234 réponses à ce sujet

[Kenrae]

IoCaster wrote...
(...)

This is why, some new players that haven't spoiled themselves on the game, are still making that mistake. I can understand why they would be confused and come to this forum and post things like “Hey, what's the deal? He was loyal and Tali/Legion ate a rocket. WTF?!?”

I think the argument should be presented this way:

- The devs intended Zaeed to not be a good enough leader.
- They put some clues that could made you think he wasn't a good leader, but at the same time there are other parts of his past and actions that make you think otherwise.

Now, the question is... did the devs do a good job on showing he's not supposed to be a good leader? My answer would be no, other people would say yes. But that's how it should be discussed, IMHO.

I mean, everybody agrees that Jack and Grunt aren't supposed to be good leaders, that's quite clear .

[FlyingBrickyard]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

We [sic] do you hold yourself at such a lowly position as "ignorant" players?

Please try again once you've looked up the defintion of "ignorant".

Kenrae wrote...

I think the argument should be presented this way:

- The devs
intended Zaeed to not be a good enough leader.
- They put some clues
that could made you think he wasn't a good leader, but at the same time
there are other parts of his past and actions that make you think
otherwise.

That's what we were doing, right up until the point where the response from 'the other side' became I don't care about all the in game evidence and obvious red flags, "Regardless of what happens in the game, Zaeed is the best choice."

OK... so  you (generic "you") asked, we explained why, within the narrative and context of the game, Zaeed was a poor leader.  You decide you don't accept that and take an absolute position in direct opposition to observable facts.

So then we tried to approach it from "OK, well then here's proof from outside the game - if the devs had intended him to fulfill that role, no one would have died.  We're not just making this stuff up."

Which is still met with denial and attempts to hide behind disclaiming everything as a tautology.

Apparently the old saying is true, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 15 avril 2010 - 12:32 .

[Phaelducan]

CJL7806 wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

We know that Zaeed is a Merc who has more than two decades in the business. We know that on a handful of missions, people died. We know that prior to his loyalty mission, Zaeed is largely self-serving.

You forgot that we also know that Zaeed tried to start a merc band, the Blue Suns, but for whatever reason was unable to command the respect and loyalty of the group, losing it to Vito.

We know that Miranda led the Lazarus Cell. A project that ended with the entire crew of the station dieing, and Shepard almost dieing. She is also mentioned off-hand in Jacob's anecdote about their prior history. That is the entirety of her known leadership experience in ME2.

Because the cell was betrayed/sabotaged.  Also can note that her and Jacob's missions presumably were successful and did not result in casualties (assuming from the way it was talked about that the missions consisted of only them)

We know that Garrus worked in C-Sec, and the only anecdote we have for an assignment he was on resulted in Dr. Saleon getting away and the hostages/victims dieing. We then know him as Archangel, which resulted in his entire team getting killed.

Because he was betrayed/sabotaged.

We know almost nothing about Jacob. We get the anecdote, but almost no details about his prior mission with Miranda. We know he was a Corsair, but he never gives any details about missions positive or negative. We know he was a soldier on Eden Prime, but again, no details. 

Fair enough, but to me this only means that if anything we should be questioning why Jacob is a successful leader rather than why Zaeed is not.

This is the sort of logic which makes arguing over a forum = fail. You just got through using the exact same logic to excuse Miranda/Garrus and condemn Zaeed.

Because he/she was betrayed/sabotaged. If that is enough to mitigate the issues anyone might have with Garrus and Miranda, it mitigates that issue with Zaeed.

To say otherwise is patently illogical. It's mathematically unsound. A+B=C, A+B=C, A+B=D? It's not even my logic at this point, it's yours. YOU used the exact criteria to justify an equation for 2 of the variables, then ignore that same equation for the third variable.

No dice.

[Phaelducan]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

We [sic] do you hold yourself at such a lowly position as "ignorant" players?

Please try again once you've looked up the defintion of "ignorant".

Kenrae wrote...

I think the argument should be presented this way:

- The devs
intended Zaeed to not be a good enough leader.
- They put some clues
that could made you think he wasn't a good leader, but at the same time
there are other parts of his past and actions that make you think
otherwise.

That's what we were doing, right up until the point where the response from 'the other side' became I don't care about all the in game evidence and obvious red flags, "Regardless of what happens in the game, Zaeed is the best choice."

OK... so  you (generic "you") asked, we explained why, within the narrative and context of the game, Zaeed was a poor leader.  You decide you don't accept that and take an absolute position in direct opposition to observable facts.

So then we tried to approach it from "OK, well then here's proof from outside the game - if the devs had intended him to fulfill that role, no one would have died.  We're not just making this stuff up."

Which is still met with denial and attempts to hide behind disclaiming everything as a tautology.

Apparently the old saying is true, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

Paraphrasing the counter-argument in a snide and self-serving manner isn't helping anything. The reason I stopped responding to you directly was because I didn't feel that you understood my original post. 

I gave my reasons for why I chose Zaeed to lead the fire team, then when Tali died I promptly reloaded, thinking "huh, that's weird, I thought he'd do fine."

I have played the game fully, listened to all of his lines on-ship and on every mission he is available for, and with the 5 references to death, I didn't think he would suck more than Garrus and Miranda.
I also gave the reasons for that.

I hope this can help you move past whatever block you have regarding the issue. I accept that Zaeed is a poor leader for the mission. I have played the game, I don't dispute that he fails as Fire Team Leader.

What I found off was that he is more qualified than at least two of those who didn't fail, possibly three. Citing that he's a jerk and he fails at all those missions is an absurd argument for the justification, as is explaining the shortcomings of Miranda and Garrus via excuses that said posters aren't willing to extend to Zaeed.

Modifié par Phaelducan, 15 avril 2010 - 01:42 .

[Pacifien]

While there's a lot of references to Zaeed not exactly being the most inspiring leader, what I don't understand is where in the game does it show that Jacob would be a good leader. He never talks about leading his own team. Just because he was in the Alliance doesn't make him a good leader. Miranda's comment seems to indicate this is his moment to step up and prove he is more capable than she gives him credit for, but that's not foreshadowed at all in the game.

In my own sadistic world, I would have the success of the fire team leader dependent on who was in their squad. Would Miranda honestly have been successful if Jack had been on her team?

[FlintlockJazz]

Phaelducan wrote...

This is the sort of logic which makes arguing over a forum = fail. You just got through using the exact same logic to excuse Miranda/Garrus and condemn Zaeed.

Because he/she was betrayed/sabotaged. If that is enough to mitigate the issues anyone might have with Garrus and Miranda, it mitigates that issue with Zaeed.

To say otherwise is patently illogical. It's mathematically unsound. A+B=C, A+B=C, A+B=D? It's not even my logic at this point, it's yours. YOU used the exact criteria to justify an equation for 2 of the variables, then ignore that same equation for the third variable.

No dice.

This is the way I see it:  Garrus was betrayed by one member of his squad who was blackmailed into it, the rest remained loyal and until then he had not suffered any casualties (he had a squad of 12, all of which except for Sydonis died from the betrayal).  Zaeed, on the other hand, was betrayed by his co-leader over the direction of the Blue Suns, and his men not only did not stand with him but some even helped Vido.  Yes they are mercs, but even guns for hire need to have some loyalty to one another to avoid falling to anarchy and self destruction, Tarak for instance is well spoken of by his men.  Also, whenever Zaeed talks about missions involving him leading teams it invariably ends with only him surviving, whereas Garrus as mentioned before had not lost any men in his squad during any of the missions they ran on Omega until the betrayal.

In addition, while Jacob and Miranda do not have a clear history, Jacob was an officer in the Alliance, therefore he would have had a formal training in leading units, whereas Zaeed does not mention any formal training.  Yes, he lead the Blue Suns, but considering the gangland nature of the mercenary companies in ME (they operate more like gangs than actual military units) we cannot take that as a guarantee that he had any kind of formal training.  While Miranda's history does not indicate any leadership training, she is placed on your ship as your XO for a military operation by Cerberus.  This indicates that she has in some way that is not revealed distinguished herself as leader-material since Cerberus is a paramilitary organisation that operates in a military fashion and counts former military personnel amongst its ranks.

Thats how I see it anyway.

EDIT:  Oh, one last thing, Zaeed is also ruled by his emotions, its kindof the point of his loyalty mission.  He lacks self control, and while you can get him to agree to work as part of a team that does not change the fact that he is ruled by his emotions, which is a bad thing for a leader to be.  His tactics consist of raging and firing till nothing is left moving or he's dead.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 15 avril 2010 - 02:20 .

[Lord Nicholai]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Lord Nicholai wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

And just one last point: Zaeed's existence is the plot hole. Prior to his sudden appearance in ME2, Zaeed was not the founder of the Blue Suns, the Blue Suns were a batarian mercenary unit that now accepts human members as well, not the other way around. He is one big walking retcon, and a unnecessary one at that.

Its not a plot hole, its pretty clearly explained. Vido and Zaeed set up the Blue Suns; Vido ran the books and Zaeed led the men. Vido wanted to hire cheap batarain labour, but Zaeed disagreed, so Vido betrayed him and took control of the group. Vido hired a batarian to essentially replace Zaeed, and hide/downplay his involvement in the Blue Suns. Not many people would know who Vido is, so the Codex wont mention him. The people at the party in the Kasumi mission probably know of Vido because they are wealthy criminals

No, the Blue Suns existed before humanity even met the Turians, and were a batarian organisation first before letting humans join, most of which can be found in Revelation where it is mentioned that the Blue Suns have only recently started let humans join.  It was retconned to a human-created outfit with the introduction of Zaeed in ME2, and even within ME2 itself there seems to be two different portrayals of the Blue Suns, there is the standard portrayal of the Blue Suns in the main game such as during Garrus' recruitment mission wherein they have a strong batarian flavour, and the more human outfit in Zaeed's dlc pack.  I take this as evidence that Zaeed was indeed created separately from the game and not pulled out as some people claim, and was created by a team that had not bothered to do their research into the lore. 

Fair enough, I haven't read Revelation post-Mass Effect so I forgot they were in it.

FlyingBrickyard wrote...

we explained why, within the
narrative and context of the game, Zaeed was a poor leader. 

I'm
not going to read through the whole thread as its too long (sorry for
my laziness), but I don't feel there was enough in the game to point
towards Zaeed being a bad leader. Yes, his team died on a mission, but
it was an 'impossible' mission to take down a turian frigate with only a
team of 5(?). I don't think many people would even be able to do that with
a 50 man squad without at least 90% casualties, so that doesn't mean Zaeed is a
bad leader, it just shows he's a tough bastard.

I must say I was suprised when I
discovered he wasn't one of the 'good' leaders for the suicide mission. His experience in the Alliance should mean he knows what he's doing.
He looks like the sort of person most people would want to have
leading them against the collectors. Bioware decided that he can't lead a
fire team properly, which is their choice, but I thought it seemed odd
that he can't yet Jacob can. It doesn't bother me much, it was just a strange choice imo

[Kenrae]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
In addition, while Jacob and Miranda do not have a clear history, Jacob was an officer in the Alliance, therefore he would have had a formal training in leading units, whereas Zaeed does not mention any formal training.  Yes, he lead the Blue Suns, but considering the gangland nature of the mercenary companies in ME (they operate more like gangs than actual military units) we cannot take that as a guarantee that he had any kind of formal training. 

If I remember right, Zaeed was an Alliance officer too before being a merc.

[FlyingBrickyard]

Phaelducan wrote...

Paraphrasing the counter-argument in a snide and self-serving manner isn't helping anything.

I agree, which is why I didn't do that.  At least not intentionally.  I did summarize the position, and followed it with a smudboy quote from memory, in which I did make a mistake, and for that I am sorry.  I didn't have the time to copy it exactly this morning, so I'll correct that now.

The actual smudboy quote, from page 7, second post up from the bottom was:

Regardless of the in game result, Zaeed is by far the best choice.

My unintentional misquote was "Regardless of what happens in the game, Zaeed is the best choice."

So you're right, it wasn't identical.  Though in all fairness I think it was close enough to not be construed as some sort of self-serving and snide manipulation.

The reason I stopped responding to you directly was because I didn't feel that you understood my original post.

I got it, it was fine.  I (and others) tried to explain why the narrative suggested he wouldn't work.  Some people apparently couldn't accept that and started to argue that no matter what facts are presented, no matter what anyone else thinks, no matter what the devs themselves thought and intended - Zaeed was just too awesome not to be the best choice, because he had 20 years of experience as a merc.

I gave my reasons for why I chose Zaeed to lead the fire team, then when Tali died I promptly reloaded, thinking "huh, that's weird, I thought he'd do fine."

Which is cool, and completely understandable that you'd then go looking for answers.

I have played the game fully, listened to all of his lines on-ship and on every mission he is available for, and with the 5 references to death, I didn't think he would suck more than Garrus and Miranda.
I also gave the reasons for that.

Again, fair enough.  It was an erroneous conclusion, but you had your reasons for coming to it. 

For the record, I'm a bit surprised Miranda is considered suitable, because based on what I'd seen of her general advice and quick decision making abilities, I wouldn't have pegged her for a fire team leader either. 

If I'd been forced to choose between only her and Zaeed, I suspect I'd have ultimately gone with her anyway, simply because she seemed to have a bit more self control and discipline under fire even if her decision making abilities weren't top notch.  At least I could be sure she's actually thinking before she acts.  I can't say I'd be able to say the same of Zaeed.

Would I follow Miranda into combat?  Eh.  Probably.  She could turn out OK, but I'd be sure I'd paid up on my life insurance and had my will in order before we left.

Would I follow Zaeed?  Hell no.  Too reckless.  I'd have no doubt he'd make it out alive, but I wouldn't bet that I would.  IMO, he'd be just as likely to get me killed as the enemy we were facing.

Garrus, IMO, was a no-brainer - which is why I went with him.  Yeah, he lost a squad too, but only once, and he took every single death as a personal failure.  There's no question who he's always putting first when it all hits the fan.  Would I follow him into combat?  Without hestitation.

I did also use Jacob at one point and he was OK.  Bit more of a gamble there, but I knew he'd held a leadership position before, he seemed to have better tactical judgement than Miranda, and just as much self control.  Plus, his loyalty mission made it clear he had a VERY strong sense of the right and wrong way to do things.  All good signs for the fire team role, IMO.  In short, he seemed like he had the right attitude for the job, and I didn't remember seeing any glaring red flags or deficiences that 'disqualified' him from consideration.  Would I follow Jacob into combat?  Sure.  He wouldn't take my safety as personally as Garrus would, but his sense of duty and doing his job as leader to the utmost would be more than enough to cover for that.

I hope this can help you move past whatever block you have regarding the issue. I accept that Zaeed is a poor leader for the mission. I have played the game, I don't dispute that he fails as Fire Team Leader.

No block, you were actually pretty reasonable about it all as I remember. 

What I found off was that he is more qualified than at least two of those who didn't fail, possibly three. Citing that he's a jerk and he fails at all those missions is an absurd argument for the justification, as is explaining the shortcomings of Miranda and Garrus via excuses that said posters aren't willing to extend to Zaeed.

This is where we differ, I think.  I didn't, and still don't really evaluate any character for a specific role by comparing them to anyone else.  I looked at each one as an individual and looked at what I'd learned of them in isolation to all the others. 

I still think the argument for Miranda is weak, and feel that she's probably the most marginal (ie, she's barely acceptable in that role), but how I feel about the viability of any of the other choices has absolutely no bearing on my feelings about the suitability of Zaeed.  He's his own man.

The fact that he may be a jerk (and I don't really feel that he is), also has nothing at all to do with his suitability for the job.  As an example, I personally think Grunt is great - he's one of my favorite characters in the game - but I'd never give him a leadership role.  Not due to lack of experience, he's got more than enough programming and skill to make up for that - but his personality...  it would make him fail.  He's too excitable in combat, and he  always charges out into battle with no regard for his own safety.  There's no way he'd ever be able to keep an eye on everyone's back and effectively lead a squad.  It's just not who he is.

I look at Zaeed in a similar way.  He's got loads of combat experience, but his stories don't paint him in a good light when it comes to squad situations and his loyalty mission makes it clear he's very ruled by his emotions and tends to be a "get the job done at all costs, to hell with the collateral damage" kind of guy.  Also not the type that's going to be good at watching out for everyone else and leading people - he's going to be too involved in what HE is doing at that moment to pay attention to anyone else.

It doesn't mean he sucks, he's just not cut out for that role - it's just not who he is.  And even if he's making an effort to overcome that, IMO, a suicide mission isn't the best time or place for him to start practicing being "the new,  goddamn friendlier and caring Zaeed."   It's only going to be an additional distraction for him, and there's a high probablity he'd relapse under fire. 

Better to put someone in that role who thinks of their team over themselves as a matter of their base personality, I think - which is why I picked Garrus and Jacob.  They're much closer to that ideal than Zaeed, based on what I gathered during my ~50 hours of play up to that point.

Again, these are my opinions of the suitability of the characters for the job, and they happen to be in-line with the dev's feelings and intent as well.  But that's not really surprising since the devs crafted each character to convey those impressions as much as possible.  They didn't write the characters and then just spin a wheel to pick who was good at the job and who wasn't.  They decided first, and then tailored each character to reflect that decision.

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 16 avril 2010 - 12:05 .

[Kenrae]

Actually, I completely agree that Garrus is the very best choice from the narrative. That's why I chose him as first fire team leader on my first playthrough. Since I didn't want to repeat myself and I tend to not follow the norm, I chose Zaeed as leader on the second fire team, it felt right.

So, to me, the devs didn't do a good job at pointing out he isn't a good leader.

On Miranda and Jacob I agree with FlyingBrickyard. Besides, there is a clear indication she is supposed to be a good leader: her skills as a Cerberus Tactician. Metagamey, I know, but it's a clear indicator .