29107 réponses à ce sujet

[nekhbet]

Nilfalasiel wrote...

As for the cough, the victim was a quarian. That should tell you how it happened. It's enough that the guy had a damaged suit, and Garrus, or one of his men, had a cough while interrogating him or something.

Or he had a lab which Garrus' team stormed, and the guy got exposed to some of his own creations...

I bet coughing yourself to death is quite slow. It's actually the cruelest of the four deaths, regardless of the "occasion". It could be an interrogation and Garrus' team watched him die, they didn't finish him off quickly. Or it could be that he was left to die, or that they didn't pursue him to finish him off once it was clear he was already a dead man.

Actually same goes for the red sand overdose. The guy wasn't finished off quickly. Could be they had to rush out before they could finish the job, but knowing they got the boss of whichever drug gang they were after, I'm leaning more on some other alternative. Garrus doesn't strike me as someone who willingly leaves a job halfway done.

Modifié par nekhbet, 21 septembre 2010 - 10:06 .

[Kim Shepard]

@tanarri23: Revelation (the last page) basically says that he wanted to use Sovereign to get payback on the Alliance and Council for the way they handled the First Contact War, but he didn't know what Sovereign was back then. I think he really was trying to save organic life, and being slowly indoctrinated, Sovereign convinced him that was the best way to do it. When he figured out what Sovereign was really up to, he probably couldn't think of a way to stop the Reapers, and he even says the Council would have never believed him (which Shepard can relate to). At that point, it doesn't matter how much he hates humans - the Reapers are a threat to everyone, and Saren sure wouldn't want his own species killed off.

[Nilfalasiel]

nekhbet wrote...

I bet coughing yourself to death is quite slow. It's actually the cruelest of the four deaths, regardless of the "occasion". It could be an interrogation and Garrus' team watched him die, they didn't finish him off quickly. Or it could be that he was left to die, or that they didn't pursue him to finish him off once it was clear he was already a dead man.

Hence why I'm saying that it was probably an accident. Depending on which species coughed, the sickness could've been so virulent that the quarian died in a matter of minutes without anybody realizing why, especially if his immune system was already weakened after having been shot or something. I'm betting a krogan or salarian bacteria would've been more harmful than a turian one, due to the chirality difference.

I honestly don't see Garrus or any of his teammates standing over the quarian guy and deliberately coughing in his face for 10 minutes. That would be cruel.

Actually same goes for the red sand overdose. The guy wasn't finished off quickly. Could be they had to rush out before they could finish the job, but knowing they got the boss of whichever drug gang they were after, I'm leaning more on some other alternative. Garrus doesn't strike me as someone who willingly leaves a job halfway done.

Depending on the quantities of red sand involved, the OD could also have been almost instantaneous, especially if it got into the guy's eyes. That's equivalent to OD'ing by injection.

Modifié par Nilfalasiel, 21 septembre 2010 - 10:16 .

[nekhbet]

It could start as an accident, yeah, but why not finish them off? You know they're as good as dead, why not put a bullet in their heads but instead leave them to die from coughing and OD?

To me that sounds quite deliberate behaviour, just as with Dr Saleon and the comment about harvesting his organs. And shooting Harkin, unless you interrupt him. He simply isn't reigning himself in unless being told so, even if his original motives are good.

But yeah, I kinda agree with Raga about analysing. It's fun, sure, but I'm personally leaning on taking Garrus as BioWare gives him to us (same with the rest of the characters), even if some of the stuff they give us whiffs of dev pranks. Overall, they're writing him as a pretty ruthless avenger, who is stuck with black and white thinking unless being forced (I use that word because it takes a lot of convincing usually) to reconsider his views. Judging by what we know about his C-Sec times, this was also true back then. It's who he is and probably has always been, nothing more and nothing less.

Modifié par nekhbet, 21 septembre 2010 - 10:59 .

[Nilfalasiel]

nekhbet wrote...

It could start as an accident, yeah, but why not finish them off? You know they're as good as dead, why not put a bullet in their heads but instead leave them to die from coughing and OD?

Like I said, the OD could be pretty much instantaneous. Depending on how badly the quarian was injured, so could the coughing. There wouldn't be a need to put a bullet through their heads: they'd already be dead.

But yeah, I kinda agree with Raga about analysing. It's fun, sure, but I'm personally leaning on taking Garrus as BioWare gives him to us (same with the rest of the characters). They're writing him as a pretty ruthless avenger, who is stuck with black and white thinking unless being forced (I use that word because it takes a lot of convincing usually) to reconsider his views. Judging by what we know about his C-Sec times, this was also true back then. It's who he is and probably has always been, nothing more and nothing less.

The problem? Garrus in ME2 states that he favoured clean, surgical kills, independently of what he did or didn't do in ME1. That's information that BW is giving us, I'm taking that information, not reinterpreting it. Leaving someone to die a slow death =/= clean and surgical. Also, I'd never, for a second, believe that Garrus was being literal when threatening Saleon to harvest his organs. Garrus can be brutal and he can be hotheaded, but I don't think he'd ever indulge in torture.

[nekhbet]

Nilfalasiel wrote...
The problem? Garrus in ME2 states that he favoured clean, surgical kills, independently of what he did or didn't do in ME1. That's information that BW is giving us, I'm taking that information, not reinterpreting it. Leaving someone to die a slow death =/= clean and surgical. Also, I'd never, for a second, believe that Garrus was being literal when threatening Saleon to harvest his organs. Garrus can be brutal and he can be hotheaded, but I don't think he'd ever indulge in torture.

It's certainly not clean and surgical, unlike the deaths of a couple of other criminals on the list. But it's an eye for an eye. I also don't think he'd actually indulge in torture for the sake of it, but simply put the bad guys through the same what they did to their victims. I guess what I'm trying to get to is that IMO there doesn't need to be any deeper explanation for what he does, except that it's just his sense of justice.

Forgot to write this...

Like I said, the OD could be pretty much instantaneous. Depending on how
badly the quarian was injured, so could the coughing. There wouldn't be
a need to put a bullet through their heads: they'd already be dead.

They're dead already, but not right now. They're suffocating/suffering for a few moments more. Dying a pretty horrible death there. What I was after is, why didn't he shoot them to finish them off there and then? That's what I do when I find an animal that's too injured to go on, even I didn't cause the injury by driving over the animal or something. I put it out of its misery there and then, so it doesn't have to suffer for those 5 minutes before it finally dies. It'd be the merciful choice to make to shoot their brains out there and then, but Garrus didn't do it. He went for the option "they're already dead, why bother?". Based on the dossiers, and assuming they were actually victorious in those battles. But I don't see why they wouldn't have been victorious.

Modifié par nekhbet, 21 septembre 2010 - 11:39 .

[Nilfalasiel]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

That's just my point. It's pretty inexplicable on multiple levels. That's why I just shrugged my shoulders on it. The devs are being lulzy was the best explanation I could come up with. I don't see how it fits in that well, beyond the fact that it does establish his idea of an eye for an eye which I think he definitely has. We do have some evidence of Garrus inflicting pain with what he did to Harkin. Granted that is him under extreme emotional distress and trying to get some information to boot. But I think the fact that he favored clean and surgical was more a matter of efficiency than morality. If he had the time, and he thought someone deserved it, I'm not convinced he would just end it quickly. I don't think he would literally have harvested Saleon's organs, but I have little doubt he might have worked the guy over in some other manner.

I think I might actually out-quarian you on that point. I don't like stuff being introduced into a plotline "just for the lulz" without there being any plausible explanation for it to integrate at least semi-smoothly with what we already know. That's how my involvement with the Valkyrie Profile series originated, for example: VP2 introduced a time-travel scenario that was blatantly there "just because it was cool", and it was clear that the developers didn't think very hard about it. And there goes little me, trying to find an explanation for how their scenario could work. I'm quite proud of myself, in that I think I actually came up with something that could make sense, making allowances for the fantasy setting, of course. But the result was some pretty strong antagonism from people who favoured simpler theories and a lot of "well, they just didn't think this through" responses.

Maybe they didn't. But I like my stories to make sense. Comes with the literature major, I guess, but coherence in storylines and character development is something I feel very strongly about. I don't want to sacrifice character consistency just for lulz. And BW at least made the effort of integrating this kind of information in a believable manner into the game. So the best I can do is to think of ways this information could fit in with what we already know about the characters without messing with them.

Not to mention that if I could actually picture Garrus deliberately pouring drugs into someone's eyes...his character would take a pretty huge hit in my appreciation.

[TheodoricFriede]

Garrus' dossier kill list was actually one of the few times I disliked Garrus.
I respected the clean and surgical approach he claimed his merc band used. It was efficient, it brought the criminals to justice, and it wasn't unnecessarily cruel.
But some of his "themed kills" made me think less of him. I'm sure a lot of people find the quarian serial killer one funny (a cough), I just thought it was cruel. And red sand in the eyes is just sadistic.
Why debase yourself to the level of the people you're trying to stop?

Modifié par TheodoricFriede, 21 septembre 2010 - 11:40 .

[nekhbet]

TheodoricFriede wrote...

Garrus' dossier kill list was actually one of the few times I disliked Garrus.
I respected the clean and surgical approach he claimed his merc band used. It was efficient, it brought the criminals to justice, and it wasn't unnecessarily cruel.
But some of his "themed kills" made me think less of him. I'm sure a lot of people find the quarian serial killer one funny (a cough), I just thought it was cruel. And red sand in the eyes is just sadistic.
Why debase yourself to the level of the people you're trying to stop?

Hehe, it didn't do the same for me. I'd probably be horrified if this person walked up to me on the street, but I actually like the extreme edge it gives him in the game. It's a fantasy playground, after all, it's OK to indulge in questionable moral choices. It helps that Garrus isn't a character you truly dislike, because he isn't evil, despite being ruthless.

Modifié par nekhbet, 21 septembre 2010 - 11:46 .

[TheodoricFriede]

nekhbet wrote...

Hehe, it didn't do the same for me. I'd probably be horrified if this person walked up to me on the street, but I actually like the extreme edge it gives him in the game. It's a fantasy playground, after all, it's OK to indulge in questionable moral choices.

True, true. But the image I get of Garrus pinning down the baterian and slowly pouring the red sand in his eyes...
Its like seeing Batman killing the Joker with a forcable overdose of heroin. It just doesnt fit in my mind.

Modifié par TheodoricFriede, 21 septembre 2010 - 11:52 .

[TheodoricFriede]

The only explanation I have for killing the quarian with the cough was that he wanted him to suffer. the same way his victims did. (The quarian serial killer used viruses to kill people which is pretty ironic on its own.) There's no way he could have done that in an accidental way. He would literally have to remove the helmet, and cough in his face. He wanted the quarian to die suffering, and to me that spells torture.

[Nilfalasiel]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

No, I mean that intentionally killing a quarian via targeted cough makes no sense. There's just too many variables for anybody to know it would work. If any of them are accidental, it's that one.

This. Blowing off a quarian's head works just as well as blowing anybody else's head off. Deliberately coughing in someone's face until they croak is not only cruel, it's also ridiculous.

Providing the quarian's suit was damaged in some way during a firefight though, it's plausible that someone coughing near him could've sent him into shock/seizure and killed him, entirely by accident. That's the only way I can imagine that working.

I also agree devs shouldn't do things just for the lulz if it's blatantly contradictory to the character or makes no sense whatsoever in a way that damages the story. It's just that I don't think that's the case here. I didn't feel the need to qualify how he killed those guys because to me it was lulzy, sure, but it also wasn't something that severely messed with my interpretation of the character. For one I didn't read it and immediately assume it must have been done in some brutal way. My problem was more like "huh? How does THAT work?" It was weird but not in a way where I thought analysis would produce some new insight on my part about Garrus.

I also perceived it as not necessarily being sadistic, but then people started discussing that possibility, and I just wanted to argue that that wasn't the only way it could happen. If there had been unmistakable proof that Garrus had tortured his victims before killing them, then yes, his character would've taken an irrecoverable hit in my eyes.

I think blowing up a red sand crate and knowing what it would do is fair enough. Tying the guy to a chair and pouring it in his eyes, no.

Although if the books say that batarians are immune to red sand, then that would definitely be a case of "...OOPS" on BW's part.

Modifié par Nilfalasiel, 21 septembre 2010 - 12:10 .

[TheodoricFriede]

I don't know about that, the quarian immune system is well known to be weak. And turians and quarians can get the same diseases. I think the red sand one sounds more accidental then the cough.

Either way it felt out of character. Hes either the Punisher or Goofy.



Still love him though.

[Nilfalasiel]

TheodoricFriede wrote...

I don't know about that, the quarian immune system is well known to be weak. And turians and quarians can get the same diseases.

They wouldn't necessarily know that the quarian's suit was damaged. It may not have been something as dramatic as a tear. Say, if whatever mechanism dispenses antibiotics into their suits got shot or knocked out of commission or malfunctioned because of a stray Overload, it would still leave the quarian vulnerable, but wouldn't necessarily be visible. And yes, turian and quarian can get the same diseases, but Garrus also had a batarian, a salarian, maybe a krogan and several humans on his squad. Who's to say it wasn't one of them who coughed?

(I almost typed "a krogan and several humans on his quad".)

EDIT: And a foreign pathogen could possibly cause anaphylactic shock, no?

EDIT BIS: Another possible scenario: they caught the quarian, whose suit was damaged, interrogated him, and someone coughed near him. Then he somehow escaped, or was rescued by his own team, caught a disease from the cough and died some time later. Then Garrus could have heard about it on the news or something like that.

Modifié par Nilfalasiel, 21 septembre 2010 - 12:19 .

[TheodoricFriede]

Not to drag this out, but thats just the thing, i dont think the cough was ment to be a quick kill.
Thats why it bothers me, it seems like he would have to tie the quarian to a chair, let out a hacking cough, and leave him there to die. I hope im wrong, I really do.
Im just expressing how it felt to me.

And as far as the plague zone goes, dont forget this was collector technology.

Edit: "(I almost typed "a krogan and several humans on his quad".)" Heh...Id pay to see that movie.

Modifié par TheodoricFriede, 21 septembre 2010 - 12:20 .

[nekhbet]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Only anaphylactic shock could kill him that fast. An infection couldn't. I asked my sister about the speed with which aliens in the plague zone (namely Garrus) start showing symptoms and she said it was bollicks. That it would take multiple hours, probably days for somebody to start showing symptoms even from a really virulent bug.

Yeah, it wouldn't really be that short. But since it was an engineered virus, I guess we can assume it triggers a bit faster, as well. We've no clue what kind of virus it was, after all, or what science is capable of at that age with the help of Collectors. Suspension of disbelief, yada yada yada.

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

No, I mean that intentionally
killing a quarian via targeted cough makes no sense. There's just too
many variables for anybody to know it would work. If any of them are
accidental, it's that one.

I'm putting my money on exposure to the virus and the actual coughing just being a side-effect that killed him. It wasn't the idea to make him cough to death in particular, but to make him taste his own medicine. It just sounds funny that his "actual" cause of death is cough.

Nilfalasiel wrote...
I also perceived it as not
necessarily being sadistic, but then people started discussing that
possibility, and I just wanted to argue that that wasn't the only way it
could happen. If there had been unmistakable proof that Garrus had
tortured his victims before killing them, then yes, his character
would've taken an irrecoverable hit in my eyes.

I think blowing
up a red sand crate and knowing what it would do is fair enough. Tying
the guy to a chair and pouring it in his eyes, no.

But is it automatically sadistic? I think the major difference between actual sadism and an eye for an eye mentality (no matter how ruthless) is in the intentions. Do you pour red sand into someone's eyes because you enjoy watching them squirm and die painfully for the sake of watching them squirm and die painfully? Or do you do it because you want them to feel what their victims felt? The result is the same, but the motives quite different.

Now don't take this as an insult or anything because it's NOT meant as such by any means, but are you trying to piece the puzzle together in a way that gives a more flattering picture of Garrus because you don't want to lose your good feelings about him? I think that's 100% understandable and fine, btw, and I've done it myself many times, but I didn't feel the need in case of Garrus. Simply, his motivations are enough to "save" the character from becoming despisably ruthless and cruel. He does some nasty things, and even if they're intentional it doesn't bother me. His heart is still in the right place and he's capable of rethinking his actions, if nudged to it.

Modifié par nekhbet, 21 septembre 2010 - 12:33 .

[Nilfalasiel]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

This is why I say this is pure lulz, or if you need an official explanation the only thing that makes sense at all is accidental.

But that's exactly what I'm saying  It wasn't deliberate. Someone just happened to cough near the poor guy without realizing that it would kill him (in the long or short term). A string of unfortunate coincidences. Which is what makes it lulzy.

nekhbet wrote...

But is it automatically sadistic? I think the major difference between actual sadism and an eye for an eye mentality (no matter how ruthless) is in the intentions. Do you pour red sand into someone's eyes because you enjoy watching them squirm and die painfully for the sake of watching them squirm and die painfully? Or do you do it because you want them to feel what their victims felt? The result is the same, but the motives quite different.

It's still sadistic in my eyes. I don't care what the guy did to his victims, you'd still be causing deliberate, unnecessary pain. You don't need to lower yourself to his level to punish him. Otherwise, by this logic, if someone disembowelled their victims while they were still alive, you'd be justified in doing the same to them.

Now don't take this as an insult or anything because it's NOT meant as such by any means, but are you trying to piece the puzzle together in a way that gives a more flattering picture of Garrus because you don't want to lose your good feelings about him? I think that's 100% understandable and fine, btw, and I've done it myself many times, but I didn't feel the need in case of Garrus. Simply, his motivations are enough to "save" the character from becoming despisably ruthless and cruel. He does some nasty things, and even if they're intentional it doesn't bother me. His heart is still in the right place and he's capable of rethinking his actions, if nudged to it.

No, because I've never actually seen Garrus applying "eye for an eye" that literally. He wanted to shoot Sidonis in the head. Not in both kneecaps and the stomach, so he could die a slow death like Garrus' two squaddies that survived after the assault on the base. He said himself that he'd be sparing him a slow and agonizing death, despite the fact that he probably deserved one. Likewise, he didn't kill Harkin, even though Harkin had tried to kill Shepard and him, and would, according strictly to "eye for an eye", have deserved to die right then and there. And even despite what he tells Saleon, he simply shoots him if you let him. So even if Garrus does believe in "eye for an eye" as a theory, he won't literally indulge in torture. Nothing we have seen him do suggests that he would.

I'm not trying to say Garrus is a saint, because he's not. It would be boring if he were. But if I believed he could apply "eye for an eye" completely literally, his heart wouldn't be in the right place. There's a difference between an unflattering picture and torture.

Modifié par Nilfalasiel, 21 septembre 2010 - 12:50 .

[Pedpickle]

I like garrus's team's "punishment" on these two people; i like that irony.
Har Urek (saboteur)-Suffocation (enviromental suit malfunction)

Gus Williams (weapons smuggler)-Headshot (smuggled weapon)

Showing them that what they did ruined other's day by ruining theirs by the same way.
Sabotage and smuggled weapons.


and they are just "notable criminal deaths", so it could very well be one of his team who killed them. (the headshots, though... I'm just going to believe Garrus did those.)

someone must really hate slavers though, I almost feel bad for Kron Harga. @___@

Modifié par Pedpickle, 21 septembre 2010 - 12:45 .