Whichever outcome you picked on first playthrough, it's worth a second playthrough of ME3 using the other set of Councilors. It's interesting to see how the dynamic between the three of them changes, depending on which Council your playthrough is using. The replacement Councilors are definitely not a 1:1 substitute for their species' original Councilor -- they have their own unique personalities. The only outcome from ME1 I do not recommend for any playthrough is the full Renegade, all-human Council, because ME3 comes along and just straight up retcons that decision in ME1.
I saved them to improve relationships between humans and the other races. Plus sovereign was immune to any Alliance ships, sovereign lost cause it's shields went down due to shepard defating it's Essence from within Saren.I di not required more ships to defeat sovereign, only to remove ita shields
it's an interesting choice for sure, I don't understand why if you let the council die you basically save more of the alliance ships, it doesn't make sense, if you save the ascension you do so by destroying the geth ships who are attacking the ascension, if you don't save the ascension then the geth ships survive, so they could help the sovereign, thus defeating the sovereign should cost more ships, the same amount that's required to save the ascension or maybe even more, cause geths ships aren't distracted nor focused on destorying the ascension
The one thing that really bugs me about choosing to save the Ascension in ME1 is that almost no dialogue acknowledges the idea that the best reason to save the Ascension is that it has thousands of evacuating civilians on-board, not just the three Councilors. Ultimately, a true _soldier's_ job is to protect civilians. In idealistic theory, if sadly too often not in reality. The objective of protecting civilians is _supposed_ to be one of the fundamental differences between a soldier, who fights in service to a state, and a warrior, who fights for their own individual concerns.
Yea I just played through it. I thought it was just a small ship with them on it. I didn't want them to die just made a choice to focus on the threat. But if I knew there was that many people in board I would have chose differently
In this case I would say that protecting the Destiny Ascension in this situation is also the correct millitary choice, as we sending in the fleet but not doing anything with it, could very easily end up with the Alliance fleet being caught alone in between an admittedly battered Geth Fleet and a Fresh Sovereighn. then I would rather save what could be saved, with as many possible "free" shots on possible unknowing Geth.
That’s the difference I guess with how I view soldiers. I view them as fighting to protect their country and loved ones. Sheppard is a commander in charge of troops, the council was responsible for the civilian lives they had on their ship, I didnt see why I should lose the war to protect their ship because the citadel was closing and their ship would not have made it in to enter to help the fight in reality. The council didn’t believe Sheppard the whole time and I suppose I’m not good at politics, but I choose not to save them not out of malice or disregard for all the civilians on board but as i saw it my duty was to stop the threat that would would wipe out humanity and all the other races and I needed those ships to take out the reaper. Putting all my troops at risk all my best fighters I felt would be foolish when I needed them with their military expertise to take out the enemy. It was on the council for putting those people at risk by not believing and taking precautions for the threat that I felt wasn’t my mission because I was responsible for my troops not them.
Literally the only reason I save the Ascension is weight of fire. I know the war assets don't reflect this, but considering how advanced the Ascension is and the size of its main gun, I'm pretty sure that that thing has more throw weight than the ten ships spent to save her. I always figured that the reason she got into trouble in this game is that she was caught with her pants down and her support fleet wasn't able to keep ships at range, so she was only able to engage with her secondaries. In a proper fleet engagement she'd be a fantastic anchor so long as she was allowed to stay at-range.
Except you're taking a risk at the time. You need to put this in perspective of Shepard's mindset at the moment. It's either save the Destiny ascension and risk Sovereign summoning the Reapers, or sacrificing them to stop galactic genocide. Even tho you know IRL as the player of the game series, we win regardless, you're not looking at it from a serious perspective. You're only doing it so you can FEEL heroic at the end of the game rather than actually BEING heroic.
Why does me being a renegade lead the council being only human. Even as a renegade I believe Shepard would understand that the benefits of an alliance between all species
First time, I saved the council. Second time...did NOT save the council. But made sure I had enough paragon points because I did NOT want the new council to be humans only...just to enforce a re-election in these dark days. After all, this was war for survival.
11 years ago, after laying me hands on the good ol' ME, I saved 'em. Never looked back, never regretted. There's an important life lesson there. Act big even with small people. It reflects on you, not those that dealt you a bad hand.
My perspective was that it didn't matter what I had to choose between. Sovereign was the main threat and pulling any forces away from defeating that threat would greatly reduce my ability to defeat that threat. It had nothing to do with them being a pain in the ass the entire game. It was just a logical decision. What do you think of that perspective?
@@ropey7 That's a legit way of looking at it. Within the context of the game (other games even, DL2 most recent, I have yet to finish it, but this seems to be the theme there too), when presented with a situation like this, I'm compelled to think there might still be a way to achieve the goal - defeating Saren/Sovereign in this case - and yet turn the opinion of the other character / group around, which will ultimately help my character. While my memory is rusty (including this video's content), I think saving the Council allows Shepard to become the Spectre, which is not achievable otherwise? Another way of looking at it is that would your decision sway if the Council was amenable earlier in the game? Having said that, no one particular way applies in all situations. CIP: saving the human-like reaper for Cerberus is a bad idea.
If you take care of your soldiers your soldiers will take care of you if you don't take care of your soldiers your soldiers WILL take care of you All leaders with armies need to take this to heart lest they end up dying like the council
My shepards backstory was completing his mission on torfan no matter the cost. I didnt like the way the council treated me so i always considered myself an alliance troop using the power the council gave me to further advance the alliance standing in politics. Literally any dialouge to identify myself I claimed alliance not council. Way i seen it is without the council theres no one in the way of humanity. I saved the world not the council. Plus i wanted the extra score for the final fight in me3
Because its from 07 its still impressive to have choices, but by todays standards this is kind of meh. All 3 options kill the boss regardless. 1 is the illogical good ending, because saving 3 politicians does not outweigh stopping the impending extinction event. So the actual downside should have been robo squid did something with his extra time and the good ending has a bit of a bite to it. Sorry, as a Warhammer 40k fan loosing that many in a fight is kind of the standard for humans... not to mention Krogan *were* likely the only thing to breed faster than us. 2 and 3 should have been merged since its the same thing... 3 just being a trick since it makes the most sense.
The council questions and refuses to believe anything you say. Refuse to get you the assistance you require. Then, when the ish hit the fan. They want you to save them over millions of people. Absolutely not.
The true 'Renegade' Council is all-human, which ME3 essentially retcons into not having happened. The replacement asari-turian-salarian Counci is actually a 'Renegon/Paragade' choice -- it explicitly rewards 15 Paragon and 15 Renegade morality points to select the option saying "Focus on Sovereign" at the end of ME1 (the 30 point Renegade choice is to say "Let the Council die").
So I’m a new mass effect fan and now playing through ME2, having not saved the council in ME1. But that was because the narrative seemed like you had to choose letting the council die or letting the fleet die and you can only pick 1. So I chose 1 because of the sheer number of lives to be saved vs the council.
Literally the only reason i saved them was to get some extra War Assets in ME3, and they somewhat change from how they were before. If that wasn’t the case i’d let them die in a heartbeat.
You get less war assets by saving the council in ME3. something that should be said and is by those RUclipsrs who are experts on Mass Effect. Check out Big Dan Gaming to get better info.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's not entirely true... Sure, saving the Council cost -25 on three Alliance fleets, as well as Admiral Milhailovich with an -25 (for a total of -100) while only giving you a war asset of 70 for the Destiny Ascension, HOWEVER, if you save the Salarian Councilor, the original councilor give you the Salarian Third Fleet (+125 war asset), which can be updated for an extra 8 with a side mission, while his replacement only give you the STG Task Force (+70 war asset). So, if you let the Council die, you get a bonus of 170 at most Saving the Council (and later the Councilor) gave you a bonus 203. Despite that, I usually let them die nonetheless, they are a pain for the whole first game xD
the council slowed me down the entire game so they deserved what they got
😂
Me just staring at sheps face for the last 30 min watching videos to decide if I wanna save them, let me die, or sovereign
Whichever outcome you picked on first playthrough, it's worth a second playthrough of ME3 using the other set of Councilors. It's interesting to see how the dynamic between the three of them changes, depending on which Council your playthrough is using. The replacement Councilors are definitely not a 1:1 substitute for their species' original Councilor -- they have their own unique personalities.
The only outcome from ME1 I do not recommend for any playthrough is the full Renegade, all-human Council, because ME3 comes along and just straight up retcons that decision in ME1.
I saved them to improve relationships between humans and the other races. Plus sovereign was immune to any Alliance ships, sovereign lost cause it's shields went down due to shepard defating it's Essence from within Saren.I di not required more ships to defeat sovereign, only to remove ita shields
it's an interesting choice for sure, I don't understand why if you let the council die you basically save more of the alliance ships, it doesn't make sense, if you save the ascension you do so by destroying the geth ships who are attacking the ascension, if you don't save the ascension then the geth ships survive, so they could help the sovereign, thus defeating the sovereign should cost more ships, the same amount that's required to save the ascension or maybe even more, cause geths ships aren't distracted nor focused on destorying the ascension
The one thing that really bugs me about choosing to save the Ascension in ME1 is that almost no dialogue acknowledges the idea that the best reason to save the Ascension is that it has thousands of evacuating civilians on-board, not just the three Councilors.
Ultimately, a true _soldier's_ job is to protect civilians. In idealistic theory, if sadly too often not in reality.
The objective of protecting civilians is _supposed_ to be one of the fundamental differences between a soldier, who fights in service to a state, and a warrior, who fights for their own individual concerns.
Yea I just played through it. I thought it was just a small ship with them on it. I didn't want them to die just made a choice to focus on the threat. But if I knew there was that many people in board I would have chose differently
Thousands on the ship vs countless that would have died if Soverign wasnt stopped then and there.
In this case I would say that protecting the Destiny Ascension in this situation is also the correct millitary choice, as we sending in the fleet but not doing anything with it, could very easily end up with the Alliance fleet being caught alone in between an admittedly battered Geth Fleet and a Fresh Sovereighn. then I would rather save what could be saved, with as many possible "free" shots on possible unknowing Geth.
That’s the difference I guess with how I view soldiers. I view them as fighting to protect their country and loved ones. Sheppard is a commander in charge of troops, the council was responsible for the civilian lives they had on their ship, I didnt see why I should lose the war to protect their ship because the citadel was closing and their ship would not have made it in to enter to help the fight in reality. The council didn’t believe Sheppard the whole time and I suppose I’m not good at politics, but I choose not to save them not out of malice or disregard for all the civilians on board but as i saw it my duty was to stop the threat that would would wipe out humanity and all the other races and I needed those ships to take out the reaper. Putting all my troops at risk all my best fighters I felt would be foolish when I needed them with their military expertise to take out the enemy. It was on the council for putting those people at risk by not believing and taking precautions for the threat that I felt wasn’t my mission because I was responsible for my troops not them.
Literally the only reason I save the Ascension is weight of fire. I know the war assets don't reflect this, but considering how advanced the Ascension is and the size of its main gun, I'm pretty sure that that thing has more throw weight than the ten ships spent to save her. I always figured that the reason she got into trouble in this game is that she was caught with her pants down and her support fleet wasn't able to keep ships at range, so she was only able to engage with her secondaries. In a proper fleet engagement she'd be a fantastic anchor so long as she was allowed to stay at-range.
Except you're taking a risk at the time. You need to put this in perspective of Shepard's mindset at the moment. It's either save the Destiny ascension and risk Sovereign summoning the Reapers, or sacrificing them to stop galactic genocide. Even tho you know IRL as the player of the game series, we win regardless, you're not looking at it from a serious perspective. You're only doing it so you can FEEL heroic at the end of the game rather than actually BEING heroic.
Why does me being a renegade lead the council being only human. Even as a renegade I believe Shepard would understand that the benefits of an alliance between all species
First time, I saved the council. Second time...did NOT save the council. But made sure I had enough paragon points because I did NOT want the new council to be humans only...just to enforce a re-election in these dark days. After all, this was war for survival.
11 years ago, after laying me hands on the good ol' ME, I saved 'em. Never looked back, never regretted. There's an important life lesson there. Act big even with small people. It reflects on you, not those that dealt you a bad hand.
My perspective was that it didn't matter what I had to choose between. Sovereign was the main threat and pulling any forces away from defeating that threat would greatly reduce my ability to defeat that threat. It had nothing to do with them being a pain in the ass the entire game. It was just a logical decision. What do you think of that perspective?
@@ropey7 That's a legit way of looking at it. Within the context of the game (other games even, DL2 most recent, I have yet to finish it, but this seems to be the theme there too), when presented with a situation like this, I'm compelled to think there might still be a way to achieve the goal - defeating Saren/Sovereign in this case - and yet turn the opinion of the other character / group around, which will ultimately help my character. While my memory is rusty (including this video's content), I think saving the Council allows Shepard to become the Spectre, which is not achievable otherwise?
Another way of looking at it is that would your decision sway if the Council was amenable earlier in the game?
Having said that, no one particular way applies in all situations. CIP: saving the human-like reaper for Cerberus is a bad idea.
I tend to lean towards saving them on most playthroughs
I saved the council only because Ashley told me not to do it
You didn't talk about the mass effect 3 point system dude...
If you take care of your soldiers your soldiers will take care of you if you don't take care of your soldiers your soldiers WILL take care of you
All leaders with armies need to take this to heart lest they end up dying like the council
My shepards backstory was completing his mission on torfan no matter the cost. I didnt like the way the council treated me so i always considered myself an alliance troop using the power the council gave me to further advance the alliance standing in politics. Literally any dialouge to identify myself I claimed alliance not council. Way i seen it is without the council theres no one in the way of humanity. I saved the world not the council. Plus i wanted the extra score for the final fight in me3
Because its from 07 its still impressive to have choices, but by todays standards this is kind of meh. All 3 options kill the boss regardless. 1 is the illogical good ending, because saving 3 politicians does not outweigh stopping the impending extinction event. So the actual downside should have been robo squid did something with his extra time and the good ending has a bit of a bite to it. Sorry, as a Warhammer 40k fan loosing that many in a fight is kind of the standard for humans... not to mention Krogan *were* likely the only thing to breed faster than us. 2 and 3 should have been merged since its the same thing... 3 just being a trick since it makes the most sense.
I didn't kill them because I wanted to see what it was like. I did it because they seemed incompetent at their jobs the first time I played 1.
I saved them first, was annoyed in me2 when they turned there backs on us again. Second play though I let them perish.
Well it depends on what you want.
I saved them because Wrex argued in favor of saving them... granted i think he only does this if you bring him and Ashley.
Yes but how did they react and what happened?
Saving them is better in the long run
How?
You get less war assets by saving the council
If u save them, destroying genofage and saving salarian councilor with Thane, u receive a salarian fleet
I saved them each time. Paragon route
Na. HUMANITY FIRST RAHHHHH
The council questions and refuses to believe anything you say. Refuse to get you the assistance you require. Then, when the ish hit the fan. They want you to save them over millions of people. Absolutely not.
First time playing it and I wanted to fight him but he did that💀
It really doesn't matter
The renegade council is more likable. But I keep the original alive for war assets.
The true 'Renegade' Council is all-human, which ME3 essentially retcons into not having happened.
The replacement asari-turian-salarian Counci is actually a 'Renegon/Paragade' choice -- it explicitly rewards 15 Paragon and 15 Renegade morality points to select the option saying "Focus on Sovereign" at the end of ME1 (the 30 point Renegade choice is to say "Let the Council die").
"The council's been a pain in my ass since day one, I'm done with them!"
So I’m a new mass effect fan and now playing through ME2, having not saved the council in ME1.
But that was because the narrative seemed like you had to choose letting the council die or letting the fleet die and you can only pick 1.
So I chose 1 because of the sheer number of lives to be saved vs the council.
Literally the only reason i saved them was to get some extra War Assets in ME3, and they somewhat change from how they were before. If that wasn’t the case i’d let them die in a heartbeat.
Bring on the human dictatorship!
Like a President there is always a new person to take their place
Non of them help me sleep 😖
5th
First
Hello I’m the only one seeing your video
You get less war assets by saving the council in ME3. something that should be said and is by those RUclipsrs who are experts on Mass Effect.
Check out Big Dan Gaming to get better info.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's not entirely true...
Sure, saving the Council cost -25 on three Alliance fleets, as well as Admiral Milhailovich with an -25 (for a total of -100) while only giving you a war asset of 70 for the Destiny Ascension,
HOWEVER, if you save the Salarian Councilor, the original councilor give you the Salarian Third Fleet (+125 war asset), which can be updated for an extra 8 with a side mission, while his replacement only give you the STG Task Force (+70 war asset).
So, if you let the Council die, you get a bonus of 170 at most
Saving the Council (and later the Councilor) gave you a bonus 203.
Despite that, I usually let them die nonetheless, they are a pain for the whole first game xD
2nd
Wish I could dislike it more than once...