437 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

I guess Shepard is too stupid to figure out something painfully obvious, then.

[Siansonea]

michaelrsa wrote...

The problem with Tali's situation is that her father was working towards helping his people (morally questionable as it was) and turning in the evidence suggested that it would cause as schism within quarian society.

If my father was dead and I was stuck in this situation where he had been working for the betterment of his nation but screwed up very badly and the evidence would cause a schism in the public I'd likely not turn it in. Yes, it would be incredibly cowardly but if the nation were to fall apart because of said evidence is it really that awful a thing to hide the truth of what happened?

But how could you be certain what would happen? And how does one simply take it upon themselves to make that decision? This is a very clear-cut situation if you disregard Tali's personal stake in the matter. If it was Joe'Random who was doing what Tali's father was doing, it would have been a different story. Tali would not be arguing to conceal the evidence for emotional reasons. She may have been worried about the political implications, but she probably wouldn't have tried to conceal the information from the Admiralty Board. It isn't her place to do that. It's her duty to find the information and report what she finds in that instance.

Not to mention, if the Admiralty Board is really as precarious as all that, then they're not really a very stable government in the first place, are they?

[Golden Owl]

ADLegend21 wrote...

Just creating a thread for my opinions on why certian squaddies are hated. Here's the list:

Virmire Survivor: as there's already a thread for one of them, I'll keep it brief. They're the main human squadmate from the first game and the reason range from "Shes racist" which is untrue, to "he's a whiner" which is also untrue. In Mass effect 2 they call Shepard on her/his BS relationship with Cerberus and Gasp! they show that they are able to think for themselves and do not come with you! (this is no joke, I've literally seen people say it's because they didn't come with Shepard and give into them.)

Ash: What I don't like about Ash is predominatley her abrasiveness and her arrogence (anthropromorphic) ...I find her need to scream and shout her determined independance ridiculous...in fact to be independant, someone who screams and shouts about it is usually trying to cover the fear that their not...in other words who are they trying to prove it to? Others or themselves.

Kaiden: His alright, a bit soft in the centre, but is fine.

The run in on Horizon was just poor writing in regards to Sheps responses...Shep was the idiot there.

Jacob: He's stable. He's got an incredibly sad LM but does he complain about it? Nope. Doeshe burden shepar with his thoughts and feelings about it? Nope. Does he look for Shepard to give him some profound advice on dealing with it? Nope. He's already over it by the time he's chatting witht eh Illusive man on how it even got to the Normandy! Is ay this because there's even some dialouge where sfemshep can try to "fix him" and he Dumps her. Cooooold blooded Mr. Taylor +25 respect from this forumite. No other squadmate has the power to DUMP Shepard. (Samara rejects you, yes but at the last moment. Jacob just flat out tells you to GTFO) Players hate that (myself included when I unwittingly walked into it) and it could be  a big reason why Jacob has some heat on him (outside of Hale's VA with him)

Jacob: I really didn't like Jacob at first....but eventually had a think about it...I guess his okay, remains very forgettable though,  just too rigid and has absolutley no sense of humour....same could be said of Samara, another fogettable character....Never had a femshep, so can't comment on extra dialogues with Jacob.

Garrus: this is just from my POV, since Garrus is one of the most popular characters in the series. Personally I can't stand his whining and hot headedness. His first 2 convo's in Mass Effect 1 are him complainaing about Red Tape and how they stop him when he's being hotheaded. He and my paragon Shep's do no get along and end up with him having to back down from his POV becuase of how hot headed he is. Also his "let the council die" line scared me:
"the council MUST be sacraficed.  Leave the destiny ascension and focus the human fleet on Sovereign."
Oh Hey TIM, I dind't know you had a Garrus costume. Seriously? you hate red tape that much? someone's not killing Sidonis in two years.

Garrus: Yes, Garrus is very hot headed....I find thats one of the qualities I personally like about him though, his a passionate soul....As for the whining, I think most of the squad whine, Jack and Miri taking the prize for the whining....they leave Garrus for dead on that. I also like Garrus's sense of humor, love taking him and Kasumi on missions due to their comments.

Tali: Honestly, Ic ould take the easy way out and say her fans, but I will not. Tali is a racist. Not a gainst humans (obviously) not against Turians, or salarians, or asari, not even against the Krogan. she's racist against the Geth. in her conversation where she explains the Mourning War she says clearly that the Quarians attacked the Geth when theyw ere nearing sentience and were effectivly driven from their homeworld. All of shepard's lines tell her the Quarians got wha thtey deserved and she says "oh no, they were going to attack anyway we just started it before we even tried peaceful negotiations,since beings of logic are beyond peace." Now I'm sure I'd have beleived that if I played ME1 in 2007 but seeing as I did in 2010 I have prior knowledge of a Geth Platform telling me "We preserve the creator homeworld for their return, we harbor no ill wil for the creators." Tali has an obvious prejudice to wher she even holds Legion at gun point for trying to reveal the sick experiements the quarians were doing to the Geth. Shepard's paragon response puts it perfectly "I'd tell the Alliance if those experiements were on Humans."  Legion had Every right to warn the Geth about the experiements and the fact that Tali can't handle it shows taht despite completeing her pilgrimmage she's nowhere near as mature as she needs to be. I'd honestly swap her out with Koris because at least he's open to Peace because he knows the Quarians are in the wrong. Other than hat Tali's a fine character.

Tali: I like Tali, but agree completely with you...And if forced to choose been Tali and Legion, Tali stands no chance for the same reasons you have cited.

Miranda: She's on Shepard's level. She's as close to an equal (pending the filling in of the VS's time during Shepard's death"  Shepard has. She's incredibly intelligent, and amazing leader, extrordinalriy talent in combat  incredibly beautiful and she knows it. She rubs alot of people the wrong way, but despite that she gets the job done. She's the perfect XO for shepard because she's a task manager and knows the squad's strengths and weaknesses and can plan accordingly. I'd have no worries should Shepard have to leave the Normandy for an extended period of time during ME3 because I know Miri's got it under control.

Miranda: Jack's right about her...I don't like the character at all...she is ruthless, thoughtless and self absorbed....I would trust her to oversee the Normandy when all is quiet, but not during conflict, she's too ruthless...I have always found it ironic that her health booster comes under 'No one gets left behind' because she proves on enough occasions that she would be more than willing to do just that.

Welp, there's my take on why those character's recieve alot of heat around the BSN. take what you will from it.

Modifié par Golden Owl, 04 mai 2011 - 11:44 .

[Siansonea]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I guess Shepard is too stupid to figure out something painfully obvious, then.

Well, if Shepard goes along with Tali's wishes simply to appease her, then Shepard is either too stupid to figure it out, or deliberately choosing to ignore the facts. If Shepard does the ethical thing and gives the evidence against Rael'Zorah, then Shepard shows himself/herself to be a true Paragon, who won't compromise ethics for expediency's sake or for a sentimental attachment to a friend.

[Gust4v]

Eh, that's the 'use this to win the war vs the geth' choice, a renegade choice.

[Nodscouter]

*yawn* Mornin' gents.

1Minsc1 wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...

1: Yes, let's blatantly ignore the analogy here, how convenient.
2: So, the problem here is semantics. How I do enjoy debating that.
Anyone who distrusts other races are a racist, they may not outright say that they think their race is superior, but it certainly implies that.
3: That completely depends on the situation. Age is not a valid argument for innocence.
I'll be going to bed now, and continue debating in circles in the morrow!

2. i disagree, Ash too
3. i disagree, again. wiki:
Innocence is a term used to indicate a general lack of guilt, with respect to any kind of crime, sin, or wrongdoing. In a legal context, innocence refers to the lack of legal guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime.
Guilt is the fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense[1]. It is also a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person realizes or believes—accurately or not—that he or she has violated a moral standard, and bears significant responsibility for that violation.[2] It is closely related to the concept of remorse.

i dont think a 2years old child, which is not fully self-consciousness, can be guilty in any way

2: Good to know you do. I mean sure, who cares about evidence right? F*ck that ****.
3: You know, I have a basic knowledge of the meaning of words in English. Just saying.
You can believe whatever the hell you want, doesn't change the world.

[1Minsc1]

english in not my native speaking, i admitted that i think, even that this maybe the reason of my misunderstanding. because of that i took a quick look at the definitions of the words we use. are these definitions wrong? so please tell me!
2. you made a claim distrusting other races implies thinking about them as inferior/superior. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!
3. you made a claim that age is not a valid argument for innocence. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!

this is not about believing in somewhat, this is about the corrcet usage of words. so please proof that it´s me who´s using them the wrong way


that´s my answer

Modifié par 1Minsc1, 03 mai 2011 - 03:29 .

[Antivenger]

Siansonea II wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I guess Shepard is too stupid to figure out something painfully obvious, then.

Well, if Shepard goes along with Tali's wishes simply to appease her, then Shepard is either too stupid to figure it out, or deliberately choosing to ignore the facts. If Shepard does the ethical thing and gives the evidence against Rael'Zorah, then Shepard shows himself/herself to be a true Paragon, who won't compromise ethics for expediency's sake or for a sentimental attachment to a friend.

That was messed up, I gave the evidence hoping to clear her name and give them an advantage against the Geth (I didn't know about Legion at the time). And then she berrates me for "throwing a grenade into a munitions factory"! I stand by my judgement, though. If it proves their damnation, I'll have to put the blame on them.

[Ymladdych]

My list, broken into 3 categories:

Characters I Sincerely Hate and Really Don't Want to See Again

1.  Liara - metaverse/mechanical reasons.  As another poster wrote, her Mary Blueness verges on Wesley Crusher territory.  That, combined with her plot armor and the writers' aggressive "Liara for Shepard's LI!" campaign makes me want to kill her more than any other character I've encountered in a video game.  Ever.  (And that's drawing from 35 years of gaming experience.)  Within the context of the game, though, she's a sweetheart who supports Shepard unconditionally...no real character flaws to dislike, but then again...that's part of the problem, especially in the face of Ashley's contrived and one-dimensional abrasiveness.  (A plot device meant to emphasize Liara's unquestioning, empathetic nature, no doubt.)  I'm not one of those who thinks that LotSB improved things, either, because the old, sweet Liara is still there "underneath it all," but now she can be tough and kick ass like she's been doing it her whole life, too.

2.  Zaeed - personality preferences (emotional reaction) and tactical reasons.  I (and by extension, my Shepard) see him as an arrogant, condescending schmuck who's not half as interesting as he thinks he is.  Plus I had no use for him outside of his loyalty mission.

The Character I Love to Hate but Find Interesting

1.  Tali - ideological differences of opinion.  Simply put, the Quarians tick me off with their blind, one-sided fanaticism and their resistance to moving beyond their past mistakes, and Tali has sucked down more than her fair share of her people's Kool-Aid.  "Yes, the star to our planet is dying and we'll have to colonize another world anyway, but let's continue to fruitlessly lament its loss for another 300 years and/or decimate our population trying to get it back from the Geth!  It's the principle of the thing!  After all, they had no right to kick our asses when we tried to exterminate them!"  I like her hyperactive spunkiness, though.  Her "Knight in N7 Armor" arc doesn't bother me...my Shepard pats her on her helmet like he would a wayward little sister and goes on his way.

My "Bleh, I Don't Care One Way or Another" Character

1.  Kaidan - anal retentive and boring, at least in ME1.  I actually liked him more (read: found him more interesting) in ME2, and yes, he was my VS, but only because he was one of my tactical favorites.  Well, and because avoiding the Liara romance seems to default to an Ashley romance, and I wanted neither to carry forward in my "canon."

Everyone else I straight-up like or love, for varying reasons.

Modifié par Ymladdych, 04 mai 2011 - 03:25 .

[Asari_Party]

characters I hate

Morinth - Space Succubus
Garrus - no character development, but a casual romance
Jacob - bland, forced romance
Kaidan - boring
Tali - obnoxious fanbase

[Nodscouter]

1Minsc1 wrote...

english in not my native speaking, i admitted that i think, even that this maybe the reason of my misunderstanding. because of that i took a quick look at the definitions of the words we use. are these definitions wrong? so please tell me!
2. you made a claim distrusting other races implies thinking about them as inferior/superior. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!
3. you made a claim that age is not a valid argument for innocence. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!

this is not about believing in somewhat, this is about the corrcet usage of words. so please proof that it´s me who´s using them the wrong way

2. No, that's not what I said. Would you please cease putting words in my mouth?
3. Okay, this has many, many problems.
First off, innocence, is abstract. It does not have any exact meaning, except in our eyes. Therefore, it cannot have exact proof.
Secondly, you are the one making the claim that age makes me invulnerable to guilt. The burden of proof is on you. It's like if I said ''The universe is a bowl of pudding''. Someone would obviously ask for proof, and I would say ''What? Do you have any evidence it's not????? HUH??!?!?!?!?!? DIDNT F*CKING THINK SO HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!''
Thirdly, it really, really isn't a good excuse. I can kill someone in bare daylight, but obviously, it's his fault, I'm just 14, I could never have killed someone right?

[ImmortalWarrior]

Siansonea II wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I guess Shepard is too stupid to figure out something painfully obvious, then.

Well, if Shepard goes along with Tali's wishes simply to appease her, then Shepard is either too stupid to figure it out, or deliberately choosing to ignore the facts. If Shepard does the ethical thing and gives the evidence against Rael'Zorah, then Shepard shows himself/herself to be a true Paragon, who won't compromise ethics for expediency's sake or for a sentimental attachment to a friend.

The world is NOT black and white. The underlying issue here is the unity of a fleet of an endangered species. It is all shades of grey and it is choosing the lesser of two evils. To quote Spock "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few". The reason why keeping the evidence secret is Paragon and not Renegade is because it is for the betterment of the many NOT because that is what Tali wants. That is how a "true Paragon", as you state it, would think of this decision.

On your comments prior about the Admiralty deserving to know. It is clear through the information you gain by speaking with them and the situation that calls you to their presence, that they are not exactly thinking in the best interest of their people. Just because they are in a position of leadership doesn't mean that they can't make poor decisions and can't make mistakes.

[ImmortalWarrior]

1Minsc1 wrote...

english in not my native speaking, i admitted that i think, even that this maybe the reason of my misunderstanding. because of that i took a quick look at the definitions of the words we use. are these definitions wrong? so please tell me!
2. you made a claim distrusting other races implies thinking about them as inferior/superior. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!
3. you made a claim that age is not a valid argument for innocence. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!

this is not about believing in somewhat, this is about the corrcet usage of words. so please proof that it´s me who´s using them the wrong way

The evidence is within the statement itself.  If I distrust, dislike, or hate my portuguese friend because he is portuguese, I am racist.  Let me put it another way you can understand.  Hitler distrusted, disliked and hated the jews.  If he did nothing else to the jews but just disliked them, he would have still been a racist.

Generalizing someone by some clearly defined category is called stereotyping.  Generalizing someone because of their race, species, color, or creed is RACISM.

[lolwut666]

I agree with ImmortalWarrior.

Tali told you herself that handing the data to the Admiralty board would likely cause panic in the Flotilla.

What matters is that the geth are dealt with, and that Rael'Zorah's experiments will likely not be repeated again, as the quarians will probably be more careful with what they let inside their ships.

If you give them the data, all that will happen is that the name of one quarian - a dead one, at that - will be forever tarnished.

Even if you argue that the data from Rael's research could be useful against the geth, it looks like very few people think like Admiral Daro'Xen, so that probably data won't get any use, as it is unlikely that the quarians will allow those experiments to continue.

[1Minsc1]

Nodscouter wrote...

*yawn* Mornin' gents.

1Minsc1 wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...

1: Yes, let's blatantly ignore the analogy here, how convenient.
2: So, the problem here is semantics. How I do enjoy debating that.
Anyone who distrusts other races are a racist, they may not outright say that they think their race is superior, but it certainly implies that.
3: That completely depends on the situation. Age is not a valid argument for innocence.
I'll be going to bed now, and continue debating in circles in the morrow!

2. i disagree, Ash too
3. i disagree, again. wiki:
Innocence is a term used to indicate a general lack of guilt, with respect to any kind of crime, sin, or wrongdoing. In a legal context, innocence refers to the lack of legal guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime.
Guilt is the fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense[1]. It is also a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person realizes or believes—accurately or not—that he or she has violated a moral standard, and bears significant responsibility for that violation.[2] It is closely related to the concept of remorse.

i dont think a 2years old child, which is not fully self-consciousness, can be guilty in any way

2: Good to know you do. I mean sure, who cares about evidence right? F*ck that ****.
3: You know, I have a basic knowledge of the meaning of words in English. Just saying.
You can believe whatever the hell you want, doesn't change the world.

[1Minsc1]

Nodscouter wrote...

1Minsc1 wrote...

english in not my native speaking, i admitted that i think, even that this maybe the reason of my misunderstanding. because of that i took a quick look at the definitions of the words we use. are these definitions wrong? so please tell me!
2. you made a claim distrusting other races implies thinking about them as inferior/superior. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!
3. you made a claim that age is not a valid argument for innocence. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!

this is not about believing in somewhat, this is about the corrcet usage of words. so please proof that it´s me who´s using them the wrong way

2. No, that's not what I said. Would you please cease putting words in my mouth?
3. Okay, this has many, many problems.
First off, innocence, is abstract. It does not have any exact meaning, except in our eyes. Therefore, it cannot have exact proof.
Secondly, you are the one making the claim that age makes me invulnerable to guilt. The burden of proof is on you. It's like if I said ''The universe is a bowl of pudding''. Someone would obviously ask for proof, and I would say ''What? Do you have any evidence it's not????? HUH??!?!?!?!?!? DIDNT F*CKING THINK SO HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!''
Thirdly, it really, really isn't a good excuse. I can kill someone in bare daylight, but obviously, it's his fault, I'm just 14, I could never have killed someone right?

i really like to discuss, but looking at the RED-text, even that in the post above!, i can only come to the conclusion that there is no sense in arguing with you. Are you sure there is only one Person using your account? posting under your name?

Modifié par 1Minsc1, 03 mai 2011 - 02:35 .

[ImmortalWarrior]

Ymladdych wrote...

My list, broken into 3 categories:

Characters I Sincerely Hate and Really Don't Want to See Again

1.  Liara - metaverse/mechanical reasons.  As another poster wrote, her Mary Blueness verges on Wesley Crusher territory.  That, combined with her plot armor and the writers' aggressive "Liara for Shepard's LI!" campaign makes me want to kill her more than any other character I've encountered in a video game.  Ever.  (And that's drawing from 35 years of gaming experience.)  Within the context of the game, though, she's a sweetheart who supports Shepard unconditionally...no real character flaws to dislike, but then again...that's part of the problem, especially in the face of Ashley's contrived and one-dimensional abrasiveness.  (A plot device meant to emphasize Liara's unquestioning, empathetic nature, no doubt.)  I'm not one of those who thinks that LotSB improved things, either, because the old, sweet Liara is still there "underneath it all," but now she can be tough and kick ass like she's been doing it her whole

*snip*

Spot on there.  I find it hard to quantify my reason to hate Liara.  I am okay with her character in the story, but somehow I have a burning dislike for something about her character, and I think you pointed out why.  Plot armor, no real character flaws...which in itself is a problem, she becomes a fighting badass when, after 100 years she was still a useless kid AND acted like it, the Wesley Crusher effect....I loled at that one

[1Minsc1]

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

1Minsc1 wrote...

english in not my native speaking, i admitted that i think, even that this maybe the reason of my misunderstanding. because of that i took a quick look at the definitions of the words we use. are these definitions wrong? so please tell me!
2. you made a claim distrusting other races implies thinking about them as inferior/superior. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!
3. you made a claim that age is not a valid argument for innocence. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!

this is not about believing in somewhat, this is about the corrcet usage of words. so please proof that it´s me who´s using them the wrong way

The evidence is within the statement itself.  If I distrust, dislike, or hate my portuguese friend because he is portuguese, I am racist.  Let me put it another way you can understand.  Hitler distrusted, disliked and hated the jews.  If he did nothing else to the jews but just disliked them, he would have still been a racist.


Generalizing someone by some clearly defined category is called stereotyping.  Generalizing someone because of their race, species, color, or creed is RACISM.

take a look at the definition!!! you are simply wrong. four wheels don´t make a car
again: their a few necessary conditions to be a racist

Modifié par 1Minsc1, 03 mai 2011 - 02:53 .

[ImmortalWarrior]

1Minsc1 wrote...

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

1Minsc1 wrote...

english in not my native speaking, i admitted that i think, even that this maybe the reason of my misunderstanding. because of that i took a quick look at the definitions of the words we use. are these definitions wrong? so please tell me!
2. you made a claim distrusting other races implies thinking about them as inferior/superior. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!
3. you made a claim that age is not a valid argument for innocence. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!

this is not about believing in somewhat, this is about the corrcet usage of words. so please proof that it´s me who´s using them the wrong way

The evidence is within the statement itself.  If I distrust, dislike, or hate my portuguese friend because he is portuguese, I am racist.  Let me put it another way you can understand.  Hitler distrusted, disliked and hated the jews.  If he did nothing else to the jews but just disliked them, he would have still been a racist.


Generalizing someone by some clearly defined category is called stereotyping.  Generalizing someone because of their race, species, color, or creed is RACISM.

take a look at the definition!!! you are simply wrong. four wheels don´t make a car

Dude, my first language is english.  YOU are wrong.  I don't care how you interpret the webster meriam dictionary.  And not to be a douche, but the German intepretation of racism hasn't historically been correct either.  <--- Now I want you to read that comment very closely.  I apologize for the insult but I am making a point.  THAT WAS RACIST.  I generalized you because you are German.  Drop it sir, you are wrong.

[1Minsc1]

@ ImmortalWarrior: so i´am very sorry that you are unable to use the words of your first language proper. and you are even not interessted in doing so... What else shall i say... you can tell a chair "motor", but you should not wonder it´s confusing to other people when you said "sit down, have comfortable motors". you cannot proper communicate this way. L. Wittgenstein made that point 100years ago.

Modifié par 1Minsc1, 03 mai 2011 - 03:02 .

[jamesp81]

I agree on all points except for one about Tali.

I would NOT trade her for Koris. Even if he's right on peace with the Geth, he's a dickbag that loathes his own people. I have no respect for him and find him repulsive as a person. I'll kill the son of a **** in ME3 if I get a chance.

Edit:

Come to think of it, 2 of the 4 on the admiralty board are dead if I ever catch them away from the fleet (Koris and Xen).  Shaala'Raan is on my **** list for springing the death of Tali's father on her during the trial, but I understand why she did it.  She ain't my friend and never will be, not after that, but I'm willing to let it slide.  I like Han'Gerrel as a person, as he seems to be the only one on the board that isn't a complete assbag.  He's wrong about war with the Geth, but I might be able to convince him to accept peace, or to at least choose a world to colonize.

Modifié par jamesp81, 03 mai 2011 - 03:11 .

[Nodscouter]

1Minsc1 wrote...

Nodscouter wrote...

1Minsc1 wrote...

english in not my native speaking, i admitted that i think, even that this maybe the reason of my misunderstanding. because of that i took a quick look at the definitions of the words we use. are these definitions wrong? so please tell me!
2. you made a claim distrusting other races implies thinking about them as inferior/superior. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!
3. you made a claim that age is not a valid argument for innocence. where is the evidence??? i don´t see it, please tell me!

this is not about believing in somewhat, this is about the corrcet usage of words. so please proof that it´s me who´s using them the wrong way

2. No, that's not what I said. Would you please cease putting words in my mouth?
3. Okay, this has many, many problems.
First off, innocence, is abstract. It does not have any exact meaning, except in our eyes. Therefore, it cannot have exact proof.
Secondly, you are the one making the claim that age makes me invulnerable to guilt. The burden of proof is on you. It's like if I said ''The universe is a bowl of pudding''. Someone would obviously ask for proof, and I would say ''What? Do you have any evidence it's not????? HUH??!?!?!?!?!? DIDNT F*CKING THINK SO HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!''
Thirdly, it really, really isn't a good excuse. I can kill someone in bare daylight, but obviously, it's his fault, I'm just 14, I could never have killed someone right?

i really like to discuss, but looking at the RED-text, even that in the post above!, i can only come to the conclusion that there is no sense in arguing with you. Are you sure there is only one Person using your account? posting under your name?

I could easily say the same thing about you, especially seeing as you seem to have no desire to look at other's viewpoints, instead enclosing yourself within your little world of yours, and also believe insults are the only proper way to have discussion.
Do show me where I said that anyway, if you don't want to conveniently ignore everything I say, again, by insulting me and saying that I'm not worth your time.
Also, totally ignoring the other part of my post. Once again, truly quite convenient.

1Minsc1 wrote...

@ ImmortalWarrior: so i´am very sorry that you are unable to use the words of your first language proper. and you are even not interessted in doing so... What else shall i say... you can tell a chair "motor", but you should not wonder it´s confusing to other people when you said "sit down, have comfortable motors". you cannot proper communicate this way. L. Wittgenstein made that point 100years ago.

Did someone ever tell that randomly mashing buttons on the keyboard doesn't make you a good poster? No? That would explain alot.
Seriously, stop, f*cking, telling others that they're not worth your time, or that THEY have no interest in discussing things when they cleary do have that interest, while you do not, instead retreating to insults to try to hide your failure.
Also, how the hell is he not using his words properly? Maybe you should actually take a look at what you're writing.

Modifié par Nodscouter, 03 mai 2011 - 03:04 .

[Siansonea]

ImmortalWarrior wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I guess Shepard is too stupid to figure out something painfully obvious, then.

Well, if Shepard goes along with Tali's wishes simply to appease her, then Shepard is either too stupid to figure it out, or deliberately choosing to ignore the facts. If Shepard does the ethical thing and gives the evidence against Rael'Zorah, then Shepard shows himself/herself to be a true Paragon, who won't compromise ethics for expediency's sake or for a sentimental attachment to a friend.

The world is NOT black and white. The underlying issue here is the unity of a fleet of an endangered species. It is all shades of grey and it is choosing the lesser of two evils. To quote Spock "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few". The reason why keeping the evidence secret is Paragon and not Renegade is because it is for the betterment of the many NOT because that is what Tali wants. That is how a "true Paragon", as you state it, would think of this decision.

On your comments prior about the Admiralty deserving to know. It is clear through the information you gain by speaking with them and the situation that calls you to their presence, that they are not exactly thinking in the best interest of their people. Just because they are in a position of leadership doesn't mean that they can't make poor decisions and can't make mistakes.

Actually, turning over the evidence is the top-right option, the Paragon option, if I'm not mistaken.

This argument would hold water if Shepard intimately knew the situation, but Shepard doesn't. All Shepard knows is what Shepard learns in the few minutes before Shepard and Tali board the Alarei to retake it for the fleet. When Shepard learns of Rael'Zorah's actions, it is not Shepard's place to decide what to do with that information. The Admiralty Board is the recognized government of the quarian people. Shepard doesn't get to make the call to conceal that information out of some nebulous idea of quarian unity. That is a very specious argument. You can't argue the rightness or wrongness of Shepard's actions based on events that occur AFTER them. Shepard doesn't have prior knowledge of those events. And Shepard is an ALIEN. But let's not kid ourselves, the 'needs of the many' isn't the main issue where Tali is concerned', she mainly wants to preserve her father's memory, and justice for the dead on the Alarei and her own status as a quarian citizen take a back seat to that desire. That is unreasonable. That is overly emotional. I dislike that. I tend to think that many issues are pretty black and white when you take overwrought emotional considerations out of the equation. Tali, and many other quarians, don't seem to be able to do that.

[1Minsc1]

@nodscouter: without interest i wouldn´t be here.
and it´s a simple fact that you are using words inappropiate.
again: take a look a the RED-text, you made a claim, i´am asking for evidence, you accuse me to "cease putting words in your mouth"???
if you can´t / wan´t communicate proper, it´s no insult when i conclude communication with you is not possible. it´s a simple fact

[lolwut666]

@Siansonea II

Turning over the evidence is the bottom right option. The top right option is telling the Admiralty Board you have no evidence.

Modifié par lolwut666, 03 mai 2011 - 03:15 .