101 réponses à ce sujet

[MaaZeus]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Criminals can always be replaced by others regardless of how you classify them. Crime will always be around. Going by your ideals we shouldn't bother arresting any criminals at all since they will just be replaced in time. Lets just encourage people to take up crime and allow crime to go rampant.

Killing Vido might not end the Blue Suns but it serves as a warning that criminal scum will not be tolerated and it will have a real effect at discouraging future potential criminals from joining out of fear. It could also lead to a Blue Suns civil war over who will be the next leader. And the more leaders you kill, the more the message becomes clear until they eventually disband and you will then have less organised crime for a good while.

Now you are splitting hairs. Its not like we aim to be apathic about crime, they should be hunted down but there are still priorities. Saving innocent should come first if you really have power to help them, not your own selfish satisfaction of revenge which Zaeed is after.

[MaaZeus]

cachx wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

Except for the part where Vido will get replaced by a new leader of the Blue suns in short order who will probably be just as bad so killing him in the long run accomplishes precisely dick outside of the direct effect of making Zaeed happy.

This.

Yet, I always choose to go for the kill, because the cutscene is full of awesome. I always found that if you choose to go after Vido, you actually hear the innocents yelling was a great detail and succeds in making you feel guilty.

Oh, and yes, both Zaeed and Kasumi have a lot of great dialogue, I never really understood why people were so concerned about the dialogue wheels.

Indeed. Renegade choice is really biting if you really are a Paragon inside your heart. Hearing them scream through several rooms before finally being silenced by sudden explosion makes me feel tainted and fallen...

About lack of dialog wheel, lack of dialog from Zaeed and Kasumi is not a problem, they both have quite a lot to say. Its the lack of interraction that is dissapointing. Both have interesting things to say, but you cannot say your own opinion about the subject like with other characters, you can just keep listening.

[Skilled Seeker]

MaaZeus wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Criminals can always be replaced by others regardless of how you classify them. Crime will always be around. Going by your ideals we shouldn't bother arresting any criminals at all since they will just be replaced in time. Lets just encourage people to take up crime and allow crime to go rampant.

Killing Vido might not end the Blue Suns but it serves as a warning that criminal scum will not be tolerated and it will have a real effect at discouraging future potential criminals from joining out of fear. It could also lead to a Blue Suns civil war over who will be the next leader. And the more leaders you kill, the more the message becomes clear until they eventually disband and you will then have less organised crime for a good while.

Now you are splitting hairs. Its not like we aim to be apathic about crime, they should be hunted down but there are still priorities. Saving innocent should come first if you really have power to help them, not your own selfish satisfaction of revenge which Zaeed is after.

I don't care about Zaeed's revenge. Letting Vido go just so you can save a few workers will only encourage people like him to take hostages. You have to send a clear message of a 0 tolerance policy and no negotiations. You will save more innocent lives in the long run.

Funny how its us renegades that get accused of not considering the long term.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 03 mai 2010 - 06:57 .

[MaaZeus]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

MaaZeus wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Criminals can always be replaced by others regardless of how you classify them. Crime will always be around. Going by your ideals we shouldn't bother arresting any criminals at all since they will just be replaced in time. Lets just encourage people to take up crime and allow crime to go rampant.

Killing Vido might not end the Blue Suns but it serves as a warning that criminal scum will not be tolerated and it will have a real effect at discouraging future potential criminals from joining out of fear. It could also lead to a Blue Suns civil war over who will be the next leader. And the more leaders you kill, the more the message becomes clear until they eventually disband and you will then have less organised crime for a good while.

Now you are splitting hairs. Its not like we aim to be apathic about crime, they should be hunted down but there are still priorities. Saving innocent should come first if you really have power to help them, not your own selfish satisfaction of revenge which Zaeed is after.

I don't care about Zaeed's revenge. Letting Vido go just so you can save a few workers will only encourage people like him to take hostages. You have to send a clear message of a 0 tolerance policy and no negotiations. You will save more innocent lives in the long run.

Funny how its us renegades that get accused of not considering the long term.

Perhaps, but doing so you will also take the matter of their lives in your hands, a thing criminals like Vido do all the time by killing people. Every mans life should be their own. Their blood will be on you too, (especially considering Zaeed caused the factory go boom) not only Vido. Its a moral question, not logic. Logically speaking killing Vido is better in the long run, PROBAPLY, but innocent people were lost now because of your actions and thats quite an ethical problem, and you cannot be sure what future will bring, who will be killed by whom. They might survive because Vido is dead, but since Blue Suns have their goals they might also be killed by his successor.


Yes, you can probaply tell that I am an idealist, so your POV on this matter is quite different from mine.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 03 mai 2010 - 07:06 .

[Skilled Seeker]

Udina can deal with the political sh*tstorm. Shepard's job is to prevent these things from happening in order to benefit the majority. Of course I always save innocents when it doesn't have a negative impact on the mission e.g the colonists on Feros.

Also Zaeed burst the pipes to blow a hole into the facility that was otherwise sealed shut and allow you to catch up with Vido in time. It was an ingenious move.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 03 mai 2010 - 07:09 .

[Lemonwizard]

The problem with making up justifications for things like this that aren't actually discussed in the game is that you're ignoring that if this were logical real life it would be easy to both save the workers AND catch vido. You and Zaeed could split up. EDI could track the gunship. Or, I don't know, maybe one of the dozens of blue suns goons you fight on the way to save the hostages will stop and realize "Wait, I am going to get blown up too! Maybe I should turn on the sprinklers!"







The simple fact of the matter is, in the context of the game, it's a one or the other decision when it shouldn't be, and whether or not Vido survives will not affect ANYBODY's life at all. This is largely a problem of it being a game with a finite amount of code that can't tolerate so many different scenarios, but when you get down to the decision presented of "help this dude get his revenge" vs. "save innocent people" and don't start coming up with reasoning beyond what the game presents to you, the moral choice is clear.

[MaaZeus]

Lemonwizard wrote...

The problem with making up justifications for things like this that aren't actually discussed in the game is that you're ignoring that if this were logical real life it would be easy to both save the workers AND catch vido. You and Zaeed could split up. EDI could track the gunship. Or, I don't know, maybe one of the dozens of blue suns goons you fight on the way to save the hostages will stop and realize "Wait, I am going to get blown up too! Maybe I should turn on the sprinklers!"



The simple fact of the matter is, in the context of the game, it's a one or the other decision when it shouldn't be, and whether or not Vido survives will not affect ANYBODY's life at all. This is largely a problem of it being a game with a finite amount of code that can't tolerate so many different scenarios, but when you get down to the decision presented of "help this dude get his revenge" vs. "save innocent people" and don't start coming up with reasoning beyond what the game presents to you, the moral choice is clear.

What makes games like Mass Effect great is that you can put yourself in the shoes of your hero. While the choices in the game are limited, (there should have been choice of EDI tracking Vido, much like there should have been a choice to give Collectors Base to council) they are still choices and you make them based on your OWN moral or logical reasoning of what is right and wrong, unless you are playing out of your character that is. Thinking just within the borders of game "this is paragon and this is badass renegade" is quite one dimensional gaming.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 03 mai 2010 - 07:22 .

[Skilled Seeker]

Lemonwizard wrote...

The problem with making up justifications for things like this that aren't actually discussed in the game is that you're ignoring that if this were logical real life it would be easy to both save the workers AND catch vido. You and Zaeed could split up. EDI could track the gunship. Or, I don't know, maybe one of the dozens of blue suns goons you fight on the way to save the hostages will stop and realize "Wait, I am going to get blown up too! Maybe I should turn on the sprinklers!"



The simple fact of the matter is, in the context of the game, it's a one or the other decision when it shouldn't be, and whether or not Vido survives will not affect ANYBODY's life at all. This is largely a problem of it being a game with a finite amount of code that can't tolerate so many different scenarios, but when you get down to the decision presented of "help this dude get his revenge" vs. "save innocent people" and don't start coming up with reasoning beyond what the game presents to you, the moral choice is clear.

Well within the confined scenario killing Vido is still the better option IMO. And I don't do it for Zaeed though his satisfaction is mine also.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Lemonwizard wrote...

The problem with making up justifications for things like this that aren't actually discussed in the game is that you're ignoring that if this were logical real life it would be easy to both save the workers AND catch vido. You and Zaeed could split up. EDI could track the gunship. Or, I don't know, maybe one of the dozens of blue suns goons you fight on the way to save the hostages will stop and realize "Wait, I am going to get blown up too! Maybe I should turn on the sprinklers!"



The simple fact of the matter is, in the context of the game, it's a one or the other decision when it shouldn't be, and whether or not Vido survives will not affect ANYBODY's life at all. This is largely a problem of it being a game with a finite amount of code that can't tolerate so many different scenarios, but when you get down to the decision presented of "help this dude get his revenge" vs. "save innocent people" and don't start coming up with reasoning beyond what the game presents to you, the moral choice is clear.

Thats what I was talking about from my first person perspective moral ambiguity thing.  Which is why this situation gives me pause while Bring Down the Sky doesn't, in that situation I always save the hostages.  Here you do not know what is going to happen.

[Lemonwizard]

Within the confined scenario, I think the more useful part of the paragon outcome of Zaeed's mission is giving a clear message to a loose cannon teammate that his insubordination will not be tolerated and if he can't do things my way I have no further business with him. Saving the workers is just a bonus for me.

[MaaZeus]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Within the confined scenario, I think the more useful part of the paragon outcome of Zaeed's mission is giving a clear message to a loose cannon teammate that his insubordination will not be tolerated and if he can't do things my way I have no further business with him. Saving the workers is just a bonus for me.

Thats actually a good one. Never thought about that. And especially if you manage to kill Zaeed this way, it even has some Renegade tone to it.

[Onyx Jaguar]

It works in both ways in my opinion and I personally think it is the best written scenario from a decision making standpoint. As a player you know what will happen, but Shepard does not. You coudl go and save the workers and still kill Vido or you could go kill Vido and assume (Since one escaped) that the workers will free themselves. It doesn't happen like that but in that situation it had to have crossed Shepards mind.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Within the confined scenario, I think the more useful part of the paragon outcome of Zaeed's mission is giving a clear message to a loose cannon teammate that his insubordination will not be tolerated and if he can't do things my way I have no further business with him. Saving the workers is just a bonus for me.

The logically faulty thing is thinking that Zaed is your subordinate on Zaeed's mission.

In every "loyalty" mission Shepard is subordinate to the respective companion. But реут again, throughout ME2 Shepard is supposed to be subordinate to TIM, just like in One he is supposed to be subordinate first to Anderson, then to the Council. And then the game forces you (for a good reason, yet still...) to become insubordinate of the Council, when you hijack the grounded Normandy. In Two the game does not force you to be insuborfdinate to TIM, but, of course, you can choose to be, if it's to your own liking.

Anyway, Zaeed can not be insubordinate to Shepard on Zorya, because it's Zaeed's mission, and Shepard is his partner at most.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 mai 2010 - 08:05 .

[Skilled Seeker]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

Within the confined scenario, I think the more useful part of the paragon outcome of Zaeed's mission is giving a clear message to a loose cannon teammate that his insubordination will not be tolerated and if he can't do things my way I have no further business with him. Saving the workers is just a bonus for me.

The logically faulty thing is thinking that Zaed is your subordinate on Zaeed's mission.

In every "loyalty" mission Shepard is subordinate to the respective companion. But реут again, throughout ME2 Shepard is supposed to be subordinate to TIM, just like in One he is supposed to be subordinate first to Anderson, then to the Council. And then the game forces you (for a good reason, yet still...) to become insubordinate of the Council, when you hijack the grounded Normandy. In Two the game does not force you to be insuborfdinate to TIM, but, of course, you can choose to be, if it's to your own liking.

Anyway, Zaeed can not be insubordinate to Shepard on Zorya, because it's Zaeed's mission, and Shepard is his partner at most.

Good point. TIM agrees that Zaeed would get help on his mission if he joins Shepard. It was part of the deal. So Shepard has no right to mess it up.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 03 mai 2010 - 08:10 .

[Lemonwizard]

The simple fact of the matter is, if the scenario were taken realistically, there's no reason for Vido to have the "Magically disappears forever" gunship.The first time I did this mission I saved the workers fully expecting I was going to kill Vido anyway 30 minutes afterward and Zaeed was just being selfish and impatient. When he got away I was staring at my game going "what, we can't chase this ****?". I thought the mission was fun gameplay wise but the main decision was contrived in terms of storyline because there's no reason at all you shouldn't be able to accomplish both objectives.

[Lemonwizard]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

Within the confined scenario, I think the more useful part of the paragon outcome of Zaeed's mission is giving a clear message to a loose cannon teammate that his insubordination will not be tolerated and if he can't do things my way I have no further business with him. Saving the workers is just a bonus for me.

The logically faulty thing is thinking that Zaed is your subordinate on Zaeed's mission.

In every "loyalty" mission Shepard is subordinate to the respective companion. But реут again, throughout ME2 Shepard is supposed to be subordinate to TIM, just like in One he is supposed to be subordinate first to Anderson, then to the Council. And then the game forces you (for a good reason, yet still...) to become insubordinate of the Council, when you hijack the grounded Normandy. In Two the game does not force you to be insuborfdinate to TIM, but, of course, you can choose to be, if it's to your own liking.

Anyway, Zaeed can not be insubordinate to Shepard on Zorya, because it's Zaeed's mission, and Shepard is his partner at most.

Good point. TIM agrees that Zaeed would get help on the mission if he joins Shepard. It was part of the deal. So Shepard has no right to mess it up.

Technically, the mission in the contract IS liberating refinery workers and Zaeed only tells you it's actually about revenge once you're on the ground.

[Skilled Seeker]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

Within the confined scenario, I think the more useful part of the paragon outcome of Zaeed's mission is giving a clear message to a loose cannon teammate that his insubordination will not be tolerated and if he can't do things my way I have no further business with him. Saving the workers is just a bonus for me.

The logically faulty thing is thinking that Zaed is your subordinate on Zaeed's mission.

In every "loyalty" mission Shepard is subordinate to the respective companion. But реут again, throughout ME2 Shepard is supposed to be subordinate to TIM, just like in One he is supposed to be subordinate first to Anderson, then to the Council. And then the game forces you (for a good reason, yet still...) to become insubordinate of the Council, when you hijack the grounded Normandy. In Two the game does not force you to be insuborfdinate to TIM, but, of course, you can choose to be, if it's to your own liking.

Anyway, Zaeed can not be insubordinate to Shepard on Zorya, because it's Zaeed's mission, and Shepard is his partner at most.

Good point. TIM agrees that Zaeed would get help on the mission if he joins Shepard. It was part of the deal. So Shepard has no right to mess it up.

Technically, the mission in the contract IS liberating refinery workers and Zaeed only tells you it's actually about revenge once you're on the ground.

Thats because he didn't know Vido was there. Nonetheless its still best to respect Zaeed on his mission.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Technically, the mission in the contract IS liberating refinery workers...

And your part of the contract is to provide fire support for the party called Zaeed.

[Blackbaron15]

AntiChri5 wrote...

It was physically impossible for a human to survive what Shepard went through.

People have survived bullets to the head before. It is remarkable but not awe inspiring.

Your forgetting what he also did.

>Blew up a turian battleship with just a small team( they were all killed by the way)                                        
>Hunted the most dangerous criminals
>Fought in thousands of battles
>Took out a Krogan warlord with his bare hands
>Ex-alliance military
>Sheer bad assery that is equal and maybe even surpasses shepards!
 

[Lemonwizard]

Do they ever explain why Vido didn't just pull the trigger again when he noticed Zaeed wasn't dead?

[Zulu_DFA]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Do they ever explain why Vido didn't just pull the trigger again when he noticed Zaeed wasn't dead?

Look's like he didn't noticed that.

[Lemonwizard]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

Do they ever explain why Vido didn't just pull the trigger again when he noticed Zaeed wasn't dead?

Look's like he didn't noticed that.

See, the "rage is a hell of an anesthetic" line implied to me that he was still conscious afterward, but I really wish this was explained in more detail. Because from what we're told it sounds like Vido's just a total moron.

[Apollo Rising]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

The problem with making up justifications for things like this that aren't actually discussed in the game is that you're ignoring that if this were logical real life it would be easy to both save the workers AND catch vido. You and Zaeed could split up. EDI could track the gunship. Or, I don't know, maybe one of the dozens of blue suns goons you fight on the way to save the hostages will stop and realize "Wait, I am going to get blown up too! Maybe I should turn on the sprinklers!"



The simple fact of the matter is, in the context of the game, it's a one or the other decision when it shouldn't be, and whether or not Vido survives will not affect ANYBODY's life at all. This is largely a problem of it being a game with a finite amount of code that can't tolerate so many different scenarios, but when you get down to the decision presented of "help this dude get his revenge" vs. "save innocent people" and don't start coming up with reasoning beyond what the game presents to you, the moral choice is clear.

Thats what I was talking about from my first person perspective moral ambiguity thing.  Which is why this situation gives me pause while Bring Down the Sky doesn't, in that situation I always save the hostages.  Here you do not know what is going to happen.

You dont negociate with a terrorist...ever. It makes you appear weak. You take a hard stance and you stick to it. You cow tow to one terrorists demand and the next thing you know hostage taking becomes an everyday fact of life. The Batarians drew the short straw with me every time. Vido's situation was a hard choice for my Shepard even though I play him about 75% renegade(Im not heartless).But in the end ,even if someone rises up to take Vido's place, in the back of their mind they have got to be thinking not to F with Shepard...he takes no prisoners. It might give the Mercs and Slavers pause before they do something they will surely regret.

[Apollo Rising]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

Do they ever explain why Vido didn't just pull the trigger again when he noticed Zaeed wasn't dead?

Look's like he didn't noticed that.

See, the "rage is a hell of an anesthetic" line implied to me that he was still conscious afterward, but I really wish this was explained in more detail. Because from what we're told it sounds like Vido's just a total moron.

They most likely thought Zaeed was dead or fast on his way and dumped him somewhere.I dont think he was shot in the head and fought his way out of the situation.

[Zulu_DFA]

Apollo Rising wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

Do they ever explain why Vido didn't just pull the trigger again when he noticed Zaeed wasn't dead?

Look's like he didn't noticed that.

See, the "rage is a hell of an anesthetic" line implied to me that he was still conscious afterward, but I really wish this was explained in more detail. Because from what we're told it sounds like Vido's just a total moron.

They most likely thought Zaeed was dead or fast on his way and dumped him somewhere.I dont think he was shot in the head and fought his way out of the situation.

Same here. Kind of like the Payback movie (Mel Gibson's second best and last good role IMO).