143 réponses à ce sujet

[tommyt_1994]

Someone posted the following passage in the "Are there any decisions you made that conflict with your views in real life?"(paraphrasing) thread. What he said really got me thinking about these 2 paragon decisions I normally make. I havent really put this much thought into these 2 decisions until I read his post.

Zombor wrote:  "Two paragon choices I disagree with:



-Saving the hostages in Bring Down the Sky. Balak has the resources to crash asteroids into planets, and we let him go and taught him that hostages work. Never negotiate with terrorists.



-Letting Vido get away. A lot more people are going to die because Vido is still at large. After the renegade ending Zaeed even says, "I know it doesn't seem like it but you did the right thing." I agree with him. Optimal solution was to save the hostages and radio Joker to Thanix Cannon anything that flies out of the facility, but that wasn't a dialogue choice"


He made some really good points here and now he's got me second guessing myself lol

PS: Zombor, if you would like me to remove the quote or something just let me know and I will, its just what you said really got me thinking lol


Anyways, what're your thoughts on these 2 decisions?

[Onyx Jaguar]

Saving the hostages is always the right thing to do in Bring Down the Sky. Only from a metagaming perspective would you kill Balak. You do not know what would become of Balak after that so it would not be safe to assume anything.



Letting Vido get away? This one is better presented and it can be justifiable to go after him thinking that since one hostage got away the others could make it.

[AntiChri5]

Letting Vido get away is alot more acceptable than letting Balak get away.

[Flamin Jesus]

a) What's even the point of fighting against terrorists if you don't actually... you know... protect the people you're supposed to protect while you do it? And hell, let him know that hostages work, at least better than indiscriminately killing everyone (You know, hostages are worthless if you don't keep them alive).



Vido is a criminal and a murderer, so is Vido's successor, so was Vido's predecessor (Yes, that's the guy you're travelling with, the one who was quite willing to kill a bunch of innocents to get his revenge, remember?), whether you get that one guy that day or not doesn't change the organisation or their modus operandi. Of course killing Vido is "the right thing" according to the guy who spent 20 years looking for him, that doesn't mean it will actually bring about any positive change at all.

[Onyx Jaguar]

All you know of Balak is that he is a Batarian terrorist that attacked that station. It could be a major setback, it could not. It could also ruin him it might not. Plus after that mission he is known and a suspect of high priority. Not Shepards problem.



Vido on the other hand leads the Blue Suns. As a Merc group no organization would go after him. Plus he is well funded and quite difficult to find.

[enormousmoonboots]

It's worth letting Vido get away just to let Zaeed know who's in charge. I'm not going to do some displaced merc's bidding, especially not when he lies to get you there in the first place.



As for BtDS, my favorite way to handle it is gun down lieutenant and rip keycard out of his cold dead hands, save hostages, give Renegade HUNT HIM TO THE END OF THE GALAXY speech afterwards. Killed Balak once, felt like a hollow victory.



Honestly, there are no wrong decisions (even from a metagaming perspective, Paragon only gets a slight edge because letting people survive their dealings with you means more content for import into the next game and later scenes). I'll never know why people agonize over them like this. Make the choice that's in line with the galaxy you want to create. Simple.

[Ecael]

Just because Vido's dead doesn't mean he already has a successor chosen. Otherwise, Zaeed would take over the Blue Suns like an heir to the throne (which would be badass, actually).

As for Balak - I think Paragon Shepard says something about how they can tell that Balak will keep his word (after all, Shepard will go after him if he makes trouble again).

[Spartas Husky]

Depends on what you base your actions in. Necessity? tactical viability? lesson?



On a more "our world" sense.



1st you dont negotiate with terrorists so they dont do it again.

2nd, you fix the mistake of your teammates above all else.

Exp: if your team mate messed up, you are just as responsible for the mistake he made.



On the Asteroid, I sacrificed the Hostages, no real argument there.



On Vido, I was going in, actually expecting for him to hold the people hostage and for me to have to do the same as in the asteroid. But given the change of plans in which Zaeed was to rash and went ballistic, his stupidity is on my side, so I have to rescue the damn hostages.



If someone holds somebody hostage, is the bad guy's fault.

But if I put someone in danger, is my fault, and have to fix it.



I mentioned this before. But when you choose between going after Vido, or helping the hostages, and you choose the hostages, Zaeed says " i knew this was a mistake"



I would have loved to have the dialogue option of : "you should have thought of it before you set this place on fire, now I have to deal with your fu....ing mistake"

[Flamin Jesus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Vido on the other hand leads the Blue Suns. As a Merc group no organization would go after him. Plus he is well funded and quite difficult to find.

My point was less "Someone can get him later" and more "What's the point of killing him anyway?", in the grand scheme of things, killing the person performing a particular function will most likely just mean that someone else is going to take over said function. Whether the boss of the Blue Suns is called Vido, Zaeed or Quargazorg, Devourer Of Pies isn't going to change what they are.
Besides the obvious point that the Blue Suns are actually one of the merc outfits that perform a useful function within the Terminus systems and potentially destabilizing them could have any number of unforseeable consequences.

Anyway, the oversized outdated footwear item is correct, it's just a game, it's your galaxy, do as you please.

[tommyt_1994]

Thanks for the input guys. Some good opinions vocalized here. When it comes to Zaeed's loyalty mission, letting Vido go is kind of acceptable in my eyes because even if you lop off the head of a merc organization, its likely that he has a second in command willing and able to step into place.

With BDTS, well thats a huge grey area. Letting a pissed off terrorist who has the resources and ability to hijack a meteor and crash in into a planet, thus killing millions(or billions? of people get away? Looking at it that way certainly seems like a bad choice, but on the other hand, Balak is now a known terrorist and is being hunted. Anything he could possibly do would be much harder to set up now. Also, you dont KNOW that he intends to make another attack.

This is why I really love Mass Effect, all the grey areas really make the game more real, IMO.

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 17 mai 2010 - 02:32 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Flamin Jesus wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Vido on the other hand leads the Blue Suns. As a Merc group no organization would go after him. Plus he is well funded and quite difficult to find.

My point was less "Someone can get him later" and more "What's the point of killing him anyway?", in the grand scheme of things, killing the person performing a particular function will most likely just mean that someone else is going to take over said function. Whether the boss of the Blue Suns is called Vido, Zaeed or Quargazorg, Devourer Of Pies isn't going to change what they are.
Besides the obvious point that the Blue Suns are actually one of the merc outfits that perform a useful function within the Terminus systems and potentially destabilizing them could have any number of unforseeable consequences.

Anyway, the oversized outdated footwear item is correct, it's just a game, it's your galaxy, do as you please.

My argument really wasn't that it was the right thing to do, I personally feel that of those two decisions it would be the one that would be in essence "the one that got away" while Balak would have much more problems than Vido would.  I always save the hostages in both instances.  I feel the Zoyra scenario though is better written because from a first person perspective as Shepard you really do not know what will happen either way.  If you go after Vido the hostages might save themselves, if you go and save the hostages you might be able to catch Vido.

[AntiChri5]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Thanks for the input guys. Some good opinions vocalized here. When it comes to Zaeed's loyalty mission, letting Vido go is kind of acceptable in my eyes because even if you lop off the head of a merc organization, its likely that he has a second in command willing and able to step into place.

With BDTS, well thats a huge grey area. Letting a pissed off terrorist who has the resources and ability to hijack a meteor and crash in into a planet, thus killing millions(or billions? of people get away? Looking at it that way certainly seems like a bad choice, but on the other hand, Balak is now a known terrorist and is being hunted. Anything he could possibly do would be much harder to set up now. Also, you dont KNOW that he intends to make another attack.

This is why I really love Mass Effect, all the grey areas really make the game more real, IMO.

Basically this.

We know that the Blue Suns have a command structure with ranks and a heirarchy  so we know someone will simply step into Vidos shoes.

Balaks cheif luitenant is already on the edge of desertion and heavily implies that balak put the whole thing together.

[Flamin Jesus]

Spartas Husky wrote...

Depends on what you base your actions in. Necessity? tactical viability? lesson?

On a more "our world" sense.

1st you dont negotiate with terrorists so they dont do it again.

You're mixing up "terrorists" and "kidnappers/extortionists".

If someone holds somebody hostage, is the bad guy's fault.
But if I put someone in danger, is my fault, and have to fix it.

So, if given the choice of whether to save hostages in a real situation, you wouldn't think about the people who are actually directly affected by your choice and in risk of dying (Which would be the HOSTAGES), but whether or not you could later say "Hey, HE started it!"? Interesting ethical stance.

[tommyt_1994]

AntiChri5 wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Thanks for the input guys. Some good opinions vocalized here. When it comes to Zaeed's loyalty mission, letting Vido go is kind of acceptable in my eyes because even if you lop off the head of a merc organization, its likely that he has a second in command willing and able to step into place.

With BDTS, well thats a huge grey area. Letting a pissed off terrorist who has the resources and ability to hijack a meteor and crash in into a planet, thus killing millions(or billions? of people get away? Looking at it that way certainly seems like a bad choice, but on the other hand, Balak is now a known terrorist and is being hunted. Anything he could possibly do would be much harder to set up now. Also, you dont KNOW that he intends to make another attack.

This is why I really love Mass Effect, all the grey areas really make the game more real, IMO.

Basically this.

We know that the Blue Suns have a command structure with ranks and a heirarchy  so we know someone will simply step into Vidos shoes.

Balaks cheif luitenant is already on the edge of desertion and heavily implies that balak put the whole thing together.

This is interesting actually, I chose to kill Balak's second in command(is that what he was? Im speaking of that Batarian that either drops or gives you the key to get into the main base). Anyways, he had absoultely nothing to bargain, no hostages or anything. And for all we know, he  is lying through his teeth. If youre bat **** crazy boss told you to go kill a man and his team who have mowed through dozens of your people already, wouldnt you try to do anything you could to try and get out of it? The point is, he is still a terrorist, and for all you know, he will continue doing the exact same thing if you let him go. 

Lol I know it probably doesnt make the most sense. But thats the way I look at it

[Ecael]

Shandepared wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Saving the hostages is always the right thing to do in Bring Down the Sky. Only from a metagaming perspective would you kill Balak. You do not know what would become of Balak after that so it would not be safe to assume anything.

Do you come from Backwards Land or something?

¿puɐן spɹɐʍʞɔɐq ɯoɹɟ ǝɯoɔ ǝɥ pןnoʍ ʎɥʍ

[KOKitten]

If you let him go Balak never says that he won't make trouble again. Balak's assistant, Charn, tells you that he'll stay out of human space when you let him go. I always let Charn go. Balak just arms the detonators and leaves.

I have absolutely no reason to think that Balak isn't going to try this again, which is why I usually kill him even on mainly Paragon playthroughs. For all I know he's going to walk out of there, take his ship to Terra Nova and start setting up explosives while we're still trying to stop the detonators. I let him go once and it was nice to see Kate Bowman survive for a change but I was pretty creeped out by the fact that I let a terrorist go free in the galaxy.

I've killed Vido every time but once (same character which allowed Balak to escape). Vido worked with terrorists, he shot workers in the back and left them to rot as a warning, he ordered the torture and murder of the archaeologists on Joab, among other things. Plus, seeing that Zorya is run by the Blue Suns I'm not so sure that refinery will stay liberated.

If Vido is truly as sadistic as we've seen, I could see him waiting until the Normandy leaves Zorya's atmosphere, coming back to that refinery and killing every person inside as a warning to the next group of people who plan to "liberate" something he takes.

[TheGreyGhost119]

I always kill Balak. Saving 4 or 5 hostages isn't worth letting an intelligent, well funded and most of all motivated terrorist from getting away.



However, I tend to save the hostages. Vido was really just a merc who (maybe) took a few slaves. It never felt right to let them die just because Zaeed was bloodthirsty.

[Spartas Husky]

Flamin Jesus wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Depends on what you base your actions in. Necessity? tactical viability? lesson?

On a more "our world" sense.

1st you dont negotiate with terrorists so they dont do it again.

You're mixing up "terrorists" and "kidnappers/extortionists".

If someone holds somebody hostage, is the bad guy's fault.
But if I put someone in danger, is my fault, and have to fix it.

So, if given the choice of whether to save hostages in a real situation, you wouldn't think about the people who are actually directly affected by your choice and in risk of dying (Which would be the HOSTAGES), but whether or not you could later say "Hey, HE started it!"? Interesting ethical stance.

nope. terrorist is anyone who uses fear as a weapon... kidnappers and extortionist use fear of death for money....is pretty much one and the same.


You misunderstand, and obvious take it out of context.

If I am at a convoy checkpoint. And somebody holds anyone hostage to get away in a car, I will have no quarrel, about lighting up that car with a 50 cal.

ANother example.

If a friend or me, somehow ...lets say started firing, and a Natural Gas tank crippled a building, and I have to choose between chasing the mofo who started firing at us, or getting the civilians out of the building, (I or friend) by accident destabilize, I will go get the civies to safety.

But if you want to be childish and wish to put it in simple meaning yes. If it is his fault, ima light up that guy with 2 nice clean rounds through his damn chest, if it is my fault, I will try to secure whoever I put in dangers for not being careful.

Now, in tactical terms is called "no giving a dam rat's ass if it isn't your fault". You own up to your mistakes, and you very well damn make sure you make others pay for theirs.

[mosor]

Personally I'm generally renegade but I almost always save the hostages rather than kill Vido. The reason being is that the mission was to retake the facility and rescue the hostages. Zaeed didn't tell me his real reasons until the last minute. So too bad too sad. Mission take priority over personal issues.



As for Belak. From the dialogue I was under the impression that he was more of a lieutenant for someone else rather than a mastermind. Sure killing him prevents him committing more terrorist acts but his handler is still at large. There is an argument to be made that by saving the hostages, at least you have a lead to track down the person organizing all this, while killing him you got no leads.

[tommyt_1994]

Ecael wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Saving the hostages is always the right thing to do in Bring Down the Sky. Only from a metagaming perspective would you kill Balak. You do not know what would become of Balak after that so it would not be safe to assume anything.

Do you come from Backwards Land or something?

¿puɐן spɹɐʍʞɔɐq ɯoɹɟ ǝɯoɔ ǝɥ pןnoʍ ʎɥʍ

Technically, thats more like backwards, upsidedownwards land

[Xan Kreigor Mk2]

This brings another interesting point to the surface

It was paragon to save mealons (sp, w/e) data on curing the genophage, "incase they ever needed it." Why couldnt it be paragon to save the Collectors base, "incase we ever needed it."

Modifié par Xan Kreigor Mk2, 17 mai 2010 - 02:50 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

So what is the point of Killing Balak other than eliminating a Terrorist? In order to do so you let hostages die.