1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Pharos]

Bioware chose to make all options a 'win' for the player. As far as I'm concerned there are valid  arguments for and against both options that Bioware wouldn't (or couldn't) address given that they could not be seen to favour one choice over another (not that that helped any ).

Without keeping the actual game results in mind:

Sacrifice the DA:

Pros
Keeps the 5th fleet intact until contact with Sov.
Gets the 5th into contact with Sov as fast as possible.
Assuming victory, humanity will become stronger politically and militarily relative to the other Citadel races.

Cons
The biggest friendly warship in the battlespace is gone.
You leave an unknown number of hostile Heretic ships intact in the battlespace.
Assuming victory, the Citadel race's worst fears about humanity are confirmed.

Save the DA:

Pros
You save the largest friendly warship in the battlespace (even if it is beat-up)
You eliminate the remaining Heretic warships in the battlespace.
Assuming victory, humanity cements itself within the Citadel community, and shows the other races that it is willing to make sacrifices for the community.

Cons
5th Fleet gets beat up.
Diverting to save the DA could delay contact with Sov
Assuming victory, humanity will be weakened relative to races that didn't participate in the battle, humanity is stuck working within the existing Council framework rather than being able to build a new one.

Now, all that is rather obvious, what people are arguing about is the 'what if' scenarios.
The people who support sacrificing the DA argue, rightly, that the damage to the 5th and the delay caused could have left Sov with an opening to activate the Citadel Relay dooming everyone. However, a person supporting the rescue of the DA could argue, also rightly, that the DA could have been the key to defeating Sov. If not by shooting it if the damage couldn't be worked around, then at least by ramming Sov or the spire it is attached to.

The fact is that arguing 'what ifs' is pointless...its not what happened in the game, live with it.

Edit: Sorry, Notepad typed things don't seem to transfer over too well...

Modifié par Pharos, 24 novembre 2011 - 06:58 .

[Thompson family]

Saphra Deden wrote...

IF YOU DON'T STOP SOVEREIGN THEN THE REAPERS WON'T NEED A SECOND WAY TO RETURN.
THEY WILL RETURN RIGHT THERE AT THE CITADEL AND THE FIGHT IS OVER FOR YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE. YOU LOSE. REAPERS WIN.

SD

My Shep DID stop Sovereign.

Vini. Vidi. Vici.

So you see, you aren't making any sense. You aren't answering the point I'm raising. There will be no long term risks if you fail to stop Sovereign.

But I did stop Sovereign.

Everything, all intelligent life, will end. That is why stopping Sovereign has to be your immediate priority.

It was. When there was an opportunity to make the victory greater, I took it.

It'd be like you being poisoned while you are drowing. Do you surface first or do you apply the antidote? Keep in mind the poison will take hours, maybe even days to kill you. Drowning will of-course kill you in a matter of minutes/seconds.

That's not a bad analogy, actually. The problem with it is that I'm not the only one drowning here.

I acted in what I believed then to be the best interest of everyone. You may believe that it was an unnecesary increase of risk. I can't change that. All I can say is that it apparently is going to pay off.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 novembre 2011 - 06:59 .

[Thompson family]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

Your approach reduces the immediate risk. My approach reduces the longer-term risk.

Not really.

I'm going to save this quote and use it when you complain after ME3 that BioWare clearly panders to Paragons who saved the Council.

[HiroVoid]

capn233 wrote...
Shepard doesn't really have all of the information to actually make what would be a perfectly informed decision. You don't know how many ships you might lose to save the Ascension, you don't know how long until you get the arms open, you don't know how much firepower you need to take out Sovi, you don't know really know the disposition of the Geth and Citadel fleets as a whole as they relate to assistance and hindrance in defeating Sovi.

Most of us that like the save the council option figure if you move in as soon as possible you can assist taking out the Geth which will free Citadel ships to help fire on Sovi. No the Ascension is not included in this, they are out of the fight. But there are plenty of Turian ships left.  Saying that the CItadel fleet would be able to hold off the Geth is a major assumption you are making if you take concentrate on Sovereign.  That the Geth won't break from the Citadel fleet to engage the 5th when they attack Sovereign is also a major assumption.  Perhaps a massively incorrect one as their function was to escort and support Sovereign.  Continuing along this path of "logic" it is assumed that the remaining Citadel forces would not assist the 5th to take out Sovi after you cover the Ascension's withdrawal.

Been a while since I've played the ending. *Goes to youtube*  Oh nice.  I actually got the pure renegade paraphrase correct.  I haven't chosen that one, so that surprises me.

Renegade side-character: Open up the arms before Sovereign retakes contrl.
Paragon side-character: Open up a comm-channel.
Joker talking
Renegade side-character: Human casualties will be high or Why save the council?
Paragon side-character: Sovereign's a threat to everyone.
Renegade side-character: You can't waste reinforces on saving the council

Nowhere is it said that you have to worry about the geth.  It's stated to you that going after the geth could waste part of the fleet on Sovereign who's the major threat.  That's just people who try to justify coming up with logic on why they did what they did in that situation.  You can role-play that's why you did so, but it doesn't change what was presented and narrated to us.  I'm a fan of role-playing a character too, so if that's why you want your character to have done it, all power to you.  It's why I understand why some people really hate Shepard's 'soul of our species' at the end of ME2.  It gets rid of someone role-playing their Shepard doing it for another reason.

It's clear he needed an organic to bypass the Citadel defenses.  Clearly he could not make it from the relay into the Citadel before the arms were closed.  I don't really know why this is even discussed, the game lays this out.  Saren has to get onto the station to prevent the arms from being closed before Sovereign can dock.  That was why Saren was looking for the Conduit most of the game.  This is a fairly major plot point.

Actually, looking up the video helped me prove Sovereign retaking control was a genuine concern.  The main reason for Saren was to open up the arms.

For Bioware not knowing what renegade was, I'll agree to disagree since I feel that's a point that would just continue needless points with neither of us getting anywhere unless Bioware came out saying one way or the other about them going over that.  I already remember one time at least one writer having a different view of writing TIM, but I think Casey Hudson(unsure, so don't quote me.) wanted him written a certain way.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 24 novembre 2011 - 07:05 .

[Thompson family]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

My Shep DID stop Sovereign.

Vini. Vidi. Vici.

Unless your Shepard is clairvoyant you are meta-gaming.

No, SD. I played ME1 and did what I thought was best. I've already addressed your meta-gaming accusation.

Right. Trillions of other people are drowning but you still insist on injecting the antidote which will do nobody any good if you all drown.

As I've already explained, your analogy was a good try but isn't really applicable, is it, since you can't administer antidote to trillions at once.

What I'm saying is that what you thought was the best course of action was actually an irresponsible one since you didn't know whether you could stop Sovereign or not. You had misplaced priorities.

And if my choice is justified by events, all you have to do is blame BioWare's "bias."

That's a cozy little defense you've got there, SD.

At least I never trusted the Council as much as you fell for Cerberus, naive as I am.

[capn233]

HiroVoid wrote...
Nowhere is it said that you have to worry about the geth.  It's stated to you that going after the geth could waste part of the fleet on Sovereign who's the major threat.  That's just people who try to justify coming up with logic on why they did what they did in that situation.  You can role-play that's why you did so, but it doesn't change what was presented and narrated to us.

Obviously the Geth are there.  I don't see how Shepard doesn't know that.  He just fought through wave after wave of them just to get to the controls.  The Ascension sends a distress signal, Sovereign is docked inside the Citadel, so he isn't engaging them.  It isn't a leap of faith that the remainder of the Geth fleet is engaging the Citadel fleet, even if nobody directly tells Shepard this "on camera."  No Shepard does not state the obvious, nor does he even state any logic regarding your choice.  Your squaddies make suggestions, but they don't know anything that you do not.  They are giving you opinions, which is really dependent on their view on the council.  It is not informed tactical advice.

Actually, looking up the video helped me prove Sovereign retaking control was a genuine concern.  The main reason for Saren was to open up the arms.

Ok

For Bioware not knowing what renegade was, I'll agree to disagree since I feel that's a point that would just continue needless points with neither of us getting anywhere unless Bioware came out saying one way or the other about them going over that.  I already remember one time at least one writer having a different view of writing TIM, but I think Casey Hudson(unsure, so don't quote me.) wanted him written a certain way.

TIM is not Renegade Shepard.  I think Renegade Shep is pretty well characterized by what you see in the game, but sure bickering isn't worthwhile.

Modifié par capn233, 24 novembre 2011 - 07:18 .

[HiroVoid]

capn233 wrote...Obviously the Geth are there.  I don't see how Shepard doesn't know that.  He just fought through wave after wave of them just to get to the controls.  The Ascension sends a distress signal, Sovereign is docked inside the Citadel, so he isn't engaging them.  It isn't a leap of faith that the remainder of the Geth fleet is engaging the Citadel fleet, even if nobody directly tells Shepard this "on camera."  No Shepard does not state the obvious, nor does he even state any logic regarding your choice.  Your squaddies make suggestions, but they don't know anything that you do not.  They are giving you opinions, which is really dependent on their view on the council.  It is not informed tactical advice.

But the side-characters was the writers' way of telling you what you were risking.  When the character tells you that saving the council could waste human reinforcements that could be needed to take Sovereign down, that's what the writers want you to feel.  Heck, their views change depending on who's more paragon or renegade at the moment because the writers want to give the player a better feel of each side of the argument.

[capn233]

HiroVoid wrote...

But the side-characters was the writers'
way of telling you what you were risking.  When the character tells you
that saving the council could waste human reinforcements that could be
needed to take Sovereign down, that's what the writers want you to
feel.  Heck, their views change depending on who's more paragon or
renegade at the moment because the writers want to give the player a
better feel of each side of the argument.

The writers are trying to help frame choices for you, sure... but some of the choices, especially this one, are not nearly as simple as presented by your squad mates. It is really just a little more dynamic if the squad offers their opinions... it makes it a little more immersive than if they stood there and offered nothing. They are not there to tell you what the outcome will be before you make the choice.

Modifié par capn233, 24 novembre 2011 - 07:33 .

[HiroVoid]

capn233 wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

But the side-characters was the writers'
way of telling you what you were risking.  When the character tells you
that saving the council could waste human reinforcements that could be
needed to take Sovereign down, that's what the writers want you to
feel.  Heck, their views change depending on who's more paragon or
renegade at the moment because the writers want to give the player a
better feel of each side of the argument.

The writers are trying to help frame choices for you, sure... but some of the choices, especially this one, are not nearly as simple as presented by your squad mates. It is really just a little more dynamic if the squad offers their opinions... it makes it a little more immersive than if they stood there and offered nothing. They are not there to tell you what the outcome will be before you make the choice.

Like I said, that's just what the writers put there to make you feel.  If you want to say you did it because of geth, and it's not said otherwise(which usually sucks and takes away immersion), then cool.

[capn233]

Saphra Deden wrote...

All I want you to admit is that the more sensible thing was to eliminate the priority target, Sovereign, and not save the Council because saving the Council risked losing the battle.

Leaving geth warships in the battle space risks losing the batte.

[capn233]

HiroVoid wrote...

Like I said, that's just what the writers put there to make you feel.  If you want to say you did it because of geth, and it's not said otherwise(which usually sucks and takes away immersion), then cool.

What are you talking about?  What takes away immersion is when Shepard gives whacky explanations for his motives when making choices.  What your squad says are their opinions about choices.  Sometimes Shepard actually states his reasoning for the choices... that is when there is less room to argue motive.

And how does actually paying attention to what has been going on in the game breaking immersion?

[Thompson family]

Saphra Deden wrote...

All I want you to admit is that the more sensible thing was to eliminate the priority target, Sovereign, and not save the Council because saving the Council risked losing the battle.

That's a reasonable request, SD, and I will go this far:

Saving the Council increased the risk of losing the battle. I believe it was a risk worth taking, but acknowlege that reasonable people could disagree -- especially considering the massive stakes.

Yes, concentrating upon Sovereign was the safer option. Maintenance of the objective is a long-standing military principle.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 novembre 2011 - 07:44 .

[111987]

Paragons could justify saving the Council not because of the Council's importance, but because of the importance of the Destiny Ascension. After all, the DA is the most powerful dreadnaught in the galaxy. Saving it so that it could battle Sovereign makes sense to me (even though that doesn't end up happening).

[HiroVoid]

Thompson family wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

All I want you to admit is that the more sensible thing was to eliminate the priority target, Sovereign, and not save the Council because saving the Council risked losing the battle.

That's a reasonable request, SD, and I will go this far:

Saving the Council increased the risk of losing the battle. I believe it was a risk worth taking, but acknowlege that reasonable people could disagree -- especially considering the massive stakes.

Yes, concentrating upon Sovereign was the safer option. Maintenance of the objective is a long-standing military principle.

Edit: Dang it.  I need to learn how to post gifs.  He's crying in case you couldn't tell.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 24 novembre 2011 - 07:47 .

[HiroVoid]

111987 wrote...

Paragons could justify saving the Council not because of the Council's importance, but because of the importance of the Destiny Ascension. After all, the DA is the most powerful dreadnaught in the galaxy. Saving it so that it could battle Sovereign makes sense to me (even though that doesn't end up happening).

Dreadnought's are mostly good at long range when entering a fight which is why it got completely overwhelmed at close-range.  Still...yeah.  I suspect it probably could have done a good amount of damage to Sovereign unless i'm missing something.  Hopefully, we'll get to see it in some action in ME3.

[capn233]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Geth warships are left in the battle whether you save the DA or not only if you save the DA you are down several ships yourself.

Uh oh, is that metagaming?

If you want to go there, then you have enough ships to save the Ascension and destroy Sovi since Shepard's intervension apparently drops his shields.

Be that as it may, choosing to hold all the ships in reserve while the arms are closed instead of covering the Ascension still is not a slam dunk.  If the arms were already open it may be slightly different, but that isn't the choice.

You either have enough friendly forces to take down Sovi after the arms open and before he activates the relay or you don't.  That includes council ships.  While you can't fire on Sovi it doesn't make too much sense to hold back if you can tip the balance and destroy the Geth ships and free Council ships from that engagement to also fire on Sovereign.  This is easily displayed in RTS's...

"Space is big" doesn't hold water because the important space is 44.7km long.  The Geth are there to support Sovi.  Saying that they are certainly out of position or won't move to support Sovi is to completely ignore their mission.

But since we don't know how many it will take to fight Sovi so we need all of them, right?  Again if you hold back you have made assumptions about how the battle between the Geth and Council forces is going.  It isn't prudent to stay out of the fight if the Council fleet will all be disabled before the arms open because the Geth will be free to engage the 5th.  Unless you figured that the fleet could take down Sovi before the Geth engaged the 5th, again that is making another assumption about your relative strengths.

Unfortunately you have to make too many assumptions because Joker doesn't feel inclined to tell you how many ships he is bringing, and how many ships the Geth have vs how many the Council has left, nor does he tell you anything about their status.

Modifié par capn233, 24 novembre 2011 - 07:59 .