4309 réponses à ce sujet

[lovgreno]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Robuthad wrote...

It's kind of like life. Sure if one of your parents dies it will def have more emotional impact than if say your dog died. But wouldn't you rather not have the people closer to you die? Who goes around looking to be sad.

I know it's a game but still, I'd rather have people live than have to be killed

Ah..but that's exactly the poitn. It's exaclty because you don't want people close to you to die that it has so much impact.
Just look how panicked some people already are at the very idea. That there is an emotional reaction - which is what any good writer is looking for. To jolt someone. To make him care.

In other words, it's exactly because I don't want Garrus to die that he should die.

That does make sense. I still think it's already a bit overdone in the ME story though.

[Undertone]

lovgreno wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Robuthad wrote...

It's kind of like life. Sure if one of your parents dies it will def have more emotional impact than if say your dog died. But wouldn't you rather not have the people closer to you die? Who goes around looking to be sad.

I know it's a game but still, I'd rather have people live than have to be killed

Ah..but that's exactly the poitn. It's exaclty because you don't want people close to you to die that it has so much impact.
Just look how panicked some people already are at the very idea. That there is an emotional reaction - which is what any good writer is looking for. To jolt someone. To make him care.

In other words, it's exactly because I don't want Garrus to die that he should die.

That does make sense. I still think it's already a bit overdone in the ME story though.

Overdone? I think Under-done. ME2 goes without any casualties (as it is no-brainer for the large majority) and you only lose one person in ME1 (I don't think I know even a renegade player that would kill Wrex, when it's obvious he can be convinced, why waste a good resource). 

(I'm not talking about Shepard's "death", this is probably the most retarded point of the plot ever)

Modifié par Undertone, 20 octobre 2011 - 08:45 .

[Siegdrifa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Robuthad wrote...

It's kind of like life. Sure if one of your parents dies it will def have more emotional impact than if say your dog died. But wouldn't you rather not have the people closer to you die? Who goes around looking to be sad.

I know it's a game but still, I'd rather have people live than have to be killed

Ah..but that's exactly the poitn. It's exaclty because you don't want people close to you to die that it has so much impact.
Just look how panicked some people already are at the very idea. That there is an emotional reaction - which is what any good writer is looking for. To jolt someone. To make him care.

In other words, it's exactly because I don't want Garrus to die that he should die.

This is why some people here try to explain "may be having it IRL is enough, we don't need it FORCED on our entertainement, also, if our entertainement is supposed to be full of **** we already have irl, it's not an entertainement anymore for some people, allowing a possibly like often in Bioware game is nice".

And, why other explain, BECAUSE it works easly, it is a cheap way to do it. In depth and creative writing can achieve the same goal instead of this overused trick... "huuhh... how we make impact here, i have no idea .... well... let's kill some main characters .....  AWSOOOME !"...

And again... this is not a novel, or a movie writting ! this is a rpg with multiple choice, meaning, the writing can't be one way directed.

[Undertone]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Robuthad wrote...

It's kind of like life. Sure if one of your parents dies it will def have more emotional impact than if say your dog died. But wouldn't you rather not have the people closer to you die? Who goes around looking to be sad.

I know it's a game but still, I'd rather have people live than have to be killed

Ah..but that's exactly the poitn. It's exaclty because you don't want people close to you to die that it has so much impact.
Just look how panicked some people already are at the very idea. That there is an emotional reaction - which is what any good writer is looking for. To jolt someone. To make him care.

In other words, it's exactly because I don't want Garrus to die that he should die.

This is why some people here try to explain "may be having it IRL is enough, we don't need it FORCED on our entertainement, also, if our entertainement is supposed to be full of **** we already have irl, it's not an entertainement anymore for some people, allowing a possibly like often in Bioware game is nice".

And, why other explain, BECAUSE it works easly, it is a cheap way to do it. In depth and creative writing can achieve the same goal instead of this overused trick... "huuhh... how we make impact here, i have no idea .... well... let's kill some main characters .....  AWSOOOME !"...

And again... this is not a novel, or a movie writting ! this is a rpg with multiple choice, meaning, the writing can't be one way directed.

I have a very simple solution for you then - don't play a game that's science fiction if you don't want realism or logical executions / solutions of events. Especially when said game is based on a galactic war / military. 

How about Sims? 

[CaptainZaysh]

Undertone wrote...

Overdone? I think Under-done. ME2 goes without any casualties (as it is no-brainer for the large majority) and you only lose one person in ME1 (I don't think I know even a renegade player that would kill Wrex, when it's obvious he can be convinced, why waste a good resource). 

This Renegade always kills Wrex!  Because the scene where Commander Shepard sacrifices him to complete the mission is about a million times better than the lame scene where you talk him down.

[Undertone]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Overdone? I think Under-done. ME2 goes without any casualties (as it is no-brainer for the large majority) and you only lose one person in ME1 (I don't think I know even a renegade player that would kill Wrex, when it's obvious he can be convinced, why waste a good resource). 

This Renegade always kills Wrex!  Because the scene where Commander Shepard sacrifices him to complete the mission is about a million times better than the lame scene where you talk him down.

I actually love ME2 ending when Shepard dies. It's such a pity that you have to be an absolute retard to get it. It should have been the normal ending to get and players building on top of it. Hell is there even a single person that got it without doing it on purpose? 

Of course there are varying degrees of being a renegade. To me a renegade stands as victory at all / any cost or don't judge my methods, judge my cause and what I seek to create, establish. That's why my Shepard would utilize any resource even if she is a xenophob in terms of politics, not individuals. Hell, I even picked Garrus (my favorite squad mate) as my romance in ME2 after Kaidan not trusting me. 

So killing Wrex makes no sense to me when I can utilize him to my advantage. 

Modifié par Undertone, 20 octobre 2011 - 09:02 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

"Death only matters if it's someone you know" is a silly assertion and a silly concept. 

Utter nonsense.  2,000 people will die of malaria tomorrow, and you won't lose a wink of sleep over it.  But if Mrs Killjoy Cutter were going to be executed at dawn you wouldn't get a wink of sleep.  There are some defensible positions on the other side of the argument, but this is not one of them.  Death of someone you know personally has infinitely more impact than the death of a stranger.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 20 octobre 2011 - 11:31 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Undertone wrote...

Of course there are varying degrees of being a renegade. To me a renegade stands as victory at all / any cost or don't judge my methods, judge my cause and what I seek to create, establish. That's why my Shepard would utilize any resource even if she is a xenophob in terms of politics, not individuals. Hell, I even picked Garrus (my favorite squad mate) as my romance in ME2 after Kaidan not trusting me. 

So killing Wrex makes no sense to me when I can utilize him to my advantage. 

Yeah but you get a much better story if Wrex dies on the beach.  Especially since you're playing as Femshep - if she signals Ash to kill the big lug, his last words are amazing.

[nitefyre410]

Logic in Mass Effect... LOL.

[Siegdrifa]

Undertone wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Also, your example with a wounded reaper is terrible, because it's a no-brainer.
On one side you can save a warship and valubale crew.
But if you do, a damaged reaper gets way. To be a threat in the future...in other words, you got no penalty/downside, it's only a POSSIBLE one.. IN THE FUTURE (so in-game penalty? Zero).
Not to mention that if the reapers are practicly defeated at this point, then letting a few escape means nothing.  If they couldn't defeat the races of hte galaxy when they were at the peak of their pwoer and numbering in thousands, what chance do a few reapers stand against a galaxy that is ready for them AND has all of their tech?

You're not really giving these "hard" choices enough thought.

Who told you it was reapers full force ? We don't know yet and you are assuming things, you don't have much more insight.
You said the exemple is terrible and nobrainer, if you understood what is story telling, then you would know Bioware could turn it like a decisive choice, why ? because this is a god damn fiction and it's easy to build a real purpuse for everything you have to do !

I think it could turn to be an intresting choice especialy for renegade shep, there is not much more difference between choosing to destroy an escaping reapers and let dies a war ship crew, and letting go away balack to save the hostages, or let vido leave for the same outcome, the only difference is the scale, but it's the same core choice and no penalty in game, may be in futur, but still, lot of people take the renegade choice because it make sens for them.

I'm surprise how you talk so much about realisme and yet you ignore that one single reaper is more dangerous than a mere space ship, it can endoctrinate, getting followers for his scheme, impacting galactic peace (sovereign) on his sole action, is this worth taking the risk for 1 war ship ? It took much more to destroy sovereign, i'm sure lot of renegade would say "not taking any chances".

You spend your whole time arguing "my favorit color is red", while other prefer green, you denie every argument only because it's not red color related (it's not possible to tell someone you are wrong to personnaly prefer red color, well still YOU try...), you waste your time sayng how great red his and other answered how green is better for them (yet some people here try to say "no, green is not better for you!". The real worry is not about wich color must win, it's about how to make both a possibility and credible at the same time.
Red color is not better than anyother, only for those who prefer red, but they don't have more right to be here than other, especialy because ME1 and ME2 are not only red color directed.

First you need to learn to spell, especially if English is your first language. Second this isn't about renegade or paragon (it is to an extent but largely because renegade decisions are devaluated). 

Third is that all paragon decisions have no face value - the majority of them are completely short-sighted yet that never comes into effect. You are never punished for letting Balak escape, Fist never seeks revenge and the same is valid for just about any criminal you let go. Such wishful thinking that always turns out right deevaluates all the other choices. 

That's why it's a no-brainer. And I sure hope popularity choices vs. squad usefulness choices result in punishment in another aspect. Because logically on Virmire it is better to pick Kaidan who is a biotic then a simple soldier based on squad usefulness. 

EDIT: Actually ME 2 got all the decision making completely wrong. The "darker" path is supposed to yield greater rewards at the expense of morality and guilt in the player plus ****tier yet respectable (in a degree) reputation. The "lighter" path is supposed to yield smaller or no reward but giving the satisfaction of standing on a moral highground and the delight of those around you, giving you benevolent yet perhaps a little dubious (in a degree) reputation. 

As it stands you have a blue-win button which lets you have the "higher" moral ground and eat your cake too. This reflects on the whole situation of "save them all". You already have a magic button, saving them all would be like the cherry on top. 

English is not my first language, i'm selftaught so sorry for the mistakes, i'm used to read, not to write or speak in english.

I'm didn't mean to reduce it to paragon / renegade matter, i just wanted to point how this could become with a few story telling as eligible as something that already share the same core choice in game.

Your opinion about renegade vs paragon in this way don't intrest me, because you expose only your opinion / vision of the situation AND deniyng the others. You are basicly saying that paragon in the game is just a mistake, because of X, while paragon could argue they made that choice because of Y so renegade are wrong.
Personnaly siding with one is nice, it show the game was making sens in different ways for different people. If you want to argue "only X should be here because Y is wrong", then talk to the wall behind you, i'm not intrested in this waste of time, i don't care about paragon or renegade players when they want to force their choice as the right one over the other, and asking "please Bioware, punish them hard to show they were wrong" is childish.

When you stat that "Actually ME 2 got all the decision making completely wrong" just show how onesided you are and how biased your arguement will be.

The "darker" path is supposed to yield greater rewards at the expense of morality and guilt in the player plus ****tier yet respectable (in a degree) reputation. The "lighter" path is supposed to yield smaller or no reward but giving the satisfaction of standing on a moral highground and the delight of those around you, giving you benevolent yet perhaps a little dubious (in a degree) reputation.

.
This is your vision, as many people have their vision. I have no doubt it make sens for you, as any other personnal vision.
But while playing paragon, there is some choices that i can only make in renegade, and in renegade playthrough, some that i can do only in paragon. Because i do what make sens for my Shepd, i don't care that Bioware put it in Paragon or Renegade box, sometimes i don't agree with them, but it's not important since they let me play Shep the way it make sens for me.

I don't care about the what you call "blue win button", if it's a loss but that would make sens, i would loose gladly.
I'm a freelancer irl, i have to make hard choice that can greatly impact my futur money incoming, this is much more important than a fictionnal video game, and i don't have his blue win button irl, so i don't need it either in a video game.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 20 octobre 2011 - 09:36 .

[Undertone]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Of course there are varying degrees of being a renegade. To me a renegade stands as victory at all / any cost or don't judge my methods, judge my cause and what I seek to create, establish. That's why my Shepard would utilize any resource even if she is a xenophob in terms of politics, not individuals. Hell, I even picked Garrus (my favorite squad mate) as my romance in ME2 after Kaidan not trusting me. 

So killing Wrex makes no sense to me when I can utilize him to my advantage. 

Yeah but you get a much better story if Wrex dies on the beach.  Especially since you're playing as Femshep - if she signals Ash to kill the big lug, his last words are amazing.

Are they different from ManShep? I've never done it with FemShep but have looked videos and they are with default male Shep. 

[Undertone]

Siegdrifa wrote...

I don't think you get what I'm saying at all... I never said renegade is the way to go only but nevermind.

[CaptainZaysh]

Undertone wrote...

Are they different from ManShep? I've never done it with FemShep but have looked videos and they are with default male Shep. 

WREX: So that's it?  All this time, and that's all I get from you?  How can you not see what this means to the krogan?

FEMSHEP signals ASHLEY.  WREX realises what's about to happen.

WREX (to FEMSHEP): You bitch.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 20 octobre 2011 - 09:44 .

[Undertone]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Are they different from ManShep? I've never done it with FemShep but have looked videos and they are with default male Shep. 

WREX: So that's it?  All this time, and that's all I get from you?  How can you not see what this means to the krogan?

FEMSHEP signals ASHLEY.  WREX realises what's about to happen.

WREX (to FEMSHEP): You bitch.

Keke, I may have to try this then, when I'm playng some utter xenophob. Even though my Shep has always been humanity first, she tends to overlook individuals especially if they are useful to her as it so happens with Wrex. 

[CaptainZaysh]

For me I like Wrex's last words for what they tell me about the two characters. Firstly it validates an earlier elevator conversation between Wrex and Ash. Wrex asks Ash if she could take Femshep in a fight, and Ash clearly has never thought about it. "That's why she's the commander," he says, implying that he believes Femshep has a plan to kill everyone she meets.

Secondly it shows that Femshep is a planner. Yeah she walked out onto the beach hoping she could talk Wrex down, but if she couldn't she was never going to go toe-to-toe with a krogan. Wrex was raging, she was thinking.

Thirdly it told me something about Femshep's character: she really is a killer, and she really is a bitch. She might love you like a big monstrous brother, but at the end of the day she is the tip of humanity's bloody spear and if you get in the way of the mission then she is simply going to kill you. It made me understand why she of all people was picked for the Spectres.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 20 octobre 2011 - 11:34 .

[Siegdrifa]

Undertone wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

I don't think you get what I'm saying at all... I never said renegade is the way to go only but nevermind.

You expressed your vision of the weight of paragon and renegade should have in the game, i'm intrested in ideas and exemple you can produce (even if i don't agree, some read can be good and intresting).
If it's forcing your vision on other, i'm not intrested.

For exemple, if you come with "for this choice, the result could be ...." that could be a good read.
If you come with "paragon in game should be like this and renegade like that" ... well... that's your opinion, with his quality and flaws, i'm not intrested in this kind of talking because what will be "quality" and what will be "flaws" will depend of the vision of other people, when people agree on the same subjective thing, they tend to think they are right... and the "so other are wrong" is not far.

I'm not denying this is important for you, i just don't care of "my vision is better than yours" contest.

And no, i don't think that paragon should be no reward with morality and renegade high reward with reputation repercution.
I think, the choices in rpg shouldn't be restricted to X or Y, red or green. like colors need to have many shade, the writter must paint us a story when at some point, they allow us to paint our collors in order to make us feel that we interact with the story.
So, i don't think a paragon should be restrained to no reward but you keep a popular reputation, as some point, yes, but not always, and same goes for the renegade.

What's matter in the game, more than blue paragon or red renegade is, is there a choice you made that didn't carry the impact you were expecting ?
Personnaly, sometimes what i wanted to do was on the other box, but i don't care, it's here, i can choose it, even if it's not the "win button".

Also, i think Bioware made an effort on paragon and renegade personnality, because they have different shade, in themself, they are not 1 colored blue or red. I was surprise by the "paragade" possibility.
For exemple, at the beginning of ME1 if you are ruthless, Jenkins says "result at all cost" people like you are what is needed to be a specter; you can 1 agree, or 2 teint this with "i didn't enjoyed sacrifing people".

You can have one renegade that can enjoy being ruthless and love fighting for the sole purpuse of kicking ass and rule on the battle field, but Bioware allow you to be ruthless when you think it is needed for the right thing and not because you must enjoy killing and fighting everytimes you can.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 20 octobre 2011 - 10:28 .

[Someone With Mass]

Robuthad wrote...

The writers may be trying to get emotional impact, but I don't like forced deaths. Sure, I'll care if Garrus dies, but I'm still gonna care just as much about Garrus if he lives. You don't need to kill characters for them to have an emotional impact

I wish more people could understand that instead of resorting to the very old "you just want rainbows and bunnies" and "this is a war" "arguments" 

[Sebby]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Overdone? I think Under-done. ME2 goes without any casualties (as it is no-brainer for the large majority) and you only lose one person in ME1 (I don't think I know even a renegade player that would kill Wrex, when it's obvious he can be convinced, why waste a good resource). 

This Renegade always kills Wrex!  Because the scene where Commander Shepard sacrifices him to complete the mission is about a million times better than the lame scene where you talk him down.

The  renegade dialogue after Shepard kills him with Kaidan is awesome.

Kaidan: commander....are you ... alright?

Shepard: I'm feeling a HELL of a lot better than he is

Kaidan:  yeah..... i guess so

[Siegdrifa]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Robuthad wrote...

The writers may be trying to get emotional impact, but I don't like forced deaths. Sure, I'll care if Garrus dies, but I'm still gonna care just as much about Garrus if he lives. You don't need to kill characters for them to have an emotional impact

I wish more people could understand that instead of resorting to the very old "you just want rainbows and bunnies" and "this is a war" "arguments" 

Yeah, if the purpuse is to shake the players feelings, death is not the only tool.

Some games definitly use that in the main plot it self.

---------------------WARNING FF-X and Tales of Symphonia SPOILER incomming.---------------------------
Both game (sadly if you played one already) have the same core plot. You, the hero, will accompany the young mainden on a pilgramage to restorce peace (for a short time) in the world.
First stage : it start like and advanture, yeah !
Second stage : you uncover the meaning of the pilgramage and the thuth behind it, the maiden, that your hero have feelings growing for her, will have to sacrifice herself for the greater good, if one people die for the peace of millions, she agree it's a small price to pay.
Thrid stage: here it comes, now that you know this, every advancement in the story mean you get closed to loose your loved one (or what the story at least want you to belive you love), looking for an alternative way to bypass this sad outcome is a constant worry matter.
Stage 4 : resignation, now you are well advanced in the story, and there is no hope, the game try to make you accept the fact and see it like "well, it's for the best in the end".
Stage 5 : usualy near the end, uncovering other ellements, the death is not requiered, and now you will have to fight the real threat instead of sacrifing someone for a short time of peace until the next sacrifice. "Yeah, she will be alive", unless something else happen, after spending some much playtime as "she will have to die", and "i have to deal with it", the joy of "no! there is hope!" is much stronger and make the game story more epique than before, because "now we have to fight to live" is enforced by this "she won't have to be sacrified, no way i'm gonna lose just now, i'm going to fight like crazy to live".
For FF-X the writter was more "vicious" in their "shaking player" procedure. Because when you learn that Yuna will be saved, short time after Tiddus uncover that he is not real, just a character out of a dream, so even if she stays alive, they can't be together in the end  making theemotion of the player a real roller coster....
Anyway, there is a possible happy ending in FF X2, but you have to work hard for it.


So, here, the concept is to convice at some point and for a long playtime that peace and victory can't be achieved without sacrifice (your lover in this case), just to give stronger will to live for your characters in the end by fighting the real threat hidden behind the undefeated cycle of killing and misery, interupted for a short time by sacrifing life of peoples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm convinced that there is something behind the reapers, and that ME3 will let us uncover it or part of it, if reapers are just killing machine without motives and valid reason for a greater scheme, i would be desapointed a little.

[Lotion Soronarr]

wildannie wrote...
Of course death of people close to you has more of an impact, but it's not a good feeling and not one I look for in games.
If Tali dies no matter what I do in the game it wouldn't really bother me but it would ruin it for others. Thane always dying will majorly reduce my enjoyment while it will greatly please others.

I certainly hope that Bioware are going to try and accommodate those looking to have choice in this matter, rather than those who see the option to save characters as ruining their game. Not least because those calling for scripted deaths often sound incredibly selfish to me.

You wil never satisfy everyone, so one shouldn't even try. Bioware should decide on one course of action and follow it. Some will be dissapoined - me or you. Doesn't matter.

Also, selfish? Interesting choice of words, given that those demanding to save squaddies sound selfish to me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
Still not getting it, not once have I ever said I wante dno one to die at all, but what you fail to understand is that while your squad mates are always there your interaction with them can be very minimal outside a few lines during a mission or a few lines of banter, but when you have someone like Anderson or TIM who is constantly interacting with you during the story giving you missions and such that persons death would be more impactful.


Someone dies in the SM, sure you might be bummed a little but you would probably end up saying...well ****.

But if TIM would have died in ME2 you would have had a much more emotionally engaging reaction (even if that reaction is celebration) you keep this mindframe that everyone is asking your asinine assertion of a disney story and it simply isn't true, not a single person in here is asking for that you just want to throw your over inflated oppinions at everyone and try and assert surperiority through petty insults.

Have fun spinning my words around in a petty attempt to seem intelligent,it is quite humorous.

Wut? TIM is the plot carrier in ME2. You coudln't kill him without fraking up the storyline considerably.

Also, I really don't see many people caring much if TIM were to die half way trouhg ME2. You barely know anything about him and all.

And no, it wouldnt' be nearly as emotionalyl engaging. I don't know where your'e geting that from. Not that it matters.
You wouldn't know good writing if it drove over you in a dreadnought.

[Yezdigerd]

Undertone wrote...

I have a very simple solution for you then - don't play a game that's science fiction if you don't want realism or logical executions / solutions of events. Especially when said game is based on a galactic war / military. 

How about Sims? 

I think you should play Mass effect before making recommendations. Biotic magic, blue space elves and saving the galaxy from sentient terminators is just a great wishfullfilling fantasy. Due to your preference for realism and logic you probably wouldn't enjoy it though.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Also, your example with a wounded reaper is terrible, because it's a no-brainer.
On one side you can save a warship and valubale crew.
But if you do, a damaged reaper gets way. To be a threat in the future...in other words, you got no penalty/downside, it's only a POSSIBLE one.. IN THE FUTURE (so in-game penalty? Zero).
Not to mention that if the reapers are practicly defeated at this point, then letting a few escape means nothing.  If they couldn't defeat the races of hte galaxy when they were at the peak of their pwoer and numbering in thousands, what chance do a few reapers stand against a galaxy that is ready for them AND has all of their tech?

You're not really giving these "hard" choices enough thought.

Who told you it was reapers full force ? We don't know yet and you are assuming things, you don't have much more insight.
You said the exemple is terrible and nobrainer, if you understood what is story telling, then you would know Bioware could turn it like a decisive choice, why ? because this is a god damn fiction and it's easy to build a real purpuse for everything you have to do !

So reapers attack a united galaxy with only a minor force? Are they utter morons?
If there are thousands of more reapers around the bend, then what good does it to to destroy 1?
And now you want unpredictable consence just to force difficulty?
Seriously, it's just a bad example.

I'm surprise how you talk so much about realisme and yet you ignore that one single reaper is more dangerous than a mere space ship, it can endoctrinate, getting followers for his scheme, impacting galactic peace (sovereign) on his sole action, is this worth taking the risk for 1 war ship ? It took much more to destroy sovereign, i'm sure lot of renegade would say "not taking any chances".

And you fail to notice that repaers tatacked in the thousands, with the element of surprise.
In your scenario they were beaten. In that context, a single ship is NOT a big threat, especially if it's running away damaged and limping.
What can that one ship do that a thousands of his bretheren couldn't? Against a galaxy that now knows and that has acess to many reper corpses to study?

You spend your whole time arguing "my favorit color is red", while other prefer green, you denie every argument only because it's not red color related (it's not possible to tell someone you are wrong to personnaly prefer red color, well still YOU try...), you waste your time sayng how great red his and other answered how green is better for them (yet some people here try to say "no, green is not better for you!". The real worry is not about wich color must win, it's about how to make both a possibility and credible at the same time.
Red color is not better than anyother, only for those who prefer red, but they don't have more right to be here than other, especialy because ME1 and ME2 are not only red color directed.

And this has nothing to do with color. It's not even comparable. Your comparison sucks. And I don't  like red.