440 réponses à ce sujet

[ADLegend21]

What's this about garrus not caring about civilian lives? Saleons hostages were the people he was growing Organs inside of, the kind that sponateously bled profusely while garrus was interrogating one, the ones who wer practically dying and turned into those things that attacked you on his ship. Garrus wanted to disable Saleon's ship so it couldn't escape but C-sec though it'd kill the hostages. he wasn't going to blow it up just disable it.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I can't believe this debate is still going, when the reason for Zaeed not working has been mentioned many times already.

[ADLegend21]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I can't believe this debate is still going, when the reason for Zaeed not working has been mentioned many times already.

I know right. this is ridiculous.

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...

smudboy wrote...
As for your real life example, 1) meaningless within the context, 2) and I could beat my family at chess at age 5.  Doesn't mean I'm naturally good at taking down expert chess players or higher skilled players.

Leadership is a skill but it isn't a skill like chess.  There are some people that are naturally good leader even in combat situations with virtually no experience.  Look up Audie Murphy.  The point is that while experience helps give cred, it doesn't make you a good leader.  Miranda is simply wrong.

-Polaris

It doesn't matter if Miranda is wrong.  She's a "good leader", as the game shows us.  It just never tells us or shows us beforehand, though.

If leadership is a skill, then it has to be developed.  Sorry, but you missed the point of what aptitude means.  As well as the 10 year rule, both of which are irrelevant to this discussion, as is your Audie Murphy example.

[Raxxman]

ADLegend21 wrote...

What's this about garrus not caring about civilian lives? Saleons hostages were the people he was growing Organs inside of, the kind that sponateously bled profusely while garrus was interrogating one, the ones who wer practically dying and turned into those things that attacked you on his ship. Garrus wanted to disable Saleon's ship so it couldn't escape but C-sec though it'd kill the hostages. he wasn't going to blow it up just disable it.

Ahem, cherry picking, or just stupid?

'I ordered citadel defense to shoot him down'

'they were worried about the hostages, worried about civilian casulaties if the ship was destroyed so close to the citadel.'

Source

Doesn't mention disabling the ship, and Garrus only mentions that the hostages were dead anyway. He doesn't care about the collateral damage (civilians) possibly caused by his actions.

So bottom line, you're wrong.

Edit - removed last comment, on reflection it was just offensive.

Modifié par Raxxman, 08 août 2010 - 11:00 .

[didymos1120]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I can't believe this debate is still going, when the reason for Zaeed not working has been mentioned many times already.

I can.  Smudboy's in it, and it impinges on his larger "ME2's story sucks" thesis.   This thing could go for days more.

[BellatrixLugosi]

didymos1120 wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I can't believe this debate is still going, when the reason for Zaeed not working has been mentioned many times already.

I can.  Smudboy's in it, and it impinges on his larger "ME2's story sucks" thesis.   This thing could go for days more.

Me2 only sucks to him because it doesn't meet his Ideals.  Which he set's kinda a bit high for media.

[didymos1120]

Raxxman wrote...

Doesn't mention disabling the ship, and Garrus only mentions that the hostages were dead anyway. He doesn't care about the collateral damage (civilians) possibly caused by his actions.

That doesn't mean he didn't care about collateral damage.  It could mean that, but it could also mean he just thought the people at C-Sec were idiots and collateral damage was highly unlikely (whether it truly was or not).  All that matters is what Garrus believed, and since he doesn't say, we can't either.

[shoulderfish]

Argh, even though I've seen this argument so many times, I still believe Zaeed would be a good fire team leader. He has experience, and although the stories he tells often end up with him being the sole survivor, there's probably a ton of others in which everything ended up just fine. 'Cause really, do you think every mission he went on ended up with everyone dead but him?
Besides, he'd only be fire team leader for like twenty minutes. I think he'd do just fine.

[Val Seleznyov]

I think that if the Paragon route was used during Zaeed's loyalty mission, he should have worked well as a fire team leader.



The arguments for him not working are pretty good, but it would have been nice if Shepard's actions were shown to rub off on him; to show that he appreciated human (and other species') life as much as his next paycheck or thirst for revenge.

[ADLegend21]

Raxxman wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

What's this about garrus not caring about civilian lives? Saleons hostages were the people he was growing Organs inside of, the kind that sponateously bled profusely while garrus was interrogating one, the ones who wer practically dying and turned into those things that attacked you on his ship. Garrus wanted to disable Saleon's ship so it couldn't escape but C-sec though it'd kill the hostages. he wasn't going to blow it up just disable it.

Ahem, cherry picking, or just stupid?

'I ordered citadel defense to shoot him down'

'they were worried about the hostages, worried about civilian casulaties if the ship was destroyed so close to the citadel.'

Source

Doesn't mention disabling the ship, and Garrus only mentions that the hostages were dead anyway. He doesn't care about the collateral damage (civilians) possibly caused by his actions.

So bottom line, you're wrong.

Edit - removed last comment, on reflection it was just offensive.

Shooting down a ship is disabling it, not destroying it.

[InvaderErl]

Garrus is a Turian. Putting their team's safety above their own safety is something that is ingrained into them at boot camp and as military service is mandatory it is very much a part of their cultural identity.

Garrus' willingness for civilian casualties in the Saleon incident has no bearing on that.

[Silver]

Turians don't get that ingrained at bootcamp, it is in their very nature.

[NephilimNexus]

smudboy wrote...

Zaeed gets a characters arc, if solved Paragon style, teaches him to be part of a team.

And how him being the fire team leader, gets the tech expert killed = completely illogical.

If he's chosen for the 2nd team leader, he dies?  Even though he's Mr. Survival?  Illogical.

Simple answer: BioWare botched the Suicide Mission.  (Same argument for Samara, Garrus as tech expert, Jacob as biotic bubble, etc.)

A good point here.  Zaeed certainly has the experience & know-how to be an excellent combat leader; it's his personality that is the problem.

If Bioware had wanted to do it right, then they should have written it so that Zaeed does not make a good team leader if the player lets him go down the Renegade path (sacrificing others for his own agenda).  The flipside being that the Renegade path would give Zaeed better odds of personally surviving, even if he's given a low-survival rate job.

But if the player takes him down the Paragon path (put the mission & team first) then he should make a good team leader.  However doing so would decrease his odds of personal survival if not paired with good teammates (during the "hold the line" part of the mission).

Thus allowing player choices to decide whether or not Zaeed becomes a good choice for a team leader or simply continues to always be the last man standing.

[smudboy]

NephilimNexus wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Zaeed gets a characters arc, if solved Paragon style, teaches him to be part of a team.

And how him being the fire team leader, gets the tech expert killed = completely illogical.

If he's chosen for the 2nd team leader, he dies?  Even though he's Mr. Survival?  Illogical.

Simple answer: BioWare botched the Suicide Mission.  (Same argument for Samara, Garrus as tech expert, Jacob as biotic bubble, etc.)

A good point here.  Zaeed certainly has the experience & know-how to be an excellent combat leader; it's his personality that is the problem.

If Bioware had wanted to do it right, then they should have written it so that Zaeed does not make a good team leader if the player lets him go down the Renegade path (sacrificing others for his own agenda).  The flipside being that the Renegade path would give Zaeed better odds of personally surviving, even if he's given a low-survival rate job.

But if the player takes him down the Paragon path (put the mission & team first) then he should make a good team leader.  However doing so would decrease his odds of personal survival if not paired with good teammates (during the "hold the line" part of the mission).

Thus allowing player choices to decide whether or not Zaeed becomes a good choice for a team leader or simply continues to always be the last man standing.

That sounds interesting.  That is to say, character development drops and gains qualities.  The problem, though, is we're playing mental guess work to say who's right and wrong for what.  You'd need some kind of GUI or visual indicator/status screen to see how that would all work when the time comes to assign roles.

[ADLegend21]

why was this revived? Zaeed is not a good leader. Soldier yes, but leader no. Zaeed has his moment during the hold the line, just like grunt because they're tanks, not tacticians.

[Raxxman]

smudboy wrote...

That sounds interesting.  That is to say, character development drops and gains qualities.  The problem, though, is we're playing mental guess work to say who's right and wrong for what.  You'd need some kind of GUI or visual indicator/status screen to see how that would all work when the time comes to assign roles.

On a very basic level, that already happens. A non loyal Garrus/Jacob/Mirranda is a poor team leader. What's being suggested is a step further along, but on the flipside very similar to the darkside/lightside influence table that Kotor 2
employed.

That said, Para/Rena isn't a good measure of command ability.

[IoCaster]

ADLegend21 wrote...

why was this revived? Zaeed is not a good leader. Soldier yes, but leader no. Zaeed has his moment during the hold the line, just like grunt because they're tanks, not tacticians.

Why does it matter to you? You've already spammed this thread with your insipid, "Zaeed sucks because me and Bioware say so", often enough to demonstrate a lack of willingness to debate the matter intelligently.  If you're not interested in the discussion then why bother posting anything?

[ADLegend21]

IoCaster wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

why was this revived? Zaeed is not a good leader. Soldier yes, but leader no. Zaeed has his moment during the hold the line, just like grunt because they're tanks, not tacticians.

Why does it matter to you? You've already spammed this thread with your insipid, "Zaeed sucks because me and Bioware say so", often enough to demonstrate a lack of willingness to debate the matter intelligently.  If you're not interested in the discussion then why bother posting anything?

wow you love putting words in other peoples mouths don't you? I gave valid reasons why he wasn't and why the others were adn you jsut bypass that and say "because you say so" real smooth.

[IoCaster]

ADLegend21 wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

why was this revived? Zaeed is not a good leader. Soldier yes, but leader no. Zaeed has his moment during the hold the line, just like grunt because they're tanks, not tacticians.

Why does it matter to you? You've already spammed this thread with your insipid, "Zaeed sucks because me and Bioware say so", often enough to demonstrate a lack of willingness to debate the matter intelligently.  If you're not interested in the discussion then why bother posting anything?

wow you love putting words in other peoples mouths don't you? I gave valid reasons why he wasn't and why the others were adn you jsut bypass that and say "because you say so" real smooth.

You've been repetitively spewing the whole, "Zaeed sucks because he sucks", nonsense throughout the thread. You haven't contributed a single original thought or idea to the discussion.

ADLegend21 wrote...
why was this revived?

Again, I ask you, why does it matter to you that other people want to discuss this topic? If you're not interested in the discussion then why bother posting anything?

[ADLegend21]

IoCaster wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

why was this revived? Zaeed is not a good leader. Soldier yes, but leader no. Zaeed has his moment during the hold the line, just like grunt because they're tanks, not tacticians.

Why does it matter to you? You've already spammed this thread with your insipid, "Zaeed sucks because me and Bioware say so", often enough to demonstrate a lack of willingness to debate the matter intelligently.  If you're not interested in the discussion then why bother posting anything?

wow you love putting words in other peoples mouths don't you? I gave valid reasons why he wasn't and why the others were adn you jsut bypass that and say "because you say so" real smooth.

You've been repetitively spewing the whole, "Zaeed sucks because he sucks", nonsense throughout the thread. You haven't contributed a single original thought or idea to the discussion.

ADLegend21 wrote...
why was this revived?

Again, I ask you, why does it matter to you that other people want to discuss this topic? If you're not interested in the discussion then why bother posting anything?

I ahve never said "Zaeed sucks because he sucks" ever, that's the dumbest of dumb arguements. I've stated the OBVIOUS facts which is the answer to the thread title Why Doesn't Zaeed work as a Fire Team Leader" Because he gets his subordinates and squadmates killed. I beleive I've said that nearly double digit amounts of times is several posts and compared him to the people who Do work as fire team leaders. all you've done is attack my points by crying wolf and saying "you're not original" yeah facts are there for everyone, no need for originality. Now FFS let this topic die zaeed is good for holding the line which is right up his "I'm a badarse" alley. that should be good enough.

[RiouHotaru]

I'll solve this entire thing with one simple statement:



In NONE of Zaeed's stories does it ever state he was the leader of the group he was with. It seems more like they were simply working together on the same job for the money. Zaeed himself never states he lead anyone. They just happen to be working together.

[IoCaster]

ADLegend21 wrote...

I ahve never said "Zaeed sucks because he sucks" ever, that's the dumbest of dumb arguements. I've stated the OBVIOUS facts which is the answer to the thread title Why Doesn't Zaeed work as a Fire Team Leader" Because he gets his subordinates and squadmates killed. I beleive I've said that nearly double digit amounts of times is several posts and compared him to the people who Do work as fire team leaders. all you've done is attack my points by crying wolf and saying "you're not original" yeah facts are there for everyone, no need for originality. Now FFS let this topic die zaeed is good for holding the line which is right up his "I'm a badarse" alley. that should be good enough.

That's exactly what you're doing. You've stated your opinion repeatedly about what everyone already knows. We know that Zaeed doesn't work as a 2nd team leader. The discussion is about why some of us think that he should and that BioWare didn't make a convincing enough case to explain why he was excluded. If all you're going to do is keep repeating the same fatuous crap and telling everyone to shut up because you don't think that the subject is worthy of discussion then you can find another thread that you find more interesting. You don't get to decide what topic is appropriate or anything else on this forum. Grow up or get lost.

[Pauravi]

IoCaster wrote...

You've been repetitively spewing the whole, "Zaeed sucks because he sucks", nonsense throughout the thread. You haven't contributed a single original thought or idea to the discussion.

Maybe he is just tired of everyone ignoring the blatantly obvious and clear reasons, that have been reiterated already time and time again, why Zaeed isn't a good squad leader?

Simply being a gang leader doesn't mean you're good at getting a team through a mission.  It just means you have a forceful personality.  His anecdotes repeatedly show that he is not only NOT proficient at getting his squad mates through missions alive, but that he doesn't especially even CARE about his squadmates and is therefore not motivated to protect them.  He is an every man for himself-type mercenary.

Similarly, Samara is a very seasoned combatant, but has absolutely NO experience working in groups.  She has spend literally hundreds of years working by herself.  She says this explicitly.  There is absolutely no reason to expect that she would be a good leader just because she is an old, powerful biotic with good aim.

This is in stark contrast to Garrus who, for a very long time, kept a squad of 12 people alive while successfully executing dangerous missions against the most dangerous mercenary gangs on Omega.  Garrus, who took responsibility and felt deep emotional hardship for the death of his squad even though their deaths were not even his fault.

I honestly have idea why this discussion is still going on.  None of the arguments for Zaeed's side make any damn sense.

[IoCaster]

Pauravi wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

You've been repetitively spewing the whole, "Zaeed sucks because he sucks", nonsense throughout the thread. You haven't contributed a single original thought or idea to the discussion.

Maybe he is just tired of everyone ignoring the blatantly obvious and clear reasons, that have been reiterated already time and time again, why Zaeed isn't a good squad leader?

Simply being a gang leader doesn't mean you're good at getting a team through a mission.  It just means you have a forceful personality.  His anecdotes repeatedly show that he is not only NOT proficient at getting his squad mates through missions alive, but that he doesn't especially even CARE about his squadmates and is therefore not motivated to protect them.  He is an every man for himself-type mercenary.

Similarly, Samara is a very seasoned combatant, but has absolutely NO experience working in groups.  She has spend literally hundreds of years working by herself.  She says this explicitly.  There is absolutely no reason to expect that she would be a good leader just because she is an old, powerful biotic with good aim.

This is in stark contrast to Garrus who, for a very long time, kept a squad of 12 people alive while successfully executing dangerous missions against the most dangerous mercenary gangs on Omega.  Garrus, who took responsibility and felt deep emotional hardship for the death of his squad even though their deaths were not even his fault.

I honestly have idea why this discussion is still going on.  None of the arguments for Zaeed's side make any damn sense.

No one has put a gun to his or your head and forced you to participate in the thread. If it's a settled matter to you then there's really nothing that should draw you into the discussion. It's really none of your business if other people are interested in debating the topic is it?