359 réponses à ce sujet

[cylriasilver]

Sharn01 wrote...

I have heard the argument that letting them die is the best choice tactically before and to be honest, it does not hold up to scrutiny.

You have no idea when given the decision how long it will take to get the arms open, or how long the Ascension will survive.

If the geth had destroyed the Ascension prior to you getting the arm's open, when the Alliance come's through the relay, they would have been faced with a fleet of unmolested Geth cruiser's ready to defend Sovereign from them.

If the ship's come through the relay immediately, they have the opprotunity to catch the Geth by surprise, and flank them between themselves and the Ascension and its remaining support, giving them the advantage in the fight regardless of how long it takes to get the arms open, and if successful in saving it, added firepower against Sovereign.

The correct nuetral choice would have been to have the Alliance come through the relay and assist the Ascension in a flanking maneuver, attempting to save the Ascension, but being willing to pull away from the fire fight and attack Sovereign when the opprotunity arrises.

The council does not even factor into the equation from a tactical standpoint, for me they did factor into it from a duty standpoint. When Shepard became a Spectre, she swore and oath to serve and protect the council, the fact she did not cut ties with the Alliance was out of convenience. So it was her duty, and the honorable decision to help the council. As a former member of the military, you serve under many people you may dislike, but that does not mean you do not do your duty.

I had a different impression of the situation than you. From what little they showed, the Ascension seemed to be in no shape to provide any sort of flanking help. The Geth seemed to be making a tactical error of wasting too many ships attacking an already defeated enemy and not protecting Sovereign. My Shep was an infiltrator, thus her battle logic is: when an enemy’s heart is exposed, you don’t shoot at his shield.
 
The whole situation bugged me though. If I had known the relative strength of the citadel fleet, geth fleet, and the alliance fleet I may have made a different call. It stuck me as really dumb to ask someone so disconnected from the battle in question to make that call.
 
Perhaps the Counsel should have called on the Krogan fleet for help, oh that’s right…

[Esker02]

Sassymcgee wrote...

I'm thinking Udina is the right choice. Anderson feels like a token now, rather than a leader of the human race.

That wasn't racist!

This. If you save the Council and select Udina, you are still reinstated as a Spectre, and Anderson (while not the most happy person either way) is even grateful that he doesn't have Udina's job. They're both built for leadership in their own ways, but Anderson's is a military leadership. A councilor needs political leadership.

Habelo wrote...

Oh and i srsly hope that they give me a chance to kill every volus i see, i srsly hate those buggers. I remember that i hated batarian before but srsly just let me kill and put a great genocide on those greedy little cowards.

Good will builds soup kitchens. Greed builds skyscrapers.

Lrn2economics before you criticize the value of greed.

[Mikka-chan]

Mmm. If you're doing to let the council die (or replace them with unknowns), I think Anderson is the best choice. If you're letting the council live, on the other hand, I stick them with Udina. The joke is 'because they both deserve each other'- let poor Anderson go back to military duty rather then a desk job- but I think that does work out. Udina, if nothing else, will still strongly support human interests, and he is a bit more active then the other councilors seem to be. They also know him, and he knows them, so they can yell and finger-quote at each other all they want.



On the other hand, if the humans are ruling things- then Anderson's our living proof that not allo humans suck horribly. Udina? He just makes it worse.

[Habelo]

Esker02 wrote...

Sassymcgee wrote...

I'm thinking Udina is the right choice. Anderson feels like a token now, rather than a leader of the human race.

That wasn't racist!

This. If you save the Council and select Udina, you are still reinstated as a Spectre, and Anderson (while not the most happy person either way) is even grateful that he doesn't have Udina's job. They're both built for leadership in their own ways, but Anderson's is a military leadership. A councilor needs political leadership.

Habelo wrote...

Oh and i srsly hope that they give me a chance to kill every volus i see, i srsly hate those buggers. I remember that i hated batarian before but srsly just let me kill and put a great genocide on those greedy little cowards.

Good will builds soup kitchens. Greed builds skyscrapers.

Lrn2economics before you criticize the value of greed.

Hehe. Actually it is the other way around. Greedy Capitalism= making the usa poorer and poorer.
Old school capitalism (look at what fords policies) made america an economical superpower.

lrn2history

[Madecologist]

Clearly the right choice was to go full renegade (because otherwise we just lead the council), kill them, so we could take over (no lead, but completely take over), and put Udina in charge. Because he is a man that will backstab anyone, including you and Anderson for power. Just the man we need to lead this council.

It is laying down the foundation of the Shepard Empire, see Anderson might get actual support. Undina will be hated. So after he lays down the foundation and the Reapers show up and devestate the Galaxy before we stop them. Humanity will take over. That is when you kill Udina and take his place as the Emperor of the Galaxy.

*begins evil laugh and walks into the distance* The Galaxy and all the Asari shall be mine. The HUMAN Empire... MY Empire.

I kid.. I am a Paragon boy.... still be cool.

[Haventh]

 I saved the council. Here is the reason why i did it:

- As a Paragon Shepard, not saving them would be very Renegade. The Ascension has a crew of about 10k if i remember correctly.
- The chances are that The Ascension might crash into the CItadel.
- Having an all out human councill would just be worse for humans. It would breed hate from the other races. Having a multi race counsil is the right thing.
- I really wasn't intersted in lots of Udina's , god how annoying Udina is.
- A multi-race counsil is more able to view things from different sides than an all out human counsil.

So for the good of the galaxy, and as a paragon, i saved the counsil.

[xxLDZxx]

ofcorse save the citadel fleet its unwise to bypass the geth fleet and let them come in the alliance backs after they are ready with the assari/thurain ships.



together we stand, divided we fall!

[BurstAngel75]

Slidell505 wrote...

Alanosborn1991 wrote...

Also Udina is a Sith Lord in disguise

No that's the pope.

I for one do not apprieciate this post. Please reframe from insulting the tenets and traditions of other people's Faith.
I only hope you did this in jest and that there was no malice in it.

[nitefyre410]

Habelo wrote...

So what was the right choice with the council? Saving em and letting them die?

When i played in ME2 and saving em it feelt like all the races was taking advantage of the humans weakness cause we sacrificed ourselves to save the destiny acsension.

Or was i just wrong to choice Andersson instead of Udina?

Any clarification, is the result set in stone as wether it was right or wrong?

Edit: Seems like we all can agree that choosing Udina was a pure bad choice, since he seems like a narcassist and do not help Shepard while Andersson does.

And im currently leaning towards saving the council as the better option...

  


I will sum these choices very  easily...   Choice 1  saving the Council or letting them die?     

New council can be picked... can't say the same for the Galaxy.     

Choice 2: Anderson or Udina...    You  know whats coming a war... Yes Anderson is upset about the politics but when the Reapers come and its time to get the War Machine going... Anderson is your man for the Job... 

[Bron Avery]

Ah yes, "morals". A subject of philosophy which refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong. We have dismissed that claim.

[Bron Avery]

Edit: God damn double post. Nothing to see here. 

Modifié par Bron Avery, 17 février 2010 - 02:16 .

[Bron Avery]

BurstAngel75 wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

Alanosborn1991 wrote...

Also Udina is a Sith Lord in disguise

No that's the pope.

I for one do not apprieciate this post. Please reframe from insulting the tenets and traditions of other people's Faith.
I only hope you did this in jest and that there was no malice in it.

Why so serious? It's just a joke.

[Urazz]

Haventh wrote...

 I saved the council. Here is the reason why i did it:

- As a Paragon Shepard, not saving them would be very Renegade. The Ascension has a crew of about 10k if i remember correctly.
- The chances are that The Ascension might crash into the CItadel.
- Having an all out human councill would just be worse for humans. It would breed hate from the other races. Having a multi race counsil is the right thing.
- I really wasn't intersted in lots of Udina's , god how annoying Udina is.
- A multi-race counsil is more able to view things from different sides than an all out human counsil.

So for the good of the galaxy, and as a paragon, i saved the counsil.

If you went paragon throughout the rest of the game you'll still have that multi-race council but humanity will still lead the council and thus the other races will still distrust humanity (my shepard pointed out this would happen at the end of ME1).

[durasteel]

BurstAngel75 wrote...
I for one do not apprieciate this post. Please reframe from insulting the tenets and traditions of other people's Faith.
I only hope you did this in jest and that there was no malice in it.

Let me ask you, then - the Pope stands for the principle that whoever sits on the throne of St. Peter holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and that anyone who is not a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church is going to hell.  Forever.  Because the Pope says so.

Is that all in jest, or might the holy mother church have put some malice in it?

If a tenet or tradition of a particular creed involves the eternal damnation of all who do not subscribe to that creed, it deserves whatever insults it gets.  Deal with it.

Modifié par durasteel, 17 février 2010 - 03:24 .

[Esker02]

Habelo wrote...
Hehe. Actually it is the other way around. Greedy Capitalism= making the usa poorer and poorer.
Old school capitalism (look at what fords policies) made america an economical superpower.

lrn2history

I typed this whole thing explaining how your conception of history is WAY off (USA is becoming poorer and poorer? The only things I could imagine you're talking about here are results of bad politics or bad understandings, not bad economics) but that's not even the question here. You're saying greed is a bad thing necessarily - but that is simply untrue. Greed in and of itself is a positive force of growth (indeed, THE positive force of growth) when captured and redirected via the Invisible Hand through a free market economy.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." - Adam Smith

Yes, even your Henry Ford was thinking of himself first. Ahem - And uhh... shameless tie in time now, THIS is why the Volus and their greed is a valuable thing, and they deserve a spot on the Council.

[Habelo]

Esker02 wrote...

Habelo wrote...
Hehe. Actually it is the other way around. Greedy Capitalism= making the usa poorer and poorer.
Old school capitalism (look at what fords policies) made america an economical superpower.

lrn2history

I typed this whole thing explaining how your conception of history is WAY off (USA is becoming poorer and poorer? The only things I could imagine you're talking about here are results of bad politics or bad understandings, not bad economics) but that's not even the question here. You're saying greed is a bad thing necessarily - but that is simply untrue. Greed in and of itself is a positive force of growth (indeed, THE positive force of growth) when captured and redirected via the Invisible Hand through a free market economy.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." - Adam Smith

Yes, even your Henry Ford was thinking of himself first. Ahem - And uhh... shameless tie in time now, THIS is why the Volus and their greed is a valuable thing, and they deserve a spot on the Council.

Uhm the bigass loans that america has is not a sign of poverty? The bigass ghettos isnt?
I never said that greed was necassarily a bad thing, i was saying that capitalism with honour is far better in the bigger picture then greedy capitalism is. So no, volus is not good as a council member. The only value they have is when they are not in charge, then their greed isnt enough to make citadel space look like hollywood. And when the volus and their greed is just an element instead of a ruling faction then the economy gets better. Cause greed causes things to move, but it also corrupts and causes universal poverty when you get to much of it(greed).


I still hate the volus though, wanna kill em all : )) why? cause i like hating.

[BurstAngel75]

durasteel wrote...

BurstAngel75 wrote...
I for one do not apprieciate this post. Please reframe from insulting the tenets and traditions of other people's Faith.
I only hope you did this in jest and that there was no malice in it.

Let me ask you, then - the Pope stands for the principle that whoever sits on the throne of St. Peter holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and that anyone who is not a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church is going to hell.  Forever.  Because the Pope says so.

Is that all in jest, or might the holy mother church have put some malice in it?

If a tenet or tradition of a particular creed involves the eternal damnation of all who do not subscribe to that creed, it deserves whatever insults it gets.  Deal with it.

I was being polite in my disagreement, why am I being attack for defending my belief and asking for respect from the people here in the forums? I do not wish to derail this thread, so this will be the last time I address this issue.

But I will not be silent because it is okay to ridicule a person's belief, if you were making fun of some other faith like Wiccan or Islam, everyone here in the forums would have jumped down your throat and called you a bigot. But because your making fun of Catholism, does that mean it's okay? No it is not. And no, I will not "Deal with it"

My voice deserves to be heard like any other, and all I ask is that everyone here show respect and courtesy to each other and to each person's Faith and Convictions no matter the religion or lack of.

Thank you

 

[Habelo]

Burstangel, maybe the problem isnt that people making fun of your religion but the idiotic view people have on islam and anything related to it?

[durasteel]

BurstAngel75 wrote...

I was being polite in my disagreement, why am I being attack for defending my belief and asking for respect from the people here in the forums? I do not wish to derail this thread, so this will be the last time I address this issue.

But I will not be silent because it is okay to ridicule a person's belief, if you were making fun of some other faith like Wiccan or Islam, everyone here in the forums would have jumped down your throat and called you a bigot. But because your making fun of Catholism, does that mean it's okay? No it is not. And no, I will not "Deal with it"

My voice deserves to be heard like any other, and all I ask is that everyone here show respect and courtesy to each other and to each person's Faith and Convictions no matter the religion or lack of.

Thank you

Your faith was not under attack.  The Pope is a public figure, and humor was found in similarities between an image of him and a character from popular fiction.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with the tenets of Catholicism.  I should know, I was subjected to interminable catechism classes in school.

Your sensitivity to that humor speaks more of your insecurity of faith than anything else, sorry.  Also, I would point out that a distinction may be drawn between, for example, Wicca, which does not consign non-members to eternal torture in a lake of fire, and certain other congregations which do.  Some people might find the message "you're going to hell, have a nice day, say hi to Ghandi when you get there" to be inherently insulting.

So yeah, when your creed disrespects any and every other creed on the planet, you pretty much do have to just "deal with it."  You don't have to like it, but there it is.

[Habelo]

I wonder if bioware have made it so that the best possible thing to do is to mix your renegade with your paragon. For example:
Saving the council makes humanity strong in name but not in fleet and military, this could be seen as a weak spot for when the reapers come. And if given the reaper base to cerberus makes so that humanity have the strenght it had before the wipeout of our fleet and also have that immense respect of the universe (assuming TIM wont just build another reaper).

Or maybe it is the exact opposite, that if you mix like in ME2 you get worse results since a nuetral char cant get as good conversation options as a ren/para char can? Man i hate this.... Gotta have all the answers!

Modifié par Habelo, 07 mars 2010 - 01:39 .

[Theoristitis]

Habelo wrote...

So what was the right choice with the council? Saving em and letting them die?

When i played in ME2 and saving em it feelt like all the races was taking advantage of the humans weakness cause we sacrificed ourselves to save the destiny acsension.

Or was i just wrong to choice Andersson instead of Udina?

Any clarification, is the result set in stone as wether it was right or wrong?

Edit: Seems like we all can agree that choosing Udina was a pure bad choice, since he seems like a narcassist and do not help Shepard while Andersson does.

And im currently leaning towards saving the council as the better option...

Since you win the game either way, there's no right or wrong from a gameplay perspective.

From a story and tactical perspective, there are solid arguments for each decision. Saving the lives on the Ascension and the other Citadel ships versus saving more human lives. Wiping out the Heretics at your back versus having more reinforcements to deal with Sovereign. Keeping the Council in charge and reducing humanity's role in galactic leadership versus increasing humanity's power at the cost of alien assistance.

But Shepard has only seconds (story-wise) to decide, without a clear visual of the battle around him and with no knowledge of the future as we do. So it comes down to a moral choice.

A Paragon will save the Council because that is what he does. His code of morals means that he will save any lives that are within his power to save. So he would see that as the "right" decision.

A Renegade will hold back because his morals follow the notion of the "greater good", of completing the mission at any cost. Saving the Council would be the "wrong" decision.

Right and wrong, good and bad, are pretty subjective to Shepard's moral code in the ME universe.

[Multifarious Algorithm]

I saved the Council to save the Ascension. Somewhere in the game I heard a Volus talking about how many crew it had, and the essential logic was that letting a dreadnaught go down was not exactly a good outcome for anyone. There was also the tactical issue - keeping the Alliance out of the Citadel battlespace until both Sovereign and the Geth could shoot at it in a crossfire seemed like a really, really stupid plan.

[Vanaer]

There's no right choice. It's a choice for human dominance or human cooperation. Either way you and the rest get screwed over.

[GenericPlayer2]

The council has a history of using the 'tough new species' in the galaxy and then stabbing them in the back - Krogans brought on to kill Rachni, Turians brought on to kill Krogans, then the Genophage.

The way I see it the only way to be sure the council does not bring the Humans into the galactic fold only to betray us at the later date is to let their fleet and flagship be destroyed in ME1. In ME2 you hear about new problems like the Turians disregarding the Dreadnaught treaty - the counter for that is the Collector base and reaper technology. Admittedly in hindsight it is like digging yourself in a hole and then having to dig deeper - but you don't always have the benefit of hindsight.

Cooperation is great when it works but wouldn't you rather be prepared when it doesn't? Does anyone want to see humans genophaged when colony disputes come up in the post-Reaper era? I for one have no respect or trust for the 'established order' of the Turians, Salarians and Asari.

Edit: With regards to Udina, I picked him once in the hopes that Anderson would not be spending his time with politics and would actually have his own command. Sadly that is not the case, and the play through was deleted.

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 07 mars 2010 - 02:36 .