197 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

For the first, his crew definitely wasn't in on it.[/quote]This only means that they weren't in on it. Nothing else.

It's actually common for terrorists to use subordinates in ways they don't warn or tell the subordinates about: suicide bombers who don't even know they're carrying bombs is one of the more common ones.

Balak doesn't need to tell this crew that they were going to hijack the asteroid because all he needed to tell them was enough to get to that point. Once they acted on the open plan, he was able to put another plan into action.
 
[quote]
And if he'd planned it, he'd have had to have a spy either on the asteroid or on the ground, and there was no evidence of either one.[/quote]No, this is not necessary. At all. [quote]
I feel that his credibility has been vastly reduced and his ability to gather further resources severely compromised.
[/quote]If terrorists were sidelined the first time they failed, terrorism wouldn't be a problem. That he came so close before stopped by exceptional circumstances (a Spectre) doesn't necessitate a loss of face. If anything, his escape proves an ability to adapt and not be caught, valuable skills.

 [quote]
And by that I mean he'll get killed if he shows his face in the Hegemony again.[/quote]He doesn't even need to work from the Hegemony proper, and he certainly isn't a public figure in the first place. He doesn't have to show his face.

Pirates, yes. There has, however, been no evidence that they sponsor planet-destroying terrorist acts.
[/quote]The Batarian hegemony sponsors planet-destroying technologies. It supports colony-raising piracy and slaving attacks such as Mindoir and attempts such as the Skyllian Blitz.

[quote]
His crew certainly didn't act like this attack had any precedent; moreover,
[/quote]He openly claims this will be the first blow of the Batarian Rebellion, whatever it turned out to be. It was to be precedent. 
[quote] 
this is the kind of thing that starts major wars, and since the Hegemony didn't just attack the Alliance outright, I'm assuming they don't want one.[/quote]Assuming. Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

You assume this because you assume the Batarian Hegemony is a reasonable, sane actor who wants what you assume they want. They don't. If they were what you wanted them to be, they wouldn't sponsor pirates and colony attacks under plausible denial in the first place.

Balak is a plausible denial actor: you certainly don't believe the Hegemony is capable of it, so why would anyone else be willing to call them a liar if they denied it?

[Sajuro]

LorDC wrote...


1) Erasing Afghanistan from the world map(with all its population of course) will be the most effective solution to the problem. Unfortunately it is not an option.
2) Political shape in your game exists only on your imagination.
3) He still escaped alive. Maybe it is punishment for him but for whole batarian race it is example of how you can attack Alliance and get away without punishment. It also shows that Alliance is so weak that it can be stopped with as little as three hostages.

1) No it wouldn't since terrorists aren't just in Afghanistan and if anything that would just stoke untold amounts of hostility towards America and the other Coalition nations.
2) As does yours since it is a game and not real.
3) Yes, seeing that a human sent a Batarian running back to the Hegemony with his tail tucked between his legs will really convey human weakness. There are things more humiliating then getting killed, having your entire force killed or turned against you and your plan foiled by three people (Possibly three humans nonetheless) is pretty damn humiliating. So it doesn't show weakness, it shows that humans can repel any attack the Batarians throw their way and send the survivors home to tell how their asses were kicked.

[Dean_the_Young]

Genocide has never been an ideal way to solve a problem with human population groups. (Viruses, certain animals is another case.) Not only is it wasteful, nigh-impossible to do, and horrendously costly, the responses of everyone else nearly uniformly outweigh any 'benefit' from the genocide itself.

[tommyt_1994]

Xilizhra wrote...

So, I finally played Bring Down the Sky, and unusually for my spoiler-devouring self, the decision of whether or not to spare Balak to save the hostages was actually a tricky one, because I really didn't know if Balak could do anything later or not. Ultimately, I did choose to let him go in the end, which I was initially nervous about, but after a while, I realized I really didn't have to be.

Balak is not a terrorist mastermind. He's a slaver captain who got lucky. He just happened to land on X57 while it already had fusion torches shooting it towards Terra Nova, and decided on a whim to speed them up. The odds of any situation happening like this again, especially after this incident gets publicized, are astronomical. Not only that, Balak's personal resources are nil; he has about four crewmen left, all of whom hate him, and if he goes back to the Batarian Hegemony, they'll probably execute him for potentially starting an open war with the Alliance. Of course, he could flee to Omega or something, as many other batarians do, but he's just another slaver among thousands, with no reliable backup. He's almost certainly screwed no matter what he does.

And, of course, I saved the hostages, which was quite nice. So, yeah, I think I made a good decision.

You trusted that Balak would not set off the charges as soon as he was out of the line of fire, likely killing you and your team in the process. Number 1 reason I won't make that choice.

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:47 .

[LorDC]

Sajuro wrote...
1) No it wouldn't since terrorists aren't just in Afghanistan and if anything that would just stoke untold amounts of hostility towards America and the other Coalition nations.
2) As does yours since it is a game and not real.
3) Yes, seeing that a human sent a Batarian running back to the Hegemony with his tail tucked between his legs will really convey human weakness. There are things more humiliating then getting killed, having your entire force killed or turned against you and your plan foiled by three people (Possibly three humans nonetheless) is pretty damn humiliating. So it doesn't show weakness, it shows that humans can repel any attack the Batarians throw their way and send the survivors home to tell how their asses were kicked.

1) Lets not go into political discussion here. If you wish to argue on Afghanistan problem feel free to PM me.
3) Shepard shows that humanity can repel attack either way. You assume that Batarians will think "OMG they humilated Balak! Oh my god I wont ever try to attack Alliance". But most probably as terrorists they are they will think along the lines "Hmm... only three hostages and he escaped. How nice it is so easy to get away if something goes wrong."

[LorDC]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Genocide has never been an ideal way to solve a problem with human population groups. (Viruses, certain animals is another case.) Not only is it wasteful, nigh-impossible to do, and horrendously costly, the responses of everyone else nearly uniformly outweigh any 'benefit' from the genocide itself.

I perfectly understand downsides of genocide. It doesn't work like surgeon removing cancer:crying: That's why I added that its not an option. But yet again lets not dip into political disussions here.

Modifié par LorDC, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:54 .

[PauseforEffect]

Surprised that we don't hear much from Balak. You'd think there would be another incident similar to asteroid X57. At least.

[Dean_the_Young]

I always felt that Balak's return could have been tied into the Javeline N7 mission. If you killed Balak, you get at least a chance to disarm both nukes. If you didn't, however, he's there to delay you, and prevents you from being able to disarm them both, forcing the choice. Presumably while laughing at your decision as a matter of last words, mocking you if you let the populace die, while laughing if you let the Alliance be booted out of this sector of space.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 08 novembre 2010 - 08:25 .

[PillarBiter]

i let him bleed out. always. even on paragon.

[AdmiralCheez]

Whether I let him go or not depends on the playthrough. For example, on my last one I was playing as a paragon Shepard with a "ruthless" background. I tried to roleplay her as someone who made a mistake early in her career: she charged in too early on Torfan and lost a lot of people she cared about. She couldn't handle those deaths being on her shoulders, so she took it out on the batarians, even when they surrendered. Her actions haunted her, and she swore to do better.



When she faced Balak, she remembered the hell she'd created on Torfan, and didn't want to repeat it. So she let him go, saving the hostages and proving that she wasn't going to be blinded by a personal vendetta. Was it a smart choice? Probably not, but she felt she'd made amends.



On the playthrough before that, I just killed the bastard.

[Legbiter]

Killed him slowly as per the "Thou shalt not suffer a Batarian to live" doctrine my Shep adheres to.

[AtrophyOffline]

Also killed him - and saved the infrastructure in ME2.



I figure it's never a good idea to give in to terrorists demands - all you get is more terrorism.

And as for the nuclear missle mission - didn't want them to have the satisfaction of ruining a human colony. Though it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to move in there after a nuclear missle just fried the entire population of said colony.



And besides if you let Balak get away then HE WINS! Moral of the story - don't let the bad guy win.

[Xilizhra]

And besides if you let Balak get away then HE WINS!

Yep, I know I admire the view of the smoking remains of Terra Nova.

[AtrophyOffline]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yep, I know I admire the view of the smoking remains of Terra Nova.

Wasn't being 100% serious there. Still think the universe is better off without a guy who likes to build engines on astroids and crash them into human colonies. If handful of people have to die to get rid of a guy like that - so be it.

[Xilizhra]

Um... he didn't build the engines. They were already attached to the asteroid and sending it at the planet; all Balak did was speed them up.

[CalJones]

Usually I get him thrown into prison. My renegades shoot him up a bit first - the paragons, not so much. But fact is, killing him makes him a martyr. He wants you to do it. I'm not giving him that satisfaction.

[AtrophyOffline]

Xilizhra wrote...

Um... he didn't build the engines. They were already attached to the asteroid and sending it at the planet; all Balak did was speed them up.

Semantics.

[Xilizhra]

Not exactly semantics. His plan was heavily circumstantial.

[AtrophyOffline]

Xilizhra wrote...

Not exactly semantics. His plan was heavily circumstantial.

I was refering to your point, not his plan.

[Cornelian]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Whether I let him go or not depends on the playthrough.

Me too.

But only 2 of my 7 Shep who have done BDTS killed him...

First was from Mindoir and hate mostly all batarians, slavers or not. Her choice wasn't really a reasoned one.
Second never let a second chance at this kind of people.

[Cheese Elemental]

I've only played BDtS once (as a Paragon). I captured Balak, vented on him, and then left him alive but crippled for the Alliance. Emotions tend to run high in situations like that.

[RiouHotaru]

I let him go. Even assuming the Batarian government "helped" him, if you let him go, he doesn't win. In fact, he becomes dead weight. His name gets out, his actions get out, people know that he exists, and it becomes a HECK of a lot more difficult for him to pull another stunt like that ever again. Why the Normandy doesn't chase after him and shoot him down after he leaves is beyond me.

[FrancisKitt]

As far as I can tell, The Hegemony found out about X57, sent Balak to take control of slaver band (who rather interestingly thought that crashing an asteroid into a planet was a pretty extreme idea) and crash it into Terra Nova. Now, in regards to the choice, I generally always kill him, except on the closest I get to a Pure Paragon. There is the argument that he'll be executed for his failure due to the totalitarian nature of the Hegemony, but its too much of a long shot to take it for granted.



The loss of the hostages though, is still tragic.

[Sable Rhapsody]

I spared him the first time with my Paragade, then changed my mind and redid it. I really like the reason Shep gives to Simon Atwell in-game if you pick the Paragon dialogue option afterwards--she did her duty. Balak was the kind of guy who would kill innocent human civilians whenever and wherever he got the chance. She was willing to let three people die to forever deny him that chance, and if it meant having the lives of the hostages on her conscience, so be it. That's one of the rare dialogue options in ME or ME2 that fits beautifully with a more nuanced approach to the morality system (as opposed to pure Paragon or Renegade).

[Louis_Cypher]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I always felt that Balak's return could have been tied into the Javeline N7 mission. If you killed Balak, you get at least a chance to disarm both nukes. If you didn't, however, he's there to delay you, and prevents you from being able to disarm them both, forcing the choice. Presumably while laughing at your decision as a matter of last words, mocking you if you let the populace die, while laughing if you let the Alliance be booted out of this sector of space.

I agree with this.  In fact, they wouldn't have to change the choice at all, if they didn't want to.  Given that it's a timed mission, inserting a boss-level enemy be a consequence all by itself.