smudboy wrote...
Regardless of the in game result, Zaeed is by far the best choice.
I'm not playing. Several others in this thread share my opinion, for similar reasons. One does not devote an entire character's backstory on various military stories, gureilla tactics and combat experience, while precluding a land war in Asia, and not believe they are the best option.FlyingBrickyard wrote...
smudboy wrote...
Regardless of the in game result, Zaeed is by far the best choice.
I really think the farcical nature of this quote sums things up far better than any rebuttal I could write, so I'll just leave it at that.
Well played, sir. Well played.
FlyingBrickyard wrote...
smudboy wrote...
Regardless of the in game result, Zaeed is by far the best choice.
I really think the farcical nature of this quote sums things up far better than any rebuttal I could write, so I'll just leave it at that.
Well played, sir. Well played.
smudboy wrote...
I'm not playing. Several others in this thread share my opinion, for similar reasons. One does not devote an entire character's backstory on various military stories, gureilla tactics and combat experience, while precluding a land war in Asia, and not believe they are the best option.FlyingBrickyard wrote...
smudboy wrote...
Regardless of the in game result, Zaeed is by far the best choice.
I really think the farcical nature of this quote sums things up far better than any rebuttal I could write, so I'll just leave it at that.
Well played, sir. Well played.
Modifié par IoCaster, 14 avril 2010 - 08:33 .
Sharing your opinion that Zaeed may be a good leader. Not that he'd be the best leader.smudboy wrote...
I'm not playing. Several others in this thread share my opinion, for similar reasons. One does not devote an entire character's backstory on various military stories, gureilla tactics and combat experience, while precluding a land war in Asia, and not believe they are the best option.FlyingBrickyard wrote...
smudboy wrote...
Regardless of the in game result, Zaeed is by far the best choice.
I really think the farcical nature of this quote sums things up far better than any rebuttal I could write, so I'll just leave it at that.
Well played, sir. Well played.
Phaelducan wrote...
Haven't done his Loyalty Mission Renegade-style yet, but with the Paragon option he basically tells you that he's on board for the mission and will cooperate and work together to help you succeed.
Now unless he is lying (which would be BS as it nets you his loyalty power), he should be at least motivated to bring his A game.
Him not caring as a reason for sucking as a leader? I don't buy it... I think he does care by the time you do his mission and get to the end of the game.
I also don' t think it's fair to say that all Mercenaries only care for themselves and can't lead a squad. If that was true, Merc groups would never meet recruiting goals. They would have to have some measure of success or people wouldn't join.
It just seems unlikely that Zaeed wouldn't be able to make good tactical decisions in that situation. In looking at the people who fail... it's obvious as to why (Samara, Thane, Grunt, Mordin, Jack, Tali, Legion, Kasumi). Jacob, Miranda, and Garrus work, also for obvious reasons.
It just seems really strange to me that Zaeed can't fulfill the role, given his background (and yes he spent 20 years hunting Santiago... but man he was REALLY pissed at him). Again, even Miranda seems to think he would do fine at it. Shrug.
.
Phaelducan wrote...
Hence why a lot of people chose him, and consequently were surprised when a squadmate got geeked.
Kenrae wrote...
Tangentially, can Kasumi be a tech expert? It would make sense, I haven't tested it, but I don't think it'll work.
Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 14 avril 2010 - 08:57 .
Modifié par binaryemperor, 14 avril 2010 - 09:36 .
Did I say any of that? I just want them to give us their view as THEY are the people who programmed the whole thing and know more about Zaeed than us so after that we can stop arguing since everyone would know why the devs choose to not make Zaeed a leader.Speakeasy13 wrote...
What is there to explain? The devs are people too, they are allowed to have an opinion. Just like each of us are allowed to have an opinion on any issue. Their opinion may matter more than yours because they make a living creating the game, but that doesn't make their opinion superior to yours. Or mine.
Everyone knows why the judge acquitted OJ. Doesn't stop everyone from giving one another a piece of their mind.Skilled Seeker wrote...
Did I say any of that? I just want them to give us their view as THEY are the people who programmed the whole thing and know more about Zaeed than us so after that we can stop arguing since everyone would know why the devs choose to not make Zaeed a leader.Speakeasy13 wrote...
What is there to explain? The devs are people too, they are allowed to have an opinion. Just like each of us are allowed to have an opinion on any issue. Their opinion may matter more than yours because they make a living creating the game, but that doesn't make their opinion superior to yours. Or mine.
Phaelducan wrote...
...
It strike anyone else as odd that Zaeed is incompetent when it comes to leadership?
Phaelducan wrote...
So you ignore his points, belittle them as being farcical, and choose not to address the actual argument.
In any case, you are still ignoring that we have at best a tiny percentage of his background as a reference point. He has been involved in HUNDREDS of engagements over more than two decades.
We have no context for the deaths he references, and to cite them as evidence for him being a poor leader isn't very compelling.
A few examples of someone dieing... reiterating... a FEW examples over that much experience simply doesn't hold water.
IoCaster wrote...
It's become apparent to me that some people get so invested in the
narrative that they must rationalize the inexplicable. Every time that a
plot hole or logical inconsistency in the story is pointed out, they
immediately respond with some fabricated nonsense that supposedly
explains it all. It's all supposition and conjecture without any factual
basis, but as long as it makes sense to them that's all that matters.
At some point in the discussion I come to the realization that there's
nothing to be gained by continuing the debate. I *shrug* it off and move
on.
Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 14 avril 2010 - 11:46 .
Actually there were two simple questions you couldn't bare to answer, it seems.FlyingBrickyard wrote...
Phaelducan wrote...
So you ignore his points, belittle them as being farcical, and choose not to address the actual argument.
No, I have addressed his points and yours repeatedly throughout the last several pages - there was nothing he said that was left to address.
And his statement that Zaeed is the best leader despite the fact he gets people killed when other people won't is so ridiculous and laughable on its face I don't even know how to address it. It really speaks for itself in the quality of the logic behind his conclusions.
And for all you know, he didn't. I'm sure in your construction worker analogy, his government-union subsidy clause might've allowed him 4 weeks vacation on Illium or something. (Where he should've been on some team building retreats that should've involved arts and crafts and BBQ's.)FlyingBrickyard wrote...
In any case, you are still ignoring that we have at best a tiny percentage of his background as a reference point. He has been involved in HUNDREDS of engagements over more than two decades.
OK, let's play your game for a moment. You have no evidence at all that Zaeed has ever gone on any more missions than the 5 or 6 we hear about directly in the game. You're simply making assumptions because he's been a merc for 20 years.
For all we know he took 3-5 years off between each job to recover. From what we saw of his actions on his loyalty mission, I wouldn't be all that surprised if that turned out to actually be the case.
And one of those squad missions where he was sole survivior was a suicide mission. Who else on your team was on a suicide mission and survived? Cause I'd really like that kind of guy in charge of an operation. Thing with suicide missions? You die. Zaeed? He lived. Don't know how, but I'm willing to bet he knows how these kinds of situations work.FlyingBrickyard wrote...
Which means all we can reasonably do is judge him based on what we know for certain, and that's that in almost every "squad mission" he tells us about, someone on his team ends up dead.
Did we hear any of those from any of our other team mates? 'cause they either all have a "everyone died but me story", or literally nothing. With Zaeed, we get stories all the time. In fact, that's mostly what he does, talk about his stories, and occasionally comment on some plot missions. Which is a hell of a lot more than the rest of the team. Which to me means he's the most versed in that kind of work.FlyingBrickyard wrote...
Reiterating - those are the ONLY examples we have. Including any other "phantom" missions in the evaluation of his qualities as a leader involves a whole lot of assumptions. And again, if these were atypical mission outcomes for him, why don't we hear "That one turned out great, we all survived" even once?A few examples of someone dieing... reiterating... a FEW examples over that much experience simply doesn't hold water.
There's the one story about his suicide mission on the Verrikan where 5 of his squad dies.FlyingBrickyard wrote...
The only reliable evidence we're actually given in the game tells us that Zaeed gets people killed on a frequent basis. It's a common theme in most of his 'war stories'.
Except we look at the entirety of the narrative, and you focus on one story in it, your personal bias not withstanding.FlyingBrickyard wrote...
What's amusing about that is it perfectly describes your conduct so far and you don't even realize it.IoCaster wrote...
It's become apparent to me that some people get so invested in the
narrative that they must rationalize the inexplicable. Every time that a
plot hole or logical inconsistency in the story is pointed out, they
immediately respond with some fabricated nonsense that supposedly
explains it all. It's all supposition and conjecture without any factual
basis, but as long as it makes sense to them that's all that matters.
Modifié par smudboy, 14 avril 2010 - 12:23 .
FlyingBrickyard wrote...
IoCaster wrote...
It's become apparent to me that some people get so invested in the
narrative that they must rationalize the inexplicable. Every time that a
plot hole or logical inconsistency in the story is pointed out, they
immediately respond with some fabricated nonsense that supposedly
explains it all. It's all supposition and conjecture without any factual
basis, but as long as it makes sense to them that's all that matters.
What's amusing about that is it perfectly describes your conduct so far and you don't even realize it.
IoCaster wrote...
OK, we'll go another round if you want. What exactly is it that I have fabricated and introduced into the discussion as an established 'fact'? Where have I arrogantly declared that my speculative and fanciful analysis is a definitive proof of anything?
As the OP states, he's wondering why he isn't, because it should've been "a cake walk" for him. And the narrative supports that he is the best suited.FlyingBrickyard wrote...
It's simple. It's reliable. It's repeatable.
As I said, your tautology is useless. We know the role game example. We are arguing that there's sufficient evidence to support him being the best because of the sheer amount of narrative telling us his experience.So asking "Is Zaeed is good leader?" isn't an appropriate question. It's an irrefutable fact that he is not.
The appropriate question to then ask would be, "Why isn't Zaeed a good leader?"
Those of us arguing that he is not have likely been approaching this topic from that base assumption. It's clear he isn't, and we've been attempting to point out why he isn't within the context of what we're told and what we have observed about him during play.
Those arguing against and claiming Zaeed is a good leader seem to be laboring under the incorrect belief that they can somehow argue Zaeed into somehow passing the mission and producing a different experimental result. Instead of revising their hypothesis to fit the facts, they want to alter the facts to suit the hypothesis.
That's bad science, and not logically defensible.
Here's something a bit more intelligible.A lively debate about why Zaeed is a poor leader is a great thing, but attempting to argue that he is a good leader is a lost cause, and about as sound as arguing that the Earth is flat. It's a position that simply does not reflect reality.
FlintlockJazz wrote...
IoCaster wrote...
OK, we'll go another round if you want. What exactly is it that I have fabricated and introduced into the discussion as an established 'fact'? Where have I arrogantly declared that my speculative and fanciful analysis is a definitive proof of anything?
When you state that people who do not agree with your assessment of Zaeed are deluding themselves. You seem incapable of accepting that people have a different assessment of the character from the same facts, and instead concoct a delusion in which they are in denial of the 'truth' in order to maintain the belief in your own 'facts' to avoid losing what appears to be a tenuous grip on your own self-worth.
It's become apparent to me that some people get so invested in the narrative that they must rationalize the inexplicable. Every time that a plot hole or logical inconsistency in the story is pointed out, they immediately respond with some fabricated nonsense that supposedly explains it all. It's all supposition and conjecture without any factual basis, but as long as it makes sense to them that's all that matters.
Modifié par IoCaster, 14 avril 2010 - 01:53 .
Nope. That means the dev thinks Zaeed's a good leader. Last time I checked they were not God. So their opinion is equal to mine.FlyingBrickyard wrote...
I've just thought of another way to approach this and take a final shot at hopefully explaining why "Zaeed is a good leader" is a fundamentally flawed premise.
First off, if any reasonable debate is to occur, you have to accept that Zaeed is a poor leader. Here's why:
Bioware gave us a wonderful lab in which to run experiments via the Suicide Mission. If you want to know who is good at what job without slogging through all of the in-game hints, all you need to do is get everyone loyal and then start slotting people into various jobs and record the outcome.
The great thing about that is that by getting everyone loyal you've reduced the only variable down to who is in what role, so it's a very simple test at that point for competence. If someone is placed in a specific role and a character dies, that person wasn't suited for that role.
It's simple. It's reliable. It's repeatable.
We can then take it even a step further and have other people attempt to replicate that experiment on their own, and they'll come up with the same result as well.
Which means it's experimentally sound.
Which means Zaeed isn't a good leader. Period. It's a simple, scientifically verifiable fact.
Retour en haut
