign made a difference... if for nothing else but buying time.

An extended time table doesn't mean that enough survived the fight that you will be able to win. You don't know what it will take. You don't know the effects of losses on political will or even what is happening with the other fleets. The Alliance fleet is appearantly the only one available to reinforce so it is not a given that the Geth only hit the Citadel.

You're taking this waaay too seriously, I put those smilies in there to try and get you to relax.  And there's no need to review my posts for insults, I never insulted you.  And I fully believe what I'm saying... as do some others.  Don't make this bigger than it is... the Paragon is a "heroic" choice... a "despite all odds, I won't sacrifice the coucil/DA" kind of choice... sure it put the galaxy at risk because of the time crunch... but it paid off in success.

You keep presenting my arguement as a paragon choice. I am arguing saving the DA from a renegade perspective. That the choice is 'blue' or involves saving the Council has nothing to do with my reasoning.

The arguement has not been changed... and this scenario is far from chess.  Again, if you don't stop Sovereign in time, it's over.  Even the entire combined might of Citadel and Arcturus forces fighting alongside a fresh Destiny Ascension is not enough for the entire Reaper Armada and their indoctrinated drones.  Just because I can see past your points doesn't mean I'm not considering them... I'm saying that if Sovereign brings the Reapers over in that critical moment... it's over... regardless of any other plan, preparation, or contingency.

How is that different from a chess game? If you are in checkmate, you lose. Would it help the analogy if there was a gun to your head and if you lose you get shot? Or a bomb rigged so that if you lose the entire galaxy goes boom? It is a game where there are multiple chances to lose, and when you lose you do so all at once. Chess is decisive. You either win, lose, or stalemate. There is no such thing as a partial victory in chess.

If the Arcturus fleet was enough to kill one Reaper before the Geth reduced their firepower to insignificance, then they would have enough firepower to manage a fighting chance. We know that the Reapers normally go to great lengths to avoid direct coordinated fleet actions.  The fleet doesn't need to defeat the Reapers outright, just to slow them down and/or distract them long enough to buy us more time.

We also know now that the Thanix cannon can be refitted easily in the field and that once their shields are down they seem incredibly vulnerable. A single volley from a frigate was enough to utterly destroy Sovereign once its shields fell. Any extra ships at all might prove invaluable, even if only to evacuate more people.

If you insist on using chess as an analogy, however, then consider this.  Sovereign put the galaxy in check.  Lets also consider that this game allows you a set amount of time before you forfeit your turn (which fits the game's scenario).  You're no longer allowed by the rules of chess to move your pieces anywhere outside of protecting the king, so trying to save a castle that's in jeapardy at the same time will not be possible.  The castle will be sacrificed to keep the king alive.  Still though, to restate, that scenario doesn't fit chess. 

You don't know you chess that well. Sovereign was threatening checkmate but at the time the decision was made, the king (the Citadel) was temporarily out of danger (no longer in check). Given multiple means of avoiding checkmate, the one that is leads to better future moves is the better one. Not saving the DA protects the king further, but puts it in a more vulnerable position than if the DA was saved. Barring some combination of moves neither of us is seeing, your defence relies on your opponent being a less than competent chess player, on using its Geth pawns against the less important Council pieces rather than to defend the bishop (sovereign) key to its chances at a quick checkmate.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

And what is the sign that you failed to defeat Sovereign? Reapers arriving via the Citadel after your death.

The sign that you failed to defeat Sovereign is that he's still alive.  The sign that you failed to stop Sovereign is the Reapers arriving via the Citadel... before or after your death... and before or after Sovereign's defeat.

An extended time table doesn't mean that enough survived the fight that you will be able to win. You don't know what it will take. You don't know the effects of losses on political will or even what is happening with the other fleets. The Alliance fleet is appearantly the only one available to reinforce so it is not a given that the Geth only hit the Citadel.

 
Lol, you seriously think that the numbers present at the Citadel were significant enough to matter if the Rest of the Galaxy decided to join in instead?  When an enemy attacks a well-organized nation, it spurs revenge.  That's the dominant effect that losses have on political will.  If the blame is rightly placed on the Reapers (and who else is there to tell what happened), then the galaxy can prepare for the Reapers... that's how Mass Effect 1 ends.

You keep presenting my arguement as a paragon choice. I am arguing saving the DA from a renegade perspective. That the choice is 'blue' or involves saving the Council has nothing to do with my reasoning.

 
You can argue any perspective but that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about Paragon/Renegade choices in the game... and you picked the Paragon choice.  If you're thinking of Renegade rationales for Paragon choices, you need to get back on topic.

How is that different from a chess game? If you are in checkmate, you lose. Would it help the analogy if there was a gun to your head and if you lose you get shot? Or a bomb rigged so that if you lose the entire galaxy goes boom? It is a game where there are multiple chances to lose, and when you lose you do so all at once. Chess is decisive. You either win, lose, or stalemate. There is no such thing as a partial victory in chess.

It's not chess because you're not on an unknown time table and you don't know where your other pieces are or what state they're in outside of your queen who's lost any and all abilities to move.  It's just not the same.  To adapt the analogy partially, Saren thought you were in checkmate, his defeat and vigil's data file proved that it was just Sovereign putting the galaxy in check.

If the Arcturus fleet was enough to kill one Reaper before the Geth reduced their firepower to insignificance, then they would have enough firepower to manage a fighting chance. We know that the Reapers normally go to great lengths to avoid direct coordinated fleet actions.  The fleet doesn't need to defeat the Reapers outright, just to slow them down and/or distract them long enough to buy us more time.

They were enough to kill a Reaper that had no shields (thank Shepard for that).  The Geth are a part of the Reaper's power... as is any other cyber warfare they use along with indoctrination.

We also know now that the Thanix cannon can be refitted easily in the field and that once their shields are down they seem incredibly vulnerable. A single volley from a frigate was enough to utterly destroy Sovereign once its shields fell. Any extra ships at all might prove invaluable, even if only to evacuate more people.

Thanix comes later and is proof that additional time can make a difference.

You don't know you chess that well. Sovereign was threatening checkmate but at the time the decision was made, the king (the Citadel) was temporarily out of danger (no longer in check). Given multiple means of avoiding checkmate, the one that is leads to better future moves is the better one. Not saving the DA protects the king further, but puts it in a more vulnerable position than if the DA was saved. Barring some combination of moves neither of us is seeing, your defence relies on your opponent being a less than competent chess player, on using its Geth pawns against the less important Council pieces rather than to defend the bishop (sovereign) key to its chances at a quick checkmate.

I know chess better than you think.  Consider this, while checkmate was being threatened, it wasn't actually there... it was just check.  Same rules apply.  The Citadel was not out of danger, it just wasn't "over."  IE:  Sovereign did not have the galaxy/Citadel at checkmate... just "check."  I'm hoping you can connect the dots on the rest of your scenario... given this fact.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 20 juin 2011 - 05:13 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The sign that you failed to defeat Sovereign is that he's still alive.  The sign that you failed to stop Sovereign is the Reapers arriving via the Citadel... before or after your death... and before or after Sovereign's defeat.

The only stopping Sovereign in the game involves defeating him. There is no 'Sovereign gets away' scenario. Why is this relevant to this thread anyway other than your love of red herrings and semantics?

Lol, you seriously think that the numbers present at the Citadel were significant enough to matter if the Rest of the Galaxy decided to join in instead?  When an enemy attacks a well-organized nation, it spurs revenge.  That's the dominant effect that losses have on political will.  If the blame is rightly placed on the Reapers (and who else is there to tell what happened), then the galaxy can prepare for the Reapers... that's how Mass Effect 1 ends.

Lol do you know for a fact what those ships can do if upgraded to newer tech? Lol do you seriously believe even just one additional ship can't make a difference? Do you really believe that Shepard can find a way to beat the reapers with no ships? Just stuck on one planet?

We don't know the final battle results other than Sovereign being stopped either way. 
 

You can argue any perspective but that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about Paragon/Renegade choices in the game... and you picked the Paragon choice.  If you're thinking of Renegade rationales for Paragon choices, you need to get back on topic.

There is no other way of chosing to save the DA without a blue choice. Spinning it as saving the Council can have political brownie points above and beyond the core reasons for making the decision. In short, Shepard could be lieing for political reasons about why he is saving the DA.

It's not chess because you're not on an unknown time table and you don't know where your other pieces are or what state they're in outside of your queen who's lost any and all abilities to move.  It's just not the same.  To adapt the analogy partially, Saren thought you were in checkmate, his defeat and vigil's data file proved that it was just Sovereign putting the galaxy in check.

In chess, you know in advance which move will be the last? Noone is that good in advance. Saren didn't think you were in checkmate, he thought you didn't have enough pieces or enough skill to win. There is a big difference there.

They were enough to kill a Reaper that had no shields (thank Shepard for that).  The Geth are a part of the Reaper's power... as is any other cyber warfare they use along with indoctrination.

Again you are metagaming. That Sovereign would go down so easily isn't known in advance. If the Geth are part of the Reaper's power, isn't taking a free shot at them reducing the Reaper's power and improving your odds?

Thanix comes later and is proof that additional time can make a difference.

But also proof that additional ships can make a difference. If additional ships can't make a difference are you arguing that ship production is a waste of resources? It turns out that the Reapers arrive sooner than later. There hasn't been much time to replace any lost ships.

I know chess better than you think.  Consider this, while checkmate was being threatened, it wasn't actually there... it was just check.  Same rules apply.  The Citadel was not out of danger, it just wasn't "over."  IE:  Sovereign did not have the galaxy/Citadel at checkmate... just "check."  I'm hoping you can connect the dots on the rest of your scenario... given this fact.

If you knew chess you would know that the king doesn't have to be in check to threaten checkmate. The immediate threat to the Citadel had been averted by Vigil's program. Of course there was still the risk of another check or a checkmate, but the king had already been moved out of immediate danger.

Stopping Sovereign is akin to taking the piece threatening checkmate. If you sacrifice too many pieces to achieve that, you can jeopardize the entire game.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

The only stopping Sovereign in the game involves defeating him. There is no 'Sovereign gets away' scenario. Why is this relevant to this thread anyway other than your love of red herrings and semantics?

You're right, there is no 'get away' scenario.  But you are still incorrect about the notion of stopping Sovereign in time.  If you don't do it in time... it's over.

The very first factor of your choice that you hear is (and read this carefully... because there's no semantics or red herrings going on here)...

"Quick!  Open the station's arms!  Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!"

The important and stessed issue there is "before he regains control of the station."  Again, if Sovereign is stopped after the Reapers are summoned... it doesn't make any difference... the galaxy is still doomed.

Don't put the cart before the horse.... or actually go ahead, the game doesn't mind, lol.

Lol do you know for a fact what those ships can do if upgraded to newer tech? Lol do you seriously believe even just one additional ship can't make a difference? Do you really believe that Shepard can find a way to beat the reapers with no ships? Just stuck on one planet?

We don't know the final battle results other than Sovereign being stopped either way.

We don't "know" if the Ascension can be saved or the Geth can be stopped either.  What we do know is that if we don't stop Sovereign in time... it's over. 
 

There is no other way of chosing to save the DA without a blue choice. Spinning it as saving the Council can have political brownie points above and beyond the core reasons for making the decision. In short, Shepard could be lieing for political reasons about why he is saving the DA.

Agreed... and that goes the same for Renegades... but that still doesn't change the fact that if Sovereign is not stopped in time... it's over.  It doesn't matter what Shepard's 'reasoning' is for delaying or focusing on Sovereign.

In chess, you know in advance which move will be the last? Noone is that good in advance. Saren didn't think you were in checkmate, he thought you didn't have enough pieces or enough skill to win. There is a big difference there.

Saren:  "You've lost, you know that don't you"

In chess... that's what we usually refer to as a claiming a "checkmate."

Again you are metagaming. That Sovereign would go down so easily isn't known in advance. If the Geth are part of the Reaper's power, isn't taking a free shot at them reducing the Reaper's power and improving your odds?

Again, it doesn't matter how easily Sovereign goes down... if Sovereign is not stopped from regaining control of the station in time... it's over.

But also proof that additional ships can make a difference. If additional ships can't make a difference are you arguing that ship production is a waste of resources? It turns out that the Reapers arrive sooner than later. There hasn't been much time to replace any lost ships.

Fact is that the option presented in the game that wants to save "additional ships" ... is the choice to not send your fleet in to battle against the Geth and save an already defeated ship.

Tali:  "Human casualties will be very high if you send your fleet in now..."

Now against the entire Reaper armada... no... the citadel fleet would be destroyed.  How do we know?  Because they practically were destroyed by the effect of just 1 Reaper.

If you knew chess you would know that the king doesn't have to be in check to threaten checkmate. The immediate threat to the Citadel had been averted by Vigil's program. Of course there was still the risk of another check or a checkmate, but the king had already been moved out of immediate danger.

Stopping Sovereign is akin to taking the piece threatening checkmate. If you sacrifice too many pieces to achieve that, you can jeopardize the entire game.

Whether you "do" or "don't" have to be in checkmate is irrelevant because you're not in checkmate.  You're in check.   In checkmate, there are no other options but to lose.  Now to more specifically address your point...  Someone can "call" checkmate within a few moves... but it's not checkmate until that checkmate move is played.

And again, compared to the entire galaxy's ships, the amount at the Citadel isn't that much... the Reapers have always wiped out the Citadel fleet... each time they've done this cycle (they've likely designed it that way).  Vigil's suggestion for beating the Reapers is using the entire galaxy's force... which is way more impressive than just the ships hanging around the Citadel.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 20 juin 2011 - 08:41 .