173 réponses à ce sujet

[Barquiel]

I still don't think that the council is really that disbelieving, but Shepard's link to Cerberus is a problem (even Anderson doesn't trust you 100%) . I wouldn't be surprised if the council races are better prepared than expected in ME3 (I'd like to see a fleet of Destiny Ascensions^_^).

Even if they really think that Sovereign was a geth ship: advanced geth dreadnoughts would be problematic as well.

Modifié par Barquiel, 21 mars 2010 - 01:23 .

[Archereon]

Any real military commander in this situation would have saved the council. Doing otherwise is just leaving an opening for the Geth to come in and rock your fleet from behind once the citadel arms open, and most ships seem to have their primary batteries facing forward, so if the Geth get in behind the alliance fleet, its over, even more so if there wasn't enough time to take down Sovereign.



And by the way, Sovereign's defeat had nothing to do with the number of ships attacking him, from what we've heard, if his shields hadn't been disabled, he could have probably obliterated the entire Citadel and Alliance fleets all at once (his main guns can one shot a dreadnought from what we've heard in the codex.)

[Kerilus]

People are gonna throw **** at you regardless of your decision. So why not just choose the most satisfactory one for yourself? I for one never regret a tiny bit about killing them off.

[TobyHasEyes]

Flies_by_Handles wrote...

   On my first play through as a paragon Shepard I chose to focus on Sovereign. There was no absolute guarantee that the Ascension could be saved and regardless, all of what's left of the fleet should concentrate their firepower on the biggest threat, Sovereign. I did not see this as a xenophobic, selfish decision; only one made out of desperation. Think about it...Shepard is in the middle of fighting Saren and she now has the burden of making such an important decision. Many other players seems to take their knowledge of the game's events into account when making this choice; I'd rather put myself in my character's shoes during that hellish moment and decide from there. Besides that, I think it makes my character more complex. In the second game she comes to experience some guilt and regret over that choice despite how good her intentions were. I don't like playing a paragon who must choose every paragon choice because for some unknown reason that's what I have to do...

 This is how I felt about it. Except my Shepard feels no guilt. Obviously focusing your military force on the threat to the whole galaxy is more important than focusing on trying to save the politicians. Its not a xenophobic decision. Had the choice been between focusing on destroying Sovereign or sending ships to defend an under-attack Earth, I would still decide to focus on what could kill EVERYONE. As a character who didn't know that the decision wouldn't affect squat, its the only decision that makes any sense. And my Shepard and I just think the whole galaxy is being so shortsighted in judging you for it. If anything, their reaction really hit my paragon Shepard's idea that all species could work together very hard. They are just too damn suspicious of humanity..

[Xenin7]

wizardryforever wrote...

Wow, I can't believe that people think killing the council would be the right thing to do.  Maybe if Shepard were an unfeeling robot (though even Geth have feelings now), then focusing on Sovereign would be the right thing to do.  But seriously, letting the council that has successfully run a huge interstellar government die just because they annoyed you is even worse than focusing on pure logic.  What's even worse is that people like the OP are now asking "WTF, all I did was completely take over your government and effectively kick everyone else out, what's the big deal?"

Think about it, if such a thing happened to a council that we were part of, and some upstart species, lets say Turians, killed off our representation and replaced it with all Turians, don't you think we would be royally pissed off at the Turians for doing such a thing?  That's why I was so surprised that the council dying was the default situation.

I'll admit, I was really annoyed at the council the first time I played ME2, because things seemed so positive when I saved them, like they finally believed me.  Now they go back to being their willfully ignorant selves just cause I die.  Still, much better for everyone if the council lives.

I happen to agree with you. Despite the fact they are annoying, something tells me they might have an impact of sort on you trying to unite the races of the galaxy against the Reaper threat in Mass Effect 3. Yes I have heard the "it makes sense tactically to sacrifice the Council to destroy Sovereign" argument, but in the long run saving the Council is for the best. Also I like how some people are forgetting that there are 10,000 people on board the Destiny Ascension, not just the Council. Plus when you are saving the Destiny Ascension, you take out more Geth ships, saves having to kill them later.

Oh and just to answer someone's question, yes there is a difference between the human-led Council and the All human council. first is just with the three council races but with a human chairman at it's head, while the all human council has all the council members, including the chairman, as humans. Unfortunately they don't seem to show this difference very well in Mass Effect 2. 

Speaking of which, I have always wondered, if you are a Renegade Shepard and you kill the Council off and help to create a all human council, I have to wonder, why doesn't that human council wish to talk to you? I mean when Anderson says "They think you will always put human interests before the rest of the galaxy" I wondered, what difference does it make? all the council members and the chairman are HUMAN!! Heck you think they would talk to you for letting humans seize political control of the galaxy, not brushing him off. What Anderson says makes sense if it is just human-led council with the three council races still in the new council, but not if it's a council dominated by humans, that part has just made no sense to me.

Modifié par Xenin7, 21 mars 2010 - 03:42 .

[Dreykov]

there are 10,000 people on board the Destiny Ascension.



That was my primary reason for saving the DA, it was crippled as a battle ready ship and was a transport by the time Shep and crew arrive. On most of my play throughs, I've ended up always picking to save the Civilian target over the Military one.



I bet the Human Alliance can't wait to talk to me when I go around rallying the Galaxy in ME3 . /sarcasm.

[OneBadAssMother]

Save 9,999 people... kill that one Turian from the council... if only this was an option.

[Tibilicus]

Dreykov wrote...

there are 10,000 people on board the Destiny Ascension.

That was my primary reason for saving the DA, it was crippled as a battle ready ship and was a transport by the time Shep and crew arrive. On most of my play throughs, I've ended up always picking to save the Civilian target over the Military one.

I bet the Human Alliance can't wait to talk to me when I go around rallying the Galaxy in ME3 . /sarcasm.

Your not made aware of this in ME though, suggesting you either played ME after ME2 or read about it some where else.

A lot of people seem to be missing the main point here. Back when ME was first was released we were offered three choices.

1) Save the DA.

2) Hold back.

3) Focus on "soverign"

To me, at the time, focussing on the reaper was the logical and best decision. Personally in my opinion if you were prepared to rush in and save the DA you acted on emotion and not logic. What would of happened if too much of the fleet was lost saving the DA and there weren't enough ships left to finish off the reaper and the geth?

I've mentioned this previously but back when ME was first released there were no walkthroughs and as far as I was concerned there wasn't even a ME trilogy established. For all I knew, going to save the DA could of meant game over, therefore I didn't. Plus my Shepards always been about getting the job done (unfotunatly the ME2 morality system doesn't allow this so much), ultimately I wasn't prepared to risk the safety of the galaxy to save the DA. Any one who did is reckless and shouldn't be in command of a starship, just my opinion, no hate.

It was only in ME2 that the "focus on" option was compltely reworked to make Shepard look like an idiot and was written in as a "renegade" action which IMO is stupid. If I remember correctly I only got like 4 renegade points for it and 28 paragon points in ME..

Modifié par Tibilicus, 21 mars 2010 - 06:08 .

[Sigma Tauri]

Xenin7 wrote...
Speaking of which, I have always wondered, if you are a Renegade Shepard and you kill the Council off and help to create a all human council, I have to wonder, why doesn't that human council wish to talk to you? I mean when Anderson says "They think you will always put human interests before the rest of the galaxy" I wondered, what difference does it make? all the council members and the chairman are HUMAN!! Heck you think they would talk to you for letting humans seize political control of the galaxy, not brushing him off. What Anderson says makes sense if it is just human-led council with the three council races still in the new council, but not if it's a council dominated by humans, that part has just made no sense to me.

Might doesn't mean right, not even to an all-human council. They still concede to the interests of the more established Citadel races. As TIM said, the Alliance is burdened by the responsibility Shepard gave them. Humanity cannot risk being isolated, and they think renegade Shepard is a PR distaster waiting to happen. Why not? Renegade Shepard along with Saren are the two major traitors in the Battle for the Citadel.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 21 mars 2010 - 06:20 .

[philiposophy]

I usually save the Council because I play as a Paragon most of the time. I do not believe it is a stupid good decision though. My reasoning is thus:



1. It is no more tactically sound to hold back than it is to intervene. If you bypass the Ascension and go straight for Sovereign, the Alliance has the geth shooting them in the back while they go for Sovereign. So it's fair enough to take out the geth on your way through, freeing up the Ascension and other ships to help in the battle. I suppose the Renegade justification is that losses to the geth from behind are negligible so long as Sovereign gets destroyed.



2. IIRC, Shepard makes the call on whether to save the Council after Saren is dead. Sovereign can't open the floodgates until he reanimates Saren, kills Shepard and uses the console again. So Shepard has more room for manoevure, since the Reapers aren't going to come through so long as he's guarding that console. That's not to say he should dally though, he has to act pretty quickly.

[NICKjnp]

I'm not a space racist... so I saved the council on most of my playthroughs (though it is annoying that the neutral decision is the same as the renegade decision).

[marshalleck]

NICKjnp wrote...

I'm not a space racist... so I saved the council on most of my playthroughs (though it is annoying that the neutral decision is the same as the renegade decision).

Space racist? So it's racist now to not save the Council? How absurd. <_<

The neutral option is to wait and go after Sovereign because the Council's survival is meaningless if the Citadel relay is opened. Saren has done his job already, which was to get the ward arms open long enouvh for Sov to get inside. So the relay opening was going to happen, it was just a matter of time. That's the justification for prioritizing Sovereign over saving the Council. "Space racism" has nothing to do with it.

[Goat_Shepard]

Bigdoser wrote...

So I decided to let the council die for once and soon as I hit the citadel everyone hates my guts I mean wow the most shocking one was those two asari basiclly telling me the galaxy is in chaos now that the previous council is dead. I never knew things would be that bad if the council from me1 is dead. I thought that i would get some hate but not that much!

I killed the council, and my brother saved them. IMO saving them is better for many reasons. One, you can actually talk to them (never saw the new council, you know, the one you created), and plus there's the Turian councilor with his finger quotes, you're gunna want him at the end just so you can see his face and Shepard say "Looks like my "visions" became a reality, now send your fleet in!!"

[Commissar Gash]

Xenin7 wrote...

I happen to agree with you. Despite the fact they are annoying, something tells me they might have an impact of sort on you trying to unite the races of the galaxy against the Reaper threat in Mass Effect 3. Yes I have heard the "it makes sense tactically to sacrifice the Council to destroy Sovereign" argument, but in the long run saving the Council is for the best. Also I like how some people are forgetting that there are 10,000 people on board the Destiny Ascension, not just the Council. Plus when you are saving the Destiny Ascension, you take out more Geth ships, saves having to kill them later.

Oh and just to answer someone's question, yes there is a difference between the human-led Council and the All human council. first is just with the three council races but with a human chairman at it's head, while the all human council has all the council members, including the chairman, as humans. Unfortunately they don't seem to show this difference very well in Mass Effect 2. 

Speaking of which, I have always wondered, if you are a Renegade Shepard and you kill the Council off and help to create a all human council, I have to wonder, why doesn't that human council wish to talk to you? I mean when Anderson says "They think you will always put human interests before the rest of the galaxy" I wondered, what difference does it make? all the council members and the chairman are HUMAN!! Heck you think they would talk to you for letting humans seize political control of the galaxy, not brushing him off. What Anderson says makes sense if it is just human-led council with the three council races still in the new council, but not if it's a council dominated by humans, that part has just made no sense to me.

The real reason is: Bioware was to laz...ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL busy with making super awesome DLC's like the super awesome new outfits for 3 squadmates that will cost 160M$ points and it's totally wordt the price! And a new squadmate! He's a very interasting character and a lot of dialogue! RELEASING CONTROL to hire voice actors and make models for the Human Council, so they just didn't wanted to see you.

The canon reason is: The new Council is made out of a bunch of blind, stubborn morons, just like the original one and they love aliens, but the aliens don't love them so they are crying the whole time and that's why they didn't want to see you, because it will be to embarassing.

I rather have Human morons then alien morons and I'm not planning to waste Human lives to save them (me and TiM share the same ideas). Never stab me in the back and insult me. I will save them only if you can diconnect from them again and you can say the 'Ah yes, Reapers' with single finger quotes to the Councilor when the Reapers are attacking The Citadel or turian homeworld.

Modifié par gashgfjaskgfkagh, 21 mars 2010 - 07:25 .

[Halo Quea]

I think alot of people missed that this was a character test more than anything else. It's the equivalent to Star Trek's Kobayashi Maru. It was always going to be a no-win scenario.



Save the Destiny Ascension, you save the Council

-the Alliance Fleet suffers enormously

-the Alliance and Citadel Council are ungrateful for your sacrifices and destroy your good name

-Anderson not respected by the Alliance brass or the Council





Abandon the Destiny Ascension and the Council

-the Alliance suffers diplomatically and Human leadership is not welcomed or respected

-the Alliance and Citadel Council are ungrateful for your sacrifices and destroy your good name

-Anderson not respected by Alliance Brass or the Council





You lose all the way around. C-Sec being run mostly by humans is a public relations disaster anyway you choose to look at it. Anderson's role on the Council is just a token, they have more respect for Udina. The Alliance didn't even want to find you! They always hated your multi-species crew. The Normandy and the dog tags of the fallen crew lay on the surface of Alchera for two years without a single Alliance ship coming by to even gather their remains.



It was a character test, we weren't meant to gain anything from the decision to save or abandon the Council.

[Bigdoser]

Halo Quea wrote...

I think alot of people missed that this was a character test more than anything else. It's the equivalent to Star Trek's Kobayashi Maru. It was always going to be a no-win scenario.

Save the Destiny Ascension, you save the Council
-the Alliance Fleet suffers enormously
-the Alliance and Citadel Council are ungrateful for your sacrifices and destroy your good name
-Anderson not respected by the Alliance brass or the Council


Abandon the Destiny Ascension and the Council
-the Alliance suffers diplomatically and Human leadership is not welcomed or respected
-the Alliance and Citadel Council are ungrateful for your sacrifices and destroy your good name
-Anderson not respected by Alliance Brass or the Council


You lose all the way around. C-Sec being run mostly by humans is a public relations disaster anyway you choose to look at it. Anderson's role on the Council is just a token, they have more respect for Udina. The Alliance didn't even want to find you! They always hated your multi-species crew. The Normandy and the dog tags of the fallen crew lay on the surface of Alchera for two years without a single Alliance ship coming by to even gather their remains.

It was a character test, we weren't meant to gain anything from the decision to save or abandon the Council.

you make a good point.

[Hyper Cutter]

screwoffreg wrote...

Whats weird is that we never see any other dreadnoughts at the Citadel other than the Destiny Ascension. Even during the battle with Sovereign all the human ships were cruisers. Where were the heavies?

At least some of the Citadel fleet was guarding relays, iirc.

Also, I think the Citadel fleet was largely symbolic to begin with, honestly.

[RenownedRyan]

Bigdoser wrote...

So I decided to let the council die for once and soon as I hit the citadel everyone hates my guts I mean wow the most shocking one was those two asari basiclly telling me the galaxy is in chaos now that the previous council is dead. I never knew things would be that bad if the council from me1 is dead. I thought that i would get some hate but not that much!

I'd rather put up with angry aliens than have to see the council again.  "You humans are all racists!"

[GreedIsNoException]

Honestly humans having the control of the universe is a bad idea... watch Star Wars and you'll see what we want: Total Control aka an Empire. But the Republic had more peace. Soooo basically saving the Council and keeping humans in a equal wheel. So I was Renegade most of the time (full Renegade bar I might add), but I left no one die, saved the Council, gave a big FUDGE YOU to Cerberus, gave a no-no to Terra Firma, had some alien sex and went back into being a Spectre.



I think that balance will have a more positive outcome than a whole universe of humans conquering. I can imagine this in the net "What humans accomplished in less than 100 years since the First Contact War" Probably a dictatorship of either Udina or TIM

[TheGreyGhost119]

In almost every play through, I choose to save the council. It wasn't until my final play through before ME2 that I thought that the better choice for the moment would be to focus on Sovereign.



I'm not trying to be a good guy, I'm trying to save the damn galaxy. I also think that it worked way better for my character. Shepard was trying to be the perfect representative of humanity throughout all of Mass Effect 1, but when it came to make a tough call he made the call he had to make. Then he gets crapped all over for it in ME2 and becomes disillusioned.

[Axterix]

Tibilicus wrote...

To me, at the time, focussing on the reaper was the logical and best decision. Personally in my opinion if you were prepared to rush in and save the DA you acted on emotion and not logic. What would of happened if too much of the fleet was lost saving the DA and there weren't enough ships left to finish off the reaper and the geth?

Not necessarily emotion.  For my Shephard, it was partially a calculated move, though also one dictated by her morality.  Part of her job, part of why she was put forward as a candidate for a human spectre was to advance humanity's cause.  Therefore, she took a calculated risk.  Save the council for good will.  And, in the long run, the galaxy would need to stand united to hope to have a chance against the Reaper threat.  Enough ships should survive and the Citadel Fleet could then help to take down Sovereign.  A risk, but one that worked out well, for a while anyway.

And it was a move that fit her character, a war hero, not ruthless.  Helping her allies was the right thing to do.  Yeah, it could have resulted in the Reapers wiping out the universe.   But you don't do the right thing because it is the easy, safe path.  You do it because it is the right thing to do.  Of course, the exact same thing can be said if you hold the fleet back to focus on the main threat.

So, basically, it helped accomplish her mission of advancing humanity's place in the universe, in a good way, not in a usurping way, was suppose to help build needed inter-species solidarity for the long haul (and at least it didn't push that backwards), and left her comfortable within her morality.

It was only in ME2 that the "focus on" option was compltely reworked to make Shepard look like an idiot and was written in as a "renegade" action which IMO is stupid. If I remember correctly I only got like 4 renegade points for it and 28 paragon points in ME..

Well, that's popular opinion for you.  History essentially only gave you two choices...save them or let them die.  The reasons why you didn't save them don't matter.  Just that you didn't.  In essense, it is viewed as if you took the let them die option, with the follow up of "that's why I did it" when the good old ambassador says this is a perfect chance for humanity to step in and take charge.

But in a way, that sort of makes sense.  People often assign a reason they can dislike someone for when that someone did things people don't care for, while, if they happen to like the people doing the thing, well, then the other side brought it on themselves.

Modifié par Axterix, 22 mars 2010 - 02:34 .

[Collider]

Such a large power shift creates chaos. Without a government, you have anarchy - especially since this is a galaxy we're talking about.