197 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, I'd prefer to avoid the Cain instant-win button if at all possible...

[CmdrStJean]

I never found the Balak decision to be all that difficult. Basically two considerations entered my mind, first I'd made an agreement with Charn that I'd take care of Balak. Now I suppose you could argue that one need not be faithful to a Batarian but the way I play things, a deal is a deal, and if I tell someone I'm going to do something that's what I'm going to do. Similar to how I am in reality, but also my preferred play style.



On the other hand, I found Balak to be a ruthless and exceedingly dangerous individual. Even if I had killed Charn I'd still be interested in taking care of Balak. The loss of three lives, while tragic, in no way makes me feel worse about bringing Balak in and sending him off to prison. He had to be stopped, there's no telling what chaos and destruction he would perpetrate if left to his own devices.



From an RP standpoint I think I could also go for a "duty" angle, hell Shepard at that point is an Alliance Officer and a Spectre, and the way I do things I couldn't see him just letting Balak go. But I admit that side of things doesn't usually enter into my mind in any meaningful sense.



Oh as a final thought, I really am not so sure I agree with letting the hostages die being considered a "renegade" choice, any more than letting them live being the work of a Paragon. Like others have said, this is one of the biggest gray areas out there in the ME universe.

[Louis_Cypher]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Well, I'd prefer to avoid the Cain instant-win button if at all possible...

Ha! Point.

[Asheer_Khan]

Three people?



If my memory still served me well there were more than three people in rooms with bombs.

One room was where Kate Bowman was held and that room was pretty good "packed" with people so was second room with bomb.



I known that Kate was willing to die (she sacrificed life of her own brother to protect Shepard actions) in order to stop Balak but since my Shepard didn't served in Specnaz, death of the hostages was not an option for her.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Generally in no circumstance would I sacrifice people to capture someone else. Not even as a renegade. That wasn't what I was there for I was there to make sure the asteroid did not hit the colony. Balak is the Alliance's problem, if they want to go after him then all the luck for them but I'm not about to sacrifice those who helped me for an unknown.

[tommyt_1994]

I think killing Balak is one of the worst things you could do. He sure made it sound like he was the first of many, he needs to be interrogated for that info.

[frylock23]

It's simple really. I don't negotiate with terrorists.

[Sajuro]

Needless to say, I let Balak go with the promise that I would stop him one day.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Sorry Katie, but I don't see how letting Balak go could possibly be the right decision. Needs of the many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs of the few.

[TheGreyGhost119]

I never let Balak go. He could easily detonate that bomb as soon as he has escaped, making it all pointless.



I never kill Balak, though. He makes it clear that he is just one man in a big scheme. I leave him for Alliance interrogation. I like to think that would be a much worse punishment than death.

[Sable Rhapsody]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

I think killing Balak is one of the worst things you could do. He sure made it sound like he was the first of many, he needs to be interrogated for that info.

Wait---you can do that?  You can actually arrest him and hand him over to the Alliance for interrogation?  I thought your only options were to kill him or to let him skate off on his merry way.  

Then again, I was sleepy and playing at 3 AM, so I wasn't paying much attention...

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 09 novembre 2010 - 02:51 .

[CmdrStJean]

I should clarify, when I when through Bring Down the Sky, I only remember seeing exactly three NPCs within range of the weapon. I didn't know there were multiple rooms with people in them that got exploded, that's news to me, and hard to believe I missed that. I don't know how many were "actually" at risk, only what the game showed me. Perhaps I missed something?

[DPSSOC]

For me the decision is fairly simple; it all comes down to a single question. Do you believe that Ballak, if set free, could kill/enslave more innocent people than are currently on that base? If yes then you must kill Ballak or saving the hostages is, at best, a zero-sum action. If no then the same rationale applies, killing Ballak (and saving his future victims) simply cancels out the loss of the hostages (again at best).



Now I believe Ballak could kill more people than are presently at risk since I only recall seeing 3 (never tried to save the hostages though), but even if there were 3 dozen I'd still say he could because all it would require is a firearm and a bad day. Now I'm not saying he could pull of another Terra Nova, but it doesn't take much to off 36 people. From what we see after the fact he could have just run to Omega and started picking off civillians.

[Sinapus]

Balak "won" if you let him go? Odd, as was pointed out elsewhere, I don't recall seeing a massive crater in the planet below. He barely escaped with his life is more accurate. My Shep's mission was to stop the asteroid from hitting the planet and save as many of the crew as he could. Too little intel available to manage much else.

Also: stupid railroad plots. <_< (I went past the place the hostages were held a few times before the battle ended. Even found two of the bombs you have to disarm if you let him go. Odd how I couldn't do diddly about any of them until after the "choice" cutscene. Nope, just had to forcefeed the "moral dilemma" eh?)

ME3 or perhaps some ME2 DLC should have two different assignment paths for Balak after you get information on his whereabouts. One where you go in immediately, fight through whatever mooks he's managed to gather to replace the ones you obliterated last time and have a good chance of him trying the hostage as shield trick again. Another where you gather info, scout out his lair and nail him while preventing any chance of him using hostages to buy his freedom again. Say, free them first or put a bomb on his escape ship or simply hit him when he doesn't have any hostages available. Twist: if you don't take the "recon" assignment immediately, you end up with the direct attack assignment and get to see him play the usual "look what you made me do" terrorist/psychopath game. Sort of how not going on the suicide mission immediately ends up with more and more of your crew turned to reaper slush.

Balak had the initiative last time. Make sure your Shep has it this time. Being a Paragon doesn't mean you can't stack the deck in your favor as much as possible.

[GodWood]

Torture, leave for Alliance.

[faeriehunter]

I reluctantly let him go. Letting him go sets a bad precedent and risks Balak taking more lives in the future, but I was unwilling to sacrifice the hostages just to avoid a possible, but far from certain future risk.

What also influenced my thinking was that there is no indication that Balak is anything special. I get the impression that if I sacrifice the hostages and kill him he'd just be replaced by another batarian.

Modifié par faeriehunter, 09 novembre 2010 - 01:27 .

[Ieldra]

Just read the first page. Isn't it always astounding how people will twist the evidence to justify their opinion that their decision is the right one?

I've made the decision both ways in my games, it isn't an easy one and I can understand letting him go, but to say that Balak isn't a terrorist when you've caught him in a well-planned act of exactly that and have evidence from his own mouth that he's part of a bigger operation, that's so mind-blowingly stupid I wonder how people dare post such stuff for embarassment.

Dean_The_Young has said it all in great detail at the top of page 2, so fortunately I needn't do it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 novembre 2010 - 04:40 .

[Praetor Knight]

I tend to play as a Colonial War Hero with a mean streak, so I have gone after Balak every time and I wound him, but keep him alive for the Alliance.



Also, as an individual he is too dangerous to be let free regardless of how many degrees of separation he has from the Hegemony, be it an agent for them, funded by them or an extremist outlying rogue.



I figure if he is so bold to hijack an asteroid who know's what he'll do next, but you never know what he knows so off to interrogation for you,



also it's kinda like Elanos Haliat who also had to be dealt with in another mission.



In that conversation Shep says something like "someone up there need my boot up his ***" and I'm more than happy to oblige both of them.

[Moiaussi]

It really really bugged me that letting Balak go allowed him to magically teleport off that rock. He instantly vanishes. He doesn't have to run out of the complex. There is no ship for him there (if there was, the Normandy could have shot it)



He simply literally vanishes in a puff of bad writing.

[D.Sharrah]

If only we could submit hime to the torture of the "Pain"...anyone know the reference and what it entails?

[RiouHotaru]

Moiaussi wrote...

It really really bugged me that letting Balak go allowed him to magically teleport off that rock. He instantly vanishes. He doesn't have to run out of the complex. There is no ship for him there (if there was, the Normandy could have shot it)

He simply literally vanishes in a puff of bad writing.

My only guess as to why this is so?  Because it would make the Paragon decision the obviously superior choice, since you could save the hostage and destroy his ass on top of that.  The point of the choice is that it's a trade-off: Him, or the hostages.  To allow us to capture him or take him out after the fact would be unfair.

[Dean_the_Young]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

It really really bugged me that letting Balak go allowed him to magically teleport off that rock. He instantly vanishes. He doesn't have to run out of the complex. There is no ship for him there (if there was, the Normandy could have shot it)

He simply literally vanishes in a puff of bad writing.

My only guess as to why this is so?  Because it would make the Paragon decision the obviously superior choice, since you could save the hostage and destroy his ass on top of that.  The point of the choice is that it's a trade-off: Him, or the hostages.  To allow us to capture him or take him out after the fact would be unfair.

It's no more handwaving than if Balak rigged the bomb to go off regardless. I really don't get why he didn't do that anymore than why he got away.

I suppose that could have been a rewrite: Normandy shoots him down if you let him go and the hostages still die, or the hostages die first and you get a chance to capture him.

[mopotter]

Like most everyone I've done both.



But when I do kill Balak or send him to prison, I remember Kate - and Balak asking her who she was talking to, then the shot that killed her brother. Her brother was willing to die to help stop Balak and I figure Kate is too.



I wish I could do both. It would have been nice to find him and finish the job when I do save the hostages.

[RiouHotaru]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

It really really bugged me that letting Balak go allowed him to magically teleport off that rock. He instantly vanishes. He doesn't have to run out of the complex. There is no ship for him there (if there was, the Normandy could have shot it)

He simply literally vanishes in a puff of bad writing.

My only guess as to why this is so?  Because it would make the Paragon decision the obviously superior choice, since you could save the hostage and destroy his ass on top of that.  The point of the choice is that it's a trade-off: Him, or the hostages.  To allow us to capture him or take him out after the fact would be unfair.

It's no more handwaving than if Balak rigged the bomb to go off regardless. I really don't get why he didn't do that anymore than why he got away.

I suppose that could have been a rewrite: Normandy shoots him down if you let him go and the hostages still die, or the hostages die first and you get a chance to capture him.

Except that the hostages were the only insurance he had.  If he'd tried to kill the hostages, you'd have killed him.  Remember Thane's Loyalty?  "Hostages only work if your target cares if they live."  Him trying to kill the the hostages once he was off the rock would've been a poor tactical choice.  And likely he was out-of-range by the time he left.

Also, hostages dying both ways seems silly.  Not much of a moral choice to make then, which was one of the selling points of BDtS.

[Dean_the_Young]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

It really really bugged me that letting Balak go allowed him to magically teleport off that rock. He instantly vanishes. He doesn't have to run out of the complex. There is no ship for him there (if there was, the Normandy could have shot it)

He simply literally vanishes in a puff of bad writing.

My only guess as to why this is so?  Because it would make the Paragon decision the obviously superior choice, since you could save the hostage and destroy his ass on top of that.  The point of the choice is that it's a trade-off: Him, or the hostages.  To allow us to capture him or take him out after the fact would be unfair.

It's no more handwaving than if Balak rigged the bomb to go off regardless. I really don't get why he didn't do that anymore than why he got away.

I suppose that could have been a rewrite: Normandy shoots him down if you let him go and the hostages still die, or the hostages die first and you get a chance to capture him.

Except that the hostages were the only insurance he had.  If he'd tried to kill the hostages, you'd have killed him.  Remember Thane's Loyalty?  "Hostages only work if your target cares if they live."  Him trying to kill the the hostages once he was off the rock would've been a poor tactical choice.  And likely he was out-of-range by the time he left.

Also, hostages dying both ways seems silly.  Not much of a moral choice to make then, which was one of the selling points of BDtS.

You aren't being imaginative enough. Since I suppose I wasn't clear, I'll say it again.


It is neither impossible or hard to think of ways to rig a device to explode regardless after a point. Balak could set the bomb to go off by detaonater. Balak could set the bomb to go off if his omnitool detects he is dead. Balak could set the bombs to go off by a timer. Balak could set the bombs to go off if you opened the door. Balak could set the bombs to go off if anyone got within a certain proximity of them. Balak could do all of the above.

Personally, I like the idea that Balak's bombs go off the moment he gets a certain distance away.

Balak could do any number of things with the bombs that Shepard wouldn't know about, that would still trigger the bombs by the time he was free. All Balak has to do is not blow up the hostages until Shepard gives him enough of a head start, and there is no reason for him to not blow them up a moment longer.

If Shepard doesn't care about hostages, the hostages are useless in the first place, and no change. If Shepard does care about the hostages, the bombs can still go off regardless. The only reason it shouldn't is the same reason Balak can fly away: to allow a choice and difference of results of exist.



Point-wise, it could be the same as Bhatia's wife. You can paragon or renegade for both selections. Paragon and Renegade don't have to have different outcomes, just tones. Advertising can always be changed to reflect the game.