29 replies to this topic

[congokong]

Yes, they turn out to be wrong. Yet from what they know, their reasoning is very logically sound.

 

This begins with their refusal to revoke Saren's spectre status without any proof. Shepard and company act like the council are complete fools when they have no proof besides the testimony of a traumatized dock worker. Shepard never even saw Saren on Eden Prime. Anderson starts ranting about how Saren wants to exterminate the entire human race, again, without anything but the dock worker's testimony. Frankly, he sounds insane.

 

This continues with Shepard's certainty of the existence of the reapers without anything but confusing visions from the prothean beacon. Throughout the series, Shepard does acquire solid empirical evidence to be convinced of this wild theory, but the council doesn't. It's only natural they'd be very skeptical without real proof.

 

In ME3, Shepard goes about requesting aid from the council all wrong. For some reason, help for earth and help building the crucible seem to go together. Why should Shepard expect the council to divert resources from their own homeworlds to aid earth when the reapers are threatening them too? If Shepard had simply asked for aid with the crucible instead of selfishly wanting earth aid, the council's refusal to help would be more understandably stupid; considering they had no plan B. Aid for earth only goes with the crucible at the end when the Citadel conveniently is brought to earth by the reapers.

 

It feels the handling of Shepard with the council was written poorly throughout the series; especially at the start when Shepard is so adamant on Saren's guilt and the reapers' existence.

 

Lastly, is it implied the council believed the reapers were real but for some reason were not admitting so, even to Shepard? There was an indication of that in the Citadel DLC while going through the archives.

[capn233]

I would agree that the Council's take on various things was relatively confusing.

 

If ME1 it isn't completely unreasonable to see their points about a lack of evidence against Saren, who is reputed to be their best agent.  But the funny thing is you stumble upon a random quarian with a random recording that they take as irrefutable evidence against Saren.  Guess you can't fake that sort of thing in the future.  Also always struck me as a strange bit of evidence since the tone and conversation is completely different than Saren's unhappy dialogue that we actually witness.

 

ME2 council position is a little more irritating with respect to the Reapers. Although they potentially reinstate you as a spectre, they apparently won't tell you that they believe the Reapers are real (requires some reinterpretation given ME3... just playing ME2 it seems like they are denying they exist completely).

 

ME3 council just devolved into pure self interest, and that isn't entirely unsurprising.

[themikefest]

I have never saved the council in ME1. The council in ME3 is a little better especially the turian councilor.

 

I do agree with them not sending aid right away since they know very little about the plans that were presented to them and sending all the fleets to Earth would most likely end badly.  I get that Shepard wanted help right away, but she/he has to remember that  other species are facing the reapers as well. Udina is right that everyone needs to work together to have any chance to stop the reapers.

 

Fortunately the turian councilor gave information to Shepard that could get the ball rolling. Once the new Primarch is found, things start moving.

 

When I played the Citadel dlc, I missed that part about the council knowing about the reapers. I only learned about that from a post I read. The next time I played the dlc, I heard what was said.

[aoibhealfae]

..... I thought they're doing what I expect the politicians to do. Have you seen UN lately?

[MrFob]

IMO, the council in ME1 has the problem that they are not characters with opinions but simply feedback devices. The turian councilor will always be against you, the asari councilor will always be understanding and the salarian councilor will never have anything useful to say at all. Example: The turian councilor will chastise wou for your actions on Novaria, either because you committed genocide by killing the queen or because he says you were an irresponsible moron for letting her go (and we didn't get the option to keep her prisoner ). He doesn't have a firm agenda on the matter. At the very least, they preconceptions about Shepard seem to trump their position on any issue (which is pretty bad for a responsible politician). That was not a good way to write them IMO and it's probably one of the main reasons why they weren't well liked or understood by the audience from the very beginning.

 

In ME2, they are just acting completely weird and inconsistent with the ME1 ending of course. Their actions here have no connection to ME1 whatsoever, just like the rest of the game.

 

In ME3, I can get behind them somewhat or at least I can understand them. In fact, unlike a lot of other characters in this game, they are among the only ones that didn't seem to have read ahead in the script yet, which is definitely a positive in my book. The oinly thing that really leaves me baffled is why the asari councilor didn't tell Shepard about the Thessia beacon earlier, that was just stupid beyond measure. Otherwise, they were ok.

 

BTW: If you want to see the council at their prime, read Revelation. IMO, in that book, the council acts much more like politicians than they ever do in any fo the games.

[Barquiel]

I had no problems with the council in ME1 and ME3. "Wake up! Aliens will come and destroy us!" is simply hard to believe...and as you said, there is no solid evidence that Reapers will come and destroy the galaxy other than Shepard's word and a confusing jumble of images. And in ME3 we expect them to build some structure we believe will unleash an apocalyptic amount of energy, but we don't know what it will do or how it will do it...and throw all of their ships at Earth (and even if the council was to say "All asari/salarian/turian forces, go die on Earth!" the matriarchs/dalatrass/primarch would have simply overruled them. It's also safe to assume that had roles been reversed and Thessia or Sur'kesh were invaded first the alliance wouldn't have responded any different).

Their role in ME2 is a bit more problematic. Tevos recognized the reaper threat if Shepard saved the Destiny Ascension in ME1 ("you saved not just our lives but the lives of billions from Sovereign and the Reapers"). But in ME2, we are back to "Ah yes, reapers"... (bad writing, I guess).

In ME3, I can get behind them somewhat or at least I can understand them. In fact, unlike a lot of other characters in this game, they are among the only ones that didn't seem to have read ahead in the script yet, which is definitely a positive in my book. The oinly thing that really leaves me baffled is why the asari councilor didn't tell Shepard about the Thessia beacon earlier, that was just stupid beyond measure. Otherwise, they were ok.

Tevos tells you that she has just received the information herself when she contacts Shepard after Rannoch. Not sure about Irissa.

[iM3GTR]

I totally understand the Council's position in ME1. I doubt it would go down well if you ran into a UN security council meeting and started screaming "THE LIZARD MEN ARE HEEEERE!" and span in circles waving your arms.

[Excella Gionne]

I have never saved the council in ME1. The council in ME3 is a little better especially the turian councilor.

 

If I could switch the Turian and Salarian Councilor from the original council with their substitutes, I would. 

[StarcloudSWG]

In ME, the Council was acting as they should. Responsible for the stability of galactic civilization in economic, military AND political terms, any action taken based solely on the unsupported 'vision' of a single individual, a Spectre that they were *pressured* into accepting, is just not going to happen. Their position makes sense, even if the assumptions they make turn out to be false.

 

In ME 2, the lead writer (Mac Walters) and the director (Casey Hudson), along with the lead designer (Preston Watamaniuk), decided they wanted a "Commander Shootmans" action shooty game with plenty of action shooty and as little world-building, investigation of ancient mysteries, intellectual challenge, or exploration as possible. And instead of searching for clues to stop the Reapers, the plot was hijacked for episodes of "Normandy SR2: Daddy Issues."

 

So they hit the reset button as many times and in as many ways as necessary to obliterate as much of the original story direction as they could, inserted tons of "humans are SPECIAL" ideas that had been deliberately rejected in the original game, and turned the Council from a group of politicians acting in a reasonable manner, into a group of obstructionist bureaucrats that don't deserve to be in the positions they're in.

 

In Mass Effect 3, they finally act like politicians again, mostly. Faced with an overwhelming threat that they really can't do anything about, naturally they turn inward.

 

Why? Because Mass Effect 2 was hijacked to deliver episodes of "Normandy SR2: Daddy Issues" instead of focusing on the REAL threat, the Reapers, and finding a way to stop them. The insistence on "retaking Earth" was based on EA's marketing campaign for ME 3, and the story might as well not have had any alien races at all; seriously, you could take Tuchanka and Rannoch and Thessia and Sur'Kesh and Palavan out of the picture, and the game would still play substantially the same as it currently does: A civil war against Cerberus interspersed with a few missions against the Reapers.

 

Militarily speaking, "fighting for Earth" makes no sense. Getting all the fleets to go to Earth to defeat the Reapers makes no sense. This is one case where anyone sensible would agree wholeheartedly with Valern's disbelieving exclamation "And so we should just follow you to Earth?" 

 

Because the Crucible hadn't been introduced in Mass Effect 2, with time to investigate / convince the Council that they should at least prepare, the Council is left adrift with no real way to proceed against the Reapers.

 

The really sad part is, Udina sounds and acts like an actual politician, thinking and speaking in a mature and cooperative way. And then his character is thrown away in a mindless betrayal plot meant to introduce the lamest space ninja and Mac Walter's pet character, Kai Leng.

[ImaginaryMatter]

For ME1 I could say I agreed with the Council versus finding them sympathetic. As MrFob said, in ME1 the Council aren't really characters -- unless "Dick" is a character, Mr Turian. In that game all these humans show up with unsubstantiated claims and shouting something about dreams. Their position to hold off until proof was presented seems pretty reasonable. I'm just glad they didn't disbar humanity from the Citadel right then and there.

 

In ME2 they're unbearable.

 

In ME3 I could say they are actual characters worthy of some sympathy. They are definitely bogged down by some problematic areas in the plot like "taking back Earth", the Crucible, and the Thessia beacon but at least they have motives that are understandable.

[gothpunkboy89]

ME1- Sort of.

 

ME2- No

 

ME 3- Yes

[congokong]

I have never saved the council in ME1. The council in ME3 is a little better especially the turian councilor.

 

You've tried all sorts of whacky scenarios, yet not once have saved the council?

 

IMO, the council in ME1 has the problem that they are not characters with opinions but simply feedback devices. The turian councilor will always be against you, the asari councilor will always be understanding and the salarian councilor will never have anything useful to say at all. Example: The turian councilor will chastise wou for your actions on Novaria, either because you committed genocide by killing the queen or because he says you were an irresponsible moron for letting her go (and we didn't get the option to keep her prisoner ). He doesn't have a firm agenda on the matter. At the very least, they preconceptions about Shepard seem to trump their position on any issue (which is pretty bad for a responsible politician). That was not a good way to write them IMO and it's probably one of the main reasons why they weren't well liked or understood by the audience from the very beginning.

 

In all fairness, releasing the queen or euthanizing it are both very extreme, so the councilor's response is understandable. The problem is, like you said, there's no middle-ground of simply leaving it to the council.

[themikefest]

You've tried all sorts of whacky scenarios, yet not once have saved the council?

I have no reason to save them. Its one of the few things I've never done in the trilogy

[aoibhealfae]

Honestly, if a race of ancient alien god-machines are coming in three years; why should you destroy one-third of your entire military fleet for an Asari dreadnought?

[gothpunkboy89]

Honestly, if a race of ancient alien god-machines are coming in three years; why should you destroy one-third of your entire military fleet for an Asari dreadnought?

Because it can win you street cred with the rest of the races in the galaxy.

[Livi14]

In the interview with Al-jilani Shepard says that the Alliance lost 8 cruisers if they saved the Destiny Ascension. That's not anywhere close to one-third of your entire military fleet.

If you're going for the highest numbers of lives saved, sacrificing 8 (X 300 personnel each) Alliance Cruisers for the Destiny Ascension (10,000 personnel) is the right call. The Council being on board is an added bonus. It boils down to whether or not you're willing to sacrifice humans for non-humans. Which I am.

[themikefest]

There were 3 opportunities for the council to live.

 

When the geth first attack, the Commander of the Destiny says abandon the Citadel, evacuate the council. I get abandoning the Citadel to lure the attacking force away from the Citadel, but evacuating the council wasn't called for. At that time they were in no danger. Why would you evacuate them anyways. The Citadel has bunkers, shelters. The council can head to one of  them till the attack has ended.

 

The next cutscene shows the destiny flying away from the Citadel. I would guess the council is onboard at that time. Next we hear that they're in trouble. Now why didn't they just fly away with the council onboard? Once onboard, its the Commander's responsibility to get them to safety. She failed big time.

 

The third time is when Shepard can choose to save or get rid of the council. Enter Hackett. He can see what's going on. He knows the number of ships he has and if it's worth saving the destiny. He should be able to override what Shepard says.

 

If I was to redo the whole scene, I would have the council live every time by having the destiny fly away taking the council to safety.

 

The way it is now, the right thing to do is let the council die . Concentrate on Sovereign.

[aoibhealfae]

If you choose to save the council, you gain 70 war asset from Destiny Ascension but lose around 75 war assets in Alliance fleet. Alliance First, Third and Fifth Fleet got this entry : This fleet lost a third of its vessels protecting the Council during the Battle of the Citadel two years ago. Unfortunately, the Alliance did not have time to rebuild the fleet to its previous strength before the Reapers invaded.

 

Technically, -5 if you save council, +5 if you sacrifice the council.

 

And the Asari Republics never offer their help with the Crucible Project until after the Citadel Coup which occurs months after the Reaper invasion of Earth and Palaven with the project halfway completed. Basically you just allow yourself being crippled for a bunch of blue asses and three ungrateful politicians.

[Livi14]

The writers directly contradict themselves then. It's explicitly stated in ME1 that its the 5th Fleet and only the 5th Fleet that reinforces the citadel fleet. The Alliance lost eight ships during the battle. Shepard even lists the eight ships that were lost following his Paragon command to save the Destiny Ascension. That would mean the Alliance First, Third and Fifth Fleet together only have 24 ships (or by your logic the entire alliance navy). Which is untrue. Not to mention that the cutscene alone shows more than 30 alliance ships.

On topic: In ME1 and ME3, the portrayal of the council was fine. They were right about Earth even if it hurt the player's feelbads and the series has already wallowed in enough stupidity with letting Shepard make oh so witty remarks to politicians.

[KrrKs]

I guess those 8 named ship are only the ones lost to geth, while aiding the DA¹.

It does not include the ones destroyed by Sovereign².

 

But ME3's war-assets descriptions still doesn't match...

 

Spoiler

For Reference:

1: END_70_C_Attack_Good_CUT_02.bik (saving the DA):

           shows at least 5 destroyed alliance ships (+1 fighter).

2: END_90_SovereignGood_CUT_01.bik (fight against Sovereign, part 1)

           shows at least 3 destroyed cruisers + another unknown (cruiser?) exploding directly below screen and additional 2 ships (off-screen) are shot at.

[congokong]

In the interview with Al-jilani Shepard says that the Alliance lost 8 cruisers if they saved the Destiny Ascension. That's not anywhere close to one-third of your entire military fleet.

If you're going for the highest numbers of lives saved, sacrificing 8 (X 300 personnel each) Alliance Cruisers for the Destiny Ascension (10,000 personnel) is the right call. The Council being on board is an added bonus. It boils down to whether or not you're willing to sacrifice humans for non-humans. Which I am.

It also boiled down to if you're willing to compromise stopping Sovereign by diverting resources to save the council. If Sovereign succeeded, the reapers would pour in right there. Considering how Shepard kills 300,000 batarians without hesitation just to slow the reapers down in Arrival, losing 10,000 aliens (while saving 2400 humans) to possibly stop the reapers altogether seems like a no-brainer.

 

I have no reason to save them. Its one of the few things I've never done in the trilogy

For the different content, maybe? Outside of meta-gaming, I think saving the council is a dumb move, but I've done it for the role-playing experience several times.

[Quarian Master Race]

No on most things (especially the contrarian turian douchebag), but then I wouldn't expect the leadership or representatives of an openly racist, undemocratic oligarchy responsible for multiple racially motivated genocide and ethnic cleansing campaigns to be reasonable people. 

 

The prime exception is rejecting the "take back Earth" garbage in ME3. That's just common sense considering earth has no outstanding strategic value until much later. Even then, the asari go on to ruin it with the nonsensical motivation surrounding the continued hiding of the Prothean beacon (you're more worried about everyone finding out your civilization's stolen than billions of people suffering and dying?), and that both the asari and salarians refuse to committ forces anywhere initially. In a role reversal, the turian is the cooperative one who actually reacts in a believable manner.

[iM3GTR]

In ME, the Council was acting as they should. Responsible for the stability of galactic civilization in economic, military AND political terms, any action taken based solely on the unsupported 'vision' of a single individual, a Spectre that they were *pressured* into accepting, is just not going to happen. Their position makes sense, even if the assumptions they make turn out to be false.

In ME 2, the lead writer (Mac Walters) and the director (Casey Hudson), along with the lead designer (Preston Watamaniuk), decided they wanted a "Commander Shootmans" action shooty game with plenty of action shooty and as little world-building, investigation of ancient mysteries, intellectual challenge, or exploration as possible. And instead of searching for clues to stop the Reapers, the plot was hijacked for episodes of "Normandy SR2: Daddy Issues."

So they hit the reset button as many times and in as many ways as necessary to obliterate as much of the original story direction as they could, inserted tons of "humans are SPECIAL" ideas that had been deliberately rejected in the original game, and turned the Council from a group of politicians acting in a reasonable manner, into a group of obstructionist bureaucrats that don't deserve to be in the positions they're in.

In Mass Effect 3, they finally act like politicians again, mostly. Faced with an overwhelming threat that they really can't do anything about, naturally they turn inward.

Why? Because Mass Effect 2 was hijacked to deliver episodes of "Normandy SR2: Daddy Issues" instead of focusing on the REAL threat, the Reapers, and finding a way to stop them. The insistence on "retaking Earth" was based on EA's marketing campaign for ME 3, and the story might as well not have had any alien races at all; seriously, you could take Tuchanka and Rannoch and Thessia and Sur'Kesh and Palavan out of the picture, and the game would still play substantially the same as it currently does: A civil war against Cerberus interspersed with a few missions against the Reapers.

Militarily speaking, "fighting for Earth" makes no sense. Getting all the fleets to go to Earth to defeat the Reapers makes no sense. This is one case where anyone sensible would agree wholeheartedly with Valern's disbelieving exclamation "And so we should just follow you to Earth?"

Because the Crucible hadn't been introduced in Mass Effect 2, with time to investigate / convince the Council that they should at least prepare, the Council is left adrift with no real way to proceed against the Reapers.

The really sad part is, Udina sounds and acts like an actual politician, thinking and speaking in a mature and cooperative way. And then his character is thrown away in a mindless betrayal plot meant to introduce the lamest space ninja and Mac Walter's pet character, Kai Leng.

You'd probably enjoy this...

http://www.shamusyou...edtale/?p=28485
Basically from here on he points out how badly they screwed up the trilogy...

[aoibhealfae]

Just read some bits about Alliance on wiki.

"If the Council is sacrificed in the battle, the rest of the galaxy deeply resents the Alliance's political clout with the new Council and desires to return to the former status quo. As tensions with the Alliance escalate, the Turian Hierarchy renounces the Treaty of Farixen and expresses its intent to increase dreadnought construction. In addition, the Alliance plans to provide the majority of ships for a proposed Allied Citadel Defense Unit, which would replace the decimated Citadel Fleet; the Asari Republics cede their share of responsibility for the Citadel's defense to the Hierarchy"

 

I remember hearing it from the terminal in ME2. If they're building more dreadnoughts, seems like a good trade-off considering reaper invasion is coming. 

[gothpunkboy89]

Just read some bits about Alliance on wiki.

"If the Council is sacrificed in the battle, the rest of the galaxy deeply resents the Alliance's political clout with the new Council and desires to return to the former status quo. As tensions with the Alliance escalate, the Turian Hierarchy renounces the Treaty of Farixen and expresses its intent to increase dreadnought construction. In addition, the Alliance plans to provide the majority of ships for a proposed Allied Citadel Defense Unit, which would replace the decimated Citadel Fleet; the Asari Republics cede their share of responsibility for the Citadel's defense to the Hierarchy"

 

I remember hearing it from the terminal in ME2. If they're building more dreadnoughts, seems like a good trade-off considering reaper invasion is coming. 

 

Not so good for political stability.  The player knows the Reapers are coming but for your average citizen the Reaper is just a myth.