234 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Those two statements contradict each other, at least in Zaeed's case.

Not everyone trusts Miranda or Zaeed for obvious reasons.  Look at Garrus' response to Miranda: "I don't want you leading the second team.  Half of us don't even trust you."

Then Miranda explains: "Shepard, you need someone who can command loyalty through experience."

Miranda's a close second due to her experience, but not everyone's happy about it.  But loyalty through experience?

For experience, it'd be Shepard first, Zaeed second, and Garrus third (the crew seems to like Garrus, since he was with Shepard in ME1.)  Jacob I can believe, too, since you've got a dialog option to talk to people, asking them about Miranda and Jacob.  But Miranda would have a problem, with her being pure Cerberus, whereas Jacob is the more human, believable-Shepard like character with necessary experience.

Would've been nice to have more interactions with the crew so we could get everyone's opinion, instead of at the last minute at the roundtable discussion to hear Jack or Garrus tell Miranda their opinion.  But experience by itself goes straight to Zaeed.

[Peppard]

Turn this around for a moment. IF Zaeed, or any other character worked in the game for leader, would it ruin your suspension of disbelief? The only ones I wouldn't have believed being good leaders were Legion, Jack, Thane and Grunt. Then there's everyone else who I think are debatable, because I think you could make up plausible reasons why they work as well as wouldn't, based on their skills, personality and experience. Samara, for example might work alone now, but she's lived 900 years and wasn't always hunting her daughter.

[smudboy]

Peppard wrote...

Turn this around for a moment. IF Zaeed, or any other character worked in the game for leader, would it ruin your suspension of disbelief? The only ones I wouldn't have believed being good leaders were Legion, Jack, Thane and Grunt. Then there's everyone else who I think are debatable, because I think you could make up plausible reasons why they work as well as wouldn't, based on their skills, personality and experience. Samara, for example might work alone now, but she's lived 900 years and wasn't always hunting her daughter.

It's a tough call, since everyone who looks ideal was betrayed in their leadership setting (Zaeed, Garrus, Miranda), save Jacob.  So when you look to experience, Zaeed's still number one.

Samara is one big unknown, by sheer old age, but there's no clear background story she's lead people.  Considering her personality and combat experience, she seems a good pick, too.  She's like the Spectres of the Asari, in a way.  I can see people trusting her more than a Cerberus agent.

[IoCaster]

Peppard wrote...

Turn this around for a moment. IF Zaeed, or any other character worked in the game for leader, would it ruin your suspension of disbelief? The only ones I wouldn't have believed being good leaders were Legion, Jack, Thane and Grunt. Then there's everyone else who I think are debatable, because I think you could make up plausible reasons why they work as well as wouldn't, based on their skills, personality and experience. Samara, for example might work alone now, but she's lived 900 years and wasn't always hunting her daughter.

I think that's the basic problem that some may have with the way this scenario played itself out. From my perspective as a player I'm asked to choose a character to lead a squad. The mission itself is not overly complicated and doesn't require anything other than a competent and experienced leader.

From the team roster available to me the obvious choices are:

Zaeed - Has 20+ years of combat experience on a wide range of battlefields. Ground assault, infiltration, boarding ships under fire and repelling pirates/hijackers. This evidence is provided to the player via anecdotes and dialogue in the game.

Garrus - Ex-Turian military service, C-Sec officer and recently lead a team of mercenaries in successful raids on Omega. He was so successful that three mercenary bands found it necessary to combine forces and separate him from his team before they were able to eliminate them.

Jacob - Ex-Alliance, former Corsair and participated in combat on Eden Prime.

Not so obvious, but BioWare insisted that she's a viable choice, Miranda. Why? I literally have no idea, but it's what we're given to work with.

Miranda - Managed the Lazarus Project successfully and...?

If BioWare had made Zaeed a legitimate choice for the role of 2nd team leader I seriously doubt that there would be a huge outcry of disapproval. In all honesty, I actually chose Garrus on my first run. Mostly because of familiarity with the character and the events on Omega. My close second choice would almost definitely have been Zaeed. I would have been pretty damned surprised to lose the tech as a result. I probably would have restarted the mission and chosen another tech before I figured out that Zaeed was responsible for the failure.

[SkullandBonesmember]

IoCaster wrote...

It's a bit of contrived bullsh!t because the devs chose Jacob, Garrus and Miranda for that role. Lots of folks buy into that crap because they're fans first and independent thought can take a flying leap. Obviously, he'd be much more qualified than Miranda to lead a small combat squad, but the devs chose otherwise. It's just a video game and doesn't have to make sense, I guess. *shrug*

THAT'S NOT TRUE! 

Seriously, very good point.

[Phaelducan]

What did the tank actually imprint onto Grunt anyway? It seemed to me that it was mostly impressions, but there were actual memories too, weren't there? I thought he actually remembered killing that Turian. If that is true, could Okeer have programmed him with the knowledge to be the be-all end-all of a Krogan Battlemaster? (Not saying he did, just wondering if he could have... maybe with more time).



I actually imagine that Samara would likely be the best in the bunch in raw experience (likely Asari Commando/Military for decades if not a century+), but she may have been solo for so long that she forgot how to work in a Team.



That isn't the case with Zaeed, though, as he's been active for all that time.

[Peppard]

True, Grunt could have been imprinted with tactics for all we know.



Maybe the developers were lazy about Zaeed or maybe they wanted there to be "misleading" choices, and he's one of them.



I thought I read somewhere that if Z is 2nd team leader, he dies but everyone else lives...is that true ? Does the same thing happen if Jack or Thane lead for example or is the result worse?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Peppard wrote...

True, Grunt could have been imprinted with tactics for all we know.

Maybe the developers were lazy about Zaeed or maybe they wanted there to be "misleading" choices, and he's one of them.

I thought I read somewhere that if Z is 2nd team leader, he dies but everyone else lives...is that true ? Does the same thing happen if Jack or Thane lead for example or is the result worse?

If the wrong squad leader is chosen for the tech portion of the mission, then the tech specialist dies. If the wrong squad leader is chosen during the biotic portion of the mission, then that squad leader instead dies. So yes, in that situation Jack or Thane would be the ones to die.

[d0z4]

Why does 'Zaeed is experienced at leading' automatically imply 'Zaeed is good at leading'. Yes he's seen a huge amount of combat, but in almost all of his anecdotes some or all of his team die. Clearly he can get the job done, but not without casualties. Why are you expecting different if you choose him a leader.?

[smudboy]

d0z4 wrote...

Why does 'Zaeed is experienced at leading' automatically imply 'Zaeed is good at leading'. Yes he's seen a huge amount of combat, but in almost all of his anecdotes some or all of his team die. Clearly he can get the job done, but not without casualties. Why are you expecting different if you choose him a leader.?

Because experience does imply skill.  Do something long enough and you get good at it.

I'd like to think that Zaeed has been in so many dangerous situations, he knows how to handle himself.  The person with the most experience, and the more dangerous situations, and who is still alive, is the right person for this kind of job.  Heck, this could be a walk in the park for him.  Although I do admit most of his stories are him going commando.

The argument for not being a "paragon" type character is valid, which seems to be why Jacob is effective despite not having as much experience.  Zaeed is definitely the Renegade, but there's no indication he willing wants or wanted to get his men killed.  (In that capacity, we can see Jacob much like Paragon Shepard, Garrus the Paragade, and Zaeed like Renegade Shepard.  I see Zaeed more calm, business and professional than angry, ruthless and a jerk.  The only time he got emotional was over his loyalty mission, because it was personal.)

Modifié par smudboy, 13 avril 2010 - 08:13 .

[Phaelducan]

d0z4 wrote...

Why does 'Zaeed is experienced at leading' automatically imply 'Zaeed is good at leading'. Yes he's seen a huge amount of combat, but in almost all of his anecdotes some or all of his team die. Clearly he can get the job done, but not without casualties. Why are you expecting different if you choose him a leader.?

Because by definition anecdotal evidence is just that.... anecdotal. You can't assume either that just because on a few of his missions people died that is indicative of his entire career (assuming only five missions a year for his post-Vido career = 100 missions) or that the deaths were in any way his fault.

If you do want to use Anecdotal evidence, Garrus and Miranda would both be horrible leaders as well.

We know of two different examples of Garrus sans Shepard that are defined in the games. Dr. Saleon, in which Garrus failed to recover the hostages or apprehend Dr. Saleon for years. Were there mitigating circumstances? Sure, but results are results. He failed. Then he failed to protect his squad from the Mercenary bands. Were there mitigating circumstances? Sure, but he failed.

Miranda, we have one example of her leadership. The Lazarus project... which ended with a traitor inside her own Cell sabotaging the program, nearly killing everyone in the base including Shepard. Hardly a stirring recommendation by itself for her leadership abilities. 

Jacob might not be any better simply based on anecdotal evidence. Eden Prime? That didn't exactly go well for the Alliance Marines stationed there, and he was also involved in the Lazarus Project. Mitigating circumstances? Again, yes there were, but simply based on a few anecdotes of the various leaders careers we can't assume anything.

What we CAN look at, is the background, experience, and skill-sets of the Squadmates, and in those areas Zaeed is a perfect match... moreso than Miranda for sure but likely Jacob and Garrus as well.

Anecdotal evidence is never used for a logical argument for that very reason.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Phaelducan wrote...

Because by definition anecdotal evidence is just that.... anecdotal. You can't assume either that just because on a few of his missions people died that is indicative of his entire career (assuming only five missions a year for his post-Vido career = 100 missions) or that the deaths were in any way his fault.

But seeing as this is the only evidence we have of Zaeed's interactions in a group setting, it's what we must go on. Anecdotal implies humorous. This does not make it any less true; the mission still happened. Because we are laughing in hindsight does not mean it was funny at the time. Here's what we really know: Zaeed has been on several group assignments. And people have a tendency to die in his company. That's really it as far as his squad interactions go.

If you do want to use Anecdotal evidence, Garrus and Miranda would both be horrible leaders as well.

We know of two different examples of Garrus sans Shepard that are defined in the games. Dr. Saleon, in which Garrus failed to recover the hostages or apprehend Dr. Saleon for years. Were there mitigating circumstances? Sure, but results are results. He failed. Then he failed to protect his squad from the Mercenary bands. Were there mitigating circumstances? Sure, but he failed.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. I was under the impression that Garrus was still confined by C-sec's "red tape" during the Dr. Saleon incident. He wasn't actually in charge of the assignment, hence his abilities were not tested in that regard. Also whether or not Garrus blames himself for his squad's death does not actually make him responsible. We are evaluating these characters as squad leaders. He was led away by Sidonis when most of his squad was killed. It's made clear that as their leader, he did a damn good job. 
 

Miranda, we have one example of her leadership. The Lazarus project... which ended with a traitor inside her own Cell sabotaging the program, nearly killing everyone in the base including Shepard. Hardly a stirring recommendation by itself for her leadership abilities. 

But we again have this issue of 'betrayal'. During the suicide mission, should we assume that one of our squad members plans on betraying us? If so, I could possibly understand why Miranda might not be the perfect choice given the Wilson incident. At the same time, we're evaluating this strictly as a combat operation, in which case I'm not certain how effectively we can evaluate Miranda. It's clear that TIM has placed her in charge of many projects, hence why she is his right hand. But I don't recall if she mentions "squad tactics" or anything similar in her list of training/ alterations.

Jacob might not be any better simply based on anecdotal evidence. Eden Prime? That didn't exactly go well for the Alliance Marines stationed there, and he was also involved in the Lazarus Project. Mitigating circumstances? Again, yes there were, but simply based on a few anecdotes of the various leaders careers we can't assume anything.

I could be forgetting again, but are we given any evidence that Jacob even had command during Eden Prime? But you did mention 'mitigating factors'. Beyond anecdotal evidence, what mitigating factors do we have in Zaeed's case?

What we CAN look at, is the background, experience, and skill-sets of the Squadmates, and in those areas Zaeed is a perfect match... moreso than Miranda for sure but likely Jacob and Garrus as well.

Anecdotal evidence is never used for a logical argument for that very reason.

More experience than Jacob and Miranda? Probably. But again, Zaeed seems more like someone who is trained to survive than anything else through combat. This doesn't explain how he is effective in the role of squad leader.

I'm also confused as to why anecdotal evidence cannot be admitted, especially when few other details are given. I agree with you on mitigating factors, which Garrus, Jacob, and Miranda can all claim. I'm not sure I understand what mitigating factors are in Zaeed's favor beyond being anecdotes.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 avril 2010 - 08:47 .

[Phaelducan]

Basically what it means is that you can't use anecdotal evidence in any argument for whether or not something is 100% true. In this context, we have an example of Zaeed's testimonials being used to "prove" that he isn't a good leader.



The problem with that, is that Zaeed is telling you about an incredibly small sample size of his wealth of experiences as a Mercenary Captain. He could have done literally 20-50 times that number of missions successfully and with no casualties, we don't know. We DO know the years he has of experience, and we know that in that time, the anecdotal evidence he provides would be very small in comparison to other missions.



Logically, anecdotal evidence is usually considered a fallacy anyways as people are naturally inclined to remember extreme examples of something than they are routine examples. Zaeed could be telling you about extremely rare scenarios, but they stand out both to him and to us even though they aren't routine.



As far as the mitigating factors, what I'm getting at is that a lot of people tend to make a ton of excuses for Miranda/Garrus/Jacob but absolutely NONE for Zaeed. The only assumption I can make about that is that people tend just to accept the scenario BioWare gave them without any question. I chose not to do that, not that I am saying that I didn't like the game, but as it is a story-based game I tend to think about how or if things could or should have been different (for example in ME1 I thought it was absurd that Shepard didn't have an option to at least consider trying to keep the research data on the genophage cure).

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Phaelducan wrote...

Basically what it means is that you can't use anecdotal evidence in any argument for whether or not something is 100% true. In this context, we have an example of Zaeed's testimonials being used to "prove" that he isn't a good leader.

I'm not arguing that this is 100% true; it very well might not be. I can't definitely tell you that Zaeed will get his squad killed. I'm arguing that the stories we hear from Zaeed rarely, if ever, end with "We all made it out just fine". Someone always seems to die on his watch.  There's evidence which shows he's an incredibly skilled foot soldier. But that is not enough to show how he's a good leader.

The problem with that, is that Zaeed is telling you about an incredibly small sample size of his wealth of experiences as a Mercenary Captain. He could have done literally 20-50 times that number of missions successfully and with no casualties, we don't know. We DO know the years he has of experience, and we know that in that time, the anecdotal evidence he provides would be very small in comparison to other missions.

Aye, he could have done 20-50 times that number of missions with no casualties. But we never really hear about them. Statistically, we may not be able to do anything with the number of failures he gave us. But again neither do we know how many "successful" missions he's carried out. It's not enough to show Zaeed isn't a bad leader; but it's also not enough to show he is he a good leader.  

Logically, anecdotal evidence is usually considered a fallacy anyways as people are naturally inclined to remember extreme examples of something than they are routine examples. Zaeed could be telling you about extremely rare scenarios, but they stand out both to him and to us even though they aren't routine.

It's also a possibility that more or less his career follows this general life style. With so little information, we cannot decide in favor or against. We are never actually told what "routine" officially is for him. Our inability to inferr that Zaeed is a bad leader does not mean we can infer its opposite, that he is a good leader.

As far as the mitigating factors, what I'm getting at is that a lot of people tend to make a ton of excuses for Miranda/Garrus/Jacob but absolutely NONE for Zaeed. The only assumption I can make about that is that people tend just to accept the scenario BioWare gave them without any question. I chose not to do that, not that I am saying that I didn't like the game, but as it is a story-based game I tend to think about how or if things could or should have been different (for example in ME1 I thought it was absurd that Shepard didn't have an option to at least consider trying to keep the research data on the genophage cure).

I would say Garrus is a much better bet as a squad leader than Zaeed all things considered. As for the rest, they are definitely an issue. Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying that Miranda and Jacob are great or even average leaders. I personally don't think we know enough about either of them (especially Jaco's career) to really say. Because they were the first two characters Shepard recruits, they were probably just thrown in the 'squad leader' category. But even if they don't belong there, I wouldn't say this means Zaeed does.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 avril 2010 - 10:38 .

[FlyingBrickyard]

smudboy wrote...

Because experience does imply skill.  Do something long enough and you get good at it.

Clearly you've never worked in or around the construction industry.

(AKA:  "You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?")

A shockingly large number of contractors out there are "professionals" only in the sense that they do it for a living.

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 13 avril 2010 - 10:48 .

[smudboy]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Because experience does imply skill.  Do something long enough and you get good at it.

Clearly you've never worked in or around the construction industry.

A shockingly large number of contractors out there are "professionals" only in the sense that they do it for a living.

So a contractor with 20 years experience has less skills than one with 2?

Either way, forget titles.  The more you do something, the better you get at it.  I would hate to think studying, exercise, practice and repetition of an action, activity or discipline would produce neutral to negative effects.  For 20 years.

[FlyingBrickyard]

smudboy wrote...

FlyingBrickyard wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Because experience does imply skill.  Do something long enough and you get good at it.

Clearly you've never worked in or around the construction industry.

A shockingly large number of contractors out there are "professionals" only in the sense that they do it for a living.

So a contractor with 20 years experience has less skills than one with 2?

Sometimes, yes.  And far more often than you'd probably be comfortable thinking.

Or let me put it this way:

When working part (and later full) time on a jobsite back in school, I lost count of the number of times
the boss would have me go pick up the slack on some task because the contractors were behind, and when those same contractors came around after the fact and saw the work I'd done, they stood in awe and called everyone on their crew over asking each one if they'd done the work as they all complimented the quality of it.  Until they found out the "unskilled" part time student did it, at which point they'd all silently slink away and never comment on it again.

Either way, forget titles.  The more you do something, the better you get at it.  I would hate to think studying, exercise, practice and repetition of an action, activity or discipline would produce neutral to negative effects.  For 20 years.

Again.  You'd be surprised.  The truthful answer to that question is generally far more depressing than you realize.

If people do a job poorly or "wrong", but they manange to slide by doing it that way for many years, they may actually get worse over time because doing things the wrong way becomes ingrained habit.  At which point correcting the behavior is especially difficult because they not only have to re-learn how to do something, they must first unlearn their years of bad habits.

Zaeed apparently spent 20 years "sliding by" with "good enough for him".  He never really learned to do things "right".  Even if he completely reformed on his loyalty mission, he just didn't have enough time to unlearn old habits and relearn the "right" way of doing things.  Under pressure he reverts to his old ways, and someone dies as a result.

Whenever Zaeed is involved in group action, someone on his team dies.  That much is certain from all we're ever told about him.  The only way Zaeed could have been more obvious as a poor choice for leader would be if he'd flat out said "You know, whenever I'm working with a group I get people killed.  Every time."

Even then I'm sure we'd have the same people arguing that "It's just an arbitrary mechanic, because Zaeed is awesome!"  Those people may well have been hearing Zaeed's words and stories, but they weren't actually listening to what he and his actions on his loyalty mission were saying.

Want to impress me, Zaeed?  Tell me about all those times you took 8 people on an impossible mission and got everyone out alive.  These constant stories of impossible odds and anywhere from "we lost too many men" to "Only I survived to tell the tale" outcomes only brings to my mind the old saying, "I don't need to outrun the tiger, I just need to outrun you."

That's not exactly what I'd call inspiring confidence in your skills there.

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 13 avril 2010 - 11:28 .

[smudboy]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...
Sometimes, yes.  And far more often than you'd probably be comfortable thinking.

I see where you're coming from.  However, the old adage still holds true.  In this case, you're looking at a lack of quality control, or un-professionalism.

In Zaeed's line of work, lack of quality control = you're dead.  Considering this is a paid job, like every other, I can't see Zaeed "getting lazy".  If he was, he'd be dead.  Shots to the face kind of remind you what pain is like.

Zaeed apparently spent 20 years "sliding by" with "good enough for him".  He never really learned to do things "right".  Even if he completely reformed on his loyalty mission, he just didn't have enough time to unlearn old habits and relearn the "right" way of doing things.  Under pressure he reverts to his old ways, and someone dies as a result.

How do you know this?  You're assuming he has bad habbits.  Because people in a variety of life and death situations died while he was in charge? I'd imagine that would happen to all sorts of military operations, let alone privately contracted ones (whose men he was with were other mercs, from of a variety of backgrounds.)  Who knows what happened during those situations.  We're talking about a whole bunch of lethal situations we can't even properly assess (strategy, intel, positioning, etc.), but you're comparison and experience of construction workers being lazy.  Even if Zaeed spent the past 20 years as a hardass Alliance officer who played by the rules, people are going to die under his command, which happened with pretty much every "ok" leader choice (Miranda, Garrus, etc.)  Would a leader be able to predict every single outcome, every ambush, have every bit of intel?  Look at Shepard: they lost Jenkins and Wilson instantly, and no amount of leadership could've done anything for them.

Modifié par smudboy, 13 avril 2010 - 11:26 .

[KOKitten]

Losing people during military or mercenary missions doesn't necessarily equal poor skills. That's a dangerous lifestyle and you expect some casualties.

If you choose the Ruthless psych profile for Shepard you find out that he/she lost a lot of troops at Torfan. Even if you don't choose that psych profile you still hear about what happened at Torfan during the "Major Kyle" mission in ME1. Major Kyle couldn't take losing that many people and cracked under the pressure. Ruthless Shepard saw it as getting the job done, no matter what it cost.

When discussing Shepard's qualifications in the beginning of ME1, his/her actions at Torfan are discussed, and it's accepted because he/she gets the job done.

[FlyingBrickyard]

smudboy wrote...

In Zaeed's line of work, lack of quality control = you're dead. 

Not necessarily.  In Zaeed's case sloppy work could manifest itself in any number of ways, not all of which would be fatal to him.  In his case, it seems to be that he has little to no regard for collateral damage.  So long as he comes out OK and the job gets done, "good on ya!"

When you work alone for hire against people that your employer hates enough to want to kill anyway, they're unlikely to care about collateral damage.  Which would enable Zaeed to "slide by" with sloppy, "wrong" work.  Sure, he got the job done, but it was basically done as a crap job - but his employer doesn't care so that's "good enough".

The problem comes in when that sloppy level of work is no longer as acceptable for whatever reason.  He's spent most of his career doing things that way, so he doesn't know how to do things differently.  Moreover, it's entirely possible he isn't really even aware of ways to do things differently.  It could even be reasonably inferred that Zaeed's partner probably got killed in his "Hanar story", because why would Zaeed have to single handedly deal with a Hanar trying to strangle him unless his partner were already incapacitated or dead?

Just because he may have gotten away with doing things the wrong way for years doesn't mean he was good at what he did (leadership), he was just lucky.  I've read many accident reports where high time professional pilots with years of experience had spent their entire careers of 15-20 years doing certain rather important things the wrong way.  The way they did them was "good enough" most of the time, even if it wasn't actually right.  But that last time...  it caught up with them.

Zaeed's the same way.  He's experienced, but the game made it clear he wasn't a very good leader.  Now how the game may have manifested the consequences of that in the death of a tech if you made Zaeed a leader may have been a bit arbitrary, but the reasons why that choice resulted in a death were not.

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 13 avril 2010 - 11:55 .

[smudboy]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...
Not necessarily.  In Zaeed's case sloppy work could manifest itself in any number of ways, not all of which would be fatal to him.  In his case, it seems to be that he has little to no regard for collateral damage.  So long as he comes out OK and the job gets done, "good on ya!"

And you could say the same of his professionalism.

Zaeed's the same way.  He's experienced, but the game made it clear he wasn't a very good leader.  Now how the game may have manifested the consequences of that in the death of a tech if you made Zaeed a leader may have been a bit arbitrary, but the reasons why that choice resulted in a death were not.

The game didn't make it clear he wasn't a good leader.  Zaeed told many stories, and in those stories, some of his team mates died.  How do we know that's the fault of him?  In one of his first, he lead a suicide mission with 5 others that died.  Do we know how they died, or why they died?  No.  (We can say the exact same of Shepard.  How does ones loyalty and strategy equate to leadership skills?  Apparently, loyalty in ME2 = bullterproof team leaders, doors miraculously not jamming, etc., where leadership is meaningless.)

The door jamming/having your tech expert die has nothing to do with Zaeed being a bad leader.

[NICKjnp]

His job is to hold the line.

[FlyingBrickyard]

smudboy wrote...

And you could say the same of his professionalism.

Uh, I am.  He was sloppy, and while he sometimes did it for a living, leading people wasn't something he was good at.  It usually didn't matter though because he generally worked alone and wasn't getting paid specifically to keep his squad alive, so he got away with sliding by.

The door jamming/having your tech expert die has nothing to do with Zaeed being a bad leader.

Yes, it does.  In the world of the game it has everything to do with it.

That the door jams and the tech dies in the game may be an arbitrary game mechanic to kill off a team member,  but WHY  it jams and someone dies is not. 

Assuming all are loyal, the trigger for that death in the game is because Zaeed is a poor choice for a leader.

It's really very simple.  Make a poor choice and someone dies. 

How that death plays out isn't really the point or the cause, it's merely evidence of screwing up.

I fail to see why this is so difficult to grasp. 

You can continue to hang onto your preconceived idea that Zaeed is some sort of awesomely good leader despite all of the evidence in the game to the contrary if you like, but you'll still be wrong.  The mechanics of the game are simple and plainly laid out.  Make a bad choice and someone dies.  The specifics of the method by which the game accounts for that death are largely irrelevant. 

The point is that by choosing Zaeed as leader you screwed up because he's not qualified for that job, and someone's going to pay for that somehow.

From a storytelling standpoint it's less dramatic to have him show up with the team minus a random character who died "off camera", so we get the devs taking dramatic license with the doors to account for Zaeed's failure.  Does it necessarily logically follow "in the real world?"  Nope. 

But it absolutely makes sense from a mechanics and storytelling standpoint, and this is ultimately just a form of storytelling and entertainment.  You choose Zaeed, you screwed up.  The game drops hints at almost every opportunity to tell you he's not leadership material.  The doors are just a dramatically appropriate way to illustrate that mistake.

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 14 avril 2010 - 01:08 .

[smudboy]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...
Uh, I am.  He was sloppy, and while he sometimes did it for a living, leading people wasn't something he was good at.  It usually didn't matter though because he generally worked alone and wasn't getting paid specifically to keep his squad alive, so he got away with sliding by.

No, your'e only applying that argument to your supposed belief he's sloppy, from your real world example of some guy building stuff.  As opposed to applying the argument to his professionalism.

Yes, it does.  In the world of the game it has everything to do with it.

No.  No it doesn't.

It doesn't make sense.  That a tech expert.  Gets a door jammed.  By a fire team leader.  Who has absolutely.  Nothing to do.  With some other guy.  Doing their own job.  That's unrelated.  To his.  It's completely illogical how A(team leader)->B(jammed door).

Did anyone in Zaeed's team die while he was escorting them?  Nope.

In fact, it was now Shepard's role to protect both the tech expert, and the fire team, after they got through the door.

That the door jams and the tech dies in the game may be an arbitrary game mechanic to kill off a team member,  but WHY  it jams and someone dies is not. 

Then please explain why it jams.  This should be priceless.

It's really very simple.  Make a poor choice and someone dies. 

Example or it didn't happen..

How that death plays out isn't really the point or the cause, it's merely evidence of screwing up.

Yes it does.  Even with your shoddy real life example, if one worker A doesn't influence the worker B, you're going to blame worker A if B's work goes bad?  I don't think so.

I fail to see why this is so difficult to grasp. 

Because it doesn't make sense.

You can continue to hang onto your preconceived idea that Zaeed is some sort of awesomely good leader despite all of the evidence in the game to the contrary if you like, but you'll still be wrong.  The mechanics of the game are simple and plainly laid out.  Make a bad choice and someone dies.  The specifics of the method by which the game accounts for that death are largely irrelevant. 

I'm not arguing the mechanics of the game.  I'm describing his history and massive narrative which all surround combat.  The guy has more experience then Miranda and Jacob combined.  I can clearly see Garrus doing the role, but Zaeed moreso.

The point is that by choosing Zaeed as leader you screwed up because he's not qualified for that job, and someone's going to pay for that somehow.

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

But it absolutely makes sense from a mechanics and storytelling standpoint, and this is ultimately just a form of storytelling and entertainment.  You choose Zaeed, you screwed up.  The game drops hints at almost every opportunity to tell you he's not leadership material.  The doors are just a dramatically appropriate way to illustrate that mistake.

It does not make sense from a storytelling viewpoint, because all the stories show us, that Zaeed is the most experienced.

I'll take a merc guy who's got 20 years and stories to tell, then Jacob whose team experience we know next to nothing of, Miranda who all we know was leading a science team, and got the entire facility and everyone involved killed: when her job is to be co-vert operative, specializing in intelligence.

Modifié par smudboy, 14 avril 2010 - 02:15 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

smudboy wrote...

I'm not arguing the mechanics of the game.  I'm describing his history and massive narrative which all surround combat.  The guy has more experience then Miranda and Jacob combined.  I can clearly see Garrus doing the role, but Zaeed moreso.

It does not make sense from a storytelling viewpoint, because all the stories show us, that Zaeed is the most experienced.

I find it hilarious that this is still being contested. His narrative surrounds combat. Wonderful. Being a good foot soldier does not make one capable at command. It's a constant theme of his stories that people tend to die around him. This is not difficult.