72 réponses à ce sujet

[Bleachrude]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Saren is dead. He's no longer at the control console. So what if Sovereign is perched on the Citadel?

Saving the Council saves 10,000 people. Letting them die only saves 2,400.

It saves 2400 soldiers.

2400 soldiers are more useful in a war than 10.000 civilians.


Besides, the galaxy is better off without that dumb trio. It was due time we got a new, more capable council.

THAT...actually never made sense.

That 10k is the 10k on the Destiny ascension which at the time, had been jyped as the most POWEFUL ship in known space. The pragmatic choice would be to save the DA as od the time, if the DA went down, why would ANY other ship have a chance o beating Sovereign?

Ask the US navy which they rather give up, 10 arleigh burke destroyers (total crew of 3000) or 1 minitz class aircraft carrier (6000)

[Bleachrude]

StreetMagic wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

THAT...actually never made sense.

That 10k is the 10k on the Destiny ascension which at the time, had been jyped as the most POWEFUL ship in known space. The pragmatic choice would be to save the DA as od the time, if the DA went down, why would ANY other ship have a chance o beating Sovereign?

Ask the US navy which they rather give up, 10 arleigh burke destroyers (total crew of 3000) or 1 minitz class aircraft carrier (6000)

Still not a fair comparison.

It's more like would you knowingly sacrifice your destroyers to save a half-assed/new-ish allies's aircraft carrier. Not even your aircraft carrier. It's Belgium's or something. Not sure there's a direct comparison in modern terms at the moment.

For a pragmatic/renegade shepard? This should be a no-brainer decision. Save the aircraft carrier in an ongoing battle. This would be akin to Belgium sacrificing the UN security council, who for some reason are aboard the Nimitz which doesn't have its own escort ships, fo save their ships for a target that they themselves can't breach with said saved ships

The amount of force projection that a carrier has EASILY trumps whatever your pkucky little destroyers can bring to the table.

In the specific scenario of ME1, its hard to see what those cruisers can do that the DA can't simply do LEAGUES better.

Now..if the scenario was setup to "save the council who are on a frigate" versus cruisers, it's a much more interesting choice.

[Nashtalia]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

According to the narrative it does.

Then why do some renegade options net more war assets than the paragon choice?

despite my dis-taste for Cerberus, The Illusive Man does say something about, Sacrifices have to made to make impact or something of this [specifically the ME2 TIM].

/not indoctrinated

Modifié par Nashtalia, 02 septembre 2013 - 02:27 .

[cap and gown]

First, I think this whole debate about whether renegade/paragon is good/bad, idealistic/pragmatic, or socially-skilled/jerk points to a fundamental problem with the whole system. Not even BW can figure out what it means. That is why I believe a system of alliances (Jack or Miranda, Tali or Legion) would be better, as well as a system that gauges objective actions, such as whether the Main Character fulfills their promises or not.

Second, as to the debate on the Destiny Ascension, I think a lot of the debate is being informed with hindsight. Only in ME2 do we learn that their are 10,000 people aboard the DA and 2400 Alliance soldiers died saving it. In ME1 all we really know is that (1) it is super powerful and (2) the Council is on board. It always struck me as kind of stupid to save the DA just to save the Council. If I had to sacrifice the leader of a country to prevent that country from being overrun, I would do it. Individuals are replaceable. Indeed, the Council members do get replaced. But the Councilors are not even the leaders of anything except the Citadel Fleet. They are more like members of the UN Security Council. No one is going to break a sweat if you kill some ambassadors to stop an invasion. And just because in ME2 and 3 the new Council claims that Sheppard let the old Council die because she put the needs of humanity first doesn't make it so. (I wish there was a dialogue option to tell them that is not why I let the Council die.) My Sheppard let the Council die (those times she did) because she was worried about the fate of the Galaxy, not just humanity. Heck, she is constantly running around with non-human squad mates and even brought them to the battle against Sovereign. In fact, it was the Krogan who advised her to focus on Sovereign, while the human (Kaiden) was all mopey about letting the Council die.

[AlexMBrennan]

Not even your aircraft carrier. It's Belgium's or something

All hail our American saviours! Go team world police!

On a more serious note you ignored the bit about the DA being the largest ship; for your analogy to be accurate the Belgians would have to have somehow built a carrier much larger than any puny American ones...

Only in ME2 do we learn that their are 10,000 people aboard the DA

Who could possibly have guessed that the largest dreadnought would have a large crew?

They are more like members of the UN Security Council

Again, analogies are only useful if they are accurate: In this case, Shepard's first act after humans are entrusted with a little bit of responsibility is to sacrifice non-humans (council and substantial asari crew) to save a few human ships... Do you think that the other species will cooperate with them after that?
On that basis alone you can argue for saving the council - stopping sovereign now will not matter because we will lose the war if the galaxy ends up completely divided with no one listening to the only person who knows anything about the Reaper threat.

Of course, all of the above ignores all the information about the fleets we'd need to make an intelligent decision - if the geth fleets are staying close enough to protect Sovereign ( which I would assume they do because that's the entire point of having them there) then it's better to fight them now to avoid having to fight them and Sovereign at the same time later.
Neither the player nor Shepard has that information, and the people that do (Hacket) inexplicably defer to some dude with no experience commanding fleet engagements without telling him any of the facts - but in the absence if divine heritage or darkspawn magic there is no other way to have some unimportant player character make such epic galaxy-changing choices... Yes, Shepard is the most appropriate person to become the AI overlord because... He's marginally luckier at dodging enemy fire than the average alliance grunt?

[Xplode441]

I'd just like to stop in and say that I let the Destiny Ascension get destroyed because I hated the Council.

[AlexMBrennan]

That's what you want to hear, right? I'll get into character and play along.

Of course racism is always an act, and no one is actually racist. Because acting racist is now fun...???

[Xplode441]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

That's what you want to hear, right? I'll get into character and play along.

Of course racism is always an act, and no one is actually racist. Because acting racist is now fun...???

Did I miss something? What does race have to do with anything?

[Bleachrude]

StreetMagic wrote...

How about "I don't give a **** about Belgium. Focus fire on the enemy."? It doesn't have to be complicated. That's practical enough.

Except that they are on the Destiny Ascension.

Again, the "choice" become muddied if the council is on a small frigate, but even if you factor out what you know about the DA in ME2, the actual game TELLS you that the DA is the singularly most powerful warship in the galaxy.


IIRC, you're told that the DA can smash through the barriers of any alliance ship and give the ship behind THAT a seriously bad time.

Why the hell wouldn't you save it?

[cap and gown]

Bleachrude wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

How about "I don't give a **** about Belgium. Focus fire on the enemy."? It doesn't have to be complicated. That's practical enough.

Except that they are on the Destiny Ascension.

Again, the "choice" become muddied if the council is on a small frigate, but even if you factor out what you know about the DA in ME2, the actual game TELLS you that the DA is the singularly most powerful warship in the galaxy.


IIRC, you're told that the DA can smash through the barriers of any alliance ship and give the ship behind THAT a seriously bad time.

Why the hell wouldn't you save it?

We are told that, but then we are told we have to save it? This uber-powerful warship that can't take care of itself? Sounds like the battle fleet at Pearl Harbor. Turns out it was better for the U.S. to lose those clunkers. They committed to carrier warfare quicker than the Japanese who were still in a ship-of-the-line mindset until after Midway.

[thatonebigdude]

I allowed the Council and Destiny Ascension to bite the dust my first, mostly Paragon, playthrough simply because I didn't think that anything I had at my disposal would make a dent in the forces attacking the most powerful known warship.
The DA wass the beneficiary of some impressive hype; a long commentary by a Volus, you could even look at the ship as it passed over the wards. It was made to be ridiculously powerful by everyone who mentioned it, even casually. Now, that vessel is getting its teeth kicked down its throat by superior, swarming forces. And there's a terrifyingly powerful dreadnought, inside the Citadel proper, still left to deal with. No way am I going to divide my forces at that critical moment, with, IMO at the time, little to no chance of success.
That's the most pragmatic choice without metagaming, pure and simple.

Modifié par thatonebigdude, 02 septembre 2013 - 10:02 .

[TheMyron]

@cap and gown, as I said before, ME3 was where the MEU stopped being a true RPG.

[Br3admax]

The term "RPG" does not mean "I can do whatever I want, when I want." Most RPGs are like that, put to be a "true RPG" all you need to do is fill a role and make some choices. ME3 is still an RPG by true, if a bit lax, RPG standards.

[DeathScepter]

Nashtalia wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

According to the narrative it does.

Then why do some renegade options net more war assets than the paragon choice?

despite my dis-taste for Cerberus, The Illusive Man does say something about, Sacrifices have to made to make impact or something of this [specifically the ME2 TIM].

/not indoctrinated

in ME2, TIM does make great amount of sense.  In ME3, TIM is a pale shadow of what he was in ME2. So agreeing with ME2 TIM, doesn't make you indoctrinated unless you want to try out this new Phantom Armor that I am selling.

[Nashtalia]

DeathScepter wrote...

Nashtalia wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

According to the narrative it does.

Then why do some renegade options net more war assets than the paragon choice?

despite my dis-taste for Cerberus, The Illusive Man does say something about, Sacrifices have to made to make impact or something of this [specifically the ME2 TIM].

/not indoctrinated

in ME2, TIM does make great amount of sense.  In ME3, TIM is a pale shadow of what he was in ME2. So agreeing with ME2 TIM, doesn't make you indoctrinated unless you want to try out this new Phantom Armor that I am selling.

i would have to agree that i can some-what be on the Line with him [his ME2 personality] and yes, i did notice his rather obvious personality change come ME3, but as for armour i rather have armour that has that N7 tag, so no sell....

[The Heretic of Time]

Bleachrude wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

THAT...actually never made sense.

That 10k is the 10k on the Destiny ascension which at the time, had been jyped as the most POWEFUL ship in known space. The pragmatic choice would be to save the DA as od the time, if the DA went down, why would ANY other ship have a chance o beating Sovereign?

Ask the US navy which they rather give up, 10 arleigh burke destroyers (total crew of 3000) or 1 minitz class aircraft carrier (6000)

Still not a fair comparison.

It's more like would you knowingly sacrifice your destroyers to save a half-assed/new-ish allies's aircraft carrier. Not even your aircraft carrier. It's Belgium's or something. Not sure there's a direct comparison in modern terms at the moment.

For a pragmatic/renegade shepard? This should be a no-brainer decision. Save the aircraft carrier in an ongoing battle. This would be akin to Belgium sacrificing the UN security council, who for some reason are aboard the Nimitz which doesn't have its own escort ships, fo save their ships for a target that they themselves can't breach with said saved ships

The amount of force projection that a carrier has EASILY trumps whatever your pkucky little destroyers can bring to the table.

In the specific scenario of ME1, its hard to see what those cruisers can do that the DA can't simply do LEAGUES better.

Now..if the scenario was setup to "save the council who are on a frigate" versus cruisers, it's a much more interesting choice.

Except you're forgetting the most very important two things in this whole scenario:

1) the DA isn't in proper range for combat (it needs to be much further away).

2) the DA had no intention of joining the battle anyway since the stupid council decided to use the most advanced ship in council space as their getaway ship.


So saving the DA is really not a priority and not the pragmatic renegade choice at all, it's the dumb paragon choice. For a pragmaic renegade Shepard this is indeed a no-brainer: DON'T WASTE resources on saving the council, FOCUS ON SOVERIEGN.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 septembre 2013 - 01:11 .

[TheMyron]

StreetMagic wrote...

Yeah, you get half and half Paragon/Renegade pts if you just focus on Sovereign.

It depends on whether you sacrifice the Council with malice (bottom option), or with regret (middle option).