440 réponses à ce sujet

[A.N.A.N]

Why is Kaidan being a lieutenant a mark against Jacob being a leader? According to ME Wiki Kaiden was a Staff Lieutenant, proabably about equivalent to modern day OF-3, or an Army Captain, and in charge of the Normandy's Marines. That seems to imply leadership.

[ADLegend21]

How did we turn this into 13 pages? it's just a fact that Zaeed doesn't cut it ass a good leader for the fire teams because he can't keep people alive, that's all there is to it, he even admits it. He's such a whiner when things don't go the way he plans, instead of adapting.

[SaltBot]

Picking up something on the long-range scanner. Unidentified Wall of Text.  Looks like a List....

Everything Zaeed says and does through the course of the game, so that you can all remind yourselves of why you think he is/isn't a good choice:

First Meeting:
beats up a Batarian; +1 badass; all it does is serve to demonstrate that Zaeed is tough and, at least as far as this Batarian is concerned, heartless.  Zaeed explains that Edfell-Ashland has hired him to "deal with" the stolen refinery and workers being used as slave labour.  Again, since I am not a Space Marine I might be misinterpreting, but as a major corporation I'm guessing that Edfell-Ashland wants its workers, or at the very least its refinery, back in one piece.  You wouldn't hire someone this expensive (according to TIM, anyway) if you just wanted the slate wiped clean, agreed?

Loyalty Mission:
bridge talk; +1 reputation; "He ran the books, I led the men. Worked real well for awhile."  This is tempered by the fact that his men betrayed him because they cared more about money than him, which is a bit of insight into the temper of a typical mercenary in the ME story (something Zaeed himself has become).  "A stubborn enough person can survive just about anything.  Rage is a hell of an anesthetic."  Describes himself as stubborn and filled with rage, not qualities you want in a leader of even a small team. 

meeting with Vido; +1 hothead; Vido refers to him as a "mad dog" (Vido probably knew him pretty well), and his mercs have the whole squad dead to rights when, without warning, Zaeed takes off running and starts shooting, thus endangering the whole crew by his rash, albeit successful, one-man-show.  It's worth it to note that he doesn't consult, or even talk to, the squad until confronted by Shepard.  Also, he succeeds in severely damaging the refinery he was sent to "deal with".  He lets a personal matter blind him to the mission parameters.  For Paragons: "Let these people burn. Vido dies, whatever the cost."  Again, hot-headedness, which is not a good quality in a team leader.  For Renegades: "You don't make a move unless I know about it first."  "This is MY mission. Remember that."  After Shepard tells him to fall in line, Zaeed backtalks him/her.  Good leaders are also good followers, and Zaeed is not showing that he can be a good follower in either case.

morality choice; "And if he gets away, I'm blaming you."; Paragons get "if we're gonna do this, we'd better get to it".  He really doesn't put up much of a fight when Shepard tells him he can't just run after Vido, but he's still showing a bit of an attitude problem up until that point.

ending; +1 follower for Paragons; +1 badass for Renegades; either way it is safe to say he will bring his A-game to the mission.  That A-game may or may not involve successfully leading small teams, but the Loyalty Mission demonstrates some key qualities that paint Zaeed as a bad leader: hot-headed and stubborn.  Conversely, and this is more for Paragons, the Loyalty Mission succeeds in getting him away from the "backtalking Shepard" and one-man-show qualities that earlier were marks against him. So yes, he has grown as a character into a better asset to the team and into a much, much better follower, but just because good leaders are good followers does not mean good followers are good leaders.  Being able to play your part on a team does not recommend you for leading it.

Anecdotes:
"I led a mission to bring that thing down from the inside with just 5 men.... No chance of success, but we did it.  Everyone died but me...."  So as a leader, he can get the job done against impossible odds.  Can he do it and keep everyone alive?  Evidently not.  So if you choose him to lead a fire team in the Suicide Mission, should he die?  No.  Should some/all of the other people with him eat a bullet?  Yeah, probably.  Are the mechanics of the Suicide Mission set up to accomodate this likely outcome?  No, due to time/budget/programming limitations.  That is why Zaeed "doesn't work".

"...10 years ago when we dropped blind into the Krogan DMZ.  Took out a lot of Krogan that day, but we lost way too many men."  Here Zaeed displays a heavy body count (a strike against his leadership, generally speaking), but also concern for the number of casualties sustained on one of his missions.  Whether he was leading it or not isn't mentioned, but this would imply concern about his followers' well-being, an essential trait for a leader.

"...except the Battlemaster, he came at us with one of those little pea shooters.  Killed half my squad."  This doesn't seem to comment on Zaeed's leadership abilities one way or the other, but does imply that he has had more leadership experience in his time as a merc than perhaps I gave him credit for initially.  Does it imply he's a good leader?  No.  Does it imply he's an experienced leader?  I think so.

"...me and some friends got stupid one night.  Long story short: tempers flared, followed by pistols.  We all got out, except my buddy Marco...."  Not entirely Zaeed's fault, and not a demonstration of leadership or lack thereof, but is evidence of hot-headedness getting associates killed.  A knock against him on this one.

Everything else, while great for developing his character, doesn't really prove relevant to his ability to lead a team.  There is no denying that Zaeed is an excellent warrior, and through character development he becomes the kind of badass you want on your team, rather than the one you're worried will tear it apart with his attitude problems.  Does all this add up to him being a good leader?  Depends on your point of view, I suppose.  He will definitely get the job done, but he will very likely get people killed along the way.  In a perfect world, the Suicide Mission would reflect this by killing off one or more fire team members if you choose Zaeed to lead it.  Unfortunately, the Suicide Mission is formulaic by necessity.  *shrug*  Bored as I am, yet?

[smudboy]

SaltBot wrote...

Unfortunately what you did is your interpretation of events, and not just report the events objectively.

[SaltBot]

smudboy wrote...

Unfortunately what you did is your interpretation of events, and not just report the events objectively.

I wrote them out objectively, then added my subjective interpretation onto the end.  If I don't interpret the events, what's the point of them?  "Objectively" speaking, Zaeed's character is defined as no more than a physical description and a clinical bullet-list of the things that have happened to him in his lifetime.  Leadership is not a bullet-list; it is not objective.  A character, even a poorly written one (not that Zaeed is poorly written), is more than just a series of cells grown in a certain order to create bone, flesh, and skin.  Dialogue is more than just a series of words strung together in a logical manner in order to convey meaning to those around the character.  If a character's actions and words don't make us attach adjectives to their name in our minds, why are they in the story at all?  We might as well have a narrator read the events to us as if they were a Codex entry and skip the game altogether.

If you think Zaeed's character is different from what I have described, so be it.  It wouldn't be any fun if it weren't open to a little interpretation.  Just don't ask for an "objective" assessment of his personality, or all you're going to get is "Zaeed is a white human male, approximately age 50, with grey hair and a large scar on his face.  He is 6 feet tall, 210 lbs., etc."  If you want to be the guy who invents the mathematical formula to predict leadership ability in an individual based on history and character traits then I wish you good luck.

You're starting to remind me of the Neutrals from Futurama.  "I have no strong feelings one way or the other!"

[IanPolaris]

tonnactus wrote...

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

Yes and so?  Officers who are officers for their technical prowess can and have lead men in combat zones albeit usually not under fire.  What Kaiden says makes perfect sense.  Doctors (for example) are always captains but they can and do have command over men in combat zones, but they seldom (if ever) lose men under their command due to hostile action.

Also as others have mentioned, who isn't to say that Kaiden also doesn't have at least some leadership training.  It's just not put to the test in ME1 so we never know.

-Polaris

[hamtyl07]

MrVincent wrote...

Because Bioware didn't program the suicide mission that way.

thats the best reason i've seen so far

[RiouHotaru]

Arguing with smudboy about this is pointless. We've clearly shown that the narrative indiciates Zaeed is not leadership material, he seems to interpret otherwise. We're never going to convince him and he isn't going to convince us. We should just accept the fact that the game supports the idea he isn't a good leader and leave it at that. The choices we are given as good fire team leaders aren't bad choices anyway.

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Arguing with smudboy about this is pointless. We've clearly shown that the narrative indiciates Zaeed is not leadership material, he seems to interpret otherwise. We're never going to convince him and he isn't going to convince us. We should just accept the fact that the game supports the idea he isn't a good leader and leave it at that. The choices we are given as good fire team leaders aren't bad choices anyway.

Agreed on all counts.

-Polaris

[Intax]

I never once considered Zaeed a capable fire team leader. His whole loyalty mission plants a huge banner over his head, it says " Bad Leader." The choices in general for the suicide mission are set up pretty well. My only real beef is that anyone with a loyalty flag can escort the crew back with no casualties. On my first play through I lost Mordin holding the line because I figured the crew needed a real escort, they got Grunt.

[IanPolaris]

Intax wrote...

I never once considered Zaeed a capable fire team leader. His whole loyalty mission plants a huge banner over his head, it says " Bad Leader." The choices in general for the suicide mission are set up pretty well. My only real beef is that anyone with a loyalty flag can escort the crew back with no casualties. On my first play through I lost Mordin holding the line because I figured the crew needed a real escort, they got Grunt.

First time I ever played ME2, I lost Tali during the Hold the Line part of the mission for the same reason.  I sent Garrus to escort the crew because (silly me), I figured that I needed to send the person that was most capable of protecting the crew without any allied support and that was Garrus (that was before I had Zaeed via the DLC or I would have picked him for escort duty before I knew better).

-Polaris

[hamtyl07]

IanPolaris wrote...

Intax wrote...

I never once considered Zaeed a capable fire team leader. His whole loyalty mission plants a huge banner over his head, it says " Bad Leader." The choices in general for the suicide mission are set up pretty well. My only real beef is that anyone with a loyalty flag can escort the crew back with no casualties. On my first play through I lost Mordin holding the line because I figured the crew needed a real escort, they got Grunt.

First time I ever played ME2, I lost Tali during the Hold the Line part of the mission for the same reason.  I sent Garrus to escort the crew because (silly me), I figured that I needed to send the person that was most capable of protecting the crew without any allied support and that was Garrus (that was before I had Zaeed via the DLC or I would have picked him for escort duty before I knew better).

-Polaris

lucky for me on my first play thourgh xbox  live had a video showin exactly who to do what on each part of the mission

[Ogrek]

smudboy wrote...

SaltBot wrote...

Unfortunately what you did is your interpretation of events, and not just report the events objectively.

He did report the events objectively - he quoted Zaeed's stories, and pointed out what happened at the Refinery - Zaeed nearly blows the place to Hell if you're a Paragon, and does blow the place up if you're going Renegade.  Given that the mission he took was to 'recapture the refinery', he failed.  He let a personal grudge against Vido override his mission and lost sight of the goals.  He handily kicked ass much of the way through the mission, but didn't accomplish it - Paragon Shepard DOES reclaim the refinery from the Blue Suns, even if it's massively damaged and will need millions of credits to repair.

On top of that, every mission Vido talks about, he loses people - so with the goal of the Suicide Mission Team Leader being 'keep everyone alive while distracting the enemy/protecting the tech specialist'... well, he's going to lose someone on the team.  He already demonstrated on his loyalty mission that he's a hardass soldier, but he's prone to forgetting what his job is or what the objectives are when he gets angry - which he does rather easily when he feels something's personal or when a lot of killing's going on.

Now, if you mean 'objectively' to be 'agrees wholeheartedly with your opinion because you're the smartest person on the Internet and even God is wrong if He is opposed to your plans', then no, he wasn't.  He was simply being truthful.

[Intax]

IanPolaris wrote...

Intax wrote...

I never once considered Zaeed a capable fire team leader. His whole loyalty mission plants a huge banner over his head, it says " Bad Leader." The choices in general for the suicide mission are set up pretty well. My only real beef is that anyone with a loyalty flag can escort the crew back with no casualties. On my first play through I lost Mordin holding the line because I figured the crew needed a real escort, they got Grunt.

First time I ever played ME2, I lost Tali during the Hold the Line part of the mission for the same reason.  I sent Garrus to escort the crew because (silly me), I figured that I needed to send the person that was most capable of protecting the crew without any allied support and that was Garrus (that was before I had Zaeed via the DLC or I would have picked him for escort duty before I knew better).

-Polaris

I don't think I would even send Zaeed to escort the crew back. I can see it now, "Joker did the crew make it back ok?" "Well Commander, Zaeed is here. No sign of anyone else."

[Canned Bullets]

Zaeed is more focused on himself then his squadmates.

[didymos1120]

Intax wrote...

I don't think I would even send Zaeed to escort the crew back. I can see it now, "Joker did the crew make it back ok?" "Well Commander, Zaeed is here. No sign of anyone else."

I actually did that on my first playthrough, but that was purely a "Uh, OK, um.....Zaeed?  Yeah, what the hell.  Can I go finish the damn game now, please?" sort of thing.

[SupidSeep]

IanPolaris wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Arguing with smudboy about this is pointless. We've clearly shown that the narrative indiciates Zaeed is not leadership material, he seems to interpret otherwise. We're never going to convince him and he isn't going to convince us. We should just accept the fact that the game supports the idea he isn't a good leader and leave it at that. The choices we are given as good fire team leaders aren't bad choices anyway.

Agreed on all counts.

-Polaris

Let's get out of here ...


"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo
US industrialist, lawyer, & politician (1863 - 1941)

[smudboy]

SaltBot wrote...
I wrote them out objectively, then added my subjective interpretation onto the end.  If I don't interpret the events, what's the point of them?

Whatever point the author was trying to make, I'd imagine.

"Objectively" speaking, Zaeed's character is defined as no more than a physical description and a clinical bullet-list of the things that have happened to him in his lifetime.  Leadership is not a bullet-list; it is not objective.  A character, even a poorly written one (not that Zaeed is poorly written), is more than just a series of cells grown in a certain order to create bone, flesh, and skin.  Dialogue is more than just a series of words strung together in a logical manner in order to convey meaning to those around the character.  If a character's actions and words don't make us attach adjectives to their name in our minds, why are they in the story at all?  We might as well have a narrator read the events to us as if they were a Codex entry and skip the game altogether.

Whether the narrative is shown or told ot us, we can still see and hear the same observations as anyone else.  The trick is not to include any preconceptions or bias on such observations.

If you think Zaeed's character is different from what I have described, so be it.  It wouldn't be any fun if it weren't open to a little interpretation.  Just don't ask for an "objective" assessment of his personality, or all you're going to get is "Zaeed is a white human male, approximately age 50, with grey hair and a large scar on his face.  He is 6 feet tall, 210 lbs., etc."  If you want to be the guy who invents the mathematical formula to predict leadership ability in an individual based on history and character traits then I wish you good luck.

I don't think physical descriptions count for personality or character.  Again, we are looking for qualities that make him a leader.  Zaeed, to me, has been the token Renegade, in much the same way Shepard has been a Paragon or Renegade.

[smudboy]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Arguing with smudboy about this is pointless. We've clearly shown that the narrative indiciates Zaeed is not leadership material, he seems to interpret otherwise. We're never going to convince him and he isn't going to convince us. We should just accept the fact that the game supports the idea he isn't a good leader and leave it at that. The choices we are given as good fire team leaders aren't bad choices anyway.

Well, try it again.  Show me these observations, without imposing a bias, preconception, or interpretation, on how Zaeed is not leadership material.

[smudboy]

Ogrek wrote...

He did report the events objectively

If he did that, he'd just leave everything in quotes, and describe the actions.  Also, he later wrote he didn't report events objectively.

- he quoted Zaeed's stories, and pointed out what happened at the Refinery - Zaeed nearly blows the place to Hell if you're a Paragon, and does blow the place up if you're going Renegade.  Given that the mission he took was to 'recapture the refinery', he failed.

Where is it shown or stated the mission is to "recapture the refinery?"

He let a personal grudge against Vido override his mission and lost sight of the goals.  He handily kicked ass much of the way through the mission, but didn't accomplish it - Paragon Shepard DOES reclaim the refinery from the Blue Suns, even if it's massively damaged and will need millions of credits to repair.

"Seems he recently captured an Eldfell-Ashland refinery on Zorya and is using their workers for slave labor.  The company wants it dealt with."

Now I don't know about the Eldfell-Ashland were thinking when they hired Zaeed, but they wanted him to take care of something that requires his expertise.

On top of that, every mission Vido talks about, he loses people - so with the goal of the Suicide Mission Team Leader being 'keep everyone alive while distracting the enemy/protecting the tech specialist'... well, he's going to lose someone on the team.  He already demonstrated on his loyalty mission that he's a hardass soldier, but he's prone to forgetting what his job is or what the objectives are when he gets angry - which he does rather easily when he feels something's personal or when a lot of killing's going on.

And what is the job?

Not every story "Zaeed" talks about involves losing people.  The Verrikan mission involves Zaeed leading and losing 5 men.  It's also the first of many suicide missions he's been on.

Now, if you mean 'objectively' to be 'agrees wholeheartedly with your opinion because you're the smartest person on the Internet and even God is wrong if He is opposed to your plans', then no, he wasn't.  He was simply being truthful.

Objectively, as in seeing and hearing everything that's shown and told without bias or interpretation.

Modifié par smudboy, 07 août 2010 - 11:55 .

[Zulu_DFA]

smudboy wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Arguing with smudboy about this is pointless. We've clearly shown that the narrative indiciates Zaeed is not leadership material, he seems to interpret otherwise. We're never going to convince him and he isn't going to convince us. We should just accept the fact that the game supports the idea he isn't a good leader and leave it at that. The choices we are given as good fire team leaders aren't bad choices anyway.

Well, try it again.  Show me these observations, without imposing a bias, preconception, or interpretation, on how Zaeed is not leadership material.

Let me, let me!!!

You see, Zaeed once led a team of five on a mission to take out a Turian frigate. Apparently, they managed to overpower the crew of 40+ Turians, but Zaeed was the only one to make it back. This clearly shows that he was not leadership material. Because if he were, he would manage to keep everyone alive and import them in ZA3. Best guess is that he had ignored all Preston Watamanyuk's warnings and had not done his squadmates' daddy issues baby sitting loyalty missions.

Now, Smudboy, go back  to your WoW account!!!

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 07 août 2010 - 12:32 .

[SaltBot]

smudboy wrote...
Objectively, as in seeing and hearing everything that's shown and told without bias or interpretation.

If you were asking us "why isn't Zaeed a good cook?" I could tell you that the food he produces is of poor taste and quality.  He is creating something tangible which we can then judge objectively based on certain criteria.  Instead, you're asking us "why isn't Zaeed a good leader?", which we have done our best to answer based on our experiences and beliefs of what it means to be a good leader.  Unfortunately, leadership does not produce tangible output that can be measured in the same way that cooking does.

Imagine for a moment that I hadn't put any subjective interpretation on those quotes I mentioned a few posts ago.  All it would be is a list of quotes that got us no closer to answering your query.  Unless a character in the game flat-out says "Zaeed is a good/bad leader" and I missed it, there is no way we are going to give you this mythical unbiased judgment you seem to be asking us to produce.

I don't recall anyone flat out stating that Samara is a "good" Justicar, but we can infer her skill through combat prowess, dedication to the Code, etc.  I'm not sure anyone other than Joker himself actually refers to Joker as an excellent pilot.  Is there any doubt in our minds that he is an excellent pilot, though?  Not unless I missed something somewhere.

When watching a Western, you see a cowboy walk out on screen.  He is wearing a white hat.  You infer he's a Good Guy.  Is this objective?  No.  Is this unbiased?  No.  Is it flat-out stated that he is a Good Guy?  No, or at least not yet.  Is this a logical inference based on historical evidence?  Yeah, I think so.

You say we're not being objective, and I say that's impossible given the subject matter.  So you win, I guess. 

[smudboy]

SaltBot wrote...
If you were asking us "why isn't Zaeed a good cook?" I could tell you that the food he produces is of poor taste and quality.  He is creating something tangible which we can then judge objectively based on certain criteria.  Instead, you're asking us "why isn't Zaeed a good leader?", which we have done our best to answer based on our experiences and beliefs of what it means to be a good leader.  Unfortunately, leadership does not produce tangible output that can be measured in the same way that cooking does.

Your experiences and beliefs are irrelevant.  What matters is the narrative.

You say we're not being objective, and I say that's impossible given the subject matter.  So you win, I guess. 

The narrative provides pros and cons toward Zaeed being a leader.  The narrative also tells us what makes a leader ("someone who commands loyalty through experience.")  The narrative then acknolwedges the choice, which is the same comment if one chooses Garrus.  ("Well at least he knows what he's doing.")  The narrative then lies to us on both occasions, especially concerning Zaeed getting only himself killed.

[SaltBot]

Ohhhhh, I get it now.  You want us to provide evidence that he does not "command loyalty through experience" because that is the only definition of "leadership" the game provides us with.  To be fair, it wasn't really the narrative that provided us with either of those comments you quoted, it was Miranda, and the narrative itself gives us reason to doubt Miranda's judge of character (Wilson, Niket, TIM).

That's not an inconsistency in the narrative.  That's a character making a bad call, something characters do from time-to-time (Lando Calrissian comes to mind).  If your argument stems entirely from those things Miranda says, I would argue that you gave Miranda too much credit and paid the price for not viewing her comments sceptically (see also: Biotic Bubble dialogue).

As for the mechanics of the Suicide Mission failing to accurately portray varied, logical consequences based on our choices, I agree completely.  It's a game, so it suffers from a lot of constraints that, taking everything else into account, can make you scratch your head and go "Huh? Okay...."  because every cutscene is exactly the same, with only sight differences, regardless of who is doing what job where.  It's a game-ism, one that I don't really like, but I understand why it's like that.

[smudboy]

SaltBot wrote...
Ohhhhh, I get it now.  You want us to provide evidence that he does not "command loyalty through experience" because that is the only definition of "leadership" the game provides us with.  To be fair, it wasn't really the narrative that provided us with either of those comments you quoted, it was Miranda, and the narrative itself gives us reason to doubt Miranda's judge of character (Wilson, Niket, TIM).

That's not an inconsistency in the narrative.  That's a character making a bad call, something characters do from time-to-time (Lando Calrissian comes to mind).  If your argument stems entirely from those things Miranda says, I would argue that you gave Miranda too much credit and paid the price for not viewing her comments sceptically (see also: Biotic Bubble dialogue).

As for the mechanics of the Suicide Mission failing to accurately portray varied, logical consequences based on our choices, I agree completely.  It's a game, so it suffers from a lot of constraints that, taking everything else into account, can make you scratch your head and go "Huh? Okay...."  because every cutscene is exactly the same, with only sight differences, regardless of who is doing what job where.  It's a game-ism, one that I don't really like, but I understand why it's like that.

Right.  If the game provides around 12 or so variables to fit into roles, you have to take all the effects into account.  That was not handled or explained properly, or at least in sufficient detail, especially since this was the whole point of the plot.

It is an inconsistency in the narrative.  Character dialog is part of the narrative.  "Well, at least he knows what he's doing."  Yes, Zaeed better damn well know what he's doing.  He's been on suicide missions before.  He's lead teams before.  He is the second most experienced fellow, and the most experienced fellow on these kinds of operations.  I would also have not believed Miranda to be a leader of men, had she not volunteered to lead the second.  She's apparently second in command, but we never see her do anything in that role the entire time.  Yet she's aware that Jacob's not fast enough for being the tech expert, even though he (and every other tech expert) is fast enough.