359 réponses à ce sujet

[Asheer_Khan]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Its not about whats right its about what we want and what we strive for. In that position the neutral option and the Renegade option puts Humanity at the forefront. Its not about fairness, you are playing as a Human and you are looking out for Humanities interest. Plus that situation the neutral option plays out the way it does because of the situation that is presented, one could only assume that Sovereign was too dangerous to save the Ascension.

Just because the Asari, Salarians and the Turians have been at the Citadel longer doesn't give them the right to lord over humans.

What you talking about?
Nobody rules over humanity in ME 1... and if not that hated by humancentrists like you then in time of Sovieregin attack humanity would be under rule of the Turians after FC War.
And if you think that they ruled over us because they don't grant us LEAD SEAT in the council then i would rather skip any comment about this...

On the side note i read many stuff that Udina and Anderson forwarded Shepard's candidacy for the Spectres.
True in off... but the only person who vouch for Shepard and actually put her on the list was Nihlus -  a TURIAN.
Without his support humanity could wait another 100 years for acceptance human candidate and every tantrums thowed by Udina wouldn't help there.

Sorry Onyx... you might call me traitor and alien lover but i would rather form multi racial task force commanded by trusted by them leaders than backstabbing people who trust us that in time of need Humanity will stand on thier side.

[Wildecker]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I seriously doubt that Asheer-Kahn, thats the same "Punish the Renegade" BS that I've heard from Paragons all over the place. THat decision was to ensure humanities dominance in the galaxy, or should I say nudge it towards that.

*Sigh...*
Please explain me WHAT GIVES US RIGHT to plainly destroing order lasted from thousand of years?
How long humanity was granted a priviledge to become a part of Citadel community?
About 40 damn years...
When Asari discovered Citdel and start forming new galactic order  first humans still struggles hiding in caves and prays to thier gods to wake up next morning.

No... humanity is not ready to become a part of something bigger and i seriously doubt ever will UNLESS humanity will accept fact that they are NOT GALACTIC MARVEL which deserve to recive everything on golden plate.

I disagree. The order maintained by the Council of Three has remained for about thousand years because it was not challenged. The Batarians nearly rose them from their slumber when they annexed an Asari colony, but in the end the Asari complained a bit, and the Batarians just shrugged that off. Period.
Like an old tree the Council appears strong, but has been hollowed out by time. They need fresh blood, and they must become more attentive to what is going on in the galaxy - instead of reiterating "As it was, so it shall be" ad infinitum.
They are not going to like that change, for sure. But humans have a choice: they can work with the system and try to change it from the bottom up, or they can bring it down entirely and rebuild it from the top down.

A long time ago I read an interesting story in which humans were the new kids on the block of the galactic community, and this community bows to the wishes and directions of the ancient (and tired) master race. Humans start to settle a planet, and the masters tell them they already had made plans for it - the humans must pass the masters' test, or face the consequences.
On the appointed day the human settlers make a stand and declare: "We're here, and here we stay. Enough said."
And it turns out this was the way to pass the test: stand up and fight for your rights.

In ME 1 Shepard has a conversation with Executor Pallin of C-Sec. Basically, Pallin accuses mankind of wanting the prize without having to fight for it.

Modifié par Wildecker, 26 avril 2010 - 12:44 .

[Jedi Master of Orion]

You're argument style appears to be rather inconsistent when you argue for humanity using pragmatism and then a second later justify it by listing the council's moral failings. As if somehow immortal acts are meaningless if humanity is faced with the choice but not with aliens.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

But they don't do anything you really care about if you don't actually care about their moral failings. You just said might makes right. So by that logic if they can whatever they want, they should.

[Habelo]

Shandepared wrote...

Habelo wrote...

One thing i find disturbing is that the batarians get the humans on their knees in ME2- according to the galacticall news.

What news report indicates this? In my game it is quite the opposite. Udina even sent a Normandy-class stealth frigate to drop N7 marines on a batarian colony and blew up a factory building mirrors for that new orbital mirror system they have. Which is rumored in other reports by the way to potentially be behind the mysterious climate changes on several planets in the Nubian Expanse.

LOL! wtf maybe udina is the right choice. In my playthru where i chose andersson as the human representative he gives them money to make them cease their mirror thing. This is just ****ed up, i mean a military leader like andersson should give a military solution while udina should give the diplomatic solution?

Wtf... Are you sure you saved the council in that playthru? cause this is retarded.

Modifié par Habelo, 26 avril 2010 - 01:20 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Yeah Udina is much tougher. Anderson is a bit of a pushover when the Council is still alive.

[Brako Shepard]

The problem with picking civilians over a council, is the matter of how everything is going to work again.



As much as people hate or feel betrayed by governments, the truth is that they are very much needed. Whilst letting the council die to save the many is an honorable choice, it is actually a bad idea. But picking the council over civilians, would get things up and running again much quicker.



Whilst the masses would ****** and moan about being left to die, they would eventually need parental figures to guide them into the future. This is where the council is the better choice, but not the most agreed on.

[Habelo]

Shandepared wrote...

Habelo wrote...

Wtf... Are you sure you saved the council in that playthru? cause this is retarded.

No, I never said I saved them. I killed them and put Udina in charge.

this is good news, i am currently playing a renegade that chose andersson instead, i truly hope that he does the same and dont bow down to terrorists

[Zulu_DFA]

What? Anderson pays off terrorists? Lol. What a wussy!

[Ladi]

Shandepared wrote...

"If the Council makes a ruling on an interestellar matter we have to follow it; we don't have the fleets or political allies to defy them." - Captain David Anderson

While the Council exerts an influence on Alliance decisions they don't actually have any direct control. The subtext there is that if they did have the allies or clout they would be able to get away with ignoring more Council rulings (yes, I should have said direct power in the first place). Even lacking allies they could technically still do whatever, just that they'd have to face repercussions (ranging from slaps on the wrist to losing associate status or interstellar war...).

Also yeah, the comparison I made earlier was bad.

[Dean_the_Young]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You do have some understand what 'defeat an adversary so completely that they remove any threat of having to fight the same opponent more than once' is a euphemism for, correct? Here's a hint: when the Greeks fought Troy, they made sure they wouldn't have to fight it again.

The Turians performed orbital bombardment on human cities in order to take out 3-4 man fire teams, and that was on a lightly populated colony with a small garrison, before they mobilized for total war. Every last individual of a group doesn't have to die in order to be considered genocidal. You can be as humane as you want to them after you kill them in great car load lots, but it doesn't change it into something else.

If it was a euphemism for that, then why would the very sentence previously say that it was not the case?

"The Turians do not exterminate their enemies, but they do exterminate their enemies."

Er, typo?

You can be quite humane once you finish blowing the enemy population centers to bits, but it doesn't change that you targeted population centers. Humane occupation and unrestrained war fighting are not mutually exclusive.

[Alraiis]

In this case, I agree most with the neutral response. Sovereign is the priority. In a practical sense, saving the Council isn't worth risking the fate of the entire galaxy. However, since you win either way, might as well save 'em and look like a hero.*

*Hero status not available in all sequels. Offer void upon affiliating with pro-human organizations. Prices, participation and belief in "Reapers" may vary.

[Habelo]

I actually read this last crap. And god i lol'd.



Look if everyone fight for their races right then you will make a balance. Like in this world today, all white people fight for other races rights but never their own, they fight everything that is wrong in the world (poverty, racism, etc) but they never fight for themselves. As a consequence to this the white man has lost power and in that lost power to fight for anyone else. So the whole world (or galaxy) looses from this, becuse of the lack of balance.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You do have some understand what 'defeat an adversary so completely that they remove any threat of having to fight the same opponent more than once' is a euphemism for, correct? Here's a hint: when the Greeks fought Troy, they made sure they wouldn't have to fight it again.

The Turians performed orbital bombardment on human cities in order to take out 3-4 man fire teams, and that was on a lightly populated colony with a small garrison, before they mobilized for total war. Every last individual of a group doesn't have to die in order to be considered genocidal. You can be as humane as you want to them after you kill them in great car load lots, but it doesn't change it into something else.

If it was a euphemism for that, then why would the very sentence previously say that it was not the case?

"The Turians do not exterminate their enemies, but they do exterminate their enemies."

Er, typo?

You can be quite humane once you finish blowing the enemy population centers to bits, but it doesn't change that you targeted population centers. Humane occupation and unrestrained war fighting are not mutually exclusive.

Are you asking me if I made a typo? I don't think I did. I was trying to say that it can't be a euphemism for genocide when the codex says plainly that they don't exteriminate their enemies. If it was a euphemism for genocide then it would be blantaly contradicting itself in the same two sentences. Turians might be brutal in conquering colonies, but that doesn't nessiarily consitute genocide. They'd need to be a concerted effort on the Turians part to find and wipe out every human everywhere.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 26 avril 2010 - 11:21 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Not really. Brutal conquest has long been recognized as enough to qualify in spades. Bombing first-world countries back to the stone age would also do the same simply by the loss of infrastructure.

[Habelo]

Shandepared wrote...

Habelo wrote...

this is good news, i am currently playing a renegade that chose andersson instead, i truly hope that he does the same and dont bow down to terrorists

Let me know how it turns out.

Just heard the news vid. As councillor andersson also dropped some soldiers on a batarian homeworld and killed civilians. Nice to hear, but it is also disturbing that humanity is so greatly weakened if you save the council so humans have to kiss ass to terrorists just to survive :/

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Brako Shepard wrote...

The problem with picking civilians over a council, is the matter of how everything is going to work again.

As much as people hate or feel betrayed by governments, the truth is that they are very much needed. Whilst letting the council die to save the many is an honorable choice, it is actually a bad idea. But picking the council over civilians, would get things up and running again much quicker.

Whilst the masses would ****** and moan about being left to die, they would eventually need parental figures to guide them into the future. This is where the council is the better choice, but not the most agreed on.

Politicians are disposable.  The death of the Council doesn't have to mean that the whole system of government suddenly collapses.  It just means that three more blind, self-serving humps get chosen from among the council races.  When Taft was assassinated, we managed to survive the ordeal without anything real apocalyptic happening.