Not saving the council....

In retrospect, I don't get why it turned into not having the council at all just because you felt you had to stop the reaper from taking over the citadel and letting all the reapers come through. New politicians always rise up. Shepard didn't end the council but simply chose to save the citadel and galaxy from imminent reaper invasion. Yet, it's taken to an extreme act against the council. Honestly, when playing the game the first time, you have no idea if those forces can stop the reaper if you save the council and priority wise, destroying the reaper wins. The reaper is the bigger problem. It's the reason this whole game exists.

So I guess I see this as a major issue now that I'm thinking back to that decision. Choosing to save the citadel, destroy the reaper and stop and invasion is NOT some sort of total end of the council. That's so totally illogical. There would be backups just like in any type of politics or government. Shepard didn't say destroy the council. Shepard said destroy the reaper. What if they saved the council but could not destroy the reaper or it was too late and the reapers came through?

I guess I'm just baffled by the logic of this since it's not some sort of decision to destroy the council's existence (depsite hating them), but rather a decision in that moment of what the priority is. The council would still exist - just would have new leaders running it. And in 2 years since Shepard's 'death' they couldn't manage to find new council leaders? That's kind of a huge fail in the storyline or just a major manipulation of it. People in politics die. That doesn't mean the political machine comes to an end. It only means new ones take over. The system would still exist. If not, then the council was pretty much a major fail to begin with had it not planned on lines of succession and thought they (those specific council leaders) would ALWAYS be in charge. Right? Anyone?

Modifié par starlitegirlx, 14 septembre 2012 - 01:59 .