143 réponses à ce sujet

[Lunatic LK47]

Pacifien wrote...

Not only that, but capturing Balak gives you the chance to keep him alive so that he can be further interrogated. Considering he implies he is just the beginning of a larger revolution, he might know something important about batarian interests. Or maybe he's just got delusions of grandeur.

I could be wrong, but the Batarian Revolution was thwarted by Jacob Taylor.

[GothamLord]

XtremegamerHK47 wrote...

Think of it this way, they are DLC villains, they cant come back in any major way. Just save the civilians.

Why cant they come back in additional DLC material???

Hell why cant it work like Wrex in the main game?  If you killed Wrex he was replaced with different results to the Krogan people. If the game picks up the trigger that said terrorist got away, it replaces it with Balak or whoever.   Saying it cant come back just because its DLC is silly.

Modifié par GothamLord, 17 mai 2010 - 04:28 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

GothamLord wrote...

XtremegamerHK47 wrote...

Think of it this way, they are DLC villains, they cant come back in any major way. Just save the civilians.

Why cant they come back in additional DLC material???

Not to change the topic but DLC doesn't have quite the ceiling that the main game does.  A sequel to a DLC would just not be a wise business move.

[Pacifien]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
I could be wrong, but the Batarian Revolution was thwarted by Jacob Taylor.

I bet the Batarians started a new revolution the very next day.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Very interesting theories, guys. In the end, though, there is ultimately no right or wrong. It's just a matter of acting as you see fit. ME3 will be provide the answers eventually.

[Zulu_DFA]

AntiChri5 wrote...

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

Really? Is that because Balak is a four eyed monster?

Vido is a self-styled villain, while Balak most probably acts on behalf or under orders by Batarian government/military. In which case he'll possibly be executed or sold to slavery for his failure, even if you let him go.

That said, Balak is a bad tumor on the Galaxy. As is Vido. They don't deserve even a chance to get away. A few civilian lives is a fair collateral damage price for assured elimination of both targets.

XtremegamerHK47 wrote...

Think of it this way, they are DLC villains, they cant come back in any major way. Just save the civilians.

Great role-playing!

Shepard: "I think I'm on a DLC mission now, so a can't screw up either way, so I'm free to act like a moron."

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 17 mai 2010 - 06:33 .

[Nivenus]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

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?

The first, I can see rationally though emotionally, at the time, I was baited by the hostages. Realstically, though, you're right.

The second though, I'm not so sure about. I don't think the Blue Suns are as dependent on Vido's leadership as you think they are. Furthermore, rescuing the slaves was the mission. Killing Vido was, at best, a secondary objective.

[JKoopman]

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.

Imagine you found Osama Bin Laden and he was holed up in a shack with a half dozen hostages as human shields. Would you let him walk away scott free just to save those six lives only to risk him ramming a few more planes into office buildings and potentially killing thousands more lives or would you consider those six individuals to be an acceptable sacrifice to ensure the safety of far more?

Now ramp up those airplanes slamming into office buildings and make it asteroids being dropped onto planets, and instead of a few thousand lives in danger it's now several billion. Are you really going to risk the population of an entire planet just to save a half dozen hostages?

If your answer is still yes, I can only shrug my shoulders at you. I'm really hoping there's a news blurb in ME3 that reports a populated planet destroyed via asteroid drop with a certain "fugitive batarian terrorist" taking credit, just so all the bleeding hearts who didn't want a little blood on their hands can see the likely repercussions of their choice.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

JKoopman wrote...

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.

Imagine you found Osama Bin Laden and he was holed up in a shack with a half dozen hostages as human shields. Would you let him walk away scott free just to save those six lives only to risk him ramming a few more planes into office buildings and potentially killing thousands more lives or would you consider those six individuals to be an acceptable sacrifice to ensure the safety of far more?

Now ramp up those airplanes slamming into office buildings and make it asteroids being dropped onto planets, and instead of a few thousand lives in danger it's now several billion. Are you really going to risk the population of an entire planet just to save a half dozen hostages?

If your answer is still yes, I can only shrug my shoulders at you. I'm really hoping there's a news blurb in ME3 that reports a populated planet destroyed via asteroid drop with a certain "fugitive batarian terrorist" taking credit, just so all the bleeding hearts who didn't want a little blood on their hands can see the likely repercussions of their choice.

Killing Osama wouldn't put an end to the organization that he created, it doesn't operate that way given the way their various cells operate. You're stuck in a linear way of thinking; things are not always as clear cut as they seem to be.

Besides, you're using a very flawed analogy. Balak doesn't have the manpower to go around recruiting people to do his various deeds. If you recall, his second-in-command had doubts and states that Balak was essentially running the show. It might even turn out to be that he is merely a pawn of a larger organization, making killing him (like Osama) strategically pointless at the unecessary cost of civilian life.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 17 mai 2010 - 07:31 .

[Pacifien]

Flamin Jesus wrote...

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

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

Whoa, wait, hullo, I missed that the first time around. Directing an asteroid to hit a planet with over 4 million inhabitants is a kidnapping/extortionist attempt?

[Spartas Husky]

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

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.

Imagine you found Osama Bin Laden and he was holed up in a shack with a half dozen hostages as human shields. Would you let him walk away scott free just to save those six lives only to risk him ramming a few more planes into office buildings and potentially killing thousands more lives or would you consider those six individuals to be an acceptable sacrifice to ensure the safety of far more?

Now ramp up those airplanes slamming into office buildings and make it asteroids being dropped onto planets, and instead of a few thousand lives in danger it's now several billion. Are you really going to risk the population of an entire planet just to save a half dozen hostages?

If your answer is still yes, I can only shrug my shoulders at you. I'm really hoping there's a news blurb in ME3 that reports a populated planet destroyed via asteroid drop with a certain "fugitive batarian terrorist" taking credit, just so all the bleeding hearts who didn't want a little blood on their hands can see the likely repercussions of their choice.

Killing Osama wouldn't put an end to the organization that he created, it doesn't operate that way given the way their various cells operate. You're stuck in a linear way of thinking; things are not always as clear cut as they seem to be.

Besides, you're using a very flawed analogy. Balak doesn't have the manpower to go around recruiting people to do his various deeds. If you recall, his second-in-command had doubts and states that Balak was essentially running the show. It might even turn out to be that he is merely a pawn of a larger organization, making killing him (like Osama) strategically pointless at the unecessary cost of civilian life.

Dont matter if is liner, is one less idiot with the charisma and resources to deal with.


But I am sure thinking "he is one guy and if I kill him another will replace him so leme sit down with my thumb up my butt...coz there is really no point in doing anything as it wont change nothing"

 I understand both ways of thinking, but I rather not sit down with a thumb up my butt .

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Eliminating both or either of them changes little. Especially Vido. There are are many many more people just like them.

[ObserverStatus]

I figured that Balak was too dangerous and if I let him live far more people would die than if I let him splode the bomb. His plot to destroy Terra Nova proved that he was more than an ordinary terrorist.

[Spartas Husky]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Eliminating both or either of them changes little. Especially Vido. There are are many many more people just like them.

Nicely put.

Some believe swift action is preferable to innaction. History has taught us the value or lack of there of, of both ways of thinking.

there we have it ladies and germs :wizard:

[Pacifien]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...
Eliminating both or either of them changes little. Especially Vido. There are are many many more people just like them.

Yeah, but cult of personality is rare. And apparently worth over 4 billion credits.

[Nivenus]

Pacifien wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...
Eliminating both or either of them changes little. Especially Vido. There are are many many more people just like them.

Yeah, but cult of personality is rare. And apparently worth over 4 billion credits.

It's debateable whether or not Balak has a cult of personality, but Vido certainly doesn't. His identity isn't even known to the majority of Blue Suns employees.

PMCs don't tend to organize around one person in the same way that some regimes do. They're corporations. They operate based on profit. Eliminating Vido just puts the Blue Suns back a little.

[HBC Dresden]

For me, killing Balak is definitely justifiable, along the Batman line of consequence. If you kill Balak, several hostages die, horrible yes, but if you let Balak get away, he will kill more and more (like the Joker in Batman) until you catch and kill him again. In the end, Shepard's actions result in more death the paragon way (and yes, I know millions were saved on Terra Nova). Also, Kate Bowman was willing to sacrifice her life.



But with Vido, I usually let him get away because I view Shepard being presented the same choice Saren was with the refinery attack with Anderson when the latter was up for Spectre candidacy. If Shepard lets the workers die, there is an uncanny connection you can make between Saren and Shepard, and my Femshep tries to avoid that at all costs. Also, you get a heavy weapon upgrade with the paragon route

[Zulu_DFA]

Don't forget Balak can be taken alive!

[Pacifien]

HBC Dresden wrote...
But with Vido, I usually let him get away because I view Shepard being presented the same choice Saren was with the refinery attack with Anderson when the latter was up for Spectre candidacy. If Shepard lets the workers die, there is an uncanny connection you can make between Saren and Shepard, and my Femshep tries to avoid that at all costs. Also, you get a heavy weapon upgrade with the paragon route

There's something I like about roleplaying Shepard to closely resemble Saren. The idea that their roles could have easily been reversed or that Shepard would always be on the line between hero and villain as Saren was.

[JKoopman]

Spartas Husky wrote...

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"

You actually do get a line very similar to that. Immediately after Zaeed blows the refinery door and starts the explosive chain reaction, you can confront him and - if the Paragon interupt is selected - you punch him and say "I oughta knock you the hell out but thanks to you we have a burning refinery to save!"

[Nivenus]

Shandepared wrote...

Pacifien wrote...

There's something I like about roleplaying Shepard to closely resemble Saren. The idea that their roles could have easily been reversed or that Shepard would always be on the line between hero and villain as Saren was.

I enjoy this too. The slaughter of Zhu's Hope, the destruction of the rifinery on Zorya, and the betrayal of Samara all work nicely towards that end.

Edit: also the loss of his Spectre status...

Off topic but...

Why on earth would anyone in their sane mind choose a completely untrustworthy serial killer with mind control abilities over a trusworthy if ruthless justicar who will at least let you know if she thinks she's going to have to kill you?

That always puzzles me.

Similarly, I never killed the colonists on Zhu's Hope, even on my renegade playthrough, because it seemed pointless given how easy it was to just knock them out. Whooo, switch my grenades to stun instead of kill, big deal.

[GothamLord]

Nivenus wrote...

Off topic but...

Why on earth would anyone in their sane mind choose a completely untrustworthy serial killer with mind control abilities over a trusworthy if ruthless justicar who will at least let you know if she thinks she's going to have to kill you?

That always puzzles me.

Similarly, I never killed the colonists on Zhu's Hope, even on my renegade playthrough, because it seemed pointless given how easy it was to just knock them out. Whooo, switch my grenades to stun instead of kill, big deal.

Morinth is on par with Samara powerwise and less than half her age.   That alone is serious firepower potential to have up your sleeve.   Morinth is also alot easier to manipulate if you want something from her.  Shes a serial killer and an addict to her diease.   Feed the addiction and you can get her to pretty much do anything. Samara is bound to a very narrow minded code of Asari based justice in the Justicar role.  Plus she says she'll kill you if you're playing more on the Renegade side of the fence. I dont need people on my team that openly admit they are painting a target on my back, with their finger poised on the trigger.