440 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

jklinders wrote...


The problem was he was supposed to save the plant and nearly blew the damn thing up,

No.Only a part of it where it was necessary.Like shepardt who destroyed the moving gastanks.Zaeed still got paid
by the Edfeld Ahsland group(paragons got more money but still) so the mission was a sucess.

[jklinders]

tonnactus wrote...

jklinders wrote...


The problem was he was supposed to save the plant and nearly blew the damn thing up,

No.Only a part of it where it was necessary.Like shepardt who destroyed the moving gastanks.Zaeed still got paid
by the Edfeld Ahsland group(paragons got more money but still) so the mission was a sucess.

He would happily have torn that building down brick by brick if that is what it took. Plus triggering that explosion was madness.  Yeah I am goping to set up a gas leak in a refinery and strike a spark. It could easily have caused a far greated explosion than it did. That he was willing to take such a risk would be somewhat admirable if he was alone. Since he was with 2 allies I call it idiotic.  I'll call Zaeed a badass, I'll call him a good fighter and I'll call him a crap leader.

[smudboy]

SaltBot wrote...
Nobody's trying to shoehorn real-world standards into a game, we're all just interpreting the game through the filter that our individual lives have given us.  Admittedly none of us are Intergalactic Spec Ops Officers (not yet, anyways), but there are a number of people in this thread with the Time and Experience to be fairly good judges of who is and isn't a good leader from a 21st Century Earth perspective telling you that Zaeed really doesn't come across as a very good leader based on what they saw/heard in the game.

You can be "interpreting the game" however you like.  That is your subjective opinion.

I, or a few like me, however, are making objective observations.  We are seeing and hearing what the narrative gives us.  It's exactly what you and everyone else sees.  "Zaaed told a story where his team got killed on a suicide mission, and he said he's been on several since."  etc.

There are pros and cons to the Zaeed narrative, the same way there is for everyone.  Garrus is simple and clear: he has one story.  Zaeed has several stories, but when you pay attention, paints a picture which amounts to a tale of him being the most suited for leading a fire team.

Zaeed is not simple and not as clear.  Miranda reacts the same way when you choose Zaeed or Garrus.  He dies as the 2nd fire team leader, yet no one else does.  This is the same problem with other "bad" leaders.  Nevermind that the first team leader who isn't suited magically gets the tech expert killed, even though the two characters and their events had almost nothing to do with the other.

This is a fault on several levels: the design of the suicide mission, the validity, relation and application of loyalty, the application of character arcs, and the narrative in general.

[IanPolaris]

tonnactus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


I am willing to learn new things.  Please explain.  It is my understanding that if either of your companions die during the final confrontation with the larva Reaper, Shepard can not make it back on the Normandy (meaning he dies) and those that aren't loyal during that confrontation die automatically (and those that are live).

Thats wrong.Only the ones that arent loyal died.Another surviving person(worked with legion,morinth and samara) is enough.

The Omega-4 Suicide Mission Guide stickied in this very forum says you are wrong (and it's apparently been tested by multiple people).  BOTH your buddies during the final confrontation must be loyal or Shepard dies.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

tonnactus wrote...

jklinders wrote...


The problem was he was supposed to save the plant and nearly blew the damn thing up,

No.Only a part of it where it was necessary.Like shepardt who destroyed the moving gastanks.Zaeed still got paid
by the Edfeld Ahsland group(paragons got more money but still) so the mission was a sucess.

That does not make Zaeed a good leader or even anyone I'd normally want within any sort of organized military structure.  He put the MISSION AT NEEDLESS risk (to say nothing of his people) for personal reasons....and he NEVER thought he was wrong to do so.

He's a lousy combat leader.  The fact he can get the job done anyway (usually) simply shows how badass a soldier he is otherwise.

-Polaris

[ADLegend21]

smudboy wrote...

SaltBot wrote...
Nobody's trying to shoehorn real-world standards into a game, we're all just interpreting the game through the filter that our individual lives have given us.  Admittedly none of us are Intergalactic Spec Ops Officers (not yet, anyways), but there are a number of people in this thread with the Time and Experience to be fairly good judges of who is and isn't a good leader from a 21st Century Earth perspective telling you that Zaeed really doesn't come across as a very good leader based on what they saw/heard in the game.

You can be "interpreting the game" however you like.  That is your subjective opinion.

I, or a few like me, however, are making objective observations.  We are seeing and hearing what the narrative gives us.  It's exactly what you and everyone else sees.  "Zaaed told a story where his team got killed on a suicide mission, and he said he's been on several since."  etc.

There are pros and cons to the Zaeed narrative, the same way there is for everyone.  Garrus is simple and clear: he has one story.  Zaeed has several stories, but when you pay attention, paints a picture which amounts to a tale of him being the most suited for leading a fire team.

Zaeed is not simple and not as clear.  Miranda reacts the same way when you choose Zaeed or Garrus.  He dies as the 2nd fire team leader, yet no one else does.  This is the same problem with other "bad" leaders.  Nevermind that the first team leader who isn't suited magically gets the tech expert killed, even though the two characters and their events had almost nothing to do with the other.

This is a fault on several levels: the design of the suicide mission, the validity, relation and application of loyalty, the application of character arcs, and the narrative in general.

Actually the fire team leder getting the tech expert killed is on the fire team leader. They don't kill all the collectors at the door which frees up a collector to fire the rocket that gets the tech expert. Garrus Miranda and Jacob get them when they call for covering fire for the tech expert, at elast that's what I saw when I beat it yesterday.

[IoCaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


I am willing to learn new things.  Please explain.  It is my understanding that if either of your companions die during the final confrontation with the larva Reaper, Shepard can not make it back on the Normandy (meaning he dies) and those that aren't loyal during that confrontation die automatically (and those that are live).

Thats wrong.Only the ones that arent loyal died.Another surviving person(worked with legion,morinth and samara) is enough.

The Omega-4 Suicide Mission Guide stickied in this very forum says you are wrong (and it's apparently been tested by multiple people).  BOTH your buddies during the final confrontation must be loyal or Shepard dies.

-Polaris

Read it again. All Shepard needs to survive are two live squad members. Any combination and it doesn't matter whether they're at the hold the line or escort duty. I've had both of my companions at the final boss die and survived because of my escort (Tali) and hold the line (Garrus) survivors.

[IanPolaris]

smudboy wrote...
There are pros and cons to the Zaeed narrative, the same way there is for everyone.  Garrus is simple and clear: he has one story.  Zaeed has several stories, but when you pay attention, paints a picture which amounts to a tale of him being the most suited for leading a fire team.

Actually it doesn't.  It DOES paint him as one that will hold a position no matter what (and thus is golden in the "hold the line" part of the mission as is Garrus and Grunt), but he is an uncontrollable hothead with no regard for anyone or anything other than himself and his next check.  That makes him a bad leader....in fact Zaeed is almost a classic example of a stereotypical bad leader but good warrior/soldier.

Zaeed is not simple and not as clear.  Miranda reacts the same way when you choose Zaeed or Garrus.  He dies as the 2nd fire team leader, yet no one else does.  This is the same problem with other "bad" leaders.  Nevermind that the first team leader who isn't suited magically gets the tech expert killed, even though the two characters and their events had almost nothing to do with the other.

Um, Miranda is not the best judge of character when it comes to picking these slots.  She is frequently wrong in her assessments (see Biotic Shield for example).  Garrus is the obvious choice for first or second fire-team leader.  Jacob is the other obvious choice.  Beyond that, nobody shows good leadership in combat situations(except of course Shepard).

This is a fault on several levels: the design of the suicide mission, the validity, relation and application of loyalty, the application of character arcs, and the narrative in general.

Really it isn't.  The only person they get "wrong" is Miranda and again I strongly suspect they do for plot reasons.  Other than that, I'd say that BW has the team members pretty well pegged.  Sure it's a computer game which means you can't realistically go through all the permutations of how a less than stellar leader might foul it up, but it's a game.  Give a little.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

IoCaster wrote...

Read it again. All Shepard needs to survive are two live squad members. Any combination and it doesn't matter whether they're at the hold the line or escort duty. I've had both of my companions at the final boss die and survived because of my escort (Tali) and hold the line (Garrus) survivors.

You're right.  OK, Miranda is a little easier to kill than I thought (which makes why a disloyal Miranda survives the second fireteam as leader all the more perplexing because she isn't a good leader either).

However, the fact remains that you really have to work at it to kill Miranda so I still think there is a plot reason for it.

-Polaris

[smudboy]

ADLegend21 wrote...
Actually the fire team leder getting the tech expert killed is on the fire team leader. They don't kill all the collectors at the door which frees up a collector to fire the rocket that gets the tech expert. Garrus Miranda and Jacob get them when they call for covering fire for the tech expert, at elast that's what I saw when I beat it yesterday.

-When the tech expert is trying to close the door, it gets jammed.
-The tech expert starts pushing the door closed.
-The tech expert sticks their head out where the door is still open.
-A rocket hits the tech expert in the head.

Nothing to do with the 2nd fire team leader.  Everyone did their job, nor was it the 2nd fire team leader's job to kill everyone they came across, or else Shepard's team wouldn't be in a big rush.  The door got jammed.

[IanPolaris]

ADLegend21 wrote...
Actually the fire team leder getting the tech expert killed is on the fire team leader. They don't kill all the collectors at the door which frees up a collector to fire the rocket that gets the tech expert. Garrus Miranda and Jacob get them when they call for covering fire for the tech expert, at elast that's what I saw when I beat it yesterday.

Yep, the good (and loyal) fireteam leader makes it impossible for the collectors to hold the archway long enough for the collectors to get a good rocket shot at the tech expert.  In such a case losing the tech expert IS on the fireteam leader.

The first time I ever played, I picked Than to be the tech guy, and naturally he got killed even though I picked the correct fireteam leader, but in that case Thane got shot in the head because he took too damn long with the lock.  That is on the tech expert.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Regardless, for the tech expert to survive, they have to handle the door fast enough AND he needs proper covering fire.  The details are frankly eyecandy.  Ultimately we have to understand this is a computer game which means there often isn't enough space for every possible permutation of every scene (and expecting such is not realistic or reasonable).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 06 août 2010 - 09:07 .

[Raxxman]

I just don't see how an uncontrollable hothead can A: follow every order Shepard gives out, to the letter. B. Infiltrate a military vessel and destroy it, or C: survive a series of suicide missions which require working in a team.



Simply put the Zaeed you paint just couldn't of survived for 20 years like that. He's smarter than you give him credit.

[IanPolaris]

Raxxman wrote...

I just don't see how an uncontrollable hothead can A: follow every order Shepard gives out, to the letter. B. Infiltrate a military vessel and destroy it, or C: survive a series of suicide missions which require working in a team.

He doesn't follow every order to the letter.  Reply his loyalty mission.  That should be enough for forever remove him from any consideration as leadership material.  As for B and C, neither require any leadership skill whatsoever.  They require that you do your job exceptionally well and that you find a way to survive.  Neither involves leadership.

Simply put the Zaeed you paint just couldn't of survived for 20 years like that. He's smarter than you give him credit.

Smart has nothing to do with it.  Zaeed is plenty canny which is what I'd expect from a combat vet with decades of experience.  Samara has more combat experiance than pretty much everyone else on the ship combined but no one is saying she's a good leader.  It's really the same thing.  Surviving in hell-holes is not an indication that you are a good combat leader.

-Polaris

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...
Actually it doesn't.  It DOES paint him as one that will hold a position no matter what (and thus is golden in the "hold the line" part of the mission as is Garrus and Grunt), but he is an uncontrollable hothead with no regard for anyone or anything other than himself and his next check.  That makes him a bad leader....in fact Zaeed is almost a classic example of a stereotypical bad leader but good warrior/soldier.

Please tell me where in the narrative it paints Zaeed as one who's good at "holding the line" then.  Holding the line is merely the non-choice of selecting two other members to go with you to wherever you're going next.

Please tell me where Zaeed is an uncontrollable hot head, and then look at scenes where Zaeed is not an uncontrollable hot head.

Please tell me where Zaeed is an almost classic example of a stereotypical bad leader.

Um, Miranda is not the best judge of character when it comes to picking these slots.  She is frequently wrong in her assessments (see Biotic Shield for example).  Garrus is the obvious choice for first or second fire-team leader.  Jacob is the other obvious choice.  Beyond that, nobody shows good leadership in combat situations(except of course Shepard).

Miranda says "technically, any biotic can do it."

Please show me where in the narrative Jacob is an obvious choice for team leader.

This is a fault on several levels: the design of the suicide mission, the validity, relation and application of loyalty, the application of character arcs, and the narrative in general.

Really it isn't.  The only person they get "wrong" is Miranda and again I strongly suspect they do for plot reasons.  Other than that, I'd say that BW has the team members pretty well pegged.  Sure it's a computer game which means you can't realistically go through all the permutations of how a less than stellar leader might foul it up, but it's a game.  Give a little.

-Polaris

The Suicide Mission is setup extremely poorly.  Complete layout of the plan and effects of ones choices don't make sense.

Loyalty is just a flag.  It doesn't mean loyalty, it doesn't imply a mental state, it doesn't have any particular scene in the suicide mission where ones loyalty to Shepard means, functions or relates to anything.  The only one I could possibly see is the biotic bubble person's mental state.

Characters have arcs, but so what?  Doesn't impact the suicide mission at all.  Their growth doesn't save their lives or anyones, nor motivates them or anyone else.

The narrative tells us things about characters, but that doesn't relate to what the choices impact.  Their substories mean and relate to nothing.  They grow at their own rate, completely unrelated to the plot, Shepard, or anything else in the story, when it's suppost to weave into the plot somehow, like the suicide mission.  I think the only one that does have any mention of being inferred to do something is the succesfful Paragon ending to Zaeed's character arc.

[IanPolaris]

Smudboy,

Zaeed is an uncontrollable hothead throughout most of his loyalty mission and shows no regret or remorse for it or for putting your lives and the mission at jeapordy. That's enough even without any other consideration to disqualify him as leadership material. It really is pretty basic.

As for the rest, you simply don't want to hear what the rest of us are saying. The game doesn't agree with your preconceptions to you fault the game rather than examining your preconceptions to see if they might be in error.

Given that, further convesation with you is pretty much pointless.

-Polaris

Edit:  As for Garrus and Jacob, the game clearly tells us in several places that Garrus and Jacob both have combat leadership training both formally (Alliance Military in the case of Jacob....he was an Alliance Marine Lieutendant after all....and the Turian Military in the case of Garrus).  Futhermore in the case of Garrus, we here all sorts of testinomials about how good a team leader Garrus was on Omega.  The game gives you plenty of clues why Jacob and Garrus work and Zaeed doesn't.  You just don't want to accept them.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 06 août 2010 - 09:26 .

[tonnactus]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Omega-4 Suicide Mission Guide stickied in this very forum says you are wrong

-Polaris

Then i must have a special version of the what i doubt...

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...

Smudboy,

Zaeed is an uncontrollable hothead throughout most of his loyalty mission and shows no regret or remorse for it or for putting your lives and the mission at jeapordy. That's enough even without any other consideration to disqualify him as leadership material. It really is pretty basic.

I had no problems controlling Zaeed.

Where did he put Shepard and the other squdmates life in danger?

As for the rest, you simply don't want to hear what the rest of us are saying. The game doesn't agree with your preconceptions to you fault the game rather than examining your preconceptions to see if they might be in error.

What preconceptions?  I am making objective observations. I have no preconceptions.

Given that, further convesation with you is pretty much pointless.

-Polaris

Good.  I would expect you to stop replying then.

Edit:  As for Garrus and Jacob, the game clearly tells us in several places that Garrus and Jacob both have combat leadership training both formally (Alliance Military in the case of Jacob....he was an Alliance Marine Lieutendant after all....and the Turian Military in the case of Garrus).  Futhermore in the case of Garrus, we here all sorts of testinomials about how good a team leader Garrus was on Omega.  The game gives you plenty of clues why Jacob and Garrus work and Zaeed doesn't.  You just don't want to accept them.

How does being an Alliance Marine Lieutenant make him a leader, let alone a good one?  Wasn't Kaidan an Lieutenant?  Jacob is just a gun for hire, like Zaeed, that Shepard even acknolwedges.  What's odd about Jacob is his distrust of mercenaries, when he himself is one, although perhaps he does not see himself as one.

[Raxxman]

I suggest you play Zaeeds mission again. Explain to me when he disobeys and order? Blowing the gate? you never order anything then. Helping the miners? he says 'I knew this was a mistake' and then goes along with you.



That's it, sorry, but if that's the foundation of your argument, then you better be striking Garrus off the list as well. I suggest you play his loyalty mission if you're confused. He'll kill anyone who gets in his way of revenge unless Shepard stops him, just like Zaeed.

[ADLegend21]

Raxxman wrote...

I suggest you play Zaeeds mission again. Explain to me when he disobeys and order? Blowing the gate? you never order anything then. Helping the miners? he says 'I knew this was a mistake' and then goes along with you.

That's it, sorry, but if that's the foundation of your argument, then you better be striking Garrus off the list as well. I suggest you play his loyalty mission if you're confused. He'll kill anyone who gets in his way of revenge unless Shepard stops him, just like Zaeed.

Garrus wasn't going to kill Harkin and when he went to se eHarkin he threw Blue suns at him so he could run. you were stoppin gGarrus from Shooting Harkin, not killing him, so you're wrong about garrus. Sorry.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

Smudboy,

Zaeed is an uncontrollable hothead throughout most of his loyalty mission and shows no regret or remorse for it or for putting your lives and the mission at jeapordy. That's enough even without any other consideration to disqualify him as leadership material. It really is pretty basic.
[/quote]
I had no problems controlling Zaeed.
[/quote]

I guess in your special version of the game, he didn't endanger your life and the life of your squad by blowing up the refinery.

[quote]
What preconceptions?  I am making objective observations. I have no preconceptions.
[/quote]

No you are not.  You are ignoring basic observations that show on a very basic level that Zaeed is simply not leadership material.


[quote]
Given that, further convesation with you is pretty much pointless.

-Polaris
[/quote]
Good.  I would expect you to stop replying then.
[/quote]

I will when you stop replying.  I am merely observing that your mind is made up.


[quote]
[quote]
Edit:  As for Garrus and Jacob, the game clearly tells us in several places that Garrus and Jacob both have combat leadership training both formally (Alliance Military in the case of Jacob....he was an Alliance Marine Lieutendant after all....and the Turian Military in the case of Garrus).  Futhermore in the case of Garrus, we here all sorts of testinomials about how good a team leader Garrus was on Omega.  The game gives you plenty of clues why Jacob and Garrus work and Zaeed doesn't.  You just don't want to accept them.[/quote]
How does being an Alliance Marine Lieutenant make him a leader, let alone a good one?  Wasn't Kaidan an Lieutenant?  Jacob is just a gun for hire, like Zaeed, that Shepard even acknolwedges.  What's odd about Jacob is his distrust of mercenaries, when he himself is one, although perhaps he does not see himself as one.
[/quote]

Kaiden was a mission specialist that was given his rank because of his special training and abilities (much like Pilots, Doctors, Lawyers, and such).  Jacob was a front line ALLIANCE MARINE.

Big difference.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Raxxman wrote...

I suggest you play Zaeeds mission again. Explain to me when he disobeys and order? Blowing the gate? you never order anything then. Helping the miners? he says 'I knew this was a mistake' and then goes along with you.

You have to HIT him in order to keep him in line and keep from haring off to kill Vido.  In addition, your mission and it's objectives reflect...this is important....STANDING ORDERS and Zaeeds standing order is to retake the refinery (yes INTACT), orders that he not only violates but does so without a second thought for personal revenge.

That's it, sorry, but if that's the foundation of your argument, then you better be striking Garrus off the list as well. I suggest you play his loyalty mission if you're confused. He'll kill anyone who gets in his way of revenge unless Shepard stops him, just like Zaeed.

Big difference.  In the first place even if you don't interrupt Garrus, he merely shoots Harkin in the foot.  In the second place, Garrus at no time puts the lives of his teammates or the mission in jeapordy because of his personal feelings and Zaeed does.

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

-Polaris

[Raxxman]

Sorry mate, I didn't have to hit anyone to get them to fall in line. So don't go and put YOUR Shepards inability to control a situation as gospel, when my Shepard was able to save the miners, AND bring Zaeed round off his narcissistic cycle of destruction. I think your Shepard needs to work on his people skills.



And on Garrus what about old Dr. Saleon huh? Garrus ordered/wanted his ship shot down irregardless of the number of civilian casualties that the wreckage would cause. Only reason it didn't go down his way was because C-Sec overruled his order. How's that any different from Zaeed endangering civilians on his loyalty mission? I mean apart from the fact that the guy Zaeed is after took everything from him and tried to kill him, while the guy Garrus was after was a bad man but hadn't done anything personal to tick him off.



I look forward to your condescending rebuttal.

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...
I guess in your special version of the game, he didn't endanger your life and the life of your squad by blowing up the refinery.

Where is Shepard's life or the squadmate in danger?  It was Zaeed's version of "opening the gate."

No you are not.  You are ignoring basic observations that show on a very basic level that Zaeed is simply not leadership material.

No, I'm making the same observations that you are.  That everyone else is.  I can even describe those scenes without any embellishment or perceived inferences.

I will when you stop replying.  I am merely observing that your mind is made up.

Not at all.  If you can show me some part of the narrative where Zaeed is clearly not leadership material, by all means.

Kaiden was a mission specialist that was given his rank because of his special training and abilities (much like Pilots, Doctors, Lawyers, and such).  Jacob was a front line ALLIANCE MARINE.

Big difference.

-Polaris

Where was it mentioned or shown that Kaidan was a "mission specialist", and thus, not a leader?

Where was it mentioned that Jacob was a "front line ALLIANCE MARINE" and thus, a leader?

[Seth Burns]

Zaeed is a loner. He has combat experience, sure but that doesn't play over into leadership skills. I know how to shoot a gun and kill a target in real life, but that doesn't mean I know how to take a squad of people alongside me and act as a fire team against an alien species.



Sure, it doesn't make a lot of sense. But for Christ's sake it's just a video game. One man single-handedly saving the galaxy is impossible. Do you want logic, or a video game?

[tonnactus]

IanPolaris wrote...

Kaiden was a mission specialist that was given his rank because of his special training and abilities (much like Pilots, Doctors, Lawyers, and such).  Jacob was a front line ALLIANCE MARINE.

Big difference.

-Polaris

"
During the operation at Virmire, Shepard can choose to save Kaidan's life at the cost of losing Ashley.
Kaidan is an experienced marine who knows that Ash volunteered for the
mission, but he's never lost a soldier under his command to hostile
action.
"
http://masseffect.wi...i/Kaidan_Alenko

Modifié par tonnactus, 06 août 2010 - 11:31 .