197 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

Indeed. The only "justifcation" for killing the colonists is that the player retains the option to shoot them anyway. So you have a choice.

[Dean_the_Young]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

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.

Yes. There is. Besides sociopathy, I mean.

Think hard.

There is justification for letting Balak go so people that choose to do this shouldn't get punished.

People's intent is so rarely correlated to consequences, it's an amusing to see it as the basis.

Alright. So let's agree there's justification for letting a madman willing, wanting, and, as already proven, ready to take the steps for killing millions of people. And you let him go.

And the reason nothing bad should come of it was because you had a justification for doing so?

[Skilled Seeker]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

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.

Yes. There is. Besides sociopathy, I mean.

Think hard.

There is justification for letting Balak go so people that choose to do this shouldn't get punished.

People's intent is so rarely correlated to consequences, it's an amusing to see it as the basis.

Alright. So let's agree there's justification for letting a madman willing, wanting, and, as already proven, ready to take the steps for killing millions of people. And you let him go.

And the reason nothing bad should come of it was because you had a justification for doing so?

There is no evidence that he has the support or resouces to pull anything off or why killing him, one puny batarian, would have a noticable effect on the frequency of batarian terrorism. Balak is expendable, he says this himself if you interogate him, there are countless others like him.

Oh and what justification is there for killing the colonists that deserves a reward? If its because its easier to kill them well that is your reward, an easier fight. To expect anything more is ridiculous.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 10 novembre 2010 - 07:46 .

[pf17456]

I wonder if people would choose differently if the hostages were people Shepard really cared about like say, Mother, LI, Joker, Anderson or TIM ?

Modifié par pf17456, 10 novembre 2010 - 08:26 .

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

Just for the hell of throwing it out there, hasn't Balak *already* killed more civilians than the ridiculously small amount remaining? In BDTS alone at that?



It's pretty much a given that while he might not pull a Terra Nova 2.0, he'll definitely get more people kill than those you can save.

[LadyJaneGrey]

pf17456 wrote...

I wonder if people would choose differently if the hostages were people Shepard really cared about like say, Mother, LI, Joker, Anderson or TIM ?

Because the player would have interaction with the hostages before the Bring Down the Sky mission really starts, I'm sure it would change a lot of people's choices or the reasoning behind it.  (Well, except the Spacer's mother; the player has never really had a chance to build a relationship with her.)

I'd probably start picking the "save hostages" choice every time because I didn't want to miss out on character content down the road.  Or, if someone hated a character, it would become an opportunity to ditch him.  And then the player is pulled out of the experience...working the game, rather than addressing the developer's question.

[Cornelian]

Dean wrote...

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.

So, futur possible hostage citizens in our country would be glad to listen this, I guess.
I think that would renforce their thrust on you as law enforcer in this case.

“Sorry if you are an hostage, bro,  but you are already dead. Officer Dean is not concerned by you at first,
He comes for the hostage taker and his hypothetical second offense.”

Good luck with your explanation to the dead hostage family, Dean.
Because it seems to me that you are on priority in charge and responsible for this event and these human lives as the real fact.
What the hostage taker would do if he escapes is only assumption, and also his responsibility.
But if you prefer to consider more an assumption rather than the actual and factual situation , it’s up to you.

Modifié par Cornelian, 10 novembre 2010 - 09:23 .

[Felene]

pf17456 wrote...

I wonder if people would choose differently if the hostages were people Shepard really cared about like say, Mother, LI, Joker, Anderson or TIM ?

People tend to change their decision when personal feeling gets in the way.

*Spoiler Warning for Fable 3*

Makes me wonder about Fable 3, at the very beginning player is force to choose between their LI or a random mob.

One person player care about, or more lives player don't care about.

*End Spoiler Warning for Fable 3*

It is hard to make the clear choice when your love ones is at stake, but it doesn't change the fact or justified one's decision.

Is not like anyone who choose to sacrifice the hostages' lives doesn't value them.

Knowning the value of live doesn't change the fact there are soliders send to war front everyday, in fact, protect the value of live is what soliders are for.

If one choose to let Balak or any other Batarian go freely, who is going to bring justice to those other families they have ruin on X57?

If one choose to let Balak go free, after two years he is still on the run what does that tell you about his resources and the higher power he answer to?

If one choose to let Balak go free because he got hostages, next time Shepard caught him in another terroist attack and Balak use hostages again then what?

It doesn't have to be Balak, it could be any other terroist against Shepard, and they will have hostages because they know it will save their lives so they can go free and plan another attack.

Who is costing the value of lives here?

Modifié par Felene, 10 novembre 2010 - 10:17 .

[pf17456]

Felene wrote...

pf17456 wrote...

I wonder if people would choose differently if the hostages were people Shepard really cared about like say, Mother, LI, Joker, Anderson or TIM ?

People tend to change their decision when personal feeling gets in the way.

*Spoiler Warning for Fable 3*

Makes me wonder about Fable 3, at the very beginning player is force to choose between their LI or a random mob.

One person player care about, or more lives player don't care about.

*End Spoiler Warning for Fable 3*

It is hard to make the clear choice when your love ones is at stake, but it doesn't change the fact or justified one's decision.

I think if one is to adopt a position regarding hostages one needs to be prepared to sacrifice their own. Considering that a hostage could actually be someone I care deeply about makes the decision much less complicated to make and implement. This factor is primarily why I let Balak go. Some could call it a weakness and I'd agree it 's a definite area of vulnerability. That's why hostages are taken in the first place and while I agree that every option should be considered to circumvent the hostage takers advantage I have to admit that the hostage taker has the upper hand, because I would not sacrifice a loved one or anyone just to take down a criminal. It could be argued that as long as a position rooted in caring prevails then the act of hostage taking will continue and that if we eliminate our vulnerability then the act of hostage taking will stop and save lives in the long run but that's just speculation based on a supposition that caring and emotion can be put on hold or eliminated
alltogether. I consider that to be a position of denial possibly accounting for the increased scarring on renegade Shepard's face because conflicts you suppress do find their way to the surface in one way or another.
Sometimes you've got to put things on hold till later.

Modifié par pf17456, 10 novembre 2010 - 10:49 .

[DarthCaine]

The real question is: why didn't he just blow up the prisoners when you let him go? He could have just as easily escaped.

Choosing the paragon choice just creates a plot hole

Modifié par DarthCaine, 10 novembre 2010 - 10:51 .

[pf17456]

DarthCaine wrote...

The real question is: why didn't he just blow up the prisoners when you let him go? He could have just as easily escaped.

Choosing the paragon choice just creates a plot hole

As I recall Balak had a political rational for his actions and communicated that to Shepard. Had he killed the hostages anyway his message would have been lost. That's how I understood it.

[Cornelian]

DarthCaine wrote...

The real question is: why didn't he just blow up the prisoners when you let him go? He could have just as easily escaped.

Choosing the paragon choice just creates a plot hole

Lol to your actual avatar DarthCaine.

I think he needs the time you take defusing the bombs to go away.

Btw, all that "if Balak does that" in this topic upset me a little. I hope to see a big THEN BALAK in ME3!

But, this, again, have a chance to concern mostly paragons... Renegade world is so much... empty.

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

Cornelian wrote...
Btw, all that "if Balak does that" in this topic upset me a little. I hope to see a big THEN BALAK in ME3!

But, this, again, have a chance to concern mostly paragons... Renegade world is so much... empty.

You mean... they don't have the chance to kill or otherwise mess up people *again*?

Modifié par DarthCyclopsRLZ, 10 novembre 2010 - 11:15 .

[Felene]

pf17456 wrote...
I think if one is to adopt a position regarding hostages one needs to be prepared to sacrifice their own.

Fair is fair. Too bad equality is only an illusion.

pf17456 wrote...
Considering that a hostage could actually be someone I care deeply about makes the decision much less complicated to make and implement.
This factor is primarily why I let Balak go. Some could call it a weakness and I'd agree it 's a definite area of vulnerability.
That's why hostages are taken in the first place and while I agree that every option should be considered to circumvent the hostage takers advantage I have to admit that the hostage taker has the upper hand, because I would not sacrifice a loved one or anyone just to take down a criminal.

One of the biggest main reason hostages exist, is because they work. It had been proven again and again.

pf17456 wrote...
It could be argued that as long as a position rooted in caring prevails then the act of hostage taking will continue and that if we eliminate our vulnerability then the act of hostage taking will stop and save lives in the long run but that's just speculation based on a supposition that caring and emotion can be put on hold or eliminated
alltogether.

Behaviorism called it negative reinforcement. It works on dogs and humans.

pf17456 wrote...
I consider that to be a position of denial possibly accounting for the increased scarring on renegade Shepard's face because conflicts you suppress do find their way to the surface in one way or another.
Sometimes you've got to put things on hold till later.

In this case I say both choice leaves scars, one with loose end that will haunt them whenever another Batarian terroist attack is on news and another with three innocent lives on their conscience.

Only difference is big or small.

Reminds me what Shepard said, "wouldn't call it the high way if its easy."

Modifié par Felene, 10 novembre 2010 - 11:38 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Cornelian wrote...

Dean wrote...

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.

So, futur possible hostage citizens in our country would be glad to listen this, I guess.
I think that would renforce their thrust on you as law enforcer in this case.

“Sorry if you are an hostage, bro,  but you are already dead. Officer Dean is not concerned by you at first,
He comes for the hostage taker and his hypothetical second offense.”

Good luck with your explanation to the dead hostage family, Dean.
Because it seems to me that you are on priority in charge and responsible for this event and these human lives as the real fact.
What the hostage taker would do if he escapes is only assumption, and also his responsibility.
But if you prefer to consider more an assumption rather than the actual and factual situation , it’s up to you.

Do you not read, or do you simply not understand?

I'm going to belay judgement and simply ask you two very simple questions:

Where did you read that I do not care, and would not go to massive lengths to protect a hostage?

What basis in modern police history do you get that I am exceptional, unusual, or unreasonable in not letting a hostage taker go free on threat of him killing a hostage.?

[Praetor Knight]

In terms of this playing out in ME3 there is only one flag that is carried from the save that ME2 can recognize, which is [DLC: humans rescued] here is another thread related to this one. I thank KenLyns for pointing this out, I play on 360 and I haven't looked at save files for ME.

One can also check the wiki article here at the bottom of assignment decisions.

So that is to say that letting Balak blow up the hostages is the same as not playing the DLC, while saving the hostages is recorded in the save file.

Also depending on how achievements are recorded in the save game files, a second trigger that could be used to have either choice show up in a new DLC or ME3 might be having the Colonial Savior achievement,

As such, I have no idea how else the result of Bringing Down the Sky could be used in the future without a potential [Udina or Anderson] dialogue check to differentiate the choices anyway.

[DPSSOC]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
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.

I'm listening (reading, whatever).

Asheer_Khan wrote...
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.

Ok first I must point out that your optimism seems misplaced, keep in mind the Alliance and the Council did absolutely nothing in response to an act of war by the Geth (attack on Eden Prime).  Not a damn thing.

Moving on, you are correct that it sends the "We're watching you." message but that's not the one they're going to pick up on.  Of the two messages "We're watching you." and "We cave to hostage takers" they're going to pay more attention to the latter because it makes the former moot.  If I know nobody's going to stop me from doing something so long as I have a hostage, I don't really care who's watching me do it.  Now this belief may be wrong as the next Alliance representative may not be of the same mindset as Shepard, but it's what they're most likely to run with.

With regards to Torfan it is important to note that Ruthless Shepard is referred to as "The Butcher of Torfan" that is not a term of endearment it's a name to be used in stories to scare children.  Shepard's actions, or whoever was in charge barring Shepard, are not viewed positively, and most likely the Council would be keeping the Alliance on a short leash were a similar situation to come up.

Asheer_Khan wrote...
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.

This is true.

Asheer_Khan wrote...
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...

To hell with 'em.  People don't like to acknowledge that there are monsters at the gate and sometimes it takes a monster to keep them back.  That is not the problem of the military, PR is for the politicians.  Also put spin on it, lie, tell them that Balak refused to negotiate and killed the hostages so you went gunning for him.  Another fun thing about people is that they believe what they want to believe and they always want to believe the enemy is worse than we are.

Asheer_Khan wrote...
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?

To the first question no I don't think the Blue Suns are that powerful, but that's not the point.  I was addressing the threat posed by Vido as an individual.  However powerful they may be they are a large group and completely at Vido's disposal.  This makes Vido a very dangerous individual and as such must be eliminated.  Whoever takes over after or what happens to the Blue Suns is irrelevant.

As for Zaeed I haven't got a clue, but again not important.  I kill Balak, Saleon, Wayne, Vido, and if we were given the choice to bring Saren in for trial I'd still kill him, not because of what they've done but because of what they'll continue to do.  Balak will keep attacking humans, Saleon and Wayne will keep doing their thing, and Vido will keep killing and enslaving innocent people for profit.  Zaeed's a merc, he does what he's paid to do, he's more like Thane then Balak or Vido because (with the exception of Zorya) it's not personal, he's not doing it for kicks or power he's doing it because that's what he's getting paid for.  He's a tool rather than a maniac.

Asheer_Khan wrote...
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.

And I can respect that, but I strongly disagree (though I suppose we do need something to use for target practice).

Skilled Seeker wrote...

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.

Using the non-lethal option puts Shep and co in greater danger, the stakes are way too high to be taking unnecessary risks, colonist survival not necessary to complete mission objective, civillians expendable, Shepard not.

Justified.

[Cornelian]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Do you not read, or do you simply not understand?

I'm going to belay judgement and simply ask you two very simple questions:

With only these two assumptions, your judgement may indeed be fast, or impossible.

Where did you read that I do not care, and would not go to massive lengths to protect a hostage?

Dean wrote...

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

Not even one try to save them? Not giving them one chance to live? I don't call this taking much care to protect hostages...

What basis in modern police history do you get that I am exceptional, unusual, or unreasonable in not letting a hostage taker go free on threat of him killing a hostage.?

this behavior as exceptional or usual is not my point.

A step behind, a step aside, you may be a young good dancer.

[Dean_the_Young]

Cornelian wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Do you not read, or do you simply not understand?

I'm going to belay judgement and simply ask you two very simple questions:

With only these two assumptions, your judgement may indeed be fast, or impossible.

Where did you read that I do not care, and would not go to massive lengths to protect a hostage?

Dean wrote...

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

No. I didn't. Check the damn person you're quoting next time before you write in my name on someone else's post.

[Skilled Seeker]

DPSSOC wrote...
Using the non-lethal option puts Shep and co in greater danger, the stakes are way too high to be taking unnecessary risks, colonist survival not necessary to complete mission objective, civillians expendable, Shepard not.

Justified.

lolwut are we playing the same game? How is using the grenades so dangerous?

[DPSSOC]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Using the non-lethal option puts Shep and co in greater danger, the stakes are way too high to be taking unnecessary risks, colonist survival not necessary to complete mission objective, civillians expendable, Shepard not.

Justified.

lolwut are we playing the same game? How is using the grenades so dangerous?

It's not using the grenades, it's pulling shots.  Engaging a lethal opponent with non-lethal force is inherrantly more risky because you have to be careful, which slows you down, they do not.  It's the same as bringing a knife to a gun fight or fighting someone with a knife bare-handed; you're at a noteable, and undeniable, disadvantage (provided both parties know what they're doing)

It's not so much that using the grenades is dangerous just that shooting to kill is less so, and as I said the colonists don't need to survive for you to succeed making it an unnecessary risk.

[pf17456]

DPSSOC wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Using the non-lethal option puts Shep and co in greater danger, the stakes are way too high to be taking unnecessary risks, colonist survival not necessary to complete mission objective, civillians expendable, Shepard not.

Justified.

lolwut are we playing the same game? How is using the grenades so dangerous?

It's not using the grenades, it's pulling shots.  Engaging a lethal opponent with non-lethal force is inherrantly more risky because you have to be careful, which slows you down, they do not.  It's the same as bringing a knife to a gun fight or fighting someone with a knife bare-handed; you're at a noteable, and undeniable, disadvantage (provided both parties know what they're doing)

It's not so much that using the grenades is dangerous just that shooting to kill is less so, and as I said the colonists don't need to survive for you to succeed making it an unnecessary risk.

So your Shepard is like the cop who shoots the kid brandishing a water pistol ?

[Cornelian]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No. I didn't. Check the damn person you're quoting next time before you write in my name on someone else's post.

It seems that one of your assumptions is right, indeed. I have to excuse myself, Dean.

[Dean_the_Young]

pf17456 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Using the non-lethal option puts Shep and co in greater danger, the stakes are way too high to be taking unnecessary risks, colonist survival not necessary to complete mission objective, civillians expendable, Shepard not.

Justified.

lolwut are we playing the same game? How is using the grenades so dangerous?

It's not using the grenades, it's pulling shots.  Engaging a lethal opponent with non-lethal force is inherrantly more risky because you have to be careful, which slows you down, they do not.  It's the same as bringing a knife to a gun fight or fighting someone with a knife bare-handed; you're at a noteable, and undeniable, disadvantage (provided both parties know what they're doing)

It's not so much that using the grenades is dangerous just that shooting to kill is less so, and as I said the colonists don't need to survive for you to succeed making it an unnecessary risk.

So your Shepard is like the cop who shoots the kid brandishing a water pistol ?

Only if those water pistols have no shortage of range, the water streams can't be sidestepped, have infinite ammo, and kill upon contact.

And the police use the same water pistols as well.

[DPSSOC]

pf17456 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
It's not using the grenades, it's pulling shots.  Engaging a lethal opponent with non-lethal force is inherrantly more risky because you have to be careful, which slows you down, they do not.  It's the same as bringing a knife to a gun fight or fighting someone with a knife bare-handed; you're at a noteable, and undeniable, disadvantage (provided both parties know what they're doing)

It's not so much that using the grenades is dangerous just that shooting to kill is less so, and as I said the colonists don't need to survive for you to succeed making it an unnecessary risk.

So your Shepard is like the cop who shoots the kid brandishing a water pistol ?

No...has that actually happened somewhere?  Now if the kid brandishing said water pistol was in the vicinity of a shoot out and the water pistol wasn't one of those clunky colourful ones then it's possible my Shep would accidentally shoot before realizing it was a kid with a toy, but in my view that kid deserves to get shot (if you're dumb enough to play in the middle of a shoot out best you die before you contaminate the gene pool).  It's important to note that this isn't the colonists are holding weapons and Sheps just shooting them for kicks, the colonists are actively trying to kill you.