347 réponses à ce sujet

[Smeelia]

Rip504 wrote...

If anything the company that was running the test on Noveria,should hook Shepard up with an e-mail/appearance(rep) and a weapon or at least some credits or even resources. For keeping their dirty secret under wraps and cleaning up their mess. Content with weight,but not pointless content.!.

I don't know about giving any tangible reward but they could have a rep turn up and say something like "we owe you a favour" and then they'd be set to pay back the favour in ME3.

Saphra Deden wrote...

In a default game, what I'd have done is this: Wrex was never recruited by Shepard and so formed no bond with him, but, naturally, did not die on Virmire.

He none-the-less returned to Tuchanka and gained control of his clan but because Shepard dismissed him at the Citadel he does the same on Tuchanka, not even granting Shepard on audience.

I think Wrex would work as the default, I don't think he'd hold anything against Shepard though (I dont think you even have to see him and he doesn't ask to see you).  They could just have extra/different dialogue depending on if he knows Shepard or not.

Still, it's not that difficult to keep Wrex alive so it is a nice reward for doing so.  He's such a good character though that it's a shame that people miss out on him without actually killing him themselves.

[Seboist]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Moiaussi:
I ask again: given what we know and what has already happened, do you really believe the Rachni Queen's presence will be more hindrance than help, or that the Collector base, after all the team members' disagreements as a whole series of red flags for the player, will be more help than hindrance? Do you really believe that destroying the Genophage cure will have any discernable benefit over keeping it? Really? Pah. Bioware has written a pretty conventional hero story so far. If it happens, it will because they learned from the reaction that something was not right.

Regarding Balak: what we aren't shown or told doesn't happen. First rule of fiction. If we aren't told that Balak did bad things after we let him go, then for all intents and purposes we must assume that he didn't. For this is, after all, something that would affect our protagonist and would be told if it had happened.

I said it's an emerging pattern, not yet complete. I don't know if you can't see the pattern or if you choose to ignore it to further your side of the argument. I'd be very surprised if especially the Rachni and the CB decisions turned out to favor Renegades. I am hoping for such a surprise especially in the case of the CB, but I won't hold my breath.

The Collector base decision is so biased in favor of Paragons that it's ridiculous.

Squadmate reactions from those who favored keeping it on the Normandy:

Paragon: "Yeah baby we blew that **** up and stuck it to the man! I'm so glad you didn't follow my advice and keep it!"
Renegade: "Damn Shepard are you a ****ing idiot? I know I told you to keep it but did you have to so stupid and actually do it?"

RE: the Genocide data, ME2 flat out tells the player it's irrelevant when after it's destroyed Mordin says he remembers a lot of it and that he didn't teach Maelon everything he knew. Not to it matters anyway, we're being railroaded into saving the Krogans in ME3 regardless. I wouldn't doubt that it will have the same amount of significance that giving Tali the Geth Incursion data from ME1 had in ME2, which is to say almost none at all.

[Ieldra]

Moiaussi wrote...
By the way, it is interesting that you say the Rachni 'and' the Collector base rather than 'or.' You need them both to go pro-renegade to be satisfied then? 

No. In fact I'd be content with the intact CB having a significant benefit for the war above the destroyed one. If my Cerberus enemies are stronger because of it, that's inconsequential.

[Moiaussi]

Seboist wrote...

The Collector base decision is so biased in favor of Paragons that it's ridiculous.

Squadmate reactions from those who favored keeping it on the Normandy:

Paragon: "Yeah baby we blew that **** up and stuck it to the man! I'm so glad you didn't follow my advice and keep it!"
Renegade: "Damn Shepard are you a ****ing idiot? I know I told you to keep it but did you have to so stupid and actually do it?"

RE: the Genocide data, ME2 flat out tells the player it's irrelevant when after it's destroyed Mordin says he remembers a lot of it and that he didn't teach Maelon everything he knew. Not to it matters anyway, we're being railroaded into saving the Krogans in ME3 regardless. I wouldn't doubt that it will have the same amount of significance that giving Tali the Geth Incursion data from ME1 had in ME2, which is to say almost none at all.

I agree with you completely regarding the squad reactions. So far though there is no tangible benefit or penalty regarding the Collector base. The way I see it, it is giving the Reapers back some of their own tech in exchange for the possibility of recapturing it, so short term bad in exchange for possible long term good. It could still play out either way.

The genophage data isn't neccessarily irrelevant. It might not help most of us as you say, but it might help anyone who had Mordin die and it might also help the enemy since it is a safe bet Cerberus got a copy, and that is Salarian tech, not Reaper so it is something they wouldn't otherwise have. Destroying it might turn out to be the best choice.

Nothing is a given in either case, and curing the Krogan is likely a bad plan long term regardless. I like Okeer's strategy for the Krogan better since it is sustainable.

[Yakko77]

Renegade decision generally involve but are not limited to wiping out colonies (Feros), erradicating species (Rachni) and letting a super dreadnought with 10K crew and the galactic Council get blown up just so you can get a better shot, leaving a mentally challenged man in a brutal experiment (Overlord) or handing over Reaper/Collector tech to a human supremacy group infamous for brutal and unethical conduct (ME2 SM).  This and several other incidents where you shoot first or leave/let people die and yet Renegade players expect.... what exactly by the end of ME3?  You just spent 2 games being a galactic bastard/bitc# and you want to somehow be rewarded or have the same ending the paragon players have?  If so, GET REAL!!!  Play as a renegade and you'll get a renegade ending, nothing more.  By the end of ME3, you'll likely win and you'll be able to plant your flag of victory on top of a hill made out of your dead innocent victims that could've been saved and your friends and allies.  It's the way you played and it's what is deserved.

I have a mostly renegade playthrough and I look forward to playing that character to see exactly how that plays out.

Modifié par Yakko77, 18 juin 2011 - 06:46 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Who would have thought that ignoring context for selective description could make certain choices seem entirely unreasonable?

Now if you pardon me, I'm going to gamble with the permanent extinction of trillions and the re-implementation of a cycle of systemic galactic geneocide for a number of people who don't even qualify as a rounding error.

Time to save the Council!

[Yakko77]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Who would have thought that ignoring context for selective description could make certain choices seem entirely unreasonable?

Now if you pardon me, I'm going to gamble with the permanent extinction of trillions and the re-implementation of a cycle of systemic galactic geneocide for a number of people who don't even qualify as a rounding error.

Time to save the Council!

I didn't deny that renegade decisions wont result in the defeat of the Reapers.  Just expect it to involve more dead bodies of those that could've been saved with the same result.  Again, just what kind of ending are you expecting in ME3 by playing as a renegade?  I just get the impression that renegade advocates are expecting the results of paragon decisions.  If you let the Council die, don't expect the DA to come in guns blazing.  If you killed the Rachni queen, don't go expecting their help either.  If you destroyed the genophage cure, don't expect a lot of krogan to be lining up behind you in battle.

Edit:  Honestly, how should players benefit from letting the DA be destroyed, killing the Rachni Queen or destroying the genophage cure?  What is it you expect or would like as a result from those choices because right now it seems a lot of renegade players have made these choices the past two games and now they're crying over the consequences.

Modifié par Yakko77, 18 juin 2011 - 07:23 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Yakko77 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Who would have thought that ignoring context for selective description could make certain choices seem entirely unreasonable?

Now if you pardon me, I'm going to gamble with the permanent extinction of trillions and the re-implementation of a cycle of systemic galactic geneocide for a number of people who don't even qualify as a rounding error.

Time to save the Council!

I didn't deny that renegade decisions wont result in the defeat of the Reapers.  Just expect it to involve more dead bodies of those that could've been saved with the same result.  Again, just what kind of ending are you expecting in ME3 by playing as a renegade?  I just get the impression that renegade advocates are expecting the results of paragon decisions.  If you let the Council die, don't expect the DA to come in guns blazing.  If you killed the Rachni queen, don't go expecting their help either.  If you destroyed the genophage cure, don't expect a lot of krogan to be lining up behind you in battle.

Huzah for people who either don't recognize irony or don't understand other people's positions!

Edit:  Honestly, how should players benefit from letting the DA be destroyed,

An audience with the Human council wouldn't be out of place.

killing the Rachni Queen

The gratitude of the entire galaxy would be pretty reasonable.

Likewise, the criticism by the entire galaxy BUT the Rachni really should have been expected for those who released the most devastating menace the galaxy had ever known.

or destroying the genophage cure?

The gratitude of everyone in the galaxy but the Krogan, especially considering there are still people who remember the Krogan Rebellions.

Note, mind you that 'gratidue' is a place holder for 'positive reaction.'

What is it you expect or would like as a result from those choices because right now it seems a lot of renegade players have made these choices the past two games and now they're crying over the consequences.

...actually, a lot of them are 'crying' about the lack of consequences, or the lack of much of anything to reflect their choices. Absence of content is not a consequences, it's a lacking.

Then there are others who think that the in-universe consequenses, as depicted, really don't make much sense in terms of consistency or reason.

Now, as for how much any of them could be described as 'crying', any more than, say, people who complain about them critizing...

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 18 juin 2011 - 07:31 .

[Yakko77]

I'm not trying to advocate punishing renegades (one of my playthroughs is mostly renegade) but I'm just at a loss at how some renegade decisions can be beneficial in the long term is all.

Modifié par Yakko77, 18 juin 2011 - 07:40 .

[YeGodz]

Beneficial how? No rachni means no rachni on either side, so its a wash in terms of the game. I suspect that some of these decisions are going to impact the epilogue more than actual play. For example, destroying the genophage cure probably won't stop you from recruiting the krogan (I mean, how would they know you destroyed it?) The krogan fight, take heavy losses to an already diminished population, and in the epilogue either replenish their numbers (cure) or finally succumb to extinction (no cure).

Consequence enough?

[Smeelia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Who would have thought that ignoring context for selective description could make certain choices seem entirely unreasonable?

Well, the Feros description is accurate enough since it's easy to just punch them (so you can still feel a bit Renegade) or use the grenades with no significant risk.  Some of the choices really don't make much sense (both sides suffer from this).

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Now if you pardon me, I'm going to gamble with the permanent extinction of trillions and the re-implementation of a cycle of systemic galactic geneocide for a number of people who don't even qualify as a rounding error.

Time to save the Council!

I wonder how many people actually do it just to save the council, it's probably quite a lot.  More interesting would be how many people would notice or care if it wasn't offered as an option (or if the option was given to the Admiral of the fleet instead and you were stuck with their decision).

Similarly, letting the council die is probably usually done on the basis that you're risking the plan to destroy sovereign otherwise.  I think your squadmates might mention the potential for human gain but if not then I don't think it would be at the front of too many people's thoughts when making the choice (plus, it's not exactly guaranteed and just happens to be how things work out, like a lot of Paragon decisions really).

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Huzah for people who either don't recognize irony or don't understand other people's positions!

To be fair, that's everyone.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

killing the Rachni Queen

The gratitude of the entire galaxy would be pretty reasonable.

Likewise, the criticism by the entire galaxy BUT the Rachni really should have been expected for those who released the most devastating menace the galaxy had ever known.

It's true that popular support would likely be against saving the Rachni.  That doesn't make it the right decision or any more reasonable but it'd be an interesting way to reflect the hatred and distrust that those who let the council die suffer (since that was often for a good reason too but not necessarily popular).  Of course, hardly anyone knows about the Rachni Queen and those that do have an interest in keeping it secret but it might be interesting to deal with the subject if it comes out in ME3 (even if the Rachni end up being potential allies, perhaps especially in that case).

I suppose the genophage data (is it an actual cure? I thought it was just some work towards one) would be similar.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Then there are others who think that the in-universe consequenses, as depicted, really don't make much sense in terms of consistency or reason.

To be fair though, some people do mistake "improbable" for "impossible" and are often applying judgements based on the real world while ignoring things like cultural differences and so on (although the Mass Effect universe does tend to draw it's own parallels so you could say it's justified in many cases).

[Seboist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Who would have thought that ignoring context for selective description could make certain choices seem entirely unreasonable?

Now if you pardon me, I'm going to gamble with the permanent extinction of trillions and the re-implementation of a cycle of systemic galactic geneocide for a number of people who don't even qualify as a rounding error.

Time to save the Council!

I didn't deny that renegade decisions wont result in the defeat of the Reapers.  Just expect it to involve more dead bodies of those that could've been saved with the same result.  Again, just what kind of ending are you expecting in ME3 by playing as a renegade?  I just get the impression that renegade advocates are expecting the results of paragon decisions.  If you let the Council die, don't expect the DA to come in guns blazing.  If you killed the Rachni queen, don't go expecting their help either.  If you destroyed the genophage cure, don't expect a lot of krogan to be lining up behind you in battle.

Huzah for people who either don't recognize irony or don't understand other people's positions!

Edit:  Honestly, how should players benefit from letting the DA be destroyed,

An audience with the Human council wouldn't be out of place.

killing the Rachni Queen

The gratitude of the entire galaxy would be pretty reasonable.

Likewise, the criticism by the entire galaxy BUT the Rachni really should have been expected for those who released the most devastating menace the galaxy had ever known.

or destroying the genophage cure?

The gratitude of everyone in the galaxy but the Krogan, especially considering there are still people who remember the Krogan Rebellions.

Note, mind you that 'gratidue' is a place holder for 'positive reaction.'

What is it you expect or would like as a result from those choices because right now it seems a lot of renegade players have made these choices the past two games and now they're crying over the consequences.

...actually, a lot of them are 'crying' about the lack of consequences, or the lack of much of anything to reflect their choices. Absence of content is not a consequences, it's a lacking.

Then there are others who think that the in-universe consequenses, as depicted, really don't make much sense in terms of consistency or reason.

Now, as for how much any of them could be described as 'crying', any more than, say, people who complain about them critizing...

True, the Renegade path is essentially the Paragon one with joke dialogue, less content and not much else.

[Moiaussi]

Smeelia wrote...

Well, the Feros description is accurate enough since it's easy to just punch them (so you can still feel a bit Renegade) or use the grenades with no significant risk.  Some of the choices really don't make much sense (both sides suffer from this).

As of ME2 the survivors are still suffering from thorian spores in their systems. It may yet turn out that they are better off dead, and that their survival does represent a renewed threat. There are aspects of the situation other than strictly tactical.

I wonder how many people actually do it just to save the council, it's probably quite a lot.  More interesting would be how many people would notice or care if it wasn't offered as an option (or if the option was given to the Admiral of the fleet instead and you were stuck with their decision).

Similarly, letting the council die is probably usually done on the basis that you're risking the plan to destroy sovereign otherwise.  I think your squadmates might mention the potential for human gain but if not then I don't think it would be at the front of too many people's thoughts when making the choice (plus, it's not exactly guaranteed and just happens to be how things work out, like a lot of Paragon decisions really).

There are people who make both decisions for various reasons of differing levels of rationality. That doesn't change the fact that there are tactical implications to not saving the DA, namely the fact that you are ignoring the Geth ships that will be freed up once it is gone. Even the 'humans first' attitude may end up providing the higher odds of survival against the Reapers, depending on how politics play out in ME3 and who built how many ships in the aftermath of each of the two decisions.

To be fair, that's everyone.

How generous of you to speak for everyone.

It's true that popular support would likely be against saving the Rachni.  That doesn't make it the right decision or any more reasonable but it'd be an interesting way to reflect the hatred and distrust that those who let the council die suffer (since that was often for a good reason too but not necessarily popular).  Of course, hardly anyone knows about the Rachni Queen and those that do have an interest in keeping it secret but it might be interesting to deal with the subject if it comes out in ME3 (even if the Rachni end up being potential allies, perhaps especially in that case).

I suppose the genophage data (is it an actual cure? I thought it was just some work towards one) would be similar.

In both cases, the general population doesn't know. The Council isn't stupid enough to reveal that there even was a survivng queen. It would just mean rampant panic that there are more, or that it is some sort of publicity stunt to get people to pay higher taxes or something. Neither is particularly good for public moral. If the Queen is spared it is even worse. Humanity would actually be the least affected since the Rachni War was 3300 years ago and humanity wasn't even in space yet. It isn't as 'real' a threat to humanity since they never faced it. They may even just blame the whole war on Council failed diplomacy, especially if Shepard lets the Queen go... which of course would be more political issues for the Council.

Likewise with the genophage cure. Shepard keeping a copy doesn't mean he puts out a press release saying he did so.

To be fair though, some people do mistake "improbable" for "impossible" and are often applying judgements based on the real world while ignoring things like cultural differences and so on (although the Mass Effect universe does tend to draw it's own parallels so you could say it's justified in many cases).

Agreed.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I don't remember Paragons ever mentioning sacrificing for the greater good or objective. Those kind of lines have belonged to the Renegades... but the games have never validated this stance with what's been presented thusfar. That's kind of a problem and to the discerning observer... can make choices seem a bit empty when looking for the "best outcome."

[Dean_the_Young]

Smeelia wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Who would have thought that ignoring context for selective description could make certain choices seem entirely unreasonable?

Well, the Feros description is accurate enough since it's easy to just punch them (so you can still feel a bit Renegade) or use the grenades with no significant risk.  Some of the choices really don't make much sense (both sides suffer from this).

Or, you could, you know, role play. Without caring about game mechanics.

Similarly, letting the council die is probably usually done on the basis that you're risking the plan to destroy sovereign otherwise.  I think your squadmates might mention the potential for human gain but if not then I don't think it would be at the front of too many people's thoughts when making the choice (plus, it's not exactly guaranteed and just happens to be how things work out, like a lot of Paragon decisions really).

Funnily enough, the most 'pro-human' argument raised on the Sovereign decision is 'what has the Council ever done for humanity.'

To be fair, that's everyone.

Some people are more everyone than others.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

killing the Rachni Queen

The gratitude of the entire galaxy would be pretty reasonable.

Likewise, the criticism by the entire galaxy BUT the Rachni really should have been expected for those who released the most devastating menace the galaxy had ever known.

It's true that popular support would likely be against saving the Rachni.  That doesn't make it the right decision or any more reasonable but it'd be an interesting way to reflect the hatred and distrust that those who let the council die suffer (since that was often for a good reason too but not necessarily popular).  Of course, hardly anyone knows about the Rachni Queen and those that do have an interest in keeping it secret but it might be interesting to deal with the subject if it comes out in ME3 (even if the Rachni end up being potential allies, perhaps especially in that case).

I don't recal arguing here about anything making any decision 'right', but while the Rachni Queen herself isn't public knowledge, the existence of Rachni on noveria before being wiped out again was public news in ME2. All it takes is a someone who knows someone who knows Shepard was responsible... which is statistically about as likely as running across the Rachni Ambassador in a marketplace.

To be fair though, some people do mistake "improbable" for "impossible" and are often applying judgements based on the real world while ignoring things like cultural differences and so on (although the Mass Effect universe does tend to draw it's own parallels so you could say it's justified in many cases).

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't. Not all choices are equally plausible, likely, or reasonable.



Edit: Apologies for the snappish tone: pay it no mind, as it isn't meant towards you.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 18 juin 2011 - 10:03 .

[Yakko77]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I don't remember Paragons ever mentioning sacrificing for the greater good or objective. Those kind of lines have belonged to the Renegades... but the games have never validated this stance with what's been presented thusfar. That's kind of a problem and to the discerning observer... can make choices seem a bit empty when looking for the "best outcome."

Well, the paragon ending in ME1 involves sacrificing some Alliance cruisers to save the DA and the Council plus the ME2 paragon ending you "sacrifice" the Collector base and whatever knowledge contained within.  I guess it's up to the player what is cinsidered a sacrifice for the greater good or what is simply wasted and lost.

[Yakko77]

Oops.  DP.

Modifié par Yakko77, 18 juin 2011 - 09:55 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

They did say in a bluff that they sacrificed human lives to save the Ascension... but you could argue whether that was the "greater good" or "greater objective" in the face of galactic extinction. I'd say the reason for Shepard (in the game) was an idealistic one.  Paragons (as they're presented in the game) are willing to sacriifce for their own ideals... not so much the greater good/objective.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 18 juin 2011 - 09:59 .

[Seboist]

Yakko77 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I don't remember Paragons ever mentioning sacrificing for the greater good or objective. Those kind of lines have belonged to the Renegades... but the games have never validated this stance with what's been presented thusfar. That's kind of a problem and to the discerning observer... can make choices seem a bit empty when looking for the "best outcome."

Well, the paragon ending in ME1 involves sacrificing some Alliance cruisers to save the DA and the Council plus the ME2 paragon ending you "sacrifice" the Collector base and whatever knowledge contained within.  I guess it's up to the player what is cinsidered a sacrifice for the greater good or what is simply wasted and lost.

There's no indicator that losing those Alliance cruisers had ANY negative effect in ME2. There's no sign of humans being made militarily weaker or the Alliance brass or people back home even caring. It's all sunshine and rainbows for the Paragon decision.

[Smeelia]

Moiaussi wrote...

As of ME2 the survivors are still suffering from thorian spores in their systems. It may yet turn out that they are better off dead, and that their survival does represent a renewed threat. There are aspects of the situation other than strictly tactical.

There's not exactly significant evidence to suggest that (especially at the time) so I don't think it would be a concern in deciding whether to try the grenades or not.  It might well work out badly in the long run but there's very little reason (if any) to kill the colonists.

I have to admit, it could be kind of fun if they grew a new Thorian from the colonists and the reason they didn't want the invasive procedures (which you helped prevent) was that it might uncover their secret.  None of the decisions leading up to that would really be "bad" (since it would be about impossible to predict) but it would still be a situation for you to deal with that would sort of make some sense (it's unlikely but still possible).

Moiaussi wrote...

There are people who make both decisions for various reasons of differing levels of rationality. That doesn't change the fact that there are tactical implications to not saving the DA, namely the fact that you are ignoring the Geth ships that will be freed up once it is gone. Even the 'humans first' attitude may end up providing the higher odds of survival against the Reapers, depending on how politics play out in ME3 and who built how many ships in the aftermath of each of the two decisions.

Yup, I was just thinking that it is interesting to know exactly why people make decisions and how changes to the way the decisions are presented (or allowed) would affect them could also be interesting.  I'd imagine there are a lot of different views for each decision.

Moiaussi wrote.

How generous of you to speak for everyone.

There's a saying, "everyone makes mistakes".  If you thought I was trying to offend anyone or be insulting then you clearly misunderstood (and thus supported my point).

Moiaussi wrote...

In both cases, the general population doesn't know. The Council isn't stupid enough to reveal that there even was a survivng queen. It would just mean rampant panic that there are more, or that it is some sort of publicity stunt to get people to pay higher taxes or something. Neither is particularly good for public moral. If the Queen is spared it is even worse. Humanity would actually be the least affected since the Rachni War was 3300 years ago and humanity wasn't even in space yet. It isn't as 'real' a threat to humanity since they never faced it. They may even just blame the whole war on Council failed diplomacy, especially if Shepard lets the Queen go... which of course would be more political issues for the Council.

Likewise with the genophage cure. Shepard keeping a copy doesn't mean he puts out a press release saying he did so.

Exactly.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or, you could, you know, role play. Without caring about game mechanics.

Well, you'd have to be roleplaying a specific kind of character.  You're told the grenades should work, there's no indication that there's a risk of using them and there's no harm in trying them at least once (at which point you find they do work).

You can roleplay it however you want (and I do mean that, I've even killed the colonists myself a few times) but given how one sided the choice is you'd need to make up some strong justification (or just like killing people) and the description that you "wiped out the colony" would still pretty much sum it up.  I think it is possible to not bother speaking to the Baynhams so you could be a character that rushes off without knowing of the alternative and kills the colonists thinking it's the only way.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I don't recal arguing here about anything making any decision 'right', but while the Rachni Queen herself isn't public knowledge, the existence of Rachni on noveria before being wiped out again was public news in ME2. All it takes is a someone who knows someone who knows Shepard was responsible... which is statistically about as likely as running across the Rachni Ambassador in a marketplace.

Sorry, I just meant that the "rightness" of any decision is up for debate, not that you supported a particular side or that I opposed it.

It would be fun if they did have a scene where the Rachni turn up in a marketplace and the people there are so used to aliens (and haven't seen a Rachni or simply don't recognise them) that they don't react at all.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

They did say in a bluff that they sacrificed human lives to save the Ascension... but you could argue whether that was the "greater good" or "greater objective" in the face of galactic extinction. I'd say the reason for Shepard (in the game) was an idealistic one.  Paragons (as they're presented in the game) are willing to sacriifce for their own ideals... not so much the greater good/objective.

That sounds about right, though the reasoning makes some sense.  Sacrificing who and what you are to get what you want is debatable as a positive outcome (and that works both ways).

Modifié par Smeelia, 18 juin 2011 - 10:40 .

[Rip504]

The Galaxy was not at risk for saving the DA. That is wrong and absurd. That is not the way the choice is meant to be seen. Sovereign is nearly defeated,and is only the Vanguard. THE REAPERS ARE STILL COMING THE GALAXY IS NOT SAFE. "Renegades sacrifice the alien council for the safety" of here and now. Renegades are not willing to sacrifice human lives for aliens. The Paragon is willing to sacrifice human lives to save aliens,for the future cooperation of Aliens & Humans against the Reapers,Future threats,Galactic trade & etc.(Proving they are ready to stand as a protector of citadel space.) "Paragons try and help the "greater good",while Renegades do whatever they want." read more here.   social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/7582272/15#7676578       
Also in ME1 & ME2 Shepard states he/she let the council die. Not for galactic safety,but for their own personal benefit. Your reason may be different,but the game considers it as you killing or not killing the DA & Alien council.

Also it is wrong to think it is ok for an all Human council to have relations with an ex-human Spectre who is now working for an anti-alien group. Udina is right,the political sh*tstorm would be amazing. Why would every species in Citadel Space let the Humans bully them until the point where the Human council is now backing an Anti-Alien group. The All Human Council having relations with Shepard could be considered this by Alien races. Plus it would make little to no sense story wise. Bioware did a good job writing the all Human council out of ME2. As you will no longer be working for Cerberus in ME3,I assume we will meet the all human council finally.




Edit: Give me a reason for a story based plot related event to be in ME2 for  Shepard to meet the all Human council.

Human Colonies are vanishing,yes but not in Citadel Space,So we already know citadel space will not go to war with the traverse for the sake of a few humans. Aliens are still part of citadel space,and could just refuse to
send their ships. The Human council doesn't equal the Alliance. No.
Reapers are behind the attacks. Well Citadel space doesn't believe the reaper threat is real. Another non-factor.
The human council can not reinstate Shepard's Spectre status without backing an Anti-alien group,which may cause war in Citadel space. A non-factor.

The Human council owes Shepard no respect or anything else. So when they do not give it,only to help benefit themselves. I don't understand why the Renegade(who only benefits) is so upset. It makes sense. They owe you nothing,and the meeting would be completely pointless.!.

Modifié par Rip504, 18 juin 2011 - 11:50 .

[Dave of Canada]

Moiaussi wrote...

As of ME2 the survivors are still suffering from thorian spores in their systems. It may yet turn out that they are better off dead, and that their survival does represent a renewed threat. There are aspects of the situation other than strictly tactical.

Killed them all to stop the threat of the thorian spores (if ever it relapses or something),  colonists survived and are suffering the effects of the spores regardless of my decision. Instead, I get a nameless colonist that says it.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

As of ME2 the survivors are still suffering from thorian spores in their systems. It may yet turn out that they are better off dead, and that their survival does represent a renewed threat. There are aspects of the situation other than strictly tactical.

Actually even if you kill them they apparently aren't all dead.

That bothered me too....

[Moiaussi]

Seboist wrote...

There's no indicator that losing those Alliance cruisers had ANY negative effect in ME2. There's no sign of humans being made militarily weaker or the Alliance brass or people back home even caring. It's all sunshine and rainbows for the Paragon decision.

The Aliance get the opening volley and saving the DA presumably took out Geth ships that would have otherwise been freed up to shoot someone. The Alliance ships would have been obvious targets. Again, there are tactical aspect to the decision that have nothing to do with saving the Council or the crew of the DA.