462 réponses à ce sujet

[eternalnightmare13]

I just wish we could've killed off Harkin - hate that bastard.

[eternalnightmare13]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Someone's never read the Count of Monte Cristo.

Fiction. Not real.

So is Garrus and Mass Effect....you know this ...right?!

[eternalnightmare13]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Garrus isn't real but his behavior should be realistic. Otherwise we can't identify with him very well. The fact is, the best way to overcome anger is to wait until it fades away. Acting out will just condition your brain to want to act out even more.

We're not talking about getting a parking ticket or missing a winning shot in a basketball game.  We're talking about being betrayed by someone he trusted and all his partners/friends getting slaughtered because of it.  Not everyone simply gets over it, that's not realistic.  I know people that bear grudges for decades.  It is realisitc that Garrus doesn't just let it go.  He's loyal to his friends and has a strong sense of his own justice.  Maybe you never played ME1 but there's a mission in there for him involving a salarian doctor named ''Dr. Heart''.  Garrus' behvaior in ME1 in regards to Dr Heart is on par with his loyalty mission in ME2.  So his behavior is realistic.

[Clonedzero]

i dunno guys. i find his ruthless vigilante story arch to be super interesting, trying to get him to cool down seems like you're trying to water down an interesting character.

making Garrus not be a vigilante would be like getting tali to stop being a tech-girl. or making Mordin turn into a meathead jock or something.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Clonedzero wrote...

i dunno guys. i find his ruthless vigilante story arch to be super interesting, trying to get him to cool down seems like you're trying to water down an interesting character.

making Garrus not be a vigilante would be like getting tali to stop being a tech-girl. or making Mordin turn into a meathead jock or something.

We're not trying to get him to stop being a vigilante, rather we're trying to determine what kind of vigilante he becomes.

Right now everyone says that Archangel was like Space Batman. But he really wasn't: in most cases Batman doesn't kill people (due to the vaguaries of comics and different writers there have been a few times when this has gone a bit grey, but in general, as a rule, Batman does not kill.) In a lawless society like Omega where there are no authorities to turn people in to, it's kind of understandable, but still.

In reality, Garrus was Space Huntress. Huntress is like Batman but poorer and she kills people sometimes. Not always, but when they deserve it yeah, she'll totally kill some dudes.

The problem was that Garrus was tending toward following a pattern into being Space Punisher, who shoots first and only sometimes asks questions later. We're trying to keep him at the "Space Huntress" level, and maybe nudge him closer to Space Batman... who plays by his own rules, but is also capable of cooperating with the law when that is more efficient and appropriate.

I like Batman. I like the Huntress. I'm not as big a fan of the Punisher, so I'm trying to steer him more towards the former two. If you'd rather Garrus be the Punisher, you can stee him in that direction instead.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 mai 2011 - 05:53 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Saph, if what you said about letting grudges go away was true, then please explain the centuries-long conflict over the Holy Land.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Yes. That's my point, if you don't confront the problem in some manner right away, it'll stew.

For a little while, and then it will cool down and eventually go away and you'll be better off for it.

EDIT

Anyway, we've drifted so far from the topic that I almost forgot how this discussion relates to the point I was talking about.

If you really care about Garrus' wellbeing as much as you claim then you'll talk him out of revenge in the first place, not indulge in his violent desires only to put yourself and others in harmsway at the last possible moment.

Like I said, the Paragon route in this mission is just poorly written.

Here's the thing, Saph. You think almost all Paragon stuff is badly written, and I think it's simply because you can't get your head in that particular mindset. Your conception of what a Paragon "mindset" would be is off kilter with the writer's conception, so things seem badly-written to you. However, in other threads you've implied that the Renegade decisions "make more sense" to you in many cases, and that you play as Renegade more often than paragon (please excuse me if this perception is incorrect).

Perhaps the mission is not written to adhere to a Renegade's impression of what a Paragon would do, but is instead written to make sense to someone with Paragon tendencies... someone who actually thinks like a Paragon. I find a LOT of Renegade decisions and dialogue badly written and moronic... even when I'm trying to play as a complete sociopath. I think that's probably because I can't get my mind into that particular mode - one where you are pro-human enough to want to stay with Cerberus, for example.

I like Paragons because they aren't complete peace-and-love goody goodies. They're light grey and renegades are dark grey.

See my example above, re: Batman, The Huntress, and the Punisher. Those are all shades-of-grey characters. Batman can't exist in the Mass Effect world, not cannon Batman. But there's a difference between someone who will sometimes kill a few dangerous people if she can see no better solution, and someone filled with rage who murders every suspected criminal he meets.

It's Huntress vs. the Punisher, and Paragons want Garrus to stay closer to the Huntress... it's fine if he kills, he just can't let it consume him. We didn't know he was going to let it consume him until he got there. When we saw that he was going to let it get to him, we put a stop to it.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 02:52 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
EDIT

Anyway, we've drifted so far from the topic that I almost forgot how this discussion relates to the point I was talking about.

If you really care about Garrus' wellbeing as much as you claim then you'll talk him out of revenge in the first place, not indulge in his violent desires only to put yourself and others in harmsway at the last possible moment.

Like I said, the Paragon route in this mission is just poorly written.

I don't know about you, but I think a dialogue choice that makes it possible to completely invalidate a mission and a man's urge for revenge with maybe two sentences without knowing the full aspect of the mission or reason yet is a sign of even worse writing. 

[Golden Owl]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Yes. That's my point, if you don't confront the problem in some manner right away, it'll stew.

For a little while, and then it will cool down and eventually go away and you'll be better off for it.

EDIT

Anyway, we've drifted so far from the topic that I almost forgot how this discussion relates to the point I was talking about.

If you really care about Garrus' wellbeing as much as you claim then you'll talk him out of revenge in the first place, not indulge in his violent desires only to put yourself and others in harmsway at the last possible moment.

Like I said, the Paragon route in this mission is just poorly written.

Here's the thing, Saph. You think almost all Paragon stuff is badly written, and I think it's simply because you can't get your head in that particular mindset. Your conception of what a Paragon "mindset" would be is off kilter with the writer's conception, so things seem badly-written to you. However, in other threads you've implied that the Renegade decisions "make more sense" to you in many cases, and that you play as Renegade more often than paragon (please excuse me if this perception is incorrect).

Perhaps the mission is not written to adhere to a Renegade's impression of what a Paragon would do, but is instead written to make sense to someone with Paragon tendencies... someone who actually thinks like a Paragon. I find a LOT of Renegade decisions and dialogue badly written and moronic... even when I'm trying to play as a complete sociopath. I think that's probably because I can't get my mind into that particular mode - one where you are pro-human enough to want to stay with Cerberus, for example.

I like Paragons because they aren't complete peace-and-love goody goodies. They're light grey and renegades are dark grey.

See my example above, re: Batman, The Huntress, and the Punisher. Those are all shades-of-grey characters. Batman can't exist in the Mass Effect world, not cannon Batman. But there's a difference between someone who will sometimes kill a few dangerous people if she can see no better solution, and someone filled with rage who murders every suspected criminal he meets.

It's Huntress vs. the Punisher, and Paragons want Garrus to stay closer to the Huntress... it's fine if he kills, he just can't let it consume him. We didn't know he was going to let it consume him until he got there. When we saw that he was going to let it get to him, we put a stop to it.

@CulturalGeekGirl, I have been reading your last few posts...brilliants points and beautifully thought out, I very much like your take on Garrus.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Or a fangirl with a habit of defending the game from criticism.

At this point, Saph, I think it's time to throw in the towel.  You're done.  Seriously.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
It worked on Zaeed and on Toombs.

Those moments happened during the missions, not before.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Here's the thing, Saph. You think almost all Paragon stuff is badly written...

Post proof or retract.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Perhaps the mission is not written to adhere to a Renegade's impression of what a Paragon would do, but is instead written to make sense to someone with Paragon tendencies...

Or a fangirl with a habit of defending the game from criticism.

I was thinking of this quote earlier in the thread: 

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

Paragons
still hold onto beliefs (be those right or wrong), still perceive the
law and yes, they still believe in appealing to the ones better nature
and of course they will try to actually see the other side.

They're also hypocrites and a little sociopathic at times.

That seems to strongly imply that you think paragons are written as hypocrites. And also that you believe their behavior indicates sociopathy. I don't believe that was the intention of the writers... unless you believed the writers intended to write Paragons as hypocrites and sociopaths, you would seem to believe that much of their personality is badly written. Since you indicate that you also think they are behaving hypocritically in this one mission, and that that is what makes the writing bad, it seems that you associate hypocrisy with bad writing. Since you say paragons are hypocrites, I infer that you think paragons are written badly. Where in this train of logic have I made a misstep?

As for the fangirl thing... that seems to be what you resort to when you no longer have any rebuttals for points I have made. Fact is, there are times when I feel the game fails at conveying what I want, as a Paragon. Horizon is one. Arrival is another. I'm not going to defend every dialogue choice, every piece of writing. Swaths of the game feel out of whack with other bits, sure. I'm not even sure what you're accusing me of fangirling over? Garrus? Bioware's writing? Video games? I can point you to a bunch of posts where I say I dislike things about this game (Evil is insufficiently tempting, Loyalty missions could be better tied to the plot, Arrival made me want to unplay it, etc.)

The thing is, the "follow someone on their plan to kill someone and then try to convince them not to" thing is an old trope... like the Double Date episode of Justice League Unlimited, when the Question accompanies the Huntress on her quest to murder a mob boss, and then talks her out of it when she finally gets the chance. The moment worked then, and it works in Mass Effect. It made sense then, and it makes sense in Mass Effect.

Another point is this: the vast majority of Paragon players in this thread feel that this particular mission was in-character and well written. Who are you to say their feelings are incorrect?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 03:23 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

How about you don't worry about me?

Well, really, I've been reading your back-and-forth with CGG since it started, and when it reaches the point where you respond to a very well-thought-out, non-combative expanation of why Garrus' LM from a paragon perspective DOES make sense to some people with "UR A FANGIRL?"

Yellow flag.  Penalty.  In the box, mister.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You didn't make any worthwhile points to refute.

Definitely done.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Which makes it even more implausible, actually.

Eh, exactly how are they more implausible during the missions?

Before the mission, Shepard didn't know all the details, like Sidionis regretting what he'd done, or Zaeed being one of the founders of the Blue Suns.

[Someone With Mass]

You know, Sap, your accusations would have more weight if you gave us examples, instead of blatantly say that they're simply true.