165 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

I'm imputing tactical understanding and a greater knowledge of the situation. No one ever knows exactly what it will take to win a battle. The best any general can do is analyze the situation and react accordingly. Just because you can't do that with the information the writers showed you doesn't mean Shep couldn't do it with the information provided to him/her. Besides, I get the distinct impression that if the rest of the main characters were aboard the DA, you would have made the decision to save it.

I don't give a crap who is onboard. I still would not save it. My main concern is Sovereign.

[WraithTDK]

When Shepard says to save/not save the council, he/she has no idea how big a force Sovereign has that is  attacking the Citadel. Hackett is the only one who would be able to know if the deastiny ascenscion is worth saving or not. He knows how many ships he has. He can see the battle a lot better than Shepard can and he should over rule what Shepard says if he feels that its necessary. But he doesn't. He just goes with what Shepard says.

 

Actually, this kind of reinforces my point. The Admiral - who outranks Shephard and has a full view of the battle - call Shephard to say that they can save the DA, and the defers to Shephard's judgment. 

 

So if we're going with the the whole "Shephard couldn't possible know what's going on or be informed enough to make a good tactical analysis" idea, then why would the admiral trust him to make that decision?

 

Seems to me that the only way Hackat would ask Shep is if he knew that Shephard knew enough to make an informed, tactical analysis.

[ImaginaryMatter]

When Shepard says to save/not save the council, he/she has no idea how big a force Sovereign has that is  attacking the Citadel. Hackett is the only one who would be able to know if the deastiny ascenscion is worth saving or not. He knows how many ships he has. He can see the battle a lot better than Shepard can and he should over rule what Shepard says if he feels that its necessary. But he doesn't. He just goes with what Shepard says.

 

I thought Hackett always knew as much as Shepard did, or less. I was always under the impression they had only just regained communications when Shepard got to the Citadel control panel.

 

Should he have made the decison? Probably, but there was no way the game was going to take that choice away from the player.

[themikefest]

Its Joker that says we can save the ship not Hackett. Joker doesn't know crap. He's just a pilot.  What background does he have to make that determination?

[WraithTDK]

Its Joker that says we can save the ship not Hackett. Joker doesn't know crap. He's just a pilot.  What background does he have to make that determination?

 

I notice you're ignoring the bigger question - why would ADMIRAL Hacket defer to COMMANDER Shep if Shep didn't know enough to make an informed tactical decision?

[cap and gown]

What you are ignoring is that they have never, ever even seen a reaper before, much less know how much it would take to bring it down. And in fact, it turns out that what it took to bring Sovereign down was video game magic. Did Shepard's N7 training tell her that a big flying space robot will always resort to taking over dead Turians in order to engage the enemy and therefore it was safe to attack a reaper after the space robot was provoked into taking over said dead-Turian?

[themikefest]

I notice you're ignoring the bigger question - why would ADMIRAL Hacket defer to COMMANDER Shep if Shep didn't know enough to make an informed tactical decision?

And I noticed you didn't answer the question about Joker.

[geth47]

I always got the impression that if not from the shields droping when saren´s body was vaporized, the reaper would have won. Someone sent a distress saying that the reaper was way too strong for the fleet. 

 

There´s no way for shepard to be prepared for sovereign. Very few people had seen sovereign till that moment, and no one seemed to know anything about its combat capabilities. Vigil only told us that it was not invincible (it needed the geth as back-up) but still formidable.

 

Also, the geth were deployed so they would keep the fleets occupied when sovereign attempted to bypass the citadel control. 

 

You gotta be joking way you say that it´s impossible to know what will be required to bring down a ship. If you´re dealing with a known threat, a ship of familiar design, you know the kind of defenses and weapons it possesses. So you can send a sufficient number of ships to take care of it. 

 

Joker himself contradicts you, since he says they can save the DA. In other words, the fifth fleet has more than enough firepower to wipe out the geth. 

 

Also, the game had to somehow let shepard decide. For the same reason the council lets you choose your destination between 3 places, and then offer virmire as an extra place. They should had been be the ones deciding what is gonna be your next assignment. 

 

We, as players, even on a blind gameplay, seem to know more than shepard. We actually see the enemy fleet invading the scene, making the initial attack and the citadel arms closing. Not only shepard had to think and act fast, he had close to zero info on the major fight taking place outside, but he did not know what level of power would be required to defeat the single reaper.

[capn233]

The avatars change, but the arguments either way stay fairly consistent over the years.

 

Whether or not you think ordering the Alliance to engage immediately or not is probably dependent on whether you think that intervention will lead to adding ships from the Citadel Fleet to the force attacking Sovereign.  It is not an all or nothing proposition, they are probably damaged at this point, but if they can still fire they may be worth attempting to save.

 

The game is vague.  You are supposed to be able to justify your own choice, and it wouldn't make sense to give you a choice like this that the game has argued against.  Squadmate dialogue is no help here.  You'll note that for every "major" choice, one squadmate argues one way, and the other argues the counterpoint.  The squaddies aren't even consistent on subsequent playthroughs, depending on who you match them with.

[ImaginaryMatter]

The avatars change, but the arguments either way stay fairly consistent over the years.

 

Whether or not you think ordering the Alliance to engage immediately or not is probably dependent on whether you think that intervention will lead to adding ships from the Citadel Fleet to the force attacking Sovereign.  It is not an all or nothing proposition, they are probably damaged at this point, but if they can still fire they may be worth attempting to save.

 

The game is vague.  You are supposed to be able to justify your own choice, and it wouldn't make sense to give you a choice like this that the game has argued against.  Squadmate dialogue is no help here.  You'll note that for every "major" choice, one squadmate argues one way, and the other argues the counterpoint.  The squaddies aren't even consistent on subsequent playthroughs, depending on who you match them with.

 

That's why I think the issue should have been framed purely as a moral/alignment/whatever one with no tactical goop to confuse the decision making process. I think one reason why we keep running into the issue because we honestly don't have enough information to make an informed decision. It's things like, "Can the Citadel Defense fleet contribute to the assault?" which lead to more unsolvable problems because the game doesn't address them. And while I can understand some unexpectedness regarding outcomes, here I think it's too much. From a story perspective Shepard is way outside his scope and from a playing perspective we're left with a choice where we are almost clueless about any consequences.

 

Here I think the choice should have been one that was something like human cooperation vs domination, where the option is presented as trading Fifth fleet ships for Council ships.

[cap and gown]

 

Here I think the choice should have been one that was something like human cooperation vs domination, where the option is presented as trading Fifth fleet ships for Council ships.

 

That seems like a reasonable course to take. Basically, it amounts to eliminating the "Concentrate on Sovereign" option and just having the "save the council" and "let the council die" options.

[Catastrophy]

Let them live. I like variety. Makes divide and conquer so much easier.

[capn233]

^The first game was determined to have neutral choices.  Who knows how much thought they put into "Concentrate on Sovereign."  Maybe it could have just as easily been "Help if you can" or "Defer to Hackett's judgement."  The main problem being that the neutral choice is the same as the renegade choice as far as the action the fleet takes, it is just different justification given by Shep.

 

They did something similar, in the opposite direction, with the Rachni Queen.  It was "I won't kill you" (para), "I'll free you" (neutral), "You die here, by my hand" (ren).  Personally the neutral dialogue wheel phrase seems more paragon than the paragon one, but it is a quibble.  Those two are essentially the same thing.

[FlyingSquirrel]

How in the world do you know how many ships it would take to bring down Sovereign? How do you know how many ships the Alliance would lose saving the DA? How do you know anything about a battle taking place outside the Citadel when the arms are closed? You have no idea what Shepard knows and you have no idea what the tactical situation is BECAUSE THE WRITERS DON"T TELL US!

 

No, they don't - but in the absence of that information, I think it's perfectly permissible for players to imagine whatever they want about what exactly Shepard knows. My Shepards who save the council have a pretty good idea of the strength of the Fifth Fleet and figure it's worth the small risk to have them cover the Destiny Ascension's exit before fully engaging Sovereign and the geth. My Shepards who pick "concentrate on Sovereign" don't have that same information and/or don't think they can take the risk.

 

IMO, Shepard would, if this were real life, have at least *some* idea of the strength of the respective fleets, both due to background military knowledge and whatever information the Normandy crew could transmit to their omnitools once they establish contact. How detailed or exact it would be is another question, and left open for the player to guess at. I think whoever said that BW may have intentionally left it vague so that the player could figure s/he made the right decision either way might be right.

[FlyingSquirrel]

What you are ignoring is that they have never, ever even seen a reaper before, much less know how much it would take to bring it down. And in fact, it turns out that what it took to bring Sovereign down was video game magic. Did Shepard's N7 training tell her that a big flying space robot will always resort to taking over dead Turians in order to engage the enemy and therefore it was safe to attack a reaper after the space robot was provoked into taking over said dead-Turian?

 

Well, Sovereign was spotted at Eden Prime, and was present at Virmire as well - after the conversation between Shepard and Sovereign, Joker reports that Sovereign just pulled some strange maneuvers. Unless the Normandy crew are all sitting up there playing cards and watching Blasto movies, they probably took the opportunity to try to scan Sovereign and its weaponry systems. 

[geth47]

I can´t remember what I thought during my first play, but if I saw these options, I would suppose that "I won´t kill you" simply means that the queen won´t be executed.  But there would still be restrictions imposed on her, she would remain in custody, either on the lab, or with the alliance, or the council.

 

it´s weird that this was never presented as a option. To simply keep her as a prisoner and let the big heads figure out the best course of action. No, instead, you either commit genocide or lets a potential threat escape without even leaving her new address for contact. 

 

I mean, they could easily have done a Space Seed (star trek) type of ending, sending her to a planet in which she would not be able to built ships and let her and her offspring to live for a few generations as a probational period, trying, in the long run, to see if they can be trusted. This seems very fair, generous and balanced to me. Not too cruel, and not too naive. 

 

So you would give the rachni a real chance, but without endangering anyone in the process. But no, you need to select between two very extreme scenarios. In this case, I´ll admit it´s no wonder that udina and the council are appalled by your actions. 

 

And that´s why I could never play shepard as if he was myself. I constantly find situations in which my responses are not covered by the game. I would keep her confined and try to strike a deal with her, and hope that the council would not overlook my decision. 

[geth47]

FS, Shepard can know the strength of the citadel fleet as well as the fifth fleet. He can have a pretty accurate estimation of their firepower.

 

But the point here is not what he knows of his allied forces, but what he does not know about his opposition. What and how much do you need to destroy a reaper?  No one has saw one in action. We don´t even know if sensors can scan its weapons.  No matter how hard you try to convince yourselves, Shepard has no ways of knowing it. Neither he, nor the Admiral, nor Joker. 

 

The only reason why people defend so vigorously that saving the council is safe is because they already read the last chapter. They know how it ends. So it´s safe for them to assume. otherwise, this would be a big risk. One I sincerely doubt you would take in real life. 

 

And the only reason why it worked was because bioware decided it should. They could just as easily make your decision to have tragic consequences for everybody. This whole "My shep would know" line of reasoning if flawed, because whether you people see it or not, you´re grating him/her a knowledge he or she simply could not have. 

 

If not for the sudden drop of the reaper´s shields, I wonder if the allied forces could still win, 

[capn233]

I mean, they could easily have done a Space Seed (star trek) type of ending, sending her to a planet in which she would not be able to built ships and let her and her offspring to live for a few generations as a probational period, trying, in the long run, to see if they can be trusted. This seems very fair, generous and balanced to me. Not too cruel, and not too naive. 

 

Heh that worked out real well for Khan and Kirk. Although it could have also made for an interesting Mass Effect sequel set 20 yrs in the future...

 

"There's a rachni out there I haven't seen in 20 years who is trying to kill me.  You show me a blue daughter that'd be happy to help. My daughter... my life that could have been... and wasn't. How do I feel? Old... worn out."

 

"QUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNN!!!"

[cap and gown]

@Geth 47: Shiala is the same way. Either let her go, scott-free, or kill her. Pretty bloody extreme. What I wanted to do was arrest her and then have her interrogated for any info on Saren, but the game only gives Shepard two options.

 

In general, there are not actual "neutral" options in the game. You always get 3 choices on the dialogue wheel, but almost always two of have Shepard saying the exact same thing. In fact, quite often, all three options have Shepard saying the same thing.

 

I am pretty sure that ME2 did not display this behaviour with the dialogue wheel. Usually it was two choices, and if there was a neutral choice it really was different than the other two.

[FlyingSquirrel]

@Geth 47: Shiala is the same way. Either let her go, scott-free, or kill her. Pretty bloody extreme. What I wanted to do was arrest her and then have her interrogated for any info on Saren, but the game only gives Shepard two options.

 

And Rana Thanoptis. And Maelon. And Aresh. And Fist.

 

This is one real head-scratcher throughout the series. It seems clear that Shepard does have the authority to arrest people - you can do it with Dr. Wayne and Jacob's father, and you can at least *say* you're going to do it with the ExoGeni scientists, Helena Blake, and Dr. Saleon (even though they all start shooting at you if you attempt it). But then in other situations you can't because...well, you just can't.

 

Personally, I trusted Shiala and the rachni queen enough to decide that they weren't responsible for what had happened and should be released, but I can see how someone might want to place either of them in temporary custody and make sure their stories check out.

 

I thought Rana, Maelon, and Fist all definitely deserved to be tried and imprisoned for what they did. Arresting Rana might have been tricky among all the mayhem on Virmire, but Maelon could have easily been taken back to the Normandy and handed over to the salarian authorities - Shepard's squad has secured the Weyrloc compound. Fist could have at least been locked in his office while they left to go save Tali. I let all three of them go simply because I don't believe in the death penalty or summary executions, but I wasn't especially happy about it. And Aresh probably needed mental health treatment, even if he did end up dying heroically during the events of ME3.

[ImaginaryMatter]

If not for the sudden drop of the reaper´s shields, I wonder if the allied forces could still win, 

 

I always took Saren hopper's death and Sovereign's shield collapse to just be independent events that happen adjacently during the cutscene to maintain tone. Sovereign's power simply ran out after sustaining such a heavy barrage, it was only until the later games that the power surge was established.

[cap and gown]

And Rana Thanoptis. And Maelon. And Aresh. And Fist.

 

<snip>

 

I agree with you on every one of those (including Fist, Maelon, etc.) except Rana. The problem with letting Rana go, as you note, is the tactical situation. You can't just tie her up, because that is the same as just killing her. You are, after all, about to nuke the place. But if you don't tie her up she might run off and tell Saren, et. al. where you are and what you are up to. So there I would make the choice between a trusting, paragon Shepard, and a ruthless, mission-comes-first Shepard. Instead, the "ruthless" Shepard comes off as an avenging angel. Shepard basically says she is punishing Rana for her experiments. A truly "ruthless" Shepard would kill her because she is a threat to the mission, not to take vengeance or administer "justice."

[cap and gown]

I always took Saren hopper's death and Sovereign's shield collapse to just be independent events that happen adjacently during the cutscene to maintain tone. Sovereign's power simply ran out after sustaining such a heavy barrage, it was only until the later games that the power surge was established.

 

Really? I always saw them as directly related. I think the way the two events are shown on camera makes it clear the writers intended the viewer to make this connection.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Really? I always saw them as directly related. I think the way the two events are shown on camera makes it clear the writers intended the viewer to make this connection.

 

I realize I'm definitely in the minority here but I thought Sovereign was controlling Saren hopper like an RC vehicle. It never even occurred to me until reading the Codex entry in ME3 that there was actually some sort of power surge.

[capn233]

I realize I'm definitely in the minority here but I thought Sovereign was controlling Saren hopper like an RC vehicle. It never even occurred to me until reading the Codex entry in ME3 that there was actually some sort of power surge.

 

I thought the same thing actually.

 

Vigil makes the point that Reapers are not invincible and that a protracted engagement with a fleet would likely end in the loss of the Reaper.  This is the reason Sovereign needs the Geth Fleet in addition to finding the Conduit.

 

It really isn't any different than anything in the game that just so happens to occur at a point that miraculously coincides with something Shepard did.

 

There is a coherent argument that can be made that the shield drop entry in the codex is something of a retcon when they decided to make Reaper capital ships nearly invincible so as to play up the whole necessity for the Crucible.