10 réponses à ce sujet

[Jimmy Jims]

I'm playing through ME1 again, and I wanted to know as much about the "save/destroy the Council" repercussions as possible. How does it affect ME1's ending as opposed to "Focus on Sovereign"? How is ME3 different for it as well? I understand that it doesn't have as many repercussions on ME2, since the Council ignores you either way; does the same apply to the other games? As in, the structure of the story is the same regardless of the current Council?

[PsiFive]

I think the focus on Sovereign and let the Council die options are basically the same, possibly with a difference in renegade points. However, the Council don't ignore you either easy in ME2. There is a fairly significant difference if you save them because rather than being ignored you speak to them on the Citadel and can get your Spectre status reinstated. Being a Spectre again seems to be more a conversations difference than anything else but still notable.

[CDR David Shepard]

You have the chance to save people.

Why wouldn't you?

[Ferretinabun]

In reality the differences are negligible.

If you let the council die, they are merely replaced by a different Salarian, Asari and Turian council trio who have almost exactly the same dialogue as the original council - even if you opted for an all-human council at the end of ME1. It just gets retconned. (It's the same if you chose Admiral Anderson as human councillor - the choice is reflected in ME2 but simply retconned into being Udina in ME3.) Even the EMS score in ME3 is practically the same - the Destiny Ascension is worth 70 EMS points, but you'll lose 75 EMS points in the fleet numbers it took to save it, so it's only 5 points difference (which is nothing).

[Obadiah]

You get a cold shoulder in ME2 from a Turian that thinks humans are racist. I never finished that ME2 playthrough so I don't know how often that happens.

[PsiFive]

CDR David Shepard wrote...

You have the chance to save people.

Why wouldn't you?

Guess it depends on what you think of the people you're saving, especially when the cost is a lot more peoples' lives being sacrificed.

[Forst1999]

Ferretinabun wrote...

In reality the differences are negligible.

If you let the council die, they are merely replaced by a different Salarian, Asari and Turian council trio who have almost exactly the same dialogue as the original council - even if you opted for an all-human council at the end of ME1. It just gets retconned.

Not to derail the topic too much, but that's one retcon I'm entirely happy with. The council races rolling on the back because the humans won one battle for them was just stupid.

(It's the same if you chose Admiral Anderson as human councillor - the choice is reflected in ME2 but simply retconned into being Udina in ME3.)

Not really a retcon, the choice isn't simply overridden. The codex mentions Anderson stepping down and one dialogue acknowledges his time as councilor as well. I understand if people don't find this satisfying, but retcon isn't the right term.

Even the EMS score in ME3 is practically the same - the Destiny Ascension is worth 70 EMS points, but you'll lose 75 EMS points in the fleet numbers it took to save it, so it's only 5 points difference (which is nothing).

You also get another Salarian war asset for each outcome. The one you get with the old councilor is worth 63 points more if fully upgraded. And with Admiral Mikhaelivic you lose 100 point from the Alliance for saving the council. So saving the council is worth 33 points more. Still not much, I admit.

PsiFive wrote...

CDR David Shepard wrote...
You have the chance to save people. Why wouldn't you?

Guess it depends on what you think of the people you're saving, especially when the cost is a lot more peoples' lives being sacrificed.

A turian cruiser has a crew of 300. Alliance cruisers won't be that different, so the 8 cruisers you lose should contain 2400 people. The Destiny Ascension has a crew of 10.000. I mostly save it for all this people.

The difference between the old and the new council isn't much, it won't change the course of events. But they do have distinct personalities. If you think about it, it makes sense that a replacement council won't change much. After all, they are just represantatives of their species. They don't make their peoples' politics alone, are still held responsible by the governments back home.

[CDR David Shepard]

PsiFive wrote...

CDR David Shepard wrote...

You have the chance to save people.

Why wouldn't you?

Guess it depends on what you think of the people you're saving, especially when the cost is a lot more peoples' lives being sacrificed.

My thought process is...you could potentially save them without losing any lives..."potentially".

If you don't try...then you DEFINITELY lose lives.

[Jimmy Jims]

So there really isn't any major shift in the ending of the first game, or in the overall course of the trilogy? The reason I ask being that I wasn't sure if not focusing on Sovereign made things worse in the short run, or if saving the Council ended up better in the long run.

Modifié par Jimmy Jims, 01 novembre 2012 - 08:54 .

[PsiFive]

CDR David Shepard wrote...

PsiFive wrote...

CDR David Shepard wrote...

You have the chance to save people.

Why wouldn't you?

Guess it depends on what you think of the people you're saving, especially when the cost is a lot more peoples' lives being sacrificed.

My thought process is...you could potentially save them without losing any lives..."potentially".

If you don't try...then you DEFINITELY lose lives.

I don't think there was any question that lives would not be lost. Allied Fleet vs Geth Fleet plus Sovereign? That many lives would be lost was an absolute cast iron certainty, and that a larger number would be lost than would be saved (in that one battle - *not* in the long run, which of course is something the characters could not possibly know) was highly likely when you're accepting the loss of a number of ships and crew that you might need very soon in order to save just one, the Destiny Ascension. Okay, a pretty large ship, but still only one ship and one that's already been in a battle and suffered damage plus is carrying VIPs, meaning that its firepower is almost certainly not going to be available to make up for whatever you lost saving it. From the perspective of Admiral Hackett you're losing a knight or maybe a bishop, but retaining pieces you need to checkmate the king.

And on the point of capturing the king there's also the question, again from the characters' point of view, that losing firepower that may be needed to take down Sovereign could result in an almost infinitely greater loss of life. Imagine you're Hackett wondering if destroying Sovereign really will take all your ships, wondering if the loss of even one little frigate would be enough of a reduction for Sovereign to overcome the fleet. I mostly save the Destiny Ascension and the Council but I know I'm making the characters do something that in real life I wouldn't. They don't know Sovereign's destruction really hinges on Shep and team destroying the Saren Husk. Even Shepard doesn't know that. A thousand or so lives against the trillions lost for failing to destroy Sovereign? A no brainer, and the decision is in the hands of someone who a few months (of personal time) later doesn't hesitate to sacrifice 300 times as many Batarians just to delay, not even stop, Harbinger. Like I said, I normally save them but I struggle to believe even the most paragon Shepard would do that and I know I'm really not role-playing that decision but playing it for outcomes in ME2.

[PsiFive]

Jimmy Jims wrote...

So there really isn't any major shift in the ending of the first game, or in the overall course of the trilogy? The reason I ask being that I wasn't sure if not focusing on Sovereign made things worse in the short run, or if saving the Council ended up better in the long run.

Nah, not much in it. Choose depending on how you want your story to go.