96 replies to this topic

[themikefest]

You misunderstand me. When you said full paragon, I assume you meant auto paragon, as in picking the paragon option because it was paragon.

When I say full paragon, I mean the bar shows all blue with a very tiny sliver of red. Even when I play full renegade, there are a few times I choose a paragon dialogue. It adds little since I only get a sliver of blue on the bar.

 

I would never pick the paragon choice when it comes to the council. I have no reason to. I could be the goodyest-two-shoes in the galaxy and still I would never pick the paragon choice

[congokong]

I agree that its lame that the player receives renegade points for turning over the evidence to the Admirals. The player loses Tali's loyalty. Oh well.

 

Its also lame the player receives renegade points for givng the geth to Cerberus.

 

What's funny is that its paragon for Shepard to threaten the elcor by breaking his legs if he doesn't release the contract with the quarian on Omega.

Tali was very irritating on that mission. It's like a friend expecting you to cover for them when they have an affair. What she wanted you to do was morally unacceptable. The migrant fleet, especially the families of the dead, deserved to know the truth. And of course, that data could be useful. But no, Rael's name would be ruined! Oh, the horror.

 

Regarding the geth/Cerberus thing, I think it is renegade because you're doing it for Cerberus' benefit. Everything positive about Cerberus in the game is renegade.

 

The persuasion for Harriot should actually have been reversed. The suggestion to buy out the quarian sounds paragon.

[congokong]

When I say full paragon, I mean the bar shows all blue with a very tiny sliver of red. Even when I play full renegade, there are a few times I choose a paragon dialogue. It adds little since I only get a sliver of blue on the bar.

 

I would never pick the paragon choice when it comes to the council. I have no reason to. I could be the goodyest-two-shoes in the galaxy and still I would never pick the paragon choice

Your problem is you're putting too much of yourself in the games if you can't ever save the council. I agree that doing so is stupid, but I've done it by role-playing different ways. If you're the type who naively always helps those in need, it could be believable that you'd send aid for those 10,000 aboard the Ascension ...despite a reaper being glued to the Citadel at the same time trying to let all the others in. ...I know... It's a hard sell, but that's role-playing. It's how I actually have let Balak go in BDtS, or dropped my thermal clips like a ***** when Vasir tells me to.

[themikefest]

Tali was very irritating on that mission. It's like a friend expecting you to cover for them when they have an affair. What she wanted you to do was morally unacceptable. The migrant fleet, especially the families of the dead, deserved to know the truth. And of course, that data could be useful. But no, Rael's name would be ruined! Oh, the horror.

The time I didn't hand over the evidence and got paragon points I was surprised. Yeah I got Tali's loyalty, but so what. Now when I choose to do the mission, I hand over the evidence.
 

Regarding the geth/Cerberus thing, I think it is renegade because you're doing it for Cerberus' benefit. Everything positive about Cerberus in the game is renegade.

I don't agree. If I had robots shooting at me all the time while chasing Saren, why would I want to keep it on the Normandy? Sending it to Cerberus may give ways to fight them better. Of course doing that has the thing show up on Cronos.
 

The persuasion for Harriot should actually have been reversed. The suggestion to buy out the quarian sounds paragon.

I agree with that.

[Monica21]

The time I didn't hand over the evidence and got paragon points I was surprised. Yeah I got Tali's loyalty, but so what. Now when I choose to do the mission, I hand over the evidence.

You can't get Tali's loyalty back after that, can you?

[congokong]

 

I don't agree. If I had robots shooting at me all the time while chasing Saren, why would I want to keep it on the Normandy? Sending it to Cerberus may give ways to fight them better. Of course doing that has the thing show up on Cronos.
 

That is even more reason why giving the geth is renegade. It's practical. Keeping it on board the ship in hopes you'll become BFFs is very idealistic; hence paragon.

 

 

The time I didn't hand over the evidence and got paragon points I was surprised. Yeah I got Tali's loyalty, but so what. Now when I choose to do the mission, I hand over the evidence.

I love how unconventional your playthroughs are. How many people can say they almost always hand over the evidence but have never saved the council?

 

You can't get Tali's loyalty back after that, can you?

Nope, but practically, it doesn't matter. You can keep everyone alive on the suicide mission with only half of them being loyal if you play your cards right.

[themikefest]

Your problem is you're putting too much of yourself in the games if you can't ever save the council. I agree that doing so is stupid, but I've done it by role-playing different ways. If you're the type who naively always helps those in need, it could be believable that you'd send aid for those 10,000 aboard the Ascension ...despite a reaper being glued to the Citadel at the same time trying to let all the others in. ...I know... It's a hard sell, but that's role-playing. It's how I actually have let Balak go in BDtS, or dropped my thermal clips like a ***** when Vasir tells me to.

Your problem is accepting that I don't want to save the council. I have no reason too even when role playing. I won't take away resources that would  be used to fight the reaper.

 

There is also 3 opportunities for the council to live.

 

1) After the reaper comes through the relay, the destiny commander says abandon the Citadel. Evacuate the council. I get abandoning the Citadel hoping to lure the attackers away from the Citadel, but to evacuate the council? No. They weren't in any immediate danger. If anything have them moved to a secured location on the Citadel or even an underground bunker. Having them put on a shuttle to get to the destiny puts them in danger with the possibility of the shuttle being shot down

 

2) The next scene shows the destiny flying away from the Citadel. I would guess the council is onboard at that point. Seeing that scene I would think the ship is flying away from the battle and get the council to safety. Turns out they weren't. Its the commnaders responsibility at that point to keep the council safe. She failed big time

 

3) When the Alliance comes through the relay, Hackett can see the battle taking place. He knows if he has enough ships to save the destiny or not regardless of what Shepard says.

[themikefest]

You can't get Tali's loyalty back after that, can you?

No. It won't stop the player from getting peace in ME3 if all the other requirements are met. I've done it.

[congokong]

Your problem is accepting that I don't want to save the council. I have no reason too even when role playing. I won't take away resources that would  be used to fight the reaper.

 

There is also 3 opportunities for the council to live.

 

1) After the reaper comes through the relay, the destiny commander says abandon the Citadel. Evacuate the council. I get abandoning the Citadel hoping to lure the attackers away from the Citadel, but to evacuate the council? No. They weren't in any immediate danger. If anything have them moved to a secured location on the Citadel or even an underground bunker. Having them put on a shuttle to get to the destiny puts them in danger with the possibility of the shuttle being shot down

 

2) The next scene shows the destiny flying away from the Citadel. I would guess the council is onboard at that point. Seeing that scene I would think the ship is flying away from the battle and get the council to safety. Turns out they weren't. Its the commnaders responsibility at that point to keep the council safe. She failed big time

 

3) When the Alliance comes through the relay, Hackett can see the battle taking place. He knows if he has enough ships to save the destiny or not regardless of what Shepard says.

Alright. Geez. Don't save the council then. You clearly feel very strongly about it. I was just trying to give a role-playing tip.

[KaiserShep]

And yet that very set up is how ISIS and other terrorist organizations act. Each time someone is killed they play it up as if they were some great and noble sacrifice. Which helps them to inspire and recruit new people to their cause though propaganda.

Well then your options are simple:

-You neutralize an enemy combatant and the presumed leader of a massive terrorist plot, risking inspiring an unknown number of potential copycats through his martyrdom.

-You let him go, allowing him the opportunity to try again elsewhere.

Which would you consider to be the riskier option? Do you honestly believe that a terrorist that is trying to wipe out millions of people wouldn't be captured or killed regardless of a handful of civilians if there was a chance to stop him altogether? Is it likelier that he'll try again as opposed to doing nothing? Also consider that there's an even stronger argument for taking him in alive, since any intel you might be able to squeeze out of him could be exceptionally valuable. Sure that doesn't pan out if you do, but that doesn't matter in the moment.

Note that I'm actually caught between these two choices. I actually like how both stories play out. However, if I was being really serious about determining Balak's fate in the role of Shepard, he'd always either die or be detained. If you let him go, all you get are a handful of people who can't give you any more information about this crazy batarian. I think a drawback of the story is that Balak's shenanigans in ME3 is pretty much a quick errand run on terminals. There's practically no hubbub about it if you do nothing.

[Pasquale1234]

Your problem is you're putting too much of yourself in the games if you can't ever save the council. I agree that doing so is stupid, but I've done it by role-playing different ways. If you're the type who naively always helps those in need, it could be believable that you'd send aid for those 10,000 aboard the Ascension ...despite a reaper being glued to the Citadel at the same time trying to let all the others in. ...I know... It's a hard sell, but that's role-playing. It's how I actually have let Balak go in BDtS, or dropped my thermal clips like a ***** when Vasir tells me to.

There is, imho, a very simple way to justify saving the council.

It is unfortunate that the game frames the question as saving the council versus saving the fleet to go against Sovereign - but I guess that's what the writers felt they needed to do when they set up the scenario.

Another way to view it is that those geth ships that were after the DA needed to be taken out, anyway, in order to get to Sovereign. It's not like they were in different locations and you needed to decide to send the fleet to location A or location B. It's more a matter of choosing to enter the battle (bring in reinforcements) before or after the DA along with other ships in the Citadel Fleet are destroyed. If you make that choice, Hackett mentions (in the Arrival DLC) that the DA helped during the battle with Sovereign, and it carries a lot of firepower. There are also a variety of political and morale implications.

[congokong]

There is, imho, a very simple way to justify saving the council.It is unfortunate that the game frames the question as saving the council versus saving the fleet to go against Sovereign - but I guess that's what the writers felt they needed to do when they set up the scenario.Another way to view it is that those geth ships that were after the DA needed to be taken out, anyway, in order to get to Sovereign. It's not like they were in different locations and you needed to decide to send the fleet to location A or location B. It's more a matter of choosing to enter the battle (bring in reinforcements) before or after the DA along with other ships in the Citadel Fleet are destroyed. If you make that choice, Hackett mentions (in the Arrival DLC) that the DA helped during the battle with Sovereign, and it carries a lot of firepower. There are also a variety of political and morale implications.

Yes, if you put more thought into it than the way the game represents it, you can make some arguments for saving the council. I do not know if Bioware wants people to overthink it that way; thus finding holes in the fiction they created. It is very easy to use this reasoning to justify decisions though over how they are presented. Ex: You could argue letting Balik go because you can rely on the Normandy just shooting him down as he flees. The game does not want you to scrutinize these situations to such extent IMO.

[KaiserShep]

Well, saving the hostages and shooting Balak out of the sky is a little too easy. I guess that's the problem with that decision. Signal jamming would have been a nice workaround. Thinking about it, does that actually happen? I can't remember.

[Daemul]

Tali was very irritating on that mission. It's like a friend expecting you to cover for them when they have an affair. What she wanted you to do was morally unacceptable. The migrant fleet, especially the families of the dead, deserved to know the truth. And of course, that data could be useful. But no, Rael's name would be ruined! Oh, the horror.

 

Yeah Tali's was being way too selfish on that mission, I was annoyed that she wanted to keep it a secret just to save her fathers name, but I was like OK, if you wanna go down this route then I'm ain't gonna use the inevitable auto-win charm/intimidate options to save you and you're gonna get exiled for sure. You still end up getting her loyalty though. 

[Pasquale1234]

Yes, if you put more thought into it than the way the game represents it, you can make some arguments for saving the council. I do not know if Bioware wants people to overthink it that way; thus finding holes in the fiction they created. It is very easy to use this reasoning to justify decisions though over how they are presented. Ex: You could argue letting Balik go because you can rely on the Normandy just shooting him down as he flees. The game does not want you to scrutinize these situations to such extent IMO.

I think there's a pretty significant difference between this one and, for example, the idea that the Normandy could pick up an escaping Balak if you choose to rescue the hostages. The latter is never on the table.

The crux of the decision you're being asked to make wrt the DA is whether to send in reinforcements now or hold them until a little later. The only information you're given are the opinions of the squadmates.

[gothpunkboy89]

Well then your options are simple:

-You neutralize an enemy combatant and the presumed leader of a massive terrorist plot, risking inspiring an unknown number of potential copycats through his martyrdom.

-You let him go, allowing him the opportunity to try again elsewhere.

Which would you consider to be the riskier option? Do you honestly believe that a terrorist that is trying to wipe out millions of people wouldn't be captured or killed regardless of a handful of civilians if there was a chance to stop him altogether? Is it likelier that he'll try again as opposed to doing nothing? Also consider that there's an even stronger argument for taking him in alive, since any intel you might be able to squeeze out of him could be exceptionally valuable. Sure that doesn't pan out if you do, but that doesn't matter in the moment.

Note that I'm actually caught between these two choices. I actually like how both stories play out. However, if I was being really serious about determining Balak's fate in the role of Shepard, he'd always either die or be detained. If you let him go, all you get are a handful of people who can't give you any more information about this crazy batarian. I think a drawback of the story is that Balak's shenanigans in ME3 is pretty much a quick errand run on terminals. There's practically no hubbub about it if you do nothing.

 

 

And lets not forget everyone wants to play Balak up like some big threat. The only reason he is even put in the position to be a threat is because of incompetence of two Government organizations at staggering levels that someone should have been brought out back and shot in the back of the head over.

 

Balak is not really a threat. He is a guy who got lucky.

 

To start with any attempt to bring a large asteroid any were near or even in the general direction of a garden world should have been escorted by fleet of ships from the respective government. There just in case something goes wrong and they have to blow it out of the sky or into bits to prevent world ending. Not to mention the security threat. Letting a mining company move a massive asteroid like that towards a planet without any sort of armed guard is like the US sending a brand new fully functioning thermonuclear weapon though an ISIS stronghold. Were the guy bring it is a 90 lbs asthmatic guy riding a bike with the bomb sitting on a wagon tied behind it.

 

Not deactivating the Batarian Ambassador codes after they left is another massive fail by the Council. People will change the locks on their doors faster after a break up. Hell I change my password more often they apparently the Council bureaucracy thinks old ambassador passwords need to be changed even though they could be used to cause problems. Particularly for that pesky new species just joining the Council that they clearly have an issue with.

 

Balak isn't a some dangerous super genius. He is an over sized man child with a chip on his shoulder that was handed two golden opportunities thanks to fucks up on such a scale someone needs to be killed over.

[Monica21]

And lets not forget everyone wants to play Balak up like some big threat. The only reason he is even put in the position to be a threat is because of incompetence of two Government organizations at staggering levels that someone should have been brought out back and shot in the back of the head over.
 
Balak is not really a threat. He is a guy who got lucky.

Considering that he kills 117 people later on, then I'd say he's more than just a guy who got lucky. And again, your analogy doesn't work. Think more along the lines of whether we need military escorts when moving off-shore drilling rigs. I don't actually know if we do that or not. Maybe the Coast Guard assists? But again, you're talking about two very different things. A thermonuclear warhead is by nature a weapon. An asteriod is not.

[congokong]

I think there's a pretty significant difference between this one and, for example, the idea that the Normandy could pick up an escaping Balak if you choose to rescue the hostages. The latter is never on the table.

The crux of the decision you're being asked to make wrt the DA is whether to send in reinforcements now or hold them until a little later. The only information you're given are the opinions of the squadmates.

The notion that the geth need to be fought either way, and that they can flank the Alliance or whatever as some argue, also wasn't presented in-game when weighing  the choices. I'd assume though that taking reinforcements to save the council would compromise stopping Sovereign if it's vulnerable during that period.

[themikefest]

If you make that choice, Hackett mentions (in the Arrival DLC) that the DA helped during the battle with Sovereign, and it carries a lot of firepower. There are also a variety of political and morale implications.

If the council isn't saved, he still says that line. Also the player has to choose whatever dialogue for him to say that. The problem I have with that line from him is that the destiny did not help in stopping the reaper. I've watched on utube showing the destiny saved. The ship is not seen at all. Its exactly the same as if the destiny was destroyed. Whatever.

[Pasquale1234]

The notion that the geth need to be fought either way, and that they can flank the Alliance or whatever as some argue, also wasn't presented in-game when weighing  the choices.

You see Sovereign arriving, surrounded by geth ships in the cutscene as the battle begins.

I suppose you could argue that Shepard didn't see Sovereign arrive flanked by geth fleets, but Shepard certainly knows that geth ships are depositing geth troops on the Citadel.

But the battle to save the council and the battle to stop Sovereign are the same battle. As I said before, the only thing you're really deciding is whether to send reinforcements before or after the DA is destroyed.

[gothpunkboy89]

Considering that he kills 117 people later on, then I'd say he's more than just a guy who got lucky. And again, your analogy doesn't work. Think more along the lines of whether we need military escorts when moving off-shore drilling rigs. I don't actually know if we do that or not. Maybe the Coast Guard assists? But again, you're talking about two very different things. A thermonuclear warhead is by nature a weapon. An asteriod is not.

 

And how does he kill those 117 people? By using the unchanged Batarian Diplomat codes to mess with Alliance assets.

 

The fact you are even vaguely trying to compare moving a mile wide Asteroid into the orbit of a planet with people living on it and moving an off shore oil drill that hasn't even been connected to the new pipe is....frankly insane. The asteroid is at least a couple of miles in diameter given how far you can travel on it with the Mako.  If you want to get even a vauge idea of the type of damage a large enough asteroid could do I suggest you google search chicxulub crater.

 

The Chicxulub crater (pronunciation: /ˈtʃiːkʃᵿluːb/; Mayan: [tʃʼikʃuluɓ]) is an impact crater buried underneath the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico.^[2] Its center is located near the town of Chicxulub, after which the crater is named.^[3] The date of the Chicxulub impactor, which created it, coincides precisely with the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary (K–Pg boundary), around 66 million years ago.^[4] The crater is more than 180 kilometers (110 miles) in diameter and 20 km (12 mi) in depth, well into the continental crust of the region of about 10-30 km depth. It makes the feature the third of the largest confirmed impact structures on Earth; the impacting bolide that formed the crater was at least 10 km (6 mi) in diameter.

 

The damage the asteroid could have done to the planet is on a scale even greater then a thermonuclear weapon. I only used that as an example because it is currently the only most damaging weapon we have. And even that still only wishes it could achieve that level of damage.

[Monica21]

And how does he kill those 117 people? By using the unchanged Batarian Diplomat codes to mess with Alliance assets.
 
The fact you are even vaguely trying to compare moving a mile wide Asteroid into the orbit of a planet with people living on it and moving an off shore oil drill that hasn't even been connected to the new pipe is....frankly insane. The asteroid is at least a couple of miles in diameter given how far you can travel on it with the Mako.  If you want to get even a vauge idea of the type of damage a large enough asteroid could do I suggest you google search chicxulub crater.
 
The Chicxulub crater (pronunciation: /ˈtʃiːkʃᵿluːb/; Mayan: [tʃʼikʃuluɓ]) is an impact crater buried underneath the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico.^%5B2%5D Its center is located near the town of Chicxulub, after which the crater is named.^%5B3%5D The date of the Chicxulub impactor, which created it, coincides precisely with the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary (K–Pg boundary), around 66 million years ago.^%5B4%5D The crater is more than 180 kilometers (110 miles) in diameter and 20 km (12 mi) in depth, well into the continental crust of the region of about 10-30 km depth. It makes the feature the third of the largest confirmed impact structures on Earth; the impacting bolide that formed the crater was at least 10 km (6 mi) in diameter.
 
The damage the asteroid could have done to the planet is on a scale even greater then a thermonuclear weapon. I only used that as an example because it is currently the only most damaging weapon we have. And even that still only wishes it could achieve that level of damage.

Why are you attempting the make the only connection be the possible damage it can do? There's a lot more going on than that. The asteroid was going to be mined for resources before converting it into a space station. An off-shore oil rig drills for resources. Neither exist for purely destructive purposes. (Unless you want to get into an argument about using fossil fuels and I'm not going to do that.)

A nuclear warhead is built to cause destruction. It has to be armed and it has a targeting system. An asteroid has none of those things, unless it's added by man. It just exists. It was not created to destroy. And then the asteriod was hijacked. Maybe a plane analogy would work better for you.

In short, you can't just decide two things are similar based on whatever might happen as the result of whatever fantastic scenario you create.

[gothpunkboy89]

Why are you attempting the make the only connection be the possible damage it can do? There's a lot more going on than that. The asteroid was going to be mined for resources before converting it into a space station. An off-shore oil rig drills for resources. Neither exist for purely destructive purposes. (Unless you want to get into an argument about using fossil fuels and I'm not going to do that.)

A nuclear warhead is built to cause destruction. It has to be armed and it has a targeting system. An asteroid has none of those things, unless it's added by man. It just exists. It was not created to destroy. And then the asteriod was hijacked. Maybe a plane analogy would work better for you.

In short, you can't just decide two things are similar based on whatever might happen as the result of whatever fantastic scenario you create.

 

 

You just really can't accept me being correct about anything can you? The stance you are taking makes absolutely no sense what so ever. At first it was mildly frustrating but now I realize your just trolling because no body could be that stupid save on purpose.  Because again I will repeat you are comparing an off shore oil rig being towed into play. With a massive asteroid being rocketed towards a planet. And asteroid that if it were to impact New York City. The City would simply cease to and that isn't even counting the effect the impact would have on the surrounding area. It isn't a stretch to state that the asteroid X75 impacting New York City would kill ever living thing in the entire state of New York and surrounding states either instantly from impact or the after effects of the initial impact.

 

For reference New York State has a population of around 19,750,000

 

That is the destructive level we are talking about and my comparison to a thermonuclear weapon is pretty damn accurate because even that couldn't achieve that level of destruction in it's wildest dreams.

[Monica21]

You just really can't accept me being correct about anything can you?

Sure, that's what this is.

The stance you are taking makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

That doesn't surprise me.

At first it was mildly frustrating but now I realize your just trolling because no body could be that stupid save on purpose.

I was definitely speaking out of turn last night when I assumed that you wanted a return to civility in discourse.

Because again I will repeat you are comparing an off shore oil rig being towed into play. With a massive asteroid being rocketed towards a planet. And asteroid that if it were to impact New York City. The City would simply cease to and that isn't even counting the effect the impact would have on the surrounding area. It isn't a stretch to state that the asteroid X75 impacting New York City would kill ever living thing in the entire state of New York and surrounding states either instantly from impact or the after effects of the initial impact.
 
For reference New York State has a population of around 19,750,000
 
That is the destructive level we are talking about and my comparison to a thermonuclear weapon is pretty damn accurate because even that couldn't achieve that level of destruction in it's wildest dreams.

Okay then.

[congokong]

You see Sovereign arriving, surrounded by geth ships in the cutscene as the battle begins.I suppose you could argue that Shepard didn't see Sovereign arrive flanked by geth fleets, but Shepard certainly knows that geth ships are depositing geth troops on the Citadel.But the battle to save the council and the battle to stop Sovereign are the same battle. As I said before, the only thing you're really deciding is whether to send reinforcements before or after the DA is destroyed.

Well... You do see the Normandy at the beginning of BDtS. Even if you didn't, wouldn't it be implied that the Normandy is nearby?