197 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

@Dean.

Did you served in SPECNAZ?

Because you presented thier line of toughs when comes to solving hostage problem (Moscow - Dubrovka Theatre is excellent example).

Lucky they are minority because Western AT teams are train with one prime directive.

- HOSTAGES LIFE ARE TOP PRIORITY.

So was my Shepard trained.

So what that Balak escape?

If Hegemony want open war against Alliance then i say Bringing ON... they got once thier three letters handled on Torfan and i don't see why Torfan scenario would not repeat again if necessary.

Balak and Vido are insignificant nobodys (ESPECIALLY Vido) not worth of life even single civilian.
And on the side note i think Bioware should really rethink adding situations like this to game without giving more variety of choices including Normandy presence at orbit.

It should already be aparent I have no regard for your oh-so-insightful analysis, Khan. Don't compound the problem by exposing just how out of touch you actually are.

[Asheer_Khan]

DPSSOC wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...
If Hegemony want open war against Alliance then i say Bringing ON... they got once thier three letters handled on Torfan and i don't see why Torfan scenario would not repeat again if necessary.

Torfan was pirates, not the Batarian military.  While I doubt there'd be much of a difference there still is one.  The problem with fighting the Batarians is they come across as guerilla fighters, taking pop shots then blending in with the populace.  These people are hard to fight because you can't just target civillians even if you know there are enemy combatants mixed in somewhere (well you could but you lose support back home and strengthen the enemy).

Asheer_Khan wrote...
Balak and Vido are insignificant nobodys (ESPECIALLY Vido) not worth of life even single civilian.

You can't be serious.  Vido is the head of the Blue Suns, Zorya doesn't change that, how is he insignificant?  As for Balak I repeat the question; is he capable, as an individual, of harming more people then are currently at stake (I saw 3)?  If so then saving the hostages is simply a delaying tactic (save lives now so he can kill others later).  Furthermore Balak is dangerous because he has something more important than resources at his disposal.  Balak possesses the will to kill millions of people for his cause.  There are plenty of Batarians who'll raid a colony here or there but Balak is the only one we encounter willing to start a full out war and, if you believe him, he's not alone.

Sparing Balak sends the message that the Batarians can cross that line and just walk away as long as they've got a couple people as insurance.  Killing Balak on the other hand sends the same message Torfan did; that potential losses won't stop us from gutting them if they decide to bring the fight to us.

You are wrong.

Letting Balak go send clear message to Hegemony "WE HAVE OUR EYES ON YOU NOW" and because of that Alliance and Council special task forces and intelligence (at least until Citadel battle outcome) will pay more attention at Hegemony movement.

It's not important who stood behind Skylian Blitz but Alliance acted under Council approval when they land on Torfan and once again if Hegemony will try something before Citadel battle they would faced very similar response from Alliance and Council.

Whole situation however could radical chang after battle with Sovieregin and killing original Council because after seizing power by humans (especially when douchebag udina will become chairman) Batarians could recive silent support from Turians (Enemy of my enemy is my friend - rule) making life of humans a nightmare.

Balak talks big... i admit... but his speech have same weight as Krogan messenger trash talk from Mordin's mission.

Yes, you have partial right saying that killing Balak and sacryficing hostages will show them that humans are ready to apply "no negotiation" tactic regardless of costs... but i doubt that this same "positive" message would be appreciate on Earth...

And please answer me at question... IS Blue Sun so powerful galactic force so kiling Vido by cost of workers will reshape balance of power in terminus systems and made B.S Salvation Army by new leader which will replace Vido?... oh and one more question... how many civilians Zaeed killed when HE was Blue Sun leader?
Sometimes i am surprised how quick people forgeting THAT part of the whole Zoyra story. <_<

Like i posted... for my Shepard death even single civilian is not an option but this is how i play and if Hegeony want war with humans... fine by me, at least Alliance marines and fleet will have chance to sharpen thier skills on battlefield before harby and co arrive.

[Asheer_Khan]

It should already be aparent I have no regard for your oh-so-insightful analysis, Khan. Don't compound the problem by exposing just how out of touch you actually are.

Have fun to fill your dayli civilian death toll in your reports for your beloved tim.

[Dean_the_Young]

Really, Khan? That's the best you can manage? Even preteens on Xbox can sling better insults than that.

[Asheer_Khan]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Really, Khan? That's the best you can manage? Even preteens on Xbox can sling better insults than that.

Oh... did i hurt your OVERGROWN EGO?

I hope i won't be last who show you truth about you.<_<

Good Day.

[Dean_the_Young]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Really, Khan? That's the best you can manage? Even preteens on Xbox can sling better insults than that.

Oh... did i hurt your OVERGROWN EGO?

I hope i won't be last who show you truth about you.<_<

Good Day.

Now you're resorting to all caps?

Grow up or try harder, Khan.

[Xilizhra]

Actually, Dean, if I recall correctly, you were the one who started this fight. It'd be better for everyone for you to drop your own issues now.

[LadyJaneGrey]

CmdrStJean wrote...

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...

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.

Out of curiosity, why did your Shep choose not to kill Charn?  My last Shep let Charn go and gave Balak to the Alliance.

I'm with you all the way on the oddness of the paragon/renegade points being awarded for that particular decision.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, Dean, if I recall correctly, you were the one who started this fight. It'd be better for everyone for you to drop your own issues now.

Khan replied to me with a lot of BS, despite Khan's own repeated vows to never address me or reply to me again. And while Khan's regularly made this promise, it still breaks my heart every time that problem is broken.

[Xilizhra]

You regularly kill Samara, kill Balak's hostages and kill the Council. I have several doubts as to the fragility of your heart.

[Giggles_Manically]

I wish I didnt have to but:

On most of my Shepard's not a single Batarian gets away from that asteroid except in a body bag.



Including Balak.

[Cornelian]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Lucky they are minority because Western AT teams are train with one prime directive.

- HOSTAGES LIFE ARE TOP PRIORITY.

This.

Most of my Sheps come on X57 to save Terra Nova people from the immediate threat.
Kate and her crew are threatened civilians from Tera Nova too.

They don't really care what will do Balak on an hypothetical futur, as they just saved the day.

Perhaps Balak will slip on his soap and will slash his 4 eyes head on a bathtube...
And even if Balak get out his bathroom in life with a dirty idea in mind, Shepard could be here again, or anybody from the alliance forces.

Modifié par Cornelian, 10 novembre 2010 - 04:55 .

[Skilled Seeker]

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.

Thats too convenient to be believable. Balak is only one Batarian. Why can't any other batarian delay you if you kill Balak.

[Moiaussi]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Thats too convenient to be believable. Balak is only one Batarian. Why can't any other batarian delay you if you kill Balak.

No more or less convenient than it being Shepard saving the day against the Reapers again. It would have been a good tie in.

[Dean_the_Young]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

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.

Thats too convenient to be believable. Balak is only one Batarian. Why can't any other batarian delay you if you kill Balak.

No reason it couldn't happen, but from a story standpoint it puts continuity between ME1 and 2.

[Dean_the_Young]

Cornelian wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Lucky they are minority because Western AT teams are train with one prime directive.

- HOSTAGES LIFE ARE TOP PRIORITY.

This.

Most of my Sheps come on X57 to save Terra Nova people from the immediate threat.
Kate and her crew are threatened civilians from Tera Nova too.

They don't really care what will do Balak on an hypothetical futur, as they just saved the day.

Perhaps Balak will slip on his soap and will slash his 4 eyes head on a bathtube...
And even if Balak get out his bathroom in life with a dirty idea in mind, Shepard could be here again, or anybody from the alliance forces.

Except it isn't true. Hostage lives aren't the top priority: they are one priority among many. Among the top are not allowing hostage takers to get away on the basis of having taken hostages, and another is not giving into all the demands, especially those of escape (simply because this reinforces the basis for taking hostages in the first place).
'
Hostage negotiations focus around drawing a conflict out, calming/mitigating the hostage taker, buying time with minor concessions (political prisoners not being freed, but we might give you a phone), and convincing the perpetrator to give up. Barring that, taking him down with as few casualties as possible. There is no standing policy of openly and immediately submitting to a hostage taker's demands and letting him go free.

Hostage incidents where no one dies are the happy best-cases. They are not the rule. They are not resolved by letting the hostage-taker get away freely or allowing him to continue taking hostages.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 10 novembre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

You regularly kill Samara, kill Balak's hostages and kill the Council. I have several doubts as to the fragility of your heart.

My heart will shatter from lethal biotics, asteriod drops, and Reaper invasions as surely as anyone elses'.

[Skilled Seeker]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

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.

Thats too convenient to be believable. Balak is only one Batarian. Why can't any other batarian delay you if you kill Balak.

No reason it couldn't happen, but from a story standpoint it puts continuity between ME1 and 2.

And punishes those who save the hostages, making killing him the right choice in retrospect. I wouldn't like Bioware telling me how things should be done, the BDtS choice is so morally grey and heavily debated because arguments for both sides are based highly on assumptions of the future and both sides could be right in what happens next realistically speaking. If Bioware sides with one side then it lessens the importance of the choice and is unfair on those who let him go as the alternate possibility of Balak ending up as a nobody is just as possible given what we know. So I believe what happens if you kill Balak or let him go should remain unknown.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 10 novembre 2010 - 05:47 .

[Felene]

Asheer_Khan wrote...
Balak and Vido are insignificant nobodys (ESPECIALLY Vido) not worth of life even single civilian.

I don't think Osama bin Laden is a nobody, not to mention both Balak and Vido have potential to do something far worse then 911.

You really think if the Americans ever got a hold of Osama bin Laden they will let him go because he got 3 hostages?

Try to think at a higher command point of view, if the words get out to the public on Terra Nova that their first human Spectre let a terriost go free because he got 3 hostages.

Imagin that political sh*tstorm.

Whats the point of been a Spectre that follow C-Sec rules?

Its fine if someone wants to make their choice by their perfectly lay out theory and anaylst, but reality is known for not playing by the rules.

[Dean_the_Young]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

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.

Thats too convenient to be believable. Balak is only one Batarian. Why can't any other batarian delay you if you kill Balak.

No reason it couldn't happen, but from a story standpoint it puts continuity between ME1 and 2.

And punishes those who save the hostages, making killing him the right choice in retrospect. I wouldn't like Bioware telling me how things should be done, the BDtS choice is so morally grey and heavily debated because arguments for both sides are based highly on assumptions of the future and both sides could be right in what happens next realistically speaking. If Bioware sides with one side then it lessens the importance of the choice and is unfair on those who let him go as the alternate possibility of Balak ending up as a nobody is just as possible given what we know. So I believe what happens if you kill Balak or let him go should remain unknown.

And not killing the Rachni punishes the Renegades, making the Paragon choice better in retrospect. And not killing the colonists on Feros.

Not to put too fine a line on it, but that horse already left the stable a long time ago. Renegade is hardly, by any imagination, the more favored alignment by bioware.

Naturally,any 'let's redo and give choice actual, you know, consequences' would apply to far more than this choice, and would be balanced over all.

[RiouHotaru]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
And not killing the Rachni punishes the Renegades, making the Paragon choice better in retrospect. And not killing the colonists on Feros.

Not to put too fine a line on it, but that horse already left the stable a long time ago. Renegade is hardly, by any imagination, the more favored alignment by bioware.

Naturally,any 'let's redo and give choice actual, you know, consequences' would apply to far more than this choice, and would be balanced over all.

How does killing the Rachni Queen "punish" the Renegade?  It's not as though it's a no consequence decision.   I can see where Paragons will have a tough time, because even though the Rachni are now Shepard's ally, the rest of the galaxy still sees them as a threat.

As for the colonists, that's hardly a good example.  Shooting and killing the colonists when you clearly have the option of saving them (Albeit in a manner that takes more work) should result in a punishment.  I have a hard time believing Renegades have no issues gunning them down when there's clearly a non-lethal option, unless you're just some kind of sociopath.

[Giggles_Manically]

All the paragon choice gets you is a 20 second cameo.



It can still kick the paragon player in the butt, in ME3 so to say its all good for Paragons is iffy.



That being said I hated doing that to the Queen. she had done nothing to deserve it, and dropping ACID on her to melt her, is something I really cant do.

[Skilled Seeker]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

All the paragon choice gets you is a 20 second cameo.

It can still kick the paragon player in the butt, in ME3 so to say its all good for Paragons is iffy.

That being said I hated doing that to the Queen. she had done nothing to deserve it, and dropping ACID on her to melt her, is something I really cant do.

Yeah I didn't like Bioware's approach to the renegade option. Shepard had a demonic smile on his face as he watches the queen burn.

[Dean_the_Young]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
And not killing the Rachni punishes the Renegades, making the Paragon choice better in retrospect. And not killing the colonists on Feros.

Not to put too fine a line on it, but that horse already left the stable a long time ago. Renegade is hardly, by any imagination, the more favored alignment by bioware.

Naturally,any 'let's redo and give choice actual, you know, consequences' would apply to far more than this choice, and would be balanced over all.

How does killing the Rachni Queen "punish" the Renegade?  It's not as though it's a no consequence decision. I can see where Paragons will have a tough time, because even though the Rachni are now Shepard's ally, the rest of the galaxy still sees them as a threat.

In the sense that there is no reward for Renegades, in gameplay or content. If the Rachni do become as much a burden as a boon, that might balance the scales, but no sign of that exists yet.

I'd be charmed if it does happen in ME3, but I have no expectations of it. As of yet, the Rachni appear as 'free army in the grand coalition', not a burden of any sort.

As for the colonists, that's hardly a good example.  Shooting and killing the colonists when you clearly have the option of saving them (Albeit in a manner that takes more work) should result in a punishment.  I have a hard time believing Renegades have no issues gunning them down when there's clearly a non-lethal option, unless you're just some kind of sociopath.

You miss the point, which was exactly that there are uneven scenarios in the game. There was no argument about the validity of there being uneven scenarios.

[Skilled Seeker]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You miss the point, which was exactly that there are uneven scenarios in the game. There was no argument about the validity of there being uneven scenarios.

But killing the colonists deserves no reward as there is no justification for it. There is justification for letting Balak go so people that choose to do this shouldn't get punished.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 10 novembre 2010 - 07:32 .