529 réponses à ce sujet

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

So what do you think, do the ends truly justify the means? Would you be willing to do the unthinkable if the outcome was favorable and if so why? Lets discuss this over tea and strumpets shall we.

In Mass Effect?  No... doing the "morally ideal" thing always yields the best results (no matter what the odds are).

In Mass Effect & real life to be clear.

[wizardryforever]

Saphra Deden wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

And how is losing now any worse than losing later?  Hint: it isn't.

The "later" part is what makes it better. If you can keep delaying Judgement Day you can keep preparing for it and increasing your chances to survive it.

Let me get this straight though: if you really feel this way did you desire for an option to let the Reapers reach the Alpha Relay and start the war?

I mean how is losin now any worse than losing later? (six months to be precise)

I don't see how saving the Council and the DA will greatly help us later either. If the Council dies they can be replaced. If the DA dies it can be replaced.

The galaxy cannot be replaced.

Allow me to further explain my point.  Let's say that it is possible to lose to Sovereign; that means that there are now four possible outcomes.

1. You decide to save the Council, but the resulting losses mean insufficient numbers to stop Sovereign.  Galaxy is doomed.
2. You decide to save the Council, and manage to pull through.  Galaxy is safe, for now.
3. You decide to let the Council die, and destroy Sovereign.  But years later, when the Reapers arrive in force, the galaxy's unity has been shattered, making preparation and cooperation far less effective.  Reapers win, Galaxy is doomed.
4. You decide to let the Council die, and destroy Soveriegn.  Despite some initial disunity, the galaxy manages to pull together before the Reapers invade, and pull through anyway.

As you can see, it is a risk either way.  There is no "safe" choice.  It's simply a matter of choosing to risk now, or later.  At least by risking now, you only have one Reaper to fight, in one battle, not an intragalactic war against many, many Reapers.  It's just a matter of what your priorities are, neither one is really better than the other, realisticly.

And yes, while the Council and DA can technically be replaced, what cannot be replaced is trust.  When everyone sees how humanity was willing to let the Council die when it could have saved them, then installs its own Council and puts the Citadel under martial law, it's not going to promote unity.  People are going to be leery of helping anyone that they see as usurpers.

Just so you know, the Alpha relay situation is considerably different.  For one, there is no reason to allow them through, just as there is no reason to simply allow Sovereign to open the Citadel.  Neither one is a choice in the game, so I don't really understand why you're making the comparison.

[Splinter Cell 108]

In some cases the ends do justify the means but this cases are usually those in which there is simply no choice. An example would be Arrival, there was no time to save those Batarians otherwise the Reapers would've accessed the relay, Virmire is another example in which there was no choice, someone had to die in order to complete the mission.

Sometimes sacrifices need to be made, that is just how things work

[1upD]

 That is the question that Mass Effect asks you in almost every major decision.  That is basically what 'Paragon' and 'Renegade' are intended to mean; either the means are more important than the the ends, which cannot be predicted (Paragon) or the ends ultimately justify the means (Renegade).

[Dean_the_Young]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Alpha relay however is a certainty. There´s no gamble there, the Reapers are arriving for sure,

...the Reapers are arriving for sure at the Battle of the Citadel too (if you don't stop Sovereign). The "gamble" at the Alpha Relay is whether or not you can defeat the Reapers if they are able to use the relay.

You don't need to stop Soverign, just stop Saren.

Vigil disagrees.

From the ME wiki:

http://masseffect.wi...om/wiki/Keepers

"The Protheans succeeded in altering this reaction to the signal, though too late to save the Protheans themselves from extinction at the hands of the Reapers. The keepers have changed and evolved so they only respond to the Citadel itself; they are now no longer under Reaper control and pose no threat to anyone."

Which doesn't change what Vigil said...
 

and

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Saren

"After killing the operators of Citadel Control, Saren made his way toward the Citadel's master control unit, intending to transfer control of the Citadel to Sovereign to activate the latent mass relay, paving the way for the rest of the Reapers to enter through from dark space. Saren was interrupted, however, when Shepard and the Ilos ground team rushed in"

Which also doesn't change what Vigil said. (And now you're repeating yourself.)

Sovereign needed Saren to transfer to him, otherwise the Reapers could not appear. Without Saren, Sovereign could do nothing because the Keepers no longer responded.

Except Sovereign doesn't need the Keepers for the manual override, IE that reason Sovereign even had to show up to the Citadel in the first place.


Seriously, go play the game. Or watch the youtube.

[Yezdigerd]

It's quite funny. I never took "hold back the alliance ships to concentrate on Soveriegn" to mean that the alliance could take out the reapers by themselves. The game made a big issue about how the humans were small change militarily so how could the 5th fleet accomplish what the "entire citadel fleet" failed to do?
Unless a macguffin was involved I thought the only way to win was for the humans to support the Council forces. So holding back I saw as a renegade backstabbing of the Council, putting the fate of the universe in jeopardy by letting the DA be destroyed needlessly.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

So what do you think, do the ends truly justify the means? Would you be willing to do the unthinkable if the outcome was favorable and if so why? Lets discuss this over tea and strumpets shall we.

In Mass Effect?  No... doing the "morally ideal" thing always yields the best results (no matter what the odds are).

Sad but true. In Mass Effect, the easier choice is always the best one.

[jtrook]

When all else fails then spilling the blood of the few for the many is necessary but it will never be the first choice.

Modifié par jtrook, 25 décembre 2011 - 01:23 .

[wizardryforever]

Saphra Deden wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

3. You decide to let the Council die, and destroy Sovereign.  But years later, when the Reapers arrive in force, the galaxy's unity has been shattered, making preparation and cooperation far less effective.  Reapers win, Galaxy is doomed.

I notice that this one involves you imagining a complicated and detailed scenario.

It's really not too complicated.  Letting the government be decapitated only to replace the head a day or so later with your own people is not going to go over well.  Realisticly speaking of course.

What is the probability here?

Are we more likely to survive as a disunited galaxy or are we more likely to surivve if the Reapers invade now? I never said there weren't risks either way, but the Reapers pouring through the Citadel is A LOT WORSE than a future galaxy that is not united by the Council.

I'd say we're about as likely either way, if we put aside for the moment that this is a videogame.  And do you really think that the ships lost to save the Ascension/Council would have made that much of a difference against Sovereign?  Would you say that our chances were so slim that those few cruisers would be absolutely necessary to the battle?  Sure, they'd make it easier in the short term, but I doubt we won only by the skin of our teeth.  It seems incredibly pessimistic to say that we'd absolutely need those ships.

Besides, going on what we knew at the time, we could make the argument that the DA could be used against Sovereign once liberated.  It flies back a ways, then turns and fires once Sovereign is outside minimum range.  Saving that ship might even work better than those Alliance cruisers would have been.

[someone else]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...
I have already done my shopping thank you......you will be getting an old fruitcake for Christmas. 

...some would say I AM an old fruitcake...sorry for the delay in responding - internetus interruptus.

But I largely stand by my position that the entire topic is circular  - the end justifies the means only if it does.  Depends on your value paradigm - if mine is different from yours, we'll likely disagree on the whether our choices are worth the intended results.   Just endless nitpicking beyond that.

[Biotic Sage]

Saphra Deden wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

It's really not too complicated.  Letting the government be decapitated only to replace the head a day or so later with your own people is not going to go over well.  Realisticly speaking of course.

Who says it will be replaced with our own people? You are subtly meta-gaming. The future of the galaxy should not be your concern at this point beyond the galaxy having any future at all.

I'd say we're about as likely either way,

I'd say you are delusional.

Saphra, you happen to be right about the end game ME1 decision.  I'm as paragon as they come in pretty much every decision in both games, but when the choice is presented to you at the end of ME1, this is all that Shepard knows: Save the Destinay Ascension and weaken the strength of the fleet, or hold back and keep the fleet at full strength.  Yes, the Destiny Ascension is important, but prioritizing its importance with destroying Sovereign is a no-brainer.  The galaxy is about to be destroyed...for the 50 thousandth time.  All life is going to end if Sovereign is not stopped.  Unfortunately, the choice isn't presented with any other subtleties, it is simply: stronger fleet or weaker fleet.  I will choose stronger fleet every time in that situation.  The end game decision of ME2 I would argue has many more facets to it.

Merry Christmas, Saphra, I am voicing my agreement with you for once (and probably only once haha).

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 25 décembre 2011 - 04:31 .

[Swampthing500]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Alpha relay however is a certainty. There´s no gamble there, the Reapers are arriving for sure,

...the Reapers are arriving for sure at the Battle of the Citadel too (if you don't stop Sovereign). The "gamble" at the Alpha Relay is whether or not you can defeat the Reapers if they are able to use the relay.

You don't need to stop Soverign, just stop Saren.

Vigil disagrees.

From the ME wiki:

http://masseffect.wi...om/wiki/Keepers

"The Protheans succeeded in altering this reaction to the signal, though too late to save the Protheans themselves from extinction at the hands of the Reapers. The keepers have changed and evolved so they only respond to the Citadel itself; they are now no longer under Reaper control and pose no threat to anyone."

Which doesn't change what Vigil said...
 

and

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Saren

"After killing the operators of Citadel Control, Saren made his way toward the Citadel's master control unit, intending to transfer control of the Citadel to Sovereign to activate the latent mass relay, paving the way for the rest of the Reapers to enter through from dark space. Saren was interrupted, however, when Shepard and the Ilos ground team rushed in"

Which also doesn't change what Vigil said. (And now you're repeating yourself.)

Sovereign needed Saren to transfer to him, otherwise the Reapers could not appear. Without Saren, Sovereign could do nothing because the Keepers no longer responded.

Except Sovereign doesn't need the Keepers for the manual override, IE that reason Sovereign even had to show up to the Citadel in the first place.


Seriously, go play the game. Or watch the youtube.

I finished ME 1 again the other day. Usually the Keepers responded to a signal from Sovereign and summoned the other Reapers. Since the Keepers no longer respond, he needed someone else to do it: Saren.

[Swampthing500]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

It's really not too complicated.  Letting the government be decapitated only to replace the head a day or so later with your own people is not going to go over well.  Realisticly speaking of course.

Who says it will be replaced with our own people? You are subtly meta-gaming. The future of the galaxy should not be your concern at this point beyond the galaxy having any future at all.

I'd say we're about as likely either way,

I'd say you are delusional.

Saphra, you happen to be right about the end game ME1 decision.  I'm as paragon as they come in pretty much every decision in both games, but when the choice is presented to you at the end of ME1, this is all that Shepard knows: Save the Destinay Ascension and weaken the strength of the fleet, or hold back and keep the fleet at full strength.  Yes, the Destiny Ascension is important, but prioritizing its importance with destroying Sovereign is a no-brainer.  The galaxy is about to be destroyed...for the 50 thousandth time.  All life is going to end if Sovereign is not stopped.  Unfortunately, the choice isn't presented with any other subtleties, it is simply: stronger fleet or weaker fleet.  I will choose stronger fleet every time in that situation.  The end game decision of ME2 I would argue has many more facets to it.

Merry Christmas, Saphra, I am voicing my agreement with you for once (and probably only once haha).

You don't need to stop Sovereign, only Saren. Once Saren is killed, manual control cannot be transfered to Sovereign, thus the Reapers cannot be summoned. Sovereign can thus be killed at leisure.

[Biotic Sage]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

It's really not too complicated.  Letting the government be decapitated only to replace the head a day or so later with your own people is not going to go over well.  Realisticly speaking of course.

Who says it will be replaced with our own people? You are subtly meta-gaming. The future of the galaxy should not be your concern at this point beyond the galaxy having any future at all.

I'd say we're about as likely either way,

I'd say you are delusional.

Saphra, you happen to be right about the end game ME1 decision.  I'm as paragon as they come in pretty much every decision in both games, but when the choice is presented to you at the end of ME1, this is all that Shepard knows: Save the Destinay Ascension and weaken the strength of the fleet, or hold back and keep the fleet at full strength.  Yes, the Destiny Ascension is important, but prioritizing its importance with destroying Sovereign is a no-brainer.  The galaxy is about to be destroyed...for the 50 thousandth time.  All life is going to end if Sovereign is not stopped.  Unfortunately, the choice isn't presented with any other subtleties, it is simply: stronger fleet or weaker fleet.  I will choose stronger fleet every time in that situation.  The end game decision of ME2 I would argue has many more facets to it.

Merry Christmas, Saphra, I am voicing my agreement with you for once (and probably only once haha).

You don't need to stop Sovereign, only Saren. Once Saren is killed, manual control cannot be transfered to Sovereign, thus the Reapers cannot be summoned. Sovereign can thus be killed at leisure.

Hmm...good point.  Looks like Paragon is the good way to go again.  Paragon bias is alive and well lol.

Although still, you are making the assumption that Sovereign doesn't have backup means...he is very close to the trigger for total galactic extinction.  I still think destroying Sovereign should be a priority over the Destiny Ascension.

[didymos1120]

I think the fact that Sovereign feels it's necessary to assume direct control and deal with you lends a hell a lot of credence to the idea.

[Swampthing500]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

You don't need to stop Sovereign,

Then I can't believe so many lives were thrown away destroying Sovereign when it was apparently totally harmless.

So why did Shepard ever order anybody to attack Sovereign if Sovereign wasn't a threat? According to you Sovereign was harmless once Saren was down.

I never said Sovereign was harmless, just that his scheme could not be achieved if Saren was killed.

[Swampthing500]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Where is it said (beyond the fan made wiki) that Saren is needed by this point? He tells you that "in a few moments Sovereign will have complete control". Sovereign is already manually docked to the station itself. You don't think that maybe there is a possibility Saren is already just a distraction by this point and all he needs is time to finish?

With all that's at stake why would you take such a risk?

The only Paragon bias here is whatshisface insisting that the gambling the survival of all the life the galaxy was justified (or not even a gamble in this case).

Soverign will have control in a few moments because Saren will transfer control. It hasn't actually been done yet.

[wizardryforever]

Saphra Deden wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

It's really not too complicated.  Letting the government be decapitated only to replace the head a day or so later with your own people is not going to go over well.  Realisticly speaking of course.

Who says it will be replaced with our own people? You are subtly meta-gaming. The future of the galaxy should not be your concern at this point beyond the galaxy having any future at all.

You're focusing on the wrong part of what I said (yet again).  The point is that people see you let their heads of state die when you could have saved them.  Anything you do after that is going to be met with great suspicion, especially if you already have a history of clamoring for all the power you can get.

wizardryforever wrote...
I'd say we're about as likely either way,

Saphra Deden wrote...
I'd say you are delusional.

And I'd say that you are delusional.  Now with that meaningless back-and-forth out of the way, would it be possible for you to come up with an actual rebuttal?

Modifié par wizardryforever, 25 décembre 2011 - 05:00 .

[Swampthing500]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

I never said Sovereign was harmless, just that his scheme could not be achieved if Saren was killed.

Which means that if Saren is dead that he's harmless. You said we didn't even need to take him down.

So why did the fleet attack Sovereign at all if it wasn't a threat?

Why does the game say the opposite of what you are saying? Is the game wrong?

I know where you are coming from, I thought the same thing at the time, but then I realized I was making some dangerous assumptions.

For all you know Saren was done and all he was doing was stalling for time by fighting you.

Here is the thing:

If I'm wrong we may die later.

If you're wrong we will die now.

I wouldn't call a Reaper dreadnought and a fleet of Geth harmless. Sovereign of course needs to be destroyed, but the actual plan: of opening the Citadel Relay and bringing in the Reaper fleet, would not suceed without Saren. You don't actually need to kill Sovereign to stop the plan. 

Modifié par Swampthing500, 25 décembre 2011 - 05:06 .