234 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

IoCaster wrote...
EDIT: Just to be clear, it was meant as a general observation. I had been skimming multiple threads and the thought popped into my head when I noticed various examples of it in some of the posts I read. I posted it as a bit of an offhand comment to smudboy.

I have to watch myself, too, and keep myself objective.  Since I'm constatly grinding my axe into every plot hole I come across on here, while others create elaborate logics, it's hard not to get emotional about some analogies and trains of thought they put up.

[CJL7806]

Bah most of you are missing the point.  The loyalty mission gets Zaeed to care, but that doesn't change who he is.

You people say he's a good merc leader then list his credentials:
Co-founded Blue Suns, promptly lost control of it
Been on all kinds of missions, usually most of his team dies
Spent last 20 years mostly freelancing

Um, these are credentials showing he is a good fighter, not a good leader.

He fails at being the fire team leader because he is NOT a good leader, only a good soldier.
Whereas sure, Miranda and even Garrus have less combat experience, but they are better leaders.
And even Shepard has the best combat abilities/credentials of all but can still be a crappy leader if he doesn't get his squadmates loyal or make good decisions and they get killed.

Modifié par CJL7806, 14 avril 2010 - 04:56 .

[Phaelducan]

[quote]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: ..."

To paraphrase....

"I just found out another way to show that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Oh, and if we are even to discuss this as reasonable adults, you all have to accept that I'm right in the first place..."

That might not be the best way to continue a topic...

I think you are operating under a false assumption. No one here is stating that Zaeed leads the mission successfully. Clearly he doesn't, as either the tech or he himself dies. What is being debated is the logic behind that result.

Rather than repeat the points again, here is a summary.

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.

That does not equal, logically, an innately inferior leader to Miranda/Jacob/Garrus.

To support that statement, we can look at what he know about the others.

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.

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.

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. 

Just the facts, ma'am. 

[CJL7806]

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.

Modifié par CJL7806, 14 avril 2010 - 05:38 .

[IoCaster]

smudboy wrote...

IoCaster wrote...
EDIT: Just to be clear, it was meant as a general observation. I had been skimming multiple threads and the thought popped into my head when I noticed various examples of it in some of the posts I read. I posted it as a bit of an offhand comment to smudboy.

I have to watch myself, too, and keep myself objective.  Since I'm constatly grinding my axe into every plot hole I come across on here, while others create elaborate logics, it's hard not to get emotional about some analogies and trains of thought they put up.

As a veteran of some long running and bloody campaigns of attrition on the newsgroups, 'back in the day', it's all old hat to me. I don't get emotionally invested in these discussions.

[OverlordNexas]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

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.

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.

I haven't been and I'm not going to fling my opinion around and force others to accept it. But that doesn't mean I'm round. I suggest both of you do the same.

Considering they decide the canon of ME universe, that kinda makes them "gods" of that universe. And as "gods" they declared Zaeed is a poor choice as a leader, and gave evidence to support that (all of his sole survivor stories). Whether or not people choose to accept that is whole nother story.

Modifié par OverlordNexas, 14 avril 2010 - 05:33 .

[FlintlockJazz]

IoCaster wrote...

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.

You're reading too much into it. Here you go, read this again.

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.

It has nothing to do with whether people agree with me or not. It has nothing to do with 'truth'. It's about people getting so immersed in the narrative that they'll ignore or rationalize away logical inconsistencies in the plot. It has to do with people 'making stuff up' and presenting it on the forum as anything other than what it is. I can certainly accept that people would form a different opinion of Zaeed and I've already stated that I'm willing to agree to disagree and call it a day.

EDIT: Just to be clear, it was meant as a general observation. I had been skimming multiple threads and the thought popped into my head when I noticed various examples of it in some of the posts I read. I posted it as a bit of an offhand comment to smudboy.

No, unfortunately I am not reading too much into it.  People have got valid points as to why they believe that Zaeed would not make a good leader, and many such as myself believed this even before we knew that Zaeed would fail as the fire team leader in the suicide mission.  You seem incapable of accepting this, not because you believe Zaeed is a good leader, I'd be disappointed if you changed your opinion that easily, but because you have made a sweeping proclamation in order to dismiss anything that counteracts your opinions.

As for it being a general observation, well it sounds more like statement.  I can do it too, for example, I have made the general observation that you are so invested in Zaeed that you are convinced that there is a plot hole as opposed to Zaeed just sucking at leadership skills.  Stating that does not change whether or not Zaeed is a good leader not nor does it bring anything more to the debate. 

Stating that it was intended for Smudboy is also irrelevant as you posted it on a forum where anyone with the game registered is entitled to respond and read it.

[FlintlockJazz]

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.

[KOKitten]

CJL7806 wrote...
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.

Just an FYI - that "reason" is explained pretty clearly during Zaeed's loyalty mission. 

Quick recap:  Blue Suns were founded.  Vido ran the books; Zaeed lead the men.  It worked well for a while until Vido started hiring Batarians as "cheaper labor."  Zaeed disagreed, considering the Batarians to be "goddamn terrorists."  Vido paid six of Zaeed's men to hold him down while he shot him in the head and then wiped his name out of the records.  Zaeed claims he was able to live through the headshot for the same reason Shepard was able to survive his ship being disintegrated.  A "stubborn enough person can live through anything" and "rage is a hell of an anesthetic." 

I wouldn't even read too much into that.  Betrayal is a common theme in ME.  Saren betrayed Nihlus and pretty much everyone else; Udina betrayed Shepard; Vido betrayed Zaeed; Sidonis betrayed Garrus; Wilson betrayed Cerberus; Ronald Taylor betrayed his whole crew; in my opinion the Council betrayed Shepard.  Shepard can betray Tali and Samara if he/she chooses. 

It all boils down to the Devs intentions vs. player interpretation of the character. 

[Kenrae]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
The guy is an idiot, and if the choice had been there I would have finished the job Vido started 20 years ago while Zaeed was trapped under the pillar.

The choice IS there .

[IoCaster]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

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.

You're reading too much into it. Here you go, read this again.

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.

It has nothing to do with whether people agree with me or not. It has nothing to do with 'truth'. It's about people getting so immersed in the narrative that they'll ignore or rationalize away logical inconsistencies in the plot. It has to do with people 'making stuff up' and presenting it on the forum as anything other than what it is. I can certainly accept that people would form a different opinion of Zaeed and I've already stated that I'm willing to agree to disagree and call it a day.

EDIT: Just to be clear, it was meant as a general observation. I had been skimming multiple threads and the thought popped into my head when I noticed various examples of it in some of the posts I read. I posted it as a bit of an offhand comment to smudboy.

No, unfortunately I am not reading too much into it.  People have got valid points as to why they believe that Zaeed would not make a good leader, and many such as myself believed this even before we knew that Zaeed would fail as the fire team leader in the suicide mission.  You seem incapable of accepting this, not because you believe Zaeed is a good leader, I'd be disappointed if you changed your opinion that easily, but because you have made a sweeping proclamation in order to dismiss anything that counteracts your opinions.

Actually you are reading too much into it unless you're claiming that you knew my intent when I composed that post. I've stated repeatedly that the evidence in the game supports the contention that Zaeed is qualified to lead a combat squad. Trying to characterize that stance as an inability to accept a contrary opinion is a stretch. Considering the fact that I have previously posted that I was quite willing to agree that it's a simple difference of opinion and move on.

FlintlockJazz wrote...
As for it being a general observation, well it sounds more like statement.  I can do it too, for example, I have made the general observation that you are so invested in Zaeed that you are convinced that there is a plot hole as opposed to Zaeed just sucking at leadership skills.  Stating that does not change whether or not Zaeed is a good leader not nor does it bring anything more to the debate.

I haven't made a claim that it's a plot hole, but I do contend that it's a logical inconsistency based on the my belief that there's more evidence presented for his qualification as a combat leader than there is for Miranda. I will hold to that opinion.
 

FlintlockJazz wrote...
Stating that it was intended for Smudboy is also irrelevant as you posted it on a forum where anyone with the game registered is entitled to respond and read it.

That was a simple point of clarification and not intended for any other purpose. What's your point?

Now lets backtrack a bit and explore this statement of yours.

FlintlockJazz wrote...
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.

What the hell are you talking about here? I never claimed anything like that. To follow it up with some specious and hollow claptrap about "a tenuous grip on your own self-worth" is laughable. I'll ask you directly. Do you have a personal issue with me? You've certainly gone out of your way to construct a straw man to joust with and singled out my posts as if they're the most egregious example of opinionated responses in this thread. So tell me honcho, did sh!t just get serious?

Modifié par IoCaster, 14 avril 2010 - 08:42 .

[Lord Nicholai]

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

[FlintlockJazz]

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. 

[FlintlockJazz]

Kenrae wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...
The guy is an idiot, and if the choice had been there I would have finished the job Vido started 20 years ago while Zaeed was trapped under the pillar.

The choice IS there .

Really?  I have another reason for a replay, cheers!

[Terraneaux]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

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. 

Okay, that's fine, but it's been retconned and it's now canon.

[FlyingBrickyard]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Nope. That means the dev thinks Zaeed's a good leader [sic]. Last time I checked they were not God.

As mentioned, the devs created the Mass Effect Universe.  They created all of the characters within it.  They created every last scrap of it to match the concept and image they came up with.  They know Shepard's story from beginning to end - they know all possible outcomes in the Mass Effect universe.

Sounds pretty godlike to me - at least with respect to Mass Effect.

So their opinion is equal to mine.

Not unless you're a Bioware dev with as much creative control as the ones who made it.  Since I doubt that's the case, no, your opinion isn't worth a thing compared to theirs.

You don't own Mass Effect, you don't get any say in what happens beyond what the devs give us.  What the devs think is all that matters, and that's a key point I think many here are missing.

smudboy wrote...
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.

You cannot
reduce the contradiction of an explained narrative to in game example,
by citing it.  That's called a tautology.  That doesn't help.  "Since
A=A, well obviously he's not x!"  (This is clearly a fault of the
narrative not reflecting the game reality.)

Thanks, but this is
not helpful.  We know the gameplay doesn't reflect the narrative.

And this is where you're failing.  You're flat out ignoring the actual narrative because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion that Zaeed would be the best leader, and then because of that, you're claiming there's a disconnect between the gameplay and your wishful interpretation of the narrative.  If you start with a blank slate and then honestly evaluate each piece of information as it comes in, and only that information, there's no disconnect at all.

We're given scant direct information in the game about Zaeed's abilities as a leader, little in the way of details on the jobs he's done, and we have one tailor made loyalty mission where we get to see him in his "natural element", behaving as he usually does.

Virtually everything we're able to directly observe about Zaeed in the game suggests he's a fine soldier but a poor leader.  He has no ability to watch out for anyone else but himself and is borderline reckless in some cases.

All that talk about his "20 years of experience as a merc" is purely speculation on your part when it comes to  claiming he's a great leader.  There's absolutely zero evidence in the narrative to support that. 

Even if we're going to be extremely generous for the sake of argument  and assume that 20 years counts for something, we've got to throw it all out the window the moment Zaeed "reforms" on his loyalty mission because that was 20 year's experience watching only his own back. 

It's not going to serve him one bit when he needs to start looking out for others, and is really only likely to make things even more difficult for him as "old habits die hard" and he'd have to put considerable effort into second-guessing every impulse and decision he'd normally just go with.

In short, he'd effectively be starting over from square one, but with the added baggage of having spent roughly two decades of his life doing things "the wrong way."

Just because Zaeed has a lot of "time served" doesn't mean he's actually good at leading.  Especially since - by his own admission - he usually worked alone, and on the occasions he didn't, people frequently died.  Again, we've got maybe what, 7 or 8 stories and a loyalty mission to go on for our evaluation of the man, and most of the stories he tells us have people in his squad ending up dead.

There's a reason for that.  It's because the devs (who are effectively gods as far as ME is concerned) have determined that Zaeed's personality - that the character himself - is NOT a good leader.  And they want to make sure we know that if we bother paying attention, so they put up red flags all over the place so that we, as "mere mortals" in the ME universe can determine that he's unsuitable for the task and pick someone else.

And again, since this is a game, and we're trying to explain the nature of the game itself, we're absolutely free to "meta-game" and run experiments with multiple trials and different people in different roles.  That makes it pretty simple to determine the intent of the devs, and their intent was that Zaeed wasn't going to be a good leader.  We can absolutely step outside of the narrative and game world and say, "Let's run a test on the mechanics of the game to confirm the dev's intent for this character."  And death on the suicide mission with him in charge proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Zaeed is a poor leader. 

It's not a tautology in this case because we have ways of "stepping outside the universe", taking on the omniscience of 'godhood' briefly and running simple tests to confirm it.

It was probably a core component of his character definition.  And because of that they made a point of writing up his personality and background to reflect the fact that he is a poor leader.  Which means the narrative absolutely reflects that.  There's no contradiction at all. 

Unless you're hellbent on the idea that Zaeed would be the perfect leader, all in game evidence be damned.

I had no idea either way about Zaeed when I started playing.  I ran through his mission, I exhausted his dialogue options, and based on that and that alone I made my decision.  When it came time to assign someone the task of leading the fire team, I paused and asked myself, "Is this the kind of guy I'd feel confident following into combat?"

My gut feeling was an immediate "Not a snowball's chance."  So I skipped him and moved on to the next.

The justification for any other characters in the game in that role have absolutely nothing to do with Zaeed's suitability to the task.  He either is or isn't, independent of anyone else.


The devs clearly decided he isn't, and gave plenty of warning in the narrative that he isn't, and that's pretty much all there is to it.  How we may personally feel about that doesn't amount to much either way.  You can accept it or not, but it won't change anything.

To borrow a line from The Right Stuff,

"Well anyway, someone figured it out that way, and that's the way it is."

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 15 avril 2010 - 01:44 .

[Computron2000]

NuclearBuddha wrote...

Zaeed succeeds at missions. Unfortunately, he doesn't do so in the cleanest fashion. All his stories seem to have an element of "and I was the only one who made it out alive" to them. Not to mention that the mercenary organization he built got stolen out from under him by his 2nd in command.

I thin Zaeed's great, but I wouldn't put him in charge of making me a sandwich. I come back, and find the kitchen on fire, hostages taken, and multiple casualties on both sides. I'd get my sandwich, sure, but it'd be tough to enjoy eating it.

*Shepard goes down engineering deck and Zaeed's room*

Shepard: Zaeed, i'm going to horizon to check out some stuff. Can you make me a sandwich for when i get back?

Zaeed: That's godamn easy. Why do you need me for that?!?

Shepard: Zaeed, you know about how soldiers need to have something waiting for them whe they get back, so they have 1 more reason to live?

Zaeed: Fine i'll make one for you

*Later*

Shepard: What happened? Did the collectors attack the ship? Why is Kasumi, Gardner and half the crew in the infirmary?

Zaeed: Gardner gave me lip when i told him to give me bread, so i taught him a lesson. There wasn't any bread so i took some noodle sticks. I figure they were all flour.

Zaeed: Then that crazy **** started screaming about how i took rah's men from her or something, so i had to put her down. We duked it out and my guess is that her grenades rolled over into the crew quarters. She's fast but she's a god damn amateur

Zaeed: After that i found out there's wasn't any meat or Gardner hid it all. Tried to wake him him up but he was as ****ty as Vido. Chakwas said me slapping him around might cause brain damage. Brain damage... From a few slaps.... Your crew's damn soft Shepard.

Zaeed: Lucky for you, i found some fish and some sort of rat over at your quarters and some bird in Mordin's lab. Threw them into a blender poured the spread over the noodles.

Zaeed: I'm calling this Zaeed's Goddamn Good Noodle Sandwich. I always get the job done.

[FlyingBrickyard]

Computron2000 wrote...

NuclearBuddha wrote...

Zaeed succeeds at missions. Unfortunately, he doesn't do so in the cleanest fashion. All his stories seem to have an element of "and I was the only one who made it out alive" to them. Not to mention that the mercenary organization he built got stolen out from under him by his 2nd in command.

I thin Zaeed's great, but I wouldn't put him in charge of making me a sandwich. I come back, and find the kitchen on fire, hostages taken, and multiple casualties on both sides. I'd get my sandwich, sure, but it'd be tough to enjoy eating it.

*Shepard goes down engineering deck and Zaeed's room*

Shepard: Zaeed, i'm going to horizon to check out some stuff. Can you make me a sandwich for when i get back?

Zaeed: That's godamn easy. Why do you need me for that?!?

Shepard: Zaeed, you know about how soldiers need to have something waiting for them whe they get back, so they have 1 more reason to live?

Zaeed: Fine i'll make one for you

*Later*

Shepard: What happened? Did the collectors attack the ship? Why is Kasumi, Gardner and half the crew in the infirmary?

Zaeed: Gardner gave me lip when i told him to give me bread, so i taught him a lesson. There wasn't any bread so i took some noodle sticks. I figure they were all flour.

Zaeed: Then that crazy **** started screaming about how i took rah's men from her or something, so i had to put her down. We duked it out and my guess is that her grenades rolled over into the crew quarters. She's fast but she's a god damn amateur

Zaeed: After that i found out there's wasn't any meat or Gardner hid it all. Tried to wake him him up but he was as ****ty as Vido. Chakwas said me slapping him around might cause brain damage. Brain damage... From a few slaps.... Your crew's damn soft Shepard.

Zaeed: Lucky for you, i found some fish and some sort of rat over at your quarters and some bird in Mordin's lab. Threw them into a blender poured the spread over the noodles.

Zaeed: I'm calling this Zaeed's Goddamn Good Noodle Sandwich. I always get the job done.

I'm officially declaring (IMO) that even if nothing else comes out of this thread, that post has made the entire thing worthwhile. 

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 15 avril 2010 - 01:32 .

[IoCaster]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...
-snip-

I want to clear up what I believe may be a misunderstanding. When I posted this:

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.

It was meant as a general observation and was not intended to be taken as a direct reference to anything you had posted in this thread. As I've stated previously it was just a random thought that crossed my mind while I was browsing some threads. I addressed the comment to smudboy as a reply because it was convenient at the time. It was not related to the ongoing discussion and I should have edited your quoted comments out of the post.

[Bookman230]

I demand Zaeed's Goddamn Good Noodle Sandwich become the next meme!

[smudboy]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...
And this is where you're failing.  You're flat out ignoring the actual narrative because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion that Zaeed would be the best leader, and then because of that, you're claiming there's a disconnect between the gameplay and your wishful interpretation of the narrative.  If you start with a blank slate and then honestly evaluate each piece of information as it comes in, and only that information, there's no disconnect at all.

What narrative am I ignoring?

We're given scant direct information in the game about Zaeed's abilities as a leader, little in the way of details on the jobs he's done, and we have one tailor made loyalty mission where we get to see him in his "natural element", behaving as he usually does.

We're given more information on Zaeed's past military experience than any other character background.

His loyalty quest, (if properly solved as a Paragon), produces his character arc, and deals with the theme of being part of a team.  Which if resolved properly, he agrees with.  This is the whole point of the Zaeed character, where two leaders have differing views, and one helps the other grow through a real world example, and a personal experience.

Virtually everything we're able to directly observe about Zaeed in the game suggests he's a fine soldier but a poor leader.  He has no ability to watch out for anyone else but himself and is borderline reckless in some cases.

He definitely matches the Renegade status.  But being the co-founder of a mercenary group is a pretty big leadership role.

All that talk about his "20 years of experience as a merc" is purely speculation on your part when it comes to  claiming he's a great leader.  There's absolutely zero evidence in the narrative to support that.  Just because he has a lot of "time served" doesn't mean he's actually good at it.  Especially since - by his own admission - he usually worked alone, and on the occasions he didn't, people frequently died.  Again, we've got maybe what, 7 or 8 stories and a loyalty mission to go on for our evaluation of the man, and most of the stories he tells us have people in his squad ending up dead.

Again, Zaeed gets more stories of his experiences than any other character.  You're basing your "time served" with your "construction worker" analogy.  Which is your bias.  You can do that.  Doesn't mean it's right, because we don't know what his employers thought of his work.  If we're going to be critical of his work, we need a critical analysis.  We don't have that.  So whatever I say about how I think "time implies expertise, or a positive" or how you think "time implies stupidity, as in a negative" are both moot.  (Although I'd argue apples and oranges, because I can't see how his non-leadership stories are bad things, but that's not the point.  The fact he has some automatically makes him more qualified than the other people who can act successfully on tactics alone.  Which means, he'd be doing a lot of his bad ass tactics while the squad he's with are covering him/following his lead.)

These are the examples of his people dying:
-The Suicide Verrikan mission where 5 people died (again, we don't know how they died, nor as a result of Zaeed's leadership)
-Grim Angels, in the Virge, Krogan Battlemaster killed half his squad (ditto)
-Bar story, he and his friends got stupid, one of his friends got killed

This is if you take the time to hunt down these stories, along with the many others which don't showcase his leadership skills.

So really your argument hinges on those 3 stories, and your bias toward experience implying stupidity.

I can interpret those stories as follows:
+Zaeed survived a Suicide mission.  Don't know how.  But this is the guy I want on my suicide mission, in as high an authority role as I can put him in.
+Zaeed kept half his squad alive.
+If I ever get into a bar fight, I'd want Zaeed around, because he won't get stupid again.

The Blue Suns story can go like this:
+Co-founder of the Blue Suns, dealt specifically with leading the men.
+Vido was a sadistic bastard who hired Batarians, whom Zaeed considers terrorists (this means he has opinions/standards on certain kinds of people to be part of his group)
+The "Blue Suns only got meaner after he staged his little coup", which implies they were less mean/cruel than before
-Vido betrayed him and bribed six Blue Sun mercenaries to hold him down and face shoot him.
=Vido betrayed him and bribed six Blue Sun mercenaries to hold him down and face shoot him.  You could argue that because it's his men, and he was leading them, that they betryaed him, that he's got bad leadership skills.  i'd remind you that these are mercs, who get paid to do this sort of thing, so what do they care?  We don't know the relationship between these men, or what kind of reasonings/bribing was involved.

It's not a tautology in this case because we have ways of "stepping outside the universe", taking on the omniscience of 'godhood' briefly and running simple tests to confirm it.

No, you're missing the point.  The argument is, that Zaeed should be an excellent choice for squad leader role in the Suicide Mission.  We know he isn't.  We're arguing the why he should be, from the narrative.

All you're saying is exactly a tautology.  "Because choosing him in the Suicide Mission as per the devs gets someone killed, he's a bad team leader.  He's a bad team leader, because choosing him in the Suicide Mission as per the devs gets someone killed."

Please stop repeating this.  It is true.  It is also not what we're arguing.   The more you repeat it, the more I'm going to start thinking you don't understand the argument.

[FlyingBrickyard]

Ok, last time.

smudboy wrote...

No, you're missing the point.

I assure you, I'm not.

The argument is, that Zaeed should be an excellent choice for squad leader role in the Suicide Mission.

And it fails on its face because the devs have clearly decided that he is not.  Their universe, their rules.  End of story.

We know he isn't.

Then why are you even arguing to the contrary?

We're arguing the why he should be, from the narrative.

And again,  here's the problem.  The narrative doesn't support that position, at all. 

It only starts to appear to if you assume that "time served automatically = good at job".  It doesn't. 

And pointing out that that's not necessarily the case in no way suggests that "more time served = more stupidity". 

That he has 20 year's experience means precisely and only that.  He's been a merc for 20 years.  It says absolutely nothing about the quality of merc that he is.  To determine the answer to that question, we'll have to look elsewhere.

All you're saying is exactly a tautology.

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

Just because you're failing to comprehend that there are two levels at work here (within the game and outside of it) doesn't make my argument a tautology.

 

"Because choosing him in the Suicide Mission as per the devs gets someone killed, he's a bad team leader.  He's a bad team leader, because choosing him in the Suicide Mission as per the devs gets someone killed."

That's not what I've said.  Here goes again:

1.  The devs decided Zaeed wasn't going to be a good leader.  Full stop.  End of story, there is nothing to dispute on this point.  We, as ignorant players don't know this yet (and this is key), but that leads us to the following:

2.  Because of point 1, the devs made sure that the narrative, personality, history of and our experiences with Zaeed provided more than enough information for us as players (ignorant of point 1), to determine that Zaeed probably wasn't a good leader.  Failure to grasp this for whatever reason does not somehow invalidate point 1.

3.  Because this is a game, we, as ignorant players, can step outside the narrative of the game if we wish, take on limited omniscience with respect to the game and use the Suicide Mission to run numerous experiments to determine who is suitable for each role.  Remember, the suitability of each character for a given role was determined by the devs beforehand, and clues were provided in the in game narrative.  Otherwise that information was kept secret from us.  Therefore our only way to confirm the dev's intent is to run experiments to test our in-game, narrative derived hypotheses.  In this way we can see if our hypothesis about Zaeed's poor leadership abilities is correct, or if we've horribly misinterpreted all of what the devs were telling us and they really intended for him to be a viable and appropriate choice.  But how, exactly, are we to know?  Fortunately for us:

4.  The devs gave us a very handy way to determine once and for all what their intent was for a character assigned to a given role.  If an in-game death results from assigning that character to a given role, we have confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that the devs did not intend for that character to be successful in that role.

Simple, logical, not a tautology, no matter how many times you try to twist it around and call it one.

Modifié par FlyingBrickyard, 15 avril 2010 - 03:07 .

[smudboy]

[quote]FlyingBrickyard wrote...

[quote]The argument is, that Zaeed should be an excellent choice for squad leader role in the Suicide Mission.[/quote]

And it fails on its face because the devs have clearly decided that he is not.  Their universe, their rules.  End of story.
[/quote]
Then you have missed the point of the argument, and I am responding to an idiot.  This is not an insult: this is an observation.  You simply do not understand the sentences displayed on your screen.

We know how the role of Fire Team Leader deals with Zaeed.  The OP knows.  We all know.  It is not an argument.  It is also not the argument of the post.

The OP is asking: "It strike anyone else as odd that Zaeed is incompetent when it comes to leadership?"
Your response, which you have now reduced to the game play mechanic, is: "Because the dev's put in a gameplay mechanic that gets someone killed if you choose him."
The OP, will respond: "Well no duh, Sherlock.  That's what I just found out.  What I'm asking is, don't you think that's weird, because of reason r1, r2, r3, in the narrative?"
Your response is: "Zaeed is incompetent when it comes to leadership because the dev's put in a gameplay mechanic that gets someone killed if you choose him.  Interpret the narrative as such."
(The OP, now realizing you don't undersand what he just said, tries to reason with you.)
OP: "No, I understand that in the Suicide Mission, that if you choose Zaeed, people die.  I just played that man.  I totally get where you're coming from.  But what I'm asking is, if you talk to this guy a lot, and learn about him, do his loyalty mission and Paragon/make him loyal, aside from a few points, it sounds like he's pretty much the best choice for this kind of..."
Your response is: "No, you're a moron.  Listen, I know what I'm talking about.  Play that part of the game again.  The game explicitedly shows us people dying when Zaeed is chosen."
OP: "The rain in spain falls mainly on the plane"
Your response ad absurdum: "Look, meta-game that scene over and over again and you'll see that everytime you choose Zaeed, your lose a squad.  100% accurate super-perfect logic simple."
[quote]
[quote]We know he isn't.[/quote]

Then why are you even arguing to the contrary?
[/quote]
More proof you're not understanding.  I know what I'm saying, and you can't seem to understand the English language, suddenly?

We're NOT arguing why the system doesn't have a flag set to true for "killing person in suicide mission because Zaeed was chosen."  We are looking at the narrative of the story.  Zaeed's story(ies).  NOT the gameplay/Suicide Mission result.  We're listening to his stories.  The lines his voice actor made?  Those.  We're going on his loyalty mission.  And yeah, there's some evidence telling us that Zaeed doesn't sound like a good choice.  There's also some to say that he is.  That is what we are arguing.

The Narrative.

Not the effect of a game play choice.  It's because of that game play result, we're discussing the narrative.

Am I making sense here?  Because if you repeat yourself one more time, you are beyond English comprehension, and I must imagine there are many people struggling to help you understand that there's a difference between glue with your arts and crafts, and the clouds out your window, since you seem to understand the concept of what I'm even telling you of.

Argue the narrative, or stop replying.
[quote]
[quote]We're arguing the why he should be, from the narrative.[/quote]And again,  here's the problem.  The narrative doesn't support that position, at all. 

It only starts to appear to if you assume that "time served automatically = good at job".  It doesn't. 
[/quote]
Prove it.  Preferably by responding to my previous post.
[quote]
And pointing out that that's not necessarily the case in no way suggests that "more time served = more stupidity". 
[/quote]
As I stated before in my last post, I dismissed both arguements with both biases that time = good/bad.  Which is why I didn't bother.

Of course if your Wernicke's area wasn't being smashed with a hammer every day, well, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.  Your construction work does involve helmets, yes?
[quote]
That he has 20 year's experience means precisely and only that.  He's been a merc for 20 years.  It says absolutely nothing about the quality of merc that he is.  To determine the answer to that question, we'll have to look elsewhere.

[quote]All you're saying is exactly a tautology.[/quote]

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

Just because you're failing to comprehend that there are two levels at work here (within the game and outside of it) doesn't make my argument a tautology.
[/quote]
Another definition for tautology is "useless repetition."
[quote]
  [quote]"Because choosing him in the Suicide Mission as per the devs gets someone killed, he's a bad team leader.  He's a bad team leader, because choosing him in the Suicide Mission as per the devs gets someone killed."[/quote]

That's not what I've said.  Here goes again:

1.  The devs decided Zaeed wasn't going to be a good leader.  Full stop.  End of story, there is nothing to dispute on this point.  We, as ignorant players don't know this yet (and this is key), but that leads us to the following:

2.  Because of point 1, the devs made sure that the narrative, personality, history of and our experiences with Zaeed provided more than enough information for us as players (ignorant of point 1), to determine that Zaeed probably wasn't a good leader.  Failure to grasp this for whatever reason does not somehow invalidate point 1.
[/quote]
1) You haven't backed up your claim that the narrative, personality, history and our experiences with Zaeed provided more than enough information.  You have stated a bias that is irrelevant, which I'm dismissed with my own bias, in much the same vein.  If you have, then I've responded, and you simply stopped, now that you're on some retarded meta-gaming tautology rant.
2) We're not arguing what a game play mechanic was set to do.  Because of that setting, we're arguing why it was set that way.  Your answer?  "Because."  That's called a tautology.  "Something is the way it is, because it is."  Also referred to as "A=A".  It's repetitive.  You're proving nothing.
3) We, the people who a) think Zaeed is a good choice, think Zaeed is a bad choice, are arguing through the narrative.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone use a tautology before and think they're automatically 100% right, and every other point of contention must naturally be incorrect or interpreted to be right.
4) You haven't addressed any of my questions from my previous post.  You're hellbent on this "Because the devs said so" and your personal construction worker bias, you must be right, without providing any reason as to why.
[quote]
3.  Because this is a game, we, as ignorant players, can step outside the narrative of the game if we wish, take on limited omniscience with respect to the game and use the Suicide Mission to run numerous experiments to determine who is suitable for each role.  Remember, the suitability of each character for a given role was determined by the devs beforehand, and clues were provided in the in game narrative.  Otherwise that information was kept secret from us.  Therefore our only way to confirm the dev's intent is to run experiments to test our in-game, narrative derived hypotheses.  In this way we can see if our hypothesis about Zaeed's poor leadership abilities is correct, or if we've horribly misinterpreted all of what the devs were telling us and they really intended for him to be a viable and appropriate choice.  But how, exactly, are we to know?  Fortunately for us:
[/quote]
All you just said is that "when you play the game, and choose Zaeed, x happens."

Well you also said "because Zaeed gets someone killed in the Suicide Mission, he's obviously a bad leader."  This is referred to as an argument after the fact, which is like the inverse of what we're trying to point out here.  It's like saying "even though the narrative gave us many interpretations of the effectiveness of character Y, because the outcome of said application, he must be Z".  This is completely disregarding the narrative, and merely going "because of the outcome...", and then cherry picking/interpreting the narrative.  You're talking backwards.

And I'm continuously saying "Yes, we know that Zaeed gets someone killed if you choose him as fire team.  That's not what we're arguing."

What we're not argreeing on is the narrative.  Which is what I want to argue.  Which I have been, but you simply dismissed my points from my last post, and previous posts.  I dont know why.  Are they that damaging to your argument?
[quote]
4.  The devs gave us a very handy way to determine once and for all what their intent was for a character assigned to a given role.  If an in-game death results from assigning that character to a given role, we have confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that the devs did not intend for that character to be successful in that role.

Simple, logical, not a tautology, no matter how many times you try to twist it around and call it one.
[/quote]
We don't need a handy way to determine once and for all what their intent was.  Who cares about their intent?  We don't care.  We don't care how the dev's programmed the game mechanic.  We care why they left the narrative in such a way to be interpreted to be geared toward a vareity of outcomes, yet only one is achieved.  We care about the reasons that make Zaeed come across as someone who'd be an effective or ineffective team leader.  There are thoughts and opinions surrounding for and against.

Your argument is simply "that's the way it is."  Or "Because that's the way it is, therefore the narrative should be looked like that."

That's not an argument.  That's blind, one-sided stupidity, where you can't even see what we're talking about.

[Speakeasy13]

That's not what I've said. Here goes again:



1. The devs decided Zaeed wasn't going to be a good leader. Full stop. End of story, there is nothing to dispute on this point. We, as ignorant players don't know this yet (and this is key), but that leads us to the following:



2. Because of point 1, the devs made sure that the narrative, personality, history of and our experiences with Zaeed provided more than enough information for us as players (ignorant of point 1), to determine that Zaeed probably wasn't a good leader. Failure to grasp this for whatever reason does not somehow invalidate point 1.



3. Because this is a game, we, as ignorant players, can step outside the narrative of the game if we wish, take on limited omniscience with respect to the game and use the Suicide Mission to run numerous experiments to determine who is suitable for each role. Remember, the suitability of each character for a given role was determined by the devs beforehand, and clues were provided in the in game narrative. Otherwise that information was kept secret from us. Therefore our only way to confirm the dev's intent is to run experiments to test our in-game, narrative derived hypotheses. In this way we can see if our hypothesis about Zaeed's poor leadership abilities is correct, or if we've horribly misinterpreted all of what the devs were telling us and they really intended for him to be a viable and appropriate choice. But how, exactly, are we to know? Fortunately for us:



4. The devs gave us a very handy way to determine once and for all what their intent was for a character assigned to a given role. If an in-game death results from assigning that character to a given role, we have confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that the devs did not intend for that character to be successful in that role.



Simple, logical, not a tautology, no matter how many times you try to twist it around and call it one.

We do you hold yourself at such a lowly position as "ignorant" players? Why can't you allow yourself and others to have a different opinion than the devs? If you want to continue with that logic, than we might as well shut down the board at all. Cause the devs are always right and our opposite opinions don't matter right?



I could spend more time arguing with you but I won't. Ultimately it's a matter of relativity. And I don't have the responsibility to help you develop your self-esteem.

[IoCaster]

FlyingBrickyard wrote...

1.  The devs decided Zaeed wasn't going to be a good leader.  Full stop.  End of story, there is nothing to dispute on this point.  We, as ignorant players don't know this yet (and this is key), but that leads us to the following:

Agreed. BioWare decided that Zaeed was not a legitimate choice for the role.

FlyingBrickyard wrote...
2.  Because of point 1, the devs made sure that the narrative, personality, history of and our experiences with Zaeed provided more than enough information for us as players (ignorant of point 1), to determine that Zaeed probably wasn't a good leader.  Failure to grasp this for whatever reason does not somehow invalidate point 1.

Here's where we part ways. There's enough information available in the game to allow the player to have a reasonable expectation that he could do the job. From the players perspective we can interact with Zaeed and legitimately conclude that he's a nifty choice to kick ass and lead combat teams.

Zaeed leads a team of five other mercs to board and take down a Turian Frigate. I seriously doubt that they all boarded the ship and went their separate ways without any concern about watching each others backs. Six men working independently, without any cooperation or coordination, wouldn't last very long in that setting. That gives us some indication that he’s fully capable of integrating into a team and leading them on a seemingly impossible mission. They overcome what seem to be insurmountable odds and succeed. In the course of events the rest of the team gets killed. That's what we know and without any more specific details we can't decisively conclude that their deaths were the result of any misjudgment or a deficiency in his leadership ability. A legitimate opinion can be formed on either side of the issue.

If you do his loyalty mission you get his commitment to integrate into the team and put his past behind him. That takes care of the loyalty ‘gimmick’. He's on equal footing with the rest of the loyal squad members. As far as the player is aware, the loyalty ‘flag’ is set for success.

If you take Zaeed with you on the Garrus recruitment mission you can split your squad and leave him with Garrus. “Hey Zaeed, stay with Garrus and keep him alive.” “Roger That.” Here he commits to safeguarding a stranger and watching his back without reservation. There's no indication that he resents having to play bodyguard. He understands that he’s part of the effort. He's showing that he can be a team player. It's no different from any other character you bring along. Except perhaps Jacob who questions the decision.

After Horizon he'll admit that he understands the scope of the assignment. This isn't some small time bounty hunter job for chump change. Stopping the Collectors is a big deal and he realizes that.

If you take him with you to the Collector Ship he'll comment when you examine the dead collector drone. “They ain't doing that **** to us!” Now he’s got a personal stake in stopping the Collectors. He fully realizes the threat and becomes even more committed to the mission.

As I play the game I'm witnessing the progression of this character first hand. I can start to appreciate his skills and experience and give them some weight in my decision making.

When we assault the Collector Base and it's time to choose a squad leader it's eminently reasonable to expect that he'd be a viable choice. It's not as one-sided as you claim.

He's got a wealth of combat experience on a wide range of battlefields. Ground assault, infiltration, boarding ships under fire and repelling pirates/hijackers, etc,.. We can justifiably expect that he would be as good, if not better, than any other choice to adapt to combat on an atypical battlefield such as the Collector Base.

This is all straight from the narrative and part of the game itself. All indications are that he’s committed, prepared and capable of getting the job done.

We now know that he’s not a legitimate choice for the role of squad leader on the suicide mission.

My opinion is that there's enough evidence presented in the course of playing the game to counterbalance the impressions formed if you judged him solely on the basis of his anecdotes.

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?!?”