169 réponses à ce sujet

[PnXMarcin1PL]

Wait and see until you play ME3 You will be very suprised about Udina.

[Abraham_uk]

(This is a made up scene not a spoiler)

Uldina: Shepard! How am I going to explain half the Turian fleet being destroyed by a pack of Reapers to the council? And what is this I hear about half the galaxy going being invaded including Earth!

Shepard: We're trying our best!

Uldina: Well your best just isn't good enough! You better not screw up this time Shepard. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

[JRCHOharry]

Udina didn't support you in ME1 because you didn't have enough solid proof to show to the council. Well now you have all the proof you need, if he doesn't support Shepard now I'd be seriously pissed.
C'mon Udina I picked u, u ma boi!

[PnXMarcin1PL]

JRCHOharry you will be dissapointed in ME3, but no spoilers. Wait and see

[Goneaviking]

I expect Udina to do his job.

That is to say that I expect him to fight for humanity's goals in the council; it would annoy me if he worshipped the ground beneath Shepard's feet but in ME3 I'm expecting the political to be both more desperate and more credulous about the threat.

[Eclipse_9990]

Wow.. This thread really sprung up while I was away. Pleasant surprise. 

GamerrangerX wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

For my main character(Sentinel Paragade) I chose Udina for the council in ME1; because he just seemed like the most logical solution. But when I got to the council in ME2 Udina was still a douche, while Anderson still had my back, and it made me wonder. Did I make the right decision? I mean I don't really regret putting Udina on the council because he's apparently doing good work, but..

In ME3 what if I need to try, and convince the Council of something important, and Udina gangs up with them against me? I'm wondering if this choice is something I'm going to have to pay for. 

I was wondering what you guys thought about this.

No Udina and TIM will stab you on the back,the sad part he ended councilor in ME3  and he working for the ------- i lets you guess

I always knew TIM would stab me in the back, this isn't a shocker for me. But Udina? I just thought he was a bit of a jerk, but an outright betrayer? Why Udina? Why? 

The Rachni better not betray me either or I'm going to seriously become depressed. 

This is if its true, and not just speculation. 

HiroVoid wrote...

I really disliked how they just turned Udina into a joke character in ME2. It would have been nice if he at least tried to push for more human dominance using the reapers as a reason for human leadership as a substitute for the previous council dying like it was implied at the end of ME1.

HiroVoid wrote... 

It would have been nice if he at least tried to push for more human dominance using the reapers as a reason for human leadership as a substitute for the previous council dying like it was implied at the end of ME1 

HiroVoid wrote...  

 tried to push for more human dominance using the reapers as a reason for human leadership 

 

HiroVoid wrote...

human dominance

  

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 11 janvier 2012 - 12:29 .

[Hillbillyshep]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

seirhart wrote...

All of my shepard's chose Anderson no matter what for council and all of my shepard's just want to remove udina from the me universe permeantly, and they are all maxed paragon cause Udina is the biggest idiot in the whole me game series.

Biggest opportunist yes. But biggest idiot? I don't think so. Udina is opportunistic scum, and I admit this, but he is useful opportunistic scum. Besides the only other option was Anderson. I like Anderson alot, but he's not a soldier, not a politician. He's more suited to military duty rather than council work. Udina already had experience being an Ambassador, and does care about human interests significantly.

Miranda even said in the beginning of ME2 that he has done an admirable job representing humanities interests, while if you chose Anderson she mentions he was more suited to or prefered life in the military. When I chose Udina I didn't do it on the basis that it was a popularity contest. I did it on the basis on who would be better suited for the job. 

LPPrince wrote...

He'll have our back...ready to be stabbed.

This is why I'm worried. 

Really? Miri said that? Wow! In that case, i´m definetely gunna choose Udina for the council the next time.
Oh, right... And for the all-human council.

[the almighty moo]

Udina is a bell end and I reckon he should've taken a pece of soveriegn to the face when he exploded.

[PnXMarcin1PL]

if u guys want, pm me so i can spoil some stuff about udina in me3

[mulder1199]

probably just gonna kill him if i have the option.....well, let him die at least

[HiroVoid]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Wow.. This thread really sprung up while I was away. Pleasant surprise. 

GamerrangerX wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

For my main character(Sentinel Paragade) I chose Udina for the council in ME1; because he just seemed like the most logical solution. But when I got to the council in ME2 Udina was still a douche, while Anderson still had my back, and it made me wonder. Did I make the right decision? I mean I don't really regret putting Udina on the council because he's apparently doing good work, but..

In ME3 what if I need to try, and convince the Council of something important, and Udina gangs up with them against me? I'm wondering if this choice is something I'm going to have to pay for. 

I was wondering what you guys thought about this.

No Udina and TIM will stab you on the back,the sad part he ended councilor in ME3  and he working for the ------- i lets you guess

I always knew TIM would stab me in the back, this isn't a shocker for me. But Udina? I just thought he was a bit of a jerk, but an outright betrayer? Why Udina? Why? 

The Rachni better not betray me either or I'm going to seriously become depressed. 

This is if its true, and not just speculation. 

HiroVoid wrote...

I really disliked how they just turned Udina into a joke character in ME2. It would have been nice if he at least tried to push for more human dominance using the reapers as a reason for human leadership as a substitute for the previous council dying like it was implied at the end of ME1.

HiroVoid wrote... 

It would have been nice if he at least tried to push for more human dominance using the reapers as a reason for human leadership as a substitute for the previous council dying like it was implied at the end of ME1 

HiroVoid wrote...  

 tried to push for more human dominance using the reapers as a reason for human leadership 

 

HiroVoid wrote...

human dominance

  

It's not a playthrough my main character would go through, but you can look up the ending yourself.    Of course, that's before Bioware decided to change the endings where people went 'Hey.  Reapers exist.'

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

He should. The evidences are more than obvious, so the council should support everything Shepard is going to do.
But we rely on T.I.M military leadership.

[BatmanPWNS]

Exia001 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

As always, Udina will have humanities back.

He may be a knob in a suit.

But he puts humanities wants and needs right out there and fights for it in the political arena.

I'll hold you to that, I for one hope I get to put a bullet in his skull, along with TIM

But why?

The thing I loved about Udina in ME1 was that he had a big ego and he didn't like Shepard but he was still a politician and wanted what was best for Earth and basically us, the humans, as a whole. It's not like he broke the law and deserves to be shot. Sadly, in ME3, the dev decided that anything who crosses Shep's path must be EVIL!

[KBomb]

naledgeborn wrote...

Predominately paragon paragade here and I hate the script for making TIM into a cartoon villain. It belittles the character, Martin Sheen's talent, and the writers themselves.

You want to be an infallible paladin go play Kingdom Hearts.

Very well said. I think most (not all) of paragon players are too sensitive. It’s a shame. TIM and Udina both are such great characters. It also seems a shame that the one’s who claim renegades whine from being butthurt are the ones who get overly butthurt because someone's not worshiping at Shepard’s feet.

Udina wasn’t the only one who thought Shepard was delusional about the Reapers coming. Humanity was trying to establish themselves in the Council, trying to make a mark and here was Shepard going on and on about some invading force that no one believe even existed. Of course Udina didn’t want Shepard trying to blow smoke up anyone’s ass and making humanity look like a bunch of nut jobs. And at that point, there was no concrete evidence, only Shepard’s word and if you’re playing Sole Survivor, I think that “insane” theory makes even more sense.

I love my Shepard too, but sometimes you have to take off your “Shepard is God” glasses and look at the bigger picture.

[Raizo]

I don't know, he probably will have our backs up to a certain point. There is a part in ME1 where the Council grounds Shepard, the Normandy and his squad and Udina is more than happy to go with the Councils decision, Anderson was the only one who believed Shepard and he put his reputation, his career and risked a possible military court marshal ( would he have gotten the death Penalty for what he did? ) for alowing Shepard to take the Normandy, this is a man who has Shepard's back right down to the very end. I can always trust Anderson to do the right thing but I think Udina is a bit short sighted towards the more important issues besides the politics of securing human interests in the Galaxy. I also think Udina is a bit of coward, it will be interesting to see how he reacts to the Reaper Invasion, he'll probably be paralysed by fear and unable to do his duties and be a leader for humanity with the threat of extinction staring him in the face.

[Dean_the_Young]

BellaStrega wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Bah. Mass Effect has always been a love letter to military authoritarianism, and dismissive of civilian governance.

I was thinking much the same thing. The kind of SF Mass Effect is, civilian authorities are always incompetent and corrupt, and only the military can get anything done.

You might appreciate this old thread.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

BellaStrega wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Bah. Mass Effect has always been a love letter to military authoritarianism, and dismissive of civilian governance.

I was thinking much the same thing. The kind of SF Mass Effect is, civilian authorities are always incompetent and corrupt, and only the military can get anything done.

You might appreciate this old thread.

Isn't that practically the case for all media genres these days?

Coming from a region plagued with military dictatorships disguised as civilian, I can tell you that they are extremily incompetent.

[Dean_the_Young]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

human dominance

  

What's not to understand? Udina favors a stronger Alliance. Justifying authority in the face of danger is ancient politics.

Mass Effect 2 could have been more nuanced if just one species (Humanity) openly recognized the Reaper threat and tried to prepare for it. Even if everyone else didn't believe it, thus presenting the same situation of ME2 of canon, the Alliance trying (but failing) to prepare would have offered an interesting distinction in the Council setting.


In the Paragon Council, the Alliance gets voted down 3-to-1 by the rest of the Council species who don't believe it. Anderson or Udina could tell us that, because mentioning the Reapers is political krypotnite with the Council, the Alliance can't openly prepare for them. Instead, Udina and/or Anderson pushes the Council towards things which will ALSO help with the Repers, while quietly preparing at home.

Close to the setting of canon. The Alliance believes in you, but is voted down and can't openly help you.


In the Renegade Council, the Alliance-domination reflects in open acknowledgement of the Reapers... but the former Council species don't believe it, calling it just a Human story to secure their grip on the Council. The Council prepares (under Human leadership), but the doubting races drag their feet as possible. Anderson and/or Udina stress how they're trying to herd cats, dragging the rest of the galaxy to prepare for the Reapers no one really believes in because they view it as a Human justification.

Also close to canon. The Alliance-controlled Council believes you, but the other races don't and so the Alliance has to continue focusing on controlling the galaxy rather than helping with the Collectors.





Both Council would provide roughly equivalent basis for fighting the Reapers. In the Paragon universe, the lesser Council losses and the galactic cooperation are tied down by no concentrated effort. In the Renegade universe, direct action and attempts to prepare by a Human dominated Council are tied down by doubters and those trying to resist Human leadership.


Both sides face vindication, and flaws, for their approach. Paragon applies the ME1 themes of cooperation, but with the extremely conservative, doubting Council. Renegade applies the ME1 theme of Humanity as a species of action and proactive facing of problems, but at the cost of cooperation and acceptance by other races.

Equivalent results. Distinct tones.

[Dean_the_Young]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Isn't that practically the case for all media genres these days?

Coming from a region plagued with military dictatorships disguised as civilian, I can tell you that they are extremily incompetent.

Some are more blatant than others, though I suppose you're right.

I honestly can remember the last game in which a skilled diplomat was lionized by arranging problems to solve themselves, except when the diplomat was authoritarian.

[Aimi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Some are more blatant than others, though I suppose you're right. 

I honestly can remember the last game in which a skilled diplomat was lionized by arranging problems to solve themselves, except when the diplomat was authoritarian.

"Can't", surely. 

What authoritarian diplomat did you have in mind, there, out of curiosity?

[alex90c]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

I really disliked how they just turned Udina into a joke character in ME2. It would have been nice if he at least tried to push for more human dominance using the reapers as a reason for human leadership as a substitute for the previous council dying like it was implied at the end of ME1.

I found him a joke character in ME1, tbh. Some of his dialogue (often accompanied by ridiculous hand gestures) just cracks me up every time.

SEND YOUR FLEET IN

[Dean_the_Young]

daqs wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Some are more blatant than others, though I suppose you're right. 

I honestly can remember the last game in which a skilled diplomat was lionized by arranging problems to solve themselves, except when the diplomat was authoritarian.

"Can't", surely. 

What authoritarian diplomat did you have in mind, there, out of curiosity?

Venetari from Discworld, who is a Type A machivelian bastard. And a tyrant. He's a man who legalized crime, just to make it more organized. And it works, admittedly through heavy Discworld logic.


Awhile ago on British television, there was a fictional prime minister who was ammoral, but very effective at getting things done inside and out. But I'm hazy on the memory, and I just remember reading a glorrified fanfic someone did about 'what would he have done after 9-11?', which was basically be a more effective version and skilled partner to Bush.


There's also Bhelen, from DAO, but that one should be obvious.



Actually, I did think of one non-authoritarian wildly successful politician, but that was such a Mary Sue ****** by the writer of herself that it doesn't bear mentioning.


Generally the only 'effective' politicians in modern media are the Magnificent Bastards, who by nature tend towards authoritarianism. The rest are either just bastards, or otherwise helpless in presenting a solution. About the only time governments are effective are when it's (a) through a military/paramilitary agency, or ( through a conspiracy.

Which is a shame, because you can find a lot of rather interesting political figures who succeeded by making great changes through openness, not war or crushing their domestic rivals.



Game writers could really learn from Henry Clay, though that might be a bit far back in American history. Who cares about a great compromiser who struck bargains that elevated him to power of an expanding democracy, and not once but multiple times helped create compromises for hugely divisive issues?

Or what about first American Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, who without a single army and in only four cases, turned what might have been an irrelevant institution into a co-equal part of the federal government? The man managed to gain power for the Supreme Court by refusing some powers offered, and established principals such as judicial review that still empower the American courts to this day?


Politics is rarely 'sexy', but there are a great deal of people and places in history where a deal by compromise fixed major problems with no military solution... averting wars, or even starting them.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 11 janvier 2012 - 08:24 .

[Aimi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Venetari from Discworld, who is a Type A machivelian bastard. And a tyrant. He's a man who legalized crime, just to make it more organized. And it works, admittedly through heavy Discworld logic.


Awhile ago on British television, there was a fictional prime minister who was ammoral, but very effective at getting things done inside and out. But I'm hazy on the memory, and I just remember reading a glorrified fanfic someone did about 'what would he have done after 9-11?', which was basically be a more effective version and skilled partner to Bush.


There's also Bhelen, from DAO, but that one should be obvious.

I dunno how good Bhelen was at getting things done without violence or the threat thereof. Never read Discworld, though. Cool.

As far as the British guy goes, perhaps you mean Malcolm Tucker, from The Thick of It and In the Loop? Not the PM, and not "awhile ago" (Season 4 of The Thick of It starts filming next year squeee), but absolutely amoral, Magnificent Bastard, and whatnot. And In the Loop was basically Tucker organizing UN support for an imaginary version of the 2003 Iraq war.

Dean_The_Young wrote...

Which is a shame, because you can find a lot of rather interesting political figures who succeeded by making great changes through openness, not war or crushing their domestic rivals.



Game writers could really learn from Henry Clay, though that might be a bit far back in American history. Who cares about a great compromiser who struck bargains that elevated him to power of an expanding democracy, and not once but multiple times helped create compromises for hugely divisive issues?

Or what about first American Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, who without a single army and in only four cases, turned what might have been an irrelevant institution into a co-equal part of the federal government? The man managed to gain power for the Supreme Court by refusing some powers offered, and established principals such as judicial review that still empower the American courts to this day?

I agree. Castlereagh, Metternich, and Kato Takaaki are all excellent non-American examples. I'd also suggest Bismarck, because he defies such easy categorizations as "authoritarian" (one of his sobriquets was "the White Revolutionary") and at any rate his post-1866 program was objectively a Good Thing for European peace, stability, the standard of living, German political freedom (except, I suppose, for Socialists) and whatnot.