440 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
That thing you simply call "Stuff" is the entire room going up in flames around them...the same room in which the squad is running for cover.  I'd say that very definately in a real world situation would involve putting the squad in danger.  Using "cut scene immunity" to argue otherwise is committing a logical fallacy.
[/quote]
What logical fallacy is that?

And that was a room?  Weren't they out in the open?
[/quote]

It was an enclosure actually and the squad was most definately in danger.

[quote]
[quote]
What part of liberate the refinery did you miss?  In order to LIBERATE it, you have to preserve it.
[/quote]
What part of liberate the refinery did you miss?  In order to LIBERATE something, you have to take it away from that something.
[/quote]

Liberate is generally taken to mean taking something way INTACT.  If the mission was to destroy the refinery, there are a lot easier ways than using infantry.


[quote]
[quote]
Actually we do.  We can look at DoD expenses for tac-nukes and we can pretty reasonably say that a legal tac-nuke would only be a million or so USD (tac-nuke/hiroshima grade) more or less.  The reason that nuclear powers still stockpile nukes (or I should say one reason) is for their bang, nuclear weapons are extremely cheap.
[/quote]
Or you can actually point to the game.  Oh wait gee golly you can't and you just made sh+t up again.
[/quote]

I am not making anything up.  The big problem today with suitcase nukes and nuke research is that nukes ARE so damned cheap for what they do and that's the early 21st century.  You don't have to be a govt to be able to afford a nuke.  Not any more (now getting one legally today is another matter).

It's also beside the point.  A single mission with a high-tech space-fighter could turn the place into a crater easy enough.  You use infantry because you want to take the place INTACT and failing to do so FAILS the mission.

[quote]
[quote]
Go fish.  You aren't worth enough of my time.  It's been quoted (on or about page 9 or 10 IIRC) and the game files are available if you'd bother to check.  Even if I quoted them, you'd still deny it, so it isn't worth my time...and really neither are you.
[/quote]
So your argument isn't worthy of my time?  Am I beneath simple questions to your argument?  All I'm asking you is to point to what you mean, to quote.  It's the least you can do.  Else all you're saying is inr your imagination.
[/quote]

Bolluxs.  The Paragon Shep has been quoted on this thread before.  Take five minutes of your time to look it up.  The fact is that no matter what I quote, you'll just dismiss it anyway.  You always do.

[quote]
[quote]
You won't accept any game evidence.  I am not submitting professional military standards as evidence.  I am presenting them as standards by which leadership decisions may be judged.  The game actions when judged against those standards show that Zaeed is a poor leader.

If that makes be biased, then it makes pretty much any basic military leadership instruction biased too.  Nice.

-Polaris[/quote]
I'm waiting for some evidence. Please point to it or quote it.  It's not hard.  You just type out what you see and hear objectively.  Or point to a youtube video.
[/quote]

Another poster has ALREADY posted every single line that Zaeed says in the game, and you dismissed it as biased.  Given that response from you, why should I waste my time.  You aren't interested in the evidence.

[quote]
I am not making subjective observations, or comments.  I am merely looking at the scenes and going "Zaeed does this.  This happens.  Shepard does this." etc. In fact I described a few scenes in detail the last page or so.  That's all I'm asking, for you to make objective observations.  If you can't do that, then you're biased, and we can never come to any clear, objective understanding.  Am I really just wasting my time with your imagination and bias?  I would hope not.

[/quote]

You are definately wasting my time and I am foolish enough to let you.  I've read your video analysis.  You walk in with a preconceived notion of what the plot and/or characters should be and if they don't precisely match then you cherry pick things to nitpick in support of your preconceptions while ignoring that evidence against you not just presented by me but many other posters on this thread as well.  You are anything but an objective commentator.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

IoCaster wrote...
I'm really just pointing out what choices are available to the player. I'm not convinced that Shepard is in charge of the mission if his/her choices are non-existent. If the player can stop Zaeed from starting the fire or finding an alternate route into the refinery, I haven't seen it. As far as game mechanics are concerned, that's an inherent limitation that can't be overridden by the player. Why take a position that it's not relevant?

This is again a logical fallacy.  Shepard has pretty much the same choice in all his missions.  Pretty much all the missions involve a linear path from A to B.  This doesn't support your notion that Zaeed is the true leader at all.  It's a game mechanic.  Nothing more and nothing less.

IoCaster wrote...
The player has the choice of taking control after the die is cast and the refinery is ablaze. Or Shepard can choose to let Zaeed get the job done his way. Zaeed has his objective (kill Vido) and proceeds to lead the team to successfully complete the mission on his terms. It's eerily reminiscent to the path that a ruthless Shepard charts on Torfan when he/she takes down the Batarians. I'm trying to look at this objectively and Zaeed is gangbusters at getting the job done when everything is on the line. Not a bad choice for a squad leader on a suicide mission where the stakes are high.

IanPolaris wrote...
The player is in charge the whole mission.  Zaeed obeys your orders not the other way around except when he goes cowboy and endangers everyone.

-Polaris

This only comes into effect when the option is presented to go paragon or renegade with regard to saving the refinery and the workers. Everything else is simply rendered down to positioning specific squad members or deciding what powers or talents they deploy on command.

Nope.  You direct the whole squad from the beginning.  Play it again.   At no point does Zaeed take command, although he tries to if you go Renegade.  If you go paragon, Shepard reads him the riot act and justifiably so. 

-Polaris

[IoCaster]

nvm 

Modifié par IoCaster, 13 août 2010 - 10:35 .

[IoCaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

IoCaster wrote...
I'm really just pointing out what choices are available to the player. I'm not convinced that Shepard is in charge of the mission if his/her choices are non-existent. If the player can stop Zaeed from starting the fire or finding an alternate route into the refinery, I haven't seen it. As far as game mechanics are concerned, that's an inherent limitation that can't be overridden by the player. Why take a position that it's not relevant?

This is again a logical fallacy.  Shepard has pretty much the same choice in all his missions.  Pretty much all the missions involve a linear path from A to B.  This doesn't support your notion that Zaeed is the true leader at all.  It's a game mechanic.  Nothing more and nothing less.

IoCaster wrote...
The player has the choice of taking control after the die is cast and the refinery is ablaze. Or Shepard can choose to let Zaeed get the job done his way. Zaeed has his objective (kill Vido) and proceeds to lead the team to successfully complete the mission on his terms. It's eerily reminiscent to the path that a ruthless Shepard charts on Torfan when he/she takes down the Batarians. I'm trying to look at this objectively and Zaeed is gangbusters at getting the job done when everything is on the line. Not a bad choice for a squad leader on a suicide mission where the stakes are high.

IanPolaris wrote...
The player is in charge the whole mission.  Zaeed obeys your orders not the other way around except when he goes cowboy and endangers everyone.

-Polaris

This only comes into effect when the option is presented to go paragon or renegade with regard to saving the refinery and the workers. Everything else is simply rendered down to positioning specific squad members or deciding what powers or talents they deploy on command.

Nope.  You direct the whole squad from the beginning.  Play it again.   At no point does Zaeed take command, although he tries to if you go Renegade.  If you go paragon, Shepard reads him the riot act and justifiably so. 

-Polaris

I've got to go, but this is not true. Zaeed calls the shots unless you choose to seize control. Most of the loyalty missions are structured that way. Thane calls the shots on his loyalty mission. Samara calls the shots on her loyalty mission. Miranda calls the shots on her loyalty mission. You're presented with the option to paragon/renegade interrupt some choices but the overall mission structure is set. Shepard is there to help out the squad member and has the option to take a moral stance, but otherwise the mission is directed by the squad member. If you fail to achieve the goals set by the individual squad member you don't succeed in getting their loyalty.

[IanPolaris]

IoCaster wrote...

I've got to go, but this is not true. Zaeed calls the shots unless you choose to seize control. Most of the loyalty missions are structured that way. Thane calls the shots on his loyalty mission. Samara calls the shots on her loyalty mission. Miranda calls the shots on her loyalty mission. You're presented with the option to paragon/renegade interrupt some choices but the overall mission structure is set. Shepard is there to help out the squad member and has the option to take a moral stance, but otherwise the mission is directed by the squad member. If you fail to achieve the goals set by the individual squad member you don't succeed in getting their loyalty.

No he doesn't call the shots ever.  At no time are you following Zaeed's directions.  I'm sorry but you are flatly incorrect here.

-Polaris

Edit:  You are flat out incorrect in your last sentence as well.  Even if you do fail to gain Zaeed's self-imposed goal, you get (or can get anyway) his loyalty by chewing him out with the paragon option.  Even without that, whether or not to meet the mission to your teammate's satisfaction (any of them) is based entirely on your actions and your direction which means you (Shepard) are in charge.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 14 août 2010 - 12:54 .

[The Grey Ranger]

If they wanted the refinery destroyed, they don't even need a nuke, just a big rock. So the fact that they go out of the way to hire a special ops team very strongly suggests that they want the hardware intact.



We're discussing a game where even large ship mass drivers are wmd's the cost of destroying the refinery would be minimal.

[Fiery Phoenix]

http://img830.images.../6060/pk6kt.jpg

[IoCaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

I've got to go, but this is not true. Zaeed calls the shots unless you choose to seize control. Most of the loyalty missions are structured that way. Thane calls the shots on his loyalty mission. Samara calls the shots on her loyalty mission. Miranda calls the shots on her loyalty mission. You're presented with the option to paragon/renegade interrupt some choices but the overall mission structure is set. Shepard is there to help out the squad member and has the option to take a moral stance, but otherwise the mission is directed by the squad member. If you fail to achieve the goals set by the individual squad member you don't succeed in getting their loyalty.

No he doesn't call the shots ever.  At no time are you following Zaeed's directions.  I'm sorry but you are flatly incorrect here.

-Polaris

Edit:  You are flat out incorrect in your last sentence as well.  Even if you do fail to gain Zaeed's self-imposed goal, you get (or can get anyway) his loyalty by chewing him out with the paragon option.  Even without that, whether or not to meet the mission to your teammate's satisfaction (any of them) is based entirely on your actions and your direction which means you (Shepard) are in charge.

When you land on the planet, Zaeed tells you that he's tapping into Blue Suns comm and directs the squad. When you find the dead bodies, he tells you it's a Vido MO and to keep moving. He directs Shepard to stop the bridge and tells the player about his past history with the Blue Suns and Vido. When you get to the encounter with Vido and his thugs, Zaeed takes direct action. The only point at which you get to take control of the mission is when you get the option to save the refinery workers. Otherwise you can choose to follow his lead and complete the mission successfully. How does any of that equate to Shepard being the leader? You can choose to let Zaeed make all of the mission critical decisions and take a subordinate role throughout the mission. As far as being able to secure his loyalty is concerned, you better have enough paragon/renegade points available to force the issue. It's not a foregone conclusion that you can disregard his commands and still obtain his loyalty.

From my experience and perspective when I play the game this is a legitimate choice. Just as I can choose to let Miranda shoot Niket. I can choose to let Garrus shoot Harkin and Sidonis. I can choose to let Mordin shoot Maelon. My choice to play a support role and let the squad member take the leadership role is valid in most of the loyalty missions. This is in the game and a distinct part of the narrative. If I choose to take a subordinate role and let the mission proceed normally and successfully that's sufficient proof that the squad member is calling the shots. The only limitation is that I can't technically take direct control of the squad member like I can in Dragon Age. That doesn't change the fact that all of the decisions that dictate the successful outcome of the loyalty mission can be directed by the squad member.

Modifié par IoCaster, 17 août 2010 - 12:48 .

[Alucard of the dragon]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

To me that's a reason for being great at being a fire team leader.  His own Suicide Mission he came out alive.  As with every other mission.

Uh, no one in their right mind would trust someone who has a track history of team members dying under his command. Why did Captain Herbert Sobel get removed from tactical command during World War II despite having a semi-harsh military regimen? He was just not fit for the real battles. Zaeed is more or less the same.

It's arguable, but no one, save from Samara, has more experience than Zaeed.

Samara worked alone for centuries. It's as stupid as expecting Batman to command the U.S. military.

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

He doesn't have much leadership skills at all. He may have been a founder of Blue Suns, but the mercs must have turned on him for good reason besides the "more credits" thing..

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

Who would want to listen to someone with a track history of getting his people killed?

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

I don't think half of Zaeed's earlier missions included him acting as a bullet sponge.

no one has ever said that he got any team members killed only that he was part of the team someone else could have been the leader and I think one of the reasons he was betrayed (besides more creds) was that he didn't want batarians in the blue suns but vido got them anyway so the batarians probably had more loyalty towards vido than zaeed so maybe most of those vido got to help him betray Zaeed was batarians who probably didn't like Zaeed at all because of his hate towards batarians (or is it just Batarian Soldiers?) and you can't say he doesn't have any leader skills on the battlefield because as Zaeed says "vido ran the books and I lead the men. worked really well for a while" which indicates that Zaeed has good leader skills because I would doubt that he counts his men dying as "really well"

[JRCHOharry]

Alucard of the dragon wrote...
no one has ever said that he got any team members killed only that he was part of the team someone else could have been the leader and I think one of the reasons he was betrayed (besides more creds) was that he didn't want batarians in the blue suns but vido got them anyway so the batarians probably had more loyalty towards vido than zaeed so maybe most of those vido got to help him betray Zaeed was batarians who probably didn't like Zaeed at all because of his hate towards batarians (or is it just Batarian Soldiers?) and you can't say he doesn't have any leader skills on the battlefield because as Zaeed says "vido ran the books and I lead the men. worked really well for a while" which indicates that Zaeed has good leader skills because I would doubt that he counts his men dying as "really well"

That was 20 years ago though and you even said it yourself "Worked really well for a while", Zaeed has spent the last 2 decades doing mostly solo missions, so he has probably lost his touch at leading a squad. And that's not even counting the fact that his confidence would have gone down the sh*tter after he got betrayed by his own men.

[Destroy Raiden_]

I don't think BW takes or took into account the backgrounds of the people they said should be on the no list for 2nd team leader just like the escort mission.

Zeed has a leadership background he was a merc he knows how to comeout of situations alive and he knows how to order people to their deaths.

Samara 400 years of fighting experience she was a merc, she tracked down a spector, she knows her way around unpredictable battlefields and through her code knows how to make tough choices.

Garrus lead a team on Omega before that he was a one man army, he knows how to assess the situation based off his years in C-sec looking critically at criminals and operations, he uses instincts to command troops, and he had some tutoring on battlefield command via shep.

Jacob we know he did combat missions, worked independently for the Alliance he lead missions, we know he help prevent a strike on the council's lives.

Grunt sure he's like 1 but he has been trained for battlefield tactics surely they put something in there about commanding people on the battlefield and how to make combat choices.

Legion has a 1,000 minds the should be able to come up with values on if we say do A will the organics die?

Miranda she too was part of the mission to save the council, she's lead operations else where though in what capacity is unclear, the most unpositive thing I can say to her not being a good 2nd team leader is she doesn't inspire trust with the team Garrus and Jack point this out but her background at least makes her able to make hard choices.


Sure some choices for that 2nd team leader are just plain out:

Tali is not a leader for all her life she's been a follower, her father chose her course of study and training, she took some initiative when finding the geth data but got into trouble when trying to go all broker agent, she doesn't inspire command loyalty her crew on Progress disobeys orders and talks back her crew on Hastrom nearly all die, she is more comfortable a follower then a leader.

Mordin he worked with STG but in what leadership capacity he was a scientist only and nearly got captured during the drop on Tuhanka.

Kasum she's a thief and works alone or with one other person she's not a leader isn't trained to make split second decisions she goes off of months of detail and preparation before she makes a move.

Jack not a people person she has not leadership experience she runs, she fights, she doesn't play nice in a battle she'll try to command them but she's never thought of anyone but herself and never had to save anyone but herself thats alot of pressure for her.
For the escorting missions

Anyone could've done that you don't need to be a rocket scientist to protect people and move slowly to get as many people as possible to safety.

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 25 juin 2011 - 06:38 .

[mcsupersport]

Being a leader is more than just knowing tactics, it is caring about who lives and dies, and having the trust and respect of your men.

Samara has rigid beliefs and she has been a good fighter, but SOLO for a really long time, and even when she was a merc she worked mostly solo or small squad without any mention of leadership. Sure she is a good warrior, but that doesn't make her a good leader, and she is a follower, of her code, but it is a rigid code NOT to be interpreted or flexible making her more a follower than a leader.

Zaeed, has been a solo merc or a merc working with a provided team for years. If you listen to him, yeah he knows how to survive, but almost every tale he tells he is the sole survivor, meaning he doesn't put much thought into whether anyone other than himself survives. He helped create the Blue Suns and his own men held him down while his partner shot him in the face....sounds like he was a great leader there. Being able to order people to their deaths is only half the equation of leadership, you have to be willing to sacrifice people, but you also have to try and get as many back as possible and still complete the mission, Zaeed doesn't really care about others.

Grunt is young, hotheaded, and while he has implanted info, he hasn't fully connected that info to real time. Plus he is a fighter not a talker or leader. Grunt is a weapon, point him and release, don't ask him to do strategy or group tactics, not at his age and experience. Now Wrex is another matter, but we don't have that option in the mission.

Legion is decisions by committee. That kind of thing is never good, and while always doing what is logical in battle works, sometimes isn't the best, because anyone can see logical and plan for it, it is the innovative that often gets the best results.

Jacob, has led men, in the Corsairs he was a captain of a ship, he has been in squad dynamics for years. He both thinks of others and is willing to do what is necessary to get the job done. That is what makes leaders.

Garrus and Miranda are both leaders of groups for years.


Tali is young, to be understood she isn't good at leadership. Hastrom may or may not have been Tali's fault, she was the tech specialist more than the leader from my understanding, but then that may be overlapping in Quarian culture, Kal' Reager was the leader of the squad in my mind, he was the military expert/captain.

[100k]

I'll break it down for all of you real simple:

Zaeed is one of the best mercs in the galaxy. Could probably take on Wrex--hell, even Shepard in one on one combat, and have a decent chance at survival. He's got all of the factors of the best protagonists (even though he's not one). Luck, skill, a snarky attitude, instincts. But he simply doesn't have the same charisma that Shepard (and to an extension Garrus and Miranda) have. As a result, he probably tries to solve most tachnical problems like a Krogan. By shooting it until everything is quiet.

As for Samara, her authority as a Justicar--which only really effects asari-- isn't the same as the authority of a leader. She's like Zaeed in that regard. She mostly just shoots until everything is quiet. Granted, her motivations are different, but even the SB says she's "predictable". Is that really the kind of person you want to follow?
It's also important to note that her sutras were probably created before the asari made contact with the salarians, and were updated as the centuries progressed. Add to that the fact that Justicars stay in asari space mostly, and you're faced with the problem of Samara being unfamiliar with aliens (she admits this) and their ways.

As for Thane, he was my first ME2 play through choice as fireteam leader and it pissed me off that he died. Then I thought about it later. Thane is (self-admittedly) antisocial. He usually works alone. Charisma isn't really his strong suit. I imagine he occasionally worked with another assassin, but mostly just hunted by himself. He just isn't command material yet.

And don't make me laugh about Legion. I love the geth too, but c'mon people. He's a geth. The crew probably falls silent and glares at him wherever he goes.

In the end, being a leader isn't just about the skills you possess as an individual, but how you can utilize the of best skills in others through trust, planning, experience, and/or loyalty. Miranda, Garrus and Jacob definitely are good at this kind of stuff.

Well, Miranda could've used more development so that the crew would grow to trust her, but you get the idea.

EDIT: I see the above poster pretty much said the same thing. Oh well. Great minds think as one.

Modifié par 100k, 26 juin 2011 - 05:20 .

[Moiaussi]

It is not just that Zaheed has so many 'I was the only survivor' stories but that he seems to revel in them.

As for the refinery, he wasn't just jeopardizing the official mission but jeopardizing his own. If he had simply told Shepard what was going on up front, they could have used a different approach. They could have disabled the flyer first, and either gone in under cover or taken Vido out with a sniper rifle (it is particularly annoying as an infiltrator).

The fire is a very clumsy means with a very high risk of failure.

As for Samara, wasn't she a pirate for a while before becoming a Justicar?

[mcsupersport]

A Ruthless Shepard that does all the missions will still not lose squad to attacks or jobs. Legion will never be crew, Renegade settle Miranda/Jack, Grunt doesn't get opened, everyone is loyal so the only squad mate that dies would be the VS. You can play a bad play through and kill everyone but that isn't paragon/renegade but more a bad play. The only other choice would be loss of crew if you don't go right away, or you lose some teammates. Zaeed loses EVERYONE on EVERY mission he talks about that is hard.....Shepard has lost one to five at the time of decision.

As another note, Shepard doesn't make a good fireteam leader, so much so you can't even pick him for the job......lol.

[Raxxman]

Wow, this thread again...

It's really simple. Your perception of Zaeed is wrong if you think most of his stories involve him being the only survivor. Just listening to his Turian cruiser story and calling it a day is meaningless. But it is fun to Meme about it.

Zaeed has extensive combat leadership experience, probably more than anyone else in the game, Shepard included. You can argue that he's over focused on killing Vido, but to gain his loyalty, you either have to kill Vido or paragon him into being a team player.

People with extensive combat experience:

Garrus, Zaeed, Shepard, Jacob, Samara, Thane

People with extensive combat leadership experience:

Garrus, Zaeed, Shepard, Jacob

People who work as fire team leader.

Garrus, Jacob, Miranda (Shepard works as the other fireteam leader, you don't loose either teammate you take).

Zaeed was written in the game to be able to lead the first fire team, it’s in his dialogue, background and Mirandas evaluation. for whatever reason the game development changed their mind to make him unworkable as a team leader.

That's really it, he doesn't work because he's not flagged to work. Maybe they just ran out of time giving him a unique flagging system and defaulted to standard, which is to fail.

[Alucard of the dragon]

JRCHOharry wrote...

Alucard of the dragon wrote...
no one has ever said that he got any team members killed only that he was part of the team someone else could have been the leader and I think one of the reasons he was betrayed (besides more creds) was that he didn't want batarians in the blue suns but vido got them anyway so the batarians probably had more loyalty towards vido than zaeed so maybe most of those vido got to help him betray Zaeed was batarians who probably didn't like Zaeed at all because of his hate towards batarians (or is it just Batarian Soldiers?) and you can't say he doesn't have any leader skills on the battlefield because as Zaeed says "vido ran the books and I lead the men. worked really well for a while" which indicates that Zaeed has good leader skills because I would doubt that he counts his men dying as "really well"

That was 20 years ago though and you even said it yourself "Worked really well for a while", Zaeed has spent the last 2 decades doing mostly solo missions, so he has probably lost his touch at leading a squad. And that's not even counting the fact that his confidence would have gone down the sh*tter after he got betrayed by his own men.

zaeed spent the last 2 decades doing mostly group missions but that doesn't mean he was the leader but even though he wasn't leader he would still get leader experience from watching and listening to the squad leader and maybe on the missions where he was the only surviver it was because he wasn't the leader and all the times where everyone survived it was because he was the leader and what makes you think he lost confidence in his leadership abilities? his men were most likely bribed (or just take a look at my last post) so it had nothing to do with his abilities so there is no reason for him to lose confidence

[CajNatalie]

To be honest, Zaeed should never die as either a Fire Team leader or an Escort.
Instead he'll be the only survivor as the Escort, and he loses maybe half his team as Fire Team Leader.
Listen to his stories.

XD