328 réponses à ce sujet

[darknoon5]

adneate wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...
If I got a penny everytime somebody incorrectly used the term character development on these forums, I'd be a rich man by now.

I fixed it, you can thank me later.

How mature.

Retcpm:
"A situation, in a soap opera or similar serial fiction, in which a new
story line explains or changes a previous event or attaches a new
significance to it; To employ such a device"

Garrus' undergoes character development, you know, spending months fighting mercenaries and being betrayed by one of his team and seeing the rest die changed his naive outlook and made him more down to earth. He has the same overall views as in ME1, he has just seen more of the galaxy.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

habitat 67 wrote...
Durr, all the characters have moments of recklessness. Really, you try too hard.

Garrus has consistent reckless streaks, and those streaks are often a LOT more prominent than the other characters.

Care to give a few examples of other characters' recklessness that are on par with leading 12 people against an entire space station for the sole reason of playing space cowboy?

[darknoon5]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

habitat 67 wrote...
Durr, all the characters have moments of recklessness. Really, you try too hard.

Garrus has consistent reckless streaks, and those streaks are often a LOT more prominent than the other characters.

Care to give a few examples of other characters' recklessness that are on par with leading 12 people against an entire space station for the sole reason of playing space cowboy?

Garrusdidn't load them against them, he was on his own to begin with. They joined up over time, voluntarily. Also, he was doing it because he hates injustice, not "to be a space cowboy". If you take him with you to lower omega and do the "talk to garrus" option, you can clearly see his disgust at Omega. He was trying to make a difference. Sure, he was reckless, but his team only died because they were betrayed.

And excuse me, Jack destroyed a space station and crashed it into a moon. That is way more reckless. Zaeed goes against the mission plan, and burns the refinery you're meant to save, in many cases needlessly causing Vido to escape. That is also, imo, more reckless.

Modifié par darknoon5, 31 janvier 2011 - 10:13 .

[Phaedon]

[quote]adneate wrote...
You're essentially just splitting hairs on two characters with exactly the same abilites, Zaeed can use Sniper Rifles and Assault Rifles too.[/quote]
You must have missed the 'skilled' part. You know, the part where Garrus takes down a few dozens with a sniper rifle? Yeah.

[quote]Zaeed is also a battle hardened mercenary and founder of one the largest private mercenary armies in the galaxy.[/quote]
That's a good thing? A helpful one?

[quote]He specifically says he lead the men into battle while Vido did the book keeping. Besides if Garrus is apparently so loyal why would he even have a loyalty mission doesn't that imply you have to win his loyalty?[/quote]
Might have something to do with...gameplay mechanisms! 

Guess what, that happens with Tali to!

[quote]Phaedon wrote...
Incorrect.
1) He has become a lot more renegade, he is a vigilante now.
2) He has just lost all of his team, psychological scars and all that.
[/quote]

[quote]Well the first one is just an obvious retcon of Garrus's ME1 character,[/quote]
A kitten dies every time this word is used.
If you neither know what retcon means or you can't tell the difference between development/change and retcon, then do the world a favour and stop using it. And yes, I am directing this to everyone using this word.

How does turning into a renegade in 2 years mean a retcon? Has your personality never evolved? And that's based on hints that he keeps throwing around during ME1.

[quote]they made the choice to push him one way or the other entirely meaningless in ME2 so they could have him in the same circumstances.[/quote]
Yup, you don't know what retcon means. You are a mild case.

[quote]The end result of multiple conversations and a loyalty mission is a slight change in his story after ME1 before he becomes the card board one size fits all character he is in ME2. [/quote]
Rephrase this, just in case somebody will be able to reply.

[quote]As for the second one this is only told and never explored or developed in any way by the writers, all it triggers is a self-indulgent revenge fantasy. No survivor's guilt no PTSD no doubts about his leadership abilities, nope everything will be solved by murdering someone in a mall with a high powered rifle.[/quote]
Riiight. You are suggesting that a concept that has been the motive of actual murders, scandals, and the main plot point of books and movies is meaningless.

[quote]The context is different but that's entirely superficial the development is the same he doesn't learn anything about the galaxy and his character doesn't grow in any measurable or meaningful way. You either indulge his revenge fantasy for no consequence or don't for no consequence, get a few generic remarks at the end and then it's either romance him from stuff totally unrelated to that LM or don't for no further input or dialogue from the character.[/quote]
Excuse me? Are you seriously arguing that revenge is a 'non-meaningful' or 'non-measurable' action with 'no consequences'.  

Stop downgrading concepts in order to support your argument.

It's not a matter of context, you simply cannot compare the feelings that someone experiences while hunting a criminal or a traitor that killed all of his friends.

[quote]If these themes you claim are present, which is doubtful,[/quote]
I don't claim. Revenge is there, and 'black and gray' too. Replay the mission and return back later.

[quote]they are so poorly done and so casually brushed aside for the sake of gameplay[/quote]
What. The finale of the mission is made up completely of dialogue. You also use Zaeed as an example, a character who has 20 lines of dialogue and hunts Vido around with of Shepard and co. slaughtering Blue Suns for 98% of the mission. (With the exclusion of the 2 choices) which make up 2 cutscenes.

[quote]that it hardly makes a convinving argument for his inclusion in ME2's squad roaster. If anything he belonged in Bailey's postion where you could see the real results of how you pushed his character in ME1, as be became either a model C-Sec Officer with a reasoned approach to his Ward or an unhappy hot-head bending and breaking the rules to get the job done.[/quote]
Yes. The character who basically quitted C-Sec during ME1 due to all the paperwork and who had to face politicians dismissing everything that he and Shepard -who, um, died btw- would make perfect sense if he returned to C-Sec.

[quote]Instead we get an obvious bit of fanservice that does harm to the character from ME1 and shoves him into a plot and mission that both disrespects the player's choices and leaves the character spinning in place.
[/quote]
Harms what? Let me tell you this. There was NO character in ME1. As often was the case for other squadmates as well.

[darknoon5]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

[quote]adneate wrote...
You're essentially just splitting hairs on two characters with exactly the same abilites, Zaeed can use Sniper Rifles and Assault Rifles too.[/quote]
You must have missed the 'skilled' part. You know, the part where Garrus takes down a few dozens with a sniper rifle? Yeah.

[quote]Zaeed is also a battle hardened mercenary and founder of one the largest private mercenary armies in the galaxy.[/quote]
That's a good thing? A helpful one?

[quote]He specifically says he lead the men into battle while Vido did the book keeping. Besides if Garrus is apparently so loyal why would he even have a loyalty mission doesn't that imply you have to win his loyalty?[/quote]
Might have something to do with...gameplay mechanisms! 

Guess what, that happens with Tali to!

[quote]Phaedon wrote...
Incorrect.
1) He has become a lot more renegade, he is a vigilante now.
2) He has just lost all of his team, psychological scars and all that.
[/quote]

[quote]Well the first one is just an obvious retcon of Garrus's ME1 character,[/quote]
A kitten dies every time this word is used.
If you neither know what retcon means or you can't tell the difference between development/change and retcon, then do the world a favour and stop using it. And yes, I am directing this to everyone using this word.

How does turning into a renegade in 2 years mean a retcon? Has your personality never evolved? And that's based on hints that he keeps throwing around during ME1.

[quote]they made the choice to push him one way or the other entirely meaningless in ME2 so they could have him in the same circumstances.[/quote]
Yup, you don't know what retcon means. You are a mild case.

[quote]The end result of multiple conversations and a loyalty mission is a slight change in his story after ME1 before he becomes the card board one size fits all character he is in ME2. [/quote]
Rephrase this, just in case somebody will be able to reply.

[quote]As for the second one this is only told and never explored or developed in any way by the writers, all it triggers is a self-indulgent revenge fantasy. No survivor's guilt no PTSD no doubts about his leadership abilities, nope everything will be solved by murdering someone in a mall with a high powered rifle.[/quote]
Riiight. You are suggesting that a concept that has been the motive of actual murders, scandals, and the main plot point of books and movies is meaningless.

[quote]The context is different but that's entirely superficial the development is the same he doesn't learn anything about the galaxy and his character doesn't grow in any measurable or meaningful way. You either indulge his revenge fantasy for no consequence or don't for no consequence, get a few generic remarks at the end and then it's either romance him from stuff totally unrelated to that LM or don't for no further input or dialogue from the character.[/quote]
Excuse me? Are you seriously arguing that revenge is a 'non-meaningful' or 'non-measurable' action with 'no consequences'.  

Stop downgrading concepts in order to support your argument.

It's not a matter of context, you simply cannot compare the feelings that someone experiences while hunting a criminal or a traitor that killed all of his friends.

[quote]If these themes you claim are present, which is doubtful,[/quote]
I don't claim. Revenge is there, and 'black and gray' too. Replay the mission and return back later.

[quote]they are so poorly done and so casually brushed aside for the sake of gameplay[/quote]
What. The finale of the mission is made up completely of dialogue. You also use Zaeed as an example, a character who has 20 lines of dialogue and hunts Vido around with of Shepard and co. slaughtering Blue Suns for 98% of the mission. (With the exclusion of the 2 choices) which make up 2 cutscenes.

[quote]that it hardly makes a convinving argument for his inclusion in ME2's squad roaster. If anything he belonged in Bailey's postion where you could see the real results of how you pushed his character in ME1, as be became either a model C-Sec Officer with a reasoned approach to his Ward or an unhappy hot-head bending and breaking the rules to get the job done.[/quote]
Yes. The character who basically quitted C-Sec during ME1 due to all the paperwork and who had to face politicians dismissing everything that he and Shepard -who, um, died btw- would make perfect sense if he returned to C-Sec.

[quote]Instead we get an obvious bit of fanservice that does harm to the character from ME1 and shoves him into a plot and mission that both disrespects the player's choices and leaves the character spinning in place.
[/quote]
Harms what? Let me tell you this. There was NO character in ME1. As often was the case for other squadmates as well.

[/quote]Retcons, RETCONS EVERYWHERE!

[Ulzeraj]

In my days, a character failing in something such as leadership was also what we called "personality traits" and it was good.



Now get off my lawn.

[adneate]

darknoon5 wrote...
Garrus' undergoes character development, you know, spending months fighting mercenaries and being betrayed by one of his team and seeing the rest die changed his naive outlook and made him more down to earth. He has the same overall views as in ME1, he has just seen more of the galaxy.

Too bad that arguement is rendered pointless because even if I turn him down, don't recruit him and tell him to pound sand in ME1 he still ends up in exactly the same situation, acting exactly the same way and doing exactly the same thing.

BioWare wanted to shove him into the plot of ME2 for no good reason and in order to do they have to make the entirity of your interaction with him utterly meaningless. Your choices in ME1 regarding Garrus don't matter even a little bit, he goes to Omega no matter what you say or do, or if you ignore him entirely.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

darknoon5 wrote...
Garrusdidn't load them against them, he was on his own to begin with. They joined up over time. Also, he was doing it because he hates injustice. If you take him with you to lower omega and do the "talk to garrus" option, you can clearly see his disgust at Omega. He was trying to make a difference. Sure, he was reckless, but his team only died because they were betrayed.

He assembled his team willingly and knowingly for his little "task".  He may not have put up fliers advertising for people who want to attack Omega, but that doesn't change the fact that he led them in that struggle.

I was under the impression that he assembled his team beforehand, but if he went to Omega first and assembled the people while he was there then he's even more reckless, damned near suicidal even.

And I know what "his reasons" were.  I'm not saying Garrus is pure evil and completely insane.  I'm saying that I think he's dangerously reckless and that his vigilante attitude is not one that I care for.  The argument here has been whether or not considering "extreme recklessness" as a reason to dislike someone is "stupid".

[habitat 67]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

habitat 67 wrote...
Durr, all the characters have moments of recklessness. Really, you try too hard.

Garrus has consistent reckless streaks, and those streaks are often a LOT more prominent than the other characters.

Care to give a few examples of other characters' recklessness that are on par with leading 12 people against an entire space station for the sole reason of playing space cowboy?

Ha ha what is your damage, Heather? I don't think Shepard would be able to fight the Reapers with an army of Kellys.

[Rogue Unit]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

habitat 67 wrote...
Durr, all the characters have moments of recklessness. Really, you try too hard.

Garrus has consistent reckless streaks, and those streaks are often a LOT more prominent than the other characters.

Care to give a few examples of other characters' recklessness that are on par with leading 12 people against an entire space station for the sole reason of playing space cowboy?

I like how to trivilize saving lives as "playing space cowboy." Sure it might have been reckless, but Garrus was pro in his operations. The mercs couldn't even take down one member of his team until he was betrayed, making it pretty obvious that 12 men were more than enough to handle Omega's mercenaries.

And Tali, for one, got two different teams slaughtered on Freedom's Progress and Haestorm.

Modifié par Rogue Unit, 31 janvier 2011 - 10:19 .

[jlb524]

darknoon5 wrote...
Garrus' undergoes character development, you know, spending months fighting mercenaries and being betrayed by one of his team and seeing the rest die changed his naive outlook and made him more down to earth. He has the same overall views as in ME1, he has just seen more of the galaxy.

Really?  How do you know this?  I think they did a poor job of showing any change in Garrus after his loyalty mission.

Also, do you honestly feel Garrus will appear to be a changed man in ME3 or will we get more of the same old same old from him?  You know, reckless space Batman Garrus is totally badass and cool and it's what the fans like about Garrus.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

darknoon5 wrote...
And excuse me, Jack destroyed a space station and crashed it into a moon. That is way more reckless. Zaeed goes against the mission plan, and burns the refinery you're meant to save, in many cases needlessly causing Vido to escape. That is also, imo, more reckless.

And I dislike Jack and Zaeed for exactly those reasons.  Well, there are other reasons as well for both, but that is a primary reason.

So, yes, I agree.

[darknoon5]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...
Garrusdidn't load them against them, he was on his own to begin with. They joined up over time. Also, he was doing it because he hates injustice. If you take him with you to lower omega and do the "talk to garrus" option, you can clearly see his disgust at Omega. He was trying to make a difference. Sure, he was reckless, but his team only died because they were betrayed.

He assembled his team willingly and knowingly for his little "task".  He may not have put up fliers advertising for people who want to attack Omega, but that doesn't change the fact that he led them in that struggle.

I was under the impression that he assembled his team beforehand, but if he went to Omega first and assembled the people while he was there then he's even more reckless, damned near suicidal even.

And I know what "his reasons" were.  I'm not saying Garrus is pure evil and completely insane.  I'm saying that I think he's dangerously reckless and that his vigilante attitude is not one that I care for.  The argument here has been whether or not considering "extreme recklessness" as a reason to dislike someone is "stupid".

I'm not denying Garrus is reckless, but when he's under Shepard he isn't reckless at all. He was lost after Shepard died, and was always hot-headed. Like I said, I don't think his team on omega was as reckless as you portray it to be-they only died because of a traitor.

In fact, you could call Shepard way more reckless, as he recruits a random Asari scientist, juvenile Quarian, reckless cop and Krogan gun for hire and goes off searching for a race that logically doesn't exist, always claiming they're real. He also can release the Rachni, which is arguably very reckless, even if it is "morally the right thing."

Modifié par darknoon5, 31 janvier 2011 - 10:20 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

habitat 67 wrote...
Ha ha what is your damage, Heather? I don't think Shepard would be able to fight the Reapers with an army of Kellys.

How is this even remotely relevant to... anything in this thread?

That is, other than your trollish insistence to bash Kelly in some ignorant attempt to insult me.

Rogue Unit wrote...
I like how to trivilize saving lives as "playing space cowboy." Sure it might have been reckless, but Garrus was pro in his operations. The merc couldn't even take down one member of his team until he was betrayed, making it pretty obvious that 12 men were more than enough to handle Omega's mercenaries.
And Tali, for one, got two different teams slaughtered on Freedom's Progress and Haestorm.

I like how you glorify "stopping shipments of contaminated eezo" as "saving lives".

He may have saved some lives from thug activity here and there.  But it's not like Omega is a death camp and he went there to liberate all the people from the gas chambers.  He went there to "bring law" to the lawless.  That's playing space cowboy.  Or maybe space Batman is more accurate, but either way, he's not some saint, especially when you consider all the freelancers he ended up killing along the way.

[darknoon5]

jlb524 wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...
Garrus' undergoes character development, you know, spending months fighting mercenaries and being betrayed by one of his team and seeing the rest die changed his naive outlook and made him more down to earth. He has the same overall views as in ME1, he has just seen more of the galaxy.

Really?  How do you know this?  I think they did a poor job of showing any change in Garrus after his loyalty mission.

Also, do you honestly feel Garrus will appear to be a changed man in ME3 or will we get more of the same old same old from him?  You know, reckless space Batman Garrus is totally badass and cool and it's what the fans like about Garrus.

Garrus is changed BEFORE his loyalty mission...after the loyalty mission is just reminiscing about old times, and some good bro/romance dialog.

Also, you can see the emotion during the loyalty mission, deny it or not.

And the last question is irrelavant, I have no idea what direction Bioware will take with him, or any character, just theories. Possibly linked in with your ME1 choices, maybe you'll meet his sick mum and anti-spectre Dad? Maybe he'll recover if you did his loyalty mission, and become less agressive. Who knows?

[Onyx Jaguar]

Garrus Vakarian.

[jlb524]

Rogue Unit wrote...

I like how to trivilize saving lives as "playing space cowboy." Sure it might have been reckless, but Garrus was pro in his operations. The merc couldn't even take down one member of his team until he was betrayed, making it pretty obvious that 12 men were more than enough to handle Omega's mercenaries.

And Tali, for one, got two different teams slaughtered on Freedom's Progress and Haestorm.

I don't think it matters how 'pro' you are in your operations....eventually, Omega will swallow any do-gooders that want to change that place.  That's just how it works.  Part of how Omega works is shown in Sidonis' betrayal...even those that initially had good intentions will give up on that to save their own hide, or the lives of their family if they are also threatened....this is why what Garrus did didn't work and would never work on Omega.

Also, the circumstances surrounding Tali's team is completely different...she was under orders from the Admiralty board for starters.  Also, her teams went to these places to investigate various disturbances and they were ambushed....it wasn't like Tali recklessly led her team into the fire with the knowledge that they would be killed, like Garrus did.

[Colonist Sole Survivor]

I kinda fear to see other of these pointless and boring threads very soon: "I dont like Miranda" "I dont like Tali" and so on..

btw this is the no spoilers section and discussions about characters are very easily full of spoilers.

Modifié par Colonist Sole Survivor, 31 janvier 2011 - 10:24 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

mrsph wrote...

The great thing about opinions is that the exact reason you dislike something may be the reason someone else likes it.

You really can't win these kind of arguments.

I would agree, but I take issue with the people who like to dismiss perfectly valid opinions as trolling, or calling them "stupid".

Those kinds of arguments can be won.

[darknoon5]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

habitat 67 wrote...
Ha ha what is your damage, Heather? I don't think Shepard would be able to fight the Reapers with an army of Kellys.

How is this even remotely relevant to... anything in this thread?

That is, other than your trollish insistence to bash Kelly in some ignorant attempt to insult me.

Rogue Unit wrote...
I like how to trivilize saving lives as "playing space cowboy." Sure it might have been reckless, but Garrus was pro in his operations. The merc couldn't even take down one member of his team until he was betrayed, making it pretty obvious that 12 men were more than enough to handle Omega's mercenaries.
And Tali, for one, got two different teams slaughtered on Freedom's Progress and Haestorm.

I like how you glorify "stopping shipments of contaminated eezo" as "saving lives".

He may have saved some lives from thug activity here and there.  But it's not like Omega is a death camp and he went there to liberate all the people from the gas chambers.  He went there to "bring law" to the lawless.  That's playing space cowboy.  Or maybe space Batman is more accurate, but either way, he's not some saint, especially when you consider all the freelancers he ended up killing along the way.

As I said, Garrus did it to protect the weak, there is dialog clearly showing this. Disrupting drug shipments were only one of his activities.

And Omega isn't a death camp, but there is mass exploitation, violence, gang warfare, and you're pretty much screwed without mercenary "protection," but there is still a lot of death. Also, walk through the lower streets-people are jsut left there to rot.

The freelancers were idiots, going against a trained sniper who'd killed dozens of mercenaries. That kid goes in with no armour if you don't talk him out of it, for crying out loud.

[Phaedon]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Garrus Vakarian.

/thread

[darknoon5]

jlb524 wrote...

Rogue Unit wrote...

I like how to trivilize saving lives as "playing space cowboy." Sure it might have been reckless, but Garrus was pro in his operations. The merc couldn't even take down one member of his team until he was betrayed, making it pretty obvious that 12 men were more than enough to handle Omega's mercenaries.

And Tali, for one, got two different teams slaughtered on Freedom's Progress and Haestorm.

I don't think it matters how 'pro' you are in your operations....eventually, Omega will swallow any do-gooders that want to change that place.  That's just how it works.  Part of how Omega works is shown in Sidonis' betrayal...even those that initially had good intentions will give up on that to save their own hide, or the lives of their family if they are also threatened....this is why what Garrus did didn't work and would never work on Omega.

Also, the circumstances surrounding Tali's team is completely different...she was under orders from the Admiralty board for starters.  Also, her teams went to these places to investigate various disturbances and they were ambushed....it wasn't like Tali recklessly led her team into the fire with the knowledge that they would be killed, like Garrus did.

Garrus didn't know his team would get killed, they were stabbed in the back, sold out, betrayed, get the picture? How does that constitute "leading them into fire with the knowledge they would be killed?"

Modifié par darknoon5, 31 janvier 2011 - 10:28 .

[Jack Package]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Garrus Vakarian.

Aahh, Onyx! One can always count on your serious and important contributions to threads.