359 réponses à ce sujet

[Ladi]

People saying "If you commit forces to saving them you might not be able to defeat Sovereign!" are a little too good at suspending their disbelief. It's a video game, he's the final boss, there's no way in hell you're not going to be able to win.



If for some reason Bioware decide that by saving the Ascension you get a Game Over, that just means it wasn't a choice at all. Shep had a good line at some point during the game where he says that respect has to be earned. I earned it in spades.

[Polka14]

Ladi wrote...

 Shep had a good line at some point during the game where he says that respect has to be earned. I earned it in spades.

I agree with that statement. The humans desired respect from the other council members. If arriving to aid the citadel forces to defeat Soverign and save the galaxy while sacrificing their forces to save the council is not enough to earn the respect then I suppose nothing would be.

[Tlazolteotl]

Ah yes, "respect."

[Cypher0020]

saving them despite the turian being an *** most of the time.....



will need their support and the other races for the war after alll



on that note... I'd kill to get some batarian allies.....

[Dean_the_Young]

Ladi wrote...

People saying "If you commit forces to saving them you might not be able to defeat Sovereign!" are a little too good at suspending their disbelief. It's a video game, he's the final boss, there's no way in hell you're not going to be able to win.

If for some reason Bioware decide that by saving the Ascension you get a Game Over, that just means it wasn't a choice at all. Shep had a good line at some point during the game where he says that respect has to be earned. I earned it in spades.

Not from anyone who would look at it realistically. And by realistically, I mean 'isn't metagaming so hard that they stopped role playing and started constructing a narrative'.

Simply because there's a choice doesn't mean the results are equal. What the game does because it's a game is a weakness, not a strength. Infact, I'd argue you need far more Morinth-type choices in the game: decisions that, if you take them for whatever reason, either kill you or screw you later.

If you remember that you're playing a game when you make the final choice, you aren't suspending disbelief. You are doing precisely the opposite: you are suspending belief that the choice matters, you destroying the immersion into the role play. You aren't making a hard choice from the facts on the ground, you're making a weightless feel-good choice on the in-universe baseless confidence that it won't matter in the least.

Easy choices don't earn you respect. Hard choices do. Feel-good metagaming is a featherweight.

[Dean_the_Young]

Polka14 wrote...

Ladi wrote...

 Shep had a good line at some point during the game where he says that respect has to be earned. I earned it in spades.

I agree with that statement. The humans desired respect from the other council members. If arriving to aid the citadel forces to defeat Soverign and save the galaxy while sacrificing their forces to save the council is not enough to earn the respect then I suppose nothing would be.

Except the choice isn't to arrive to aid the other citadel forces to defeat Sovereign. The choice is to arrive to aid the citadel forces while the heart of the fleet runs away with the Council, while the Alliance heads through to Sovereign with fewer forces to take him down. The Citadel fleet is caught up in its own flight regardless, and the choice is whether to take on sovereign with more or fewer human ships.

[Ladi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Not from anyone who would look at it realistically. And by realistically, I mean 'isn't metagaming so hard that they stopped role playing and started constructing a narrative'.

Simply because there's a choice doesn't mean the results are equal. What the game does because it's a game is a weakness, not a strength. Infact, I'd argue you need far more Morinth-type choices in the game: decisions that, if you take them for whatever reason, either kill you or screw you later.

If you remember that you're playing a game when you make the final choice, you aren't suspending disbelief. You are doing precisely the opposite: you are suspending belief that the choice matters, you destroying the immersion into the role play. You aren't making a hard choice from the facts on the ground, you're making a weightless feel-good choice on the in-universe baseless confidence that it won't matter in the least.

Easy choices don't earn you respect. Hard choices do. Feel-good metagaming is a featherweight.

It's an easy choice IRL, but in the game it's presented as a difficult one. I didn't say it was a strength, I just said that its patently obvious that there are no real consequences for choosing to save the Council. It's a shame that the writing plays out in such a way that it really only comes down to whether or not you were annoyed by them during the game, or whether or not you just do things for the Para/gade points.

I'm not going to throw away logic to help the writers. There are plenty of choices I've made through the games that could potentially bite me in the ass - saving the Rachni, not destroying the Heretics, blowing up the Collector base, but it's immediately apparent that choosing to save them would only have positive benefits, storywise.

Like I said, what could the writers have actually done? I save the Ascension, and Sovereign gets away? Hell, that would be far more interesting regardless, because now I'd have an enemy I could show the council and they'd be obliged to help me take it out.

The only possible non-Game Over downside that could have come out of me saving the council is some humans not liking me sacrificing human lives. Seeing as the most interesting characters in the series are aliens, I figured I could live with that.

[Vaenier]

The choice to save or kill the council has almost zero effect in ME2. It changes who appears in one single non repeatable conversation and minor dialogue references scattered throughout the game. There is no wrong choice when there are no consequences to compare.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ladi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Not from anyone who would look at it realistically. And by realistically, I mean 'isn't metagaming so hard that they stopped role playing and started constructing a narrative'.

Simply because there's a choice doesn't mean the results are equal. What the game does because it's a game is a weakness, not a strength. Infact, I'd argue you need far more Morinth-type choices in the game: decisions that, if you take them for whatever reason, either kill you or screw you later.

If you remember that you're playing a game when you make the final choice, you aren't suspending disbelief. You are doing precisely the opposite: you are suspending belief that the choice matters, you destroying the immersion into the role play. You aren't making a hard choice from the facts on the ground, you're making a weightless feel-good choice on the in-universe baseless confidence that it won't matter in the least.

Easy choices don't earn you respect. Hard choices do. Feel-good metagaming is a featherweight.

It's an easy choice IRL, but in the game it's presented as a difficult one. I didn't say it was a strength, I just said that its patently obvious that there are no real consequences for choosing to save the Council. It's a shame that the writing plays out in such a way that it really only comes down to whether or not you were annoyed by them during the game, or whether or not you just do things for the Para/gade points.

I'm not going to throw away logic to help the writers. There are plenty of choices I've made through the games that could potentially bite me in the ass - saving the Rachni, not destroying the Heretics, blowing up the Collector base, but it's immediately apparent that choosing to save them would only have positive benefits, storywise.

Like I said, what could the writers have actually done? I save the Ascension, and Sovereign gets away? Hell, that would be far more interesting regardless, because now I'd have an enemy I could show the council and they'd be obliged to help me take it out.

The only possible non-Game Over downside that could have come out of me saving the council is some humans not liking me sacrificing human lives. Seeing as the most interesting characters in the series are aliens, I figured I could live with that.

If you think risking all lives in the galaxy for 10,000 individuals, who will die anyway if doing so makes you fail is an easy choice, then you certainly don't deserve any respect. Earth alone has more than 10 billion persons: ignoring the rest of the galaxy entirely, you're still looking at a hundred thousand and one to one ratio (because if you fail, that crewman on the Destiny Ascension is going to die to). You're saying each life is worth risking that many, 10 thousand times. Because, hey, you don't know if you can take Sovereign in the first place, but the Council is worth it!

Historically, the only people who have argued in good faith that 1 persons life was worth the  100,000 others have been genocidal racists of earth-changing caliber. And you think that's Paragon? No Renegade decision in either game compares to that devaluation of lives.

What the writers could have done? Yes, Sovereign succeding would have been one answer. There are plenty of things you can't get away with in the game... like obeying the Council and staying on the Citadel, as opposed to going after Saren. Or dying. Likewise, elsewhere in the game, a prominant Renegade choice could also have had serious consequences.

Alternatively, and which would have made later-game writing much easier, have the Ascension die regardless. If you make the decision, you get your 50 paragon points, are treated to a cutscene seeing the DA die, and continue on, but afterwards the rest of the galaxy knows you really did try and remembers you accordingly. Afterwards the writers can actually show us a new council regardless, as opposed to minimize the role of both the new and old council because half the players won't see either one.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 24 avril 2010 - 07:12 .

[Loki330]

Weskerr wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

Humans completely taking over the council is a ticking time bomb.

Well if I have learned anything from books, video games, movies or television is that humans always win at the end and there is nothing better for the ME universe then to have us in charge

Haha. If ME follows that trend that you mentioned, then I'll be disappointed. Without taking into consideration how other stories handle this quesiton, however, it seems to me that in the long run, human control of the galaxy via the Citadel Council cannot last. The other races just won't stand for it, and they all still do have significant military power.

It's noted by the other races that humans are a 'sleeping tiger': hardly any of their population is actually in the military, which is one of the reasons (coupled with the brash, even outright agressive behaviour Liara mentions in ME1 when you talm to her) the races are nervous about humans.

Personally, I saved them. I figured that if we wanted to be part of this intergalatic council, then we had to take the rough (fighting and dying to protect it) with the smooth (actually having a say/seat)

[LeonBrass]

uncertain: Right choice? or maybe just a choice with unknown consequences for the future?
(just thinking "outloud")

suprised: Anyone else decide to save the Destiny Ascension/council based on combat tactics?
I decided to save them because having a whole mess of Geth warships surrounding the Alliance Fleet while trying to take on Soveriegn(spelling??) would leave the fleet in deep trouble -- even though it was risking the Alliance fleet failing --- or having too few ships left --- to defeat S----(spelling avoided!)
I couldn't decide which was the "best" choice based on ethics, morals, etc... perhaps a telling observation about myself:crying:

Modifié par LeonBrass, 24 avril 2010 - 07:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

People who fall back on tactics are overthinking it. The game narritive (painfully, which is why people over analyze) simplifies the choice for you in all that you need to know. Most of what else goes on (like the space fighting), Shepard isn't even in a position to see.



Focus on Sovereign, keep ships. Save the DA, lose ships before Sovereign. That's it. There is no 'Focus on Sovereign but lose ships' route, nor is there 'save Destiny Ascension and get beaten by the Geth ships' option, though either could-or-could-not-if-we-argued-circles-forever happen.



The tactical choice, and the implications of each, are simplified for your judgement.

[tonnactus]

PingoBlack wrote...

Human council causes turians to arm up like nuts, starting a neat little cold war with humans ...

I prefer idiot turian councilor to that ... Sad but true.

I dont believe that they are so dumb.Turians at least build the thannix cannon.They should now that its base isnt geth technology.

[Ladi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you think risking all lives in the galaxy for 10,000 individuals, who will die anyway if doing so makes you fail is an easy choice, then you certainly don't deserve any respect. Earth alone has more than 10 billion persons: ignoring the rest of the galaxy entirely, you're still looking at a hundred thousand and one to one ratio (because if you fail, that crewman on the Destiny Ascension is going to die to). You're saying each life is worth risking that many, 10 thousand times. Because, hey, you don't know if you can take Sovereign in the first place, but the Council is worth it!

Historically, the only people who have argued in good faith that 1 persons life was worth the  100,000 others have been genocidal racists of earth-changing caliber. And you think that's Paragon? No Renegade decision in either game compares to that devaluation of lives.

What the writers could have done? Yes, Sovereign succeding would have been one answer. There are plenty of things you can't get away with in the game... like obeying the Council and staying on the Citadel, as opposed to going after Saren. Or dying. Likewise, elsewhere in the game, a prominant Renegade choice could also have had serious consequences.

Alternatively, and which would have made later-game writing much easier, have the Ascension die regardless. If you make the decision, you get your 50 paragon points, are treated to a cutscene seeing the DA die, and continue on, but afterwards the rest of the galaxy knows you really did try and remembers you accordingly. Afterwards the writers can actually show us a new council regardless, as opposed to minimize the role of both the new and old council because half the players won't see either one.

There are two outcomes here.

1. You sacrifice a relatively small number of human lives, defeat Sovereign, and earn the respect of the council races.
2. You sacrifice marginally fewer human lives, some alien lives and defeat Sovereign.

To believe any more than that is to forget that you're playing a video game. To say that you should sacrifice the council because it means that you're more likely to take down Sovereign is the same as saying you should take Garrus with you on every mission because his skills increase Shepard's likelihood of surviving. There is no point in increasing the odds of something that are 100% set due to game narrative.

As a real life parallel, say the US president and his entourage were visiting some British troops when suddenly the enemy strikes. As a British general, do you commit some troops to saving the US president, or do you send your full force after the attackers? The answer would be to commit some troops to saving el presidente, because the idea of the president is greater than one man. The fallout for not doing so would be immense, and would sour relations between the US and the UK for years to come.

In terms of roleplay, If you're saying that if I was actually in Shepard's shoes, would I make that decision? The answer is no, because I would never be in Shepard's shoes. I have never seen myself as Shep - he is a soldier who kills for a living, I am a pacifist. We are fundamentally different. My character Shep? He has no problem with upholding an ideal - he's an idealist.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ladi wrote...
There are two outcomes here.

1. You sacrifice a relatively small number of human lives, defeat Sovereign, and earn the respect of the council races.
2. You sacrifice marginally fewer human lives, some alien lives and defeat Sovereign.

Foresight fallacy. The only points that matter in the decision making process are what you know from the past leading to the present (context) and what you have reason to expect the results are (foresight). For Shepard, defeating Sovereign is in no way assured, nor is a Council Seat or public opinion.


If you refuse to do anything but metagame, that's fine. But don't pretend your decision is the right decision, worthy of any respect, if you can't justify it on its own merit.

As a real life parallel, say the US president and his entourage were visiting some British troops when suddenly the enemy strikes. As a British general, do you commit some troops to saving the US president, or do you send your full force after the attackers? The answer would be to commit some troops to saving el presidente, because the idea of the president is greater than one man. The fallout for not doing so would be immense, and would sour relations between the US and the UK for years to come.

If the price of failure regardless of saving the US president or not is the murder of every human on Earth, then you take the option that's most likely to keep the humans of Earth alive. The US can survive losing a President. It could not survive extinction. It's better for the entire world, including the US, to survive than to risk it all in the name of the PotUS.

In terms of roleplay, If you're saying that if I was actually in Shepard's shoes, would I make that decision? The answer is no, because I would never be in Shepard's shoes. I have never seen myself as Shep - he is a soldier who kills for a living, I am a pacifist. We are fundamentally different. My character Shep? He has no problem with upholding an ideal - he's an idealist.

You aren't a pacifist if you find leisure in playing conflict and bloodshed.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 24 avril 2010 - 08:50 .

[Asheer_Khan]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

People who fall back on tactics are overthinking it. The game narritive (painfully, which is why people over analyze) simplifies the choice for you in all that you need to know. Most of what else goes on (like the space fighting), Shepard isn't even in a position to see.

Focus on Sovereign, keep ships. Save the DA, lose ships before Sovereign. That's it. There is no 'Focus on Sovereign but lose ships' route, nor is there 'save Destiny Ascension and get beaten by the Geth ships' option, though either could-or-could-not-if-we-argued-circles-forever happen.

The tactical choice, and the implications of each, are simplified for your judgement.

Excuse me but do we have played in this same version of Mass Effect?

As far as i remember letting council die is HIGH RENEGADE choice not PARAGON.... and whit all due respect but i think you try to misslead us here and maybe you say as well that picking Udina as new council lead is paragon choice too?<_<.

Actually most Alliance causalties were inflicted by SOVIEREGIN"s main guns not the Geth ships.

Geth were on equal techical level whit the Alliance and Turian fleet and posses very moderate threat to them.
And you might ignored my words but actually saving Ascension was right thing to do from clear tactical point of view because when Alliance fleet leaves relay they have Geth ships direct before thier guns and lauchers when geth were turned back to relay busy whit Ascension.
Only total ignorant commander would miss such oportunity to actually get rid of potential risk when they will later on attack Sovieregin.
Beside entire battle whit geth was how long 1 minute before Destiny were clear to leave?
And to finish this ONLY Destiny whitdraw herself from combat area because level of her damages made her useless against Sovieregin but rest of the Citadel Defence Force joined Alliance in attacking Soviergin.

On one aspect you are correct.
Writers don't gather in off courage to create real combat stance scenario for ignoring Ascension scenarios because here will be fury of hate from community when 90% Alliance ships would be wiped out by incoming after Destiny's destruction Sovieregin's Geth support.

And next thing.
What if Sovieregin would posess some sort of EMP weapon  strong in off to knock out ALL ships in citadel area so they would become plainly unable to defend themselfs against not only Sovieregin but previously ignored Geth ships?
Blind charging at the Reaper was foolish strategy as could be because we didn't have even a slightest informations about what type of weapons Sovieregin posess so could be very possible that incomming Alliance fleet could be pretty easy wiped out by some sort super lasers shooting from each directions of Reaper hull.

So from tactical poit of view true strategy was in first place saving Ascension and get rid of the Geth support to made clear rear part of the fleet. and of course create safe whitdraw route for damaged ships.
Then very cautiously close up to Reaper area and normaly in first place should be sended in fighter squadrons to asses any possible threaths for capital ships.
Then after such recon capital ships should close up and start bombardament.

But where emotions replaced logic everything is one according to rule "Let's hope that we succeed" then only thanks to writers Alliance lost ONLY 9 ships...

Modifié par Asheer_Khan, 24 avril 2010 - 09:10 .

[Barquiel]

tactical...there is no right/wrong decision

- Shep has no information to make the decision
- no tactical training (he is no naval commander)

Commander Shepard issues his/her "orders"...and Hackett agrees.
I think Admiral Hackett would object if one choice (concentrate on Sovereign/or not) makes no sense.
"Thank you for your opinion Commander, but..."
He has experience + tactical data.

[Asheer_Khan]

I will say...

fell free to commit Military Coup but then don't come here on this forum and whine when in ME 3 (small chance but still) will turn out that Citadel space is under total war Humanity lead by Emperor TiM vs rest of the Galaxy because you chose to destroyed thousand years stability just because one foolish Turian ****** you off...



"Humanity is not ready to join the Council..."

How true those words are...

[Inquisitor Recon]

PingoBlack wrote...
Human council causes turians to arm up like nuts, starting a neat little cold war with humans ...
I prefer idiot turian councilor to that ... Sad but true.

Really? Where did you read that?

Also, such a cold war would be a good thing when you consider it would generate more ships to fight the reapers with.

[binaryemperor]

Giantevilhead wrote...

Concentrating on Sovereign was the right choice. You had no way of knowing if Sovereign could even be killed. Defeating Sovereign was far more important than saving the Council and the Destiny Ascension.

Yeah, even as a predominantly paragon player, I can understand that argument. If it was a real scenario and I was in shepard's shoes, it would be a hard decision, but I would have told the fleet to focus on Sovereign.  It's not that I would want the council to die, it's just that the risk of failure would be too high.

But since it was a game I figured that sovereign was going to lose no matter what decision I made, I had the fleet save the ascension, and I am personally glad that I saved them. I don't really think there was a "right" decision to be made, as you'll probably beat the game just fine with or without them.

Modifié par binaryemperor, 24 avril 2010 - 09:37 .

[Ladi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Foresight fallacy. The only points that matter in the decision making process are what you know from the past leading to the present (context) and what you have reason to expect the results are (foresight). For Shepard, defeating Sovereign is in no way assured, nor is a Council Seat or public opinion.

If you refuse to do anything but metagame, that's fine. But don't pretend your decision is the right decision, worthy of any respect, if you can't justify it on its own merit.

The game could have proved me wrong - it could have had some repercussion to me saving the Ascension. It didn't, I was vindicated. I am not saying my decision is worthy of any respect IRL (that would be laughable), I am saying that my decision wins me ingame respect.

My decision making process is different to Shepard's - mine is "The game won't let me lose so let's go for this option", while Shep's is "Seeing as there are more Reapers out there I'm going to need all the friends I can get. Do I think I can still take down Sovereign and save the council?" (He decides yes, turns out he was right.)

If my choice caused Shep to doom the Galaxy, no big. It's just a game, I'd load up another save file.

If the price of failure regardless of saving the US president or not is the murder of every human on Earth, then you take the option that's most likely to keep the humans of Earth alive. The US can survive losing a President. It could not survive extinction. It's better for the entire world, including the US, to survive than to risk it all in the name of the PotUS.

Sovereign (or my hypothetical terrorist cell) is not some insurmountable force. They are presented as an opponent who you can defeat with the resources available, or defeat with slightly more difficulty sacrificing some of your resources to another cause.

You aren't a pacifist if you find leisure in playing conflict and bloodshed.

Sure I am. A pacifist is someone who believes disputes can and should be settled peacefully, someone who is opposed to war or violence as a means of solving disputes, and/or someone who's pacifist beliefs cause them to refuse to join the military. There is no dispute in playing a game or reading a book.

[Ladi]

Shandepared wrote...

You should give roleplaying a shot someday. Who knows, maybe you'd enjoy it.

I roleplay just fine, my DnD cleric says hey. The Mass Effect universe isn't a particularly good one for me to roleplay in seeing as I have no choice but to kill most things rather than look for a peaceful route.

[Homebound]

CorvushatesEA wrote...

I dont know. The Turian counsilor's airquotes almost justify me doing another ME1 playthrough just to let him get 'sploded.