462 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

They embark upon a mission assuming two things: Garrus can handle this calmly, and Sidonis is a base traitor who feels no guilt for what he did. In Paragon reasoning, these two pieces of information mean it's OK to kill Sidonis, to prevent him from taking similar actions again, because doing so will have no negative effect on Garrus.

Which still makes Shepard look like hypocrite when he only reaches this conclusion after gunning down dozens of people.

Keep in mind as well that isn't like Shepard just accidentally finds out about Sidonis' mindset. To do that Shepard agrees to help Garrus line up the shot and then betrays him and tries to warn Sidonis. So Shepard made this decision without even knowing Sidonis felt that way and presumably without caring (since Sidonis could have just walked off without explaining any further or could have gloated about it).

So Shepard went into the mission planning to betray Garrus and thus killed all those people for nothing.

I've discussed the mercs before. (And they're not people... they're mercs. That was a joke.) If I walk into a room full of violent mercs who open fire on me, I'm killing them. What I'm "on my way to do" is irrelevant - knitting club? Kill 'em. Doctor's office? Kill 'em? Expel 10 show? Kill 'em. Fish store? Kill 'em. Not on my way to anywhere in particular? Kill 'em. I think pretty much every Shepard has that opinion in order to exist in the world. If they surrender or retreat, you can decide whether or not to let 'em go, but as long as they're still fighting you it's ok to kill them, regardless of where you are headed.

And if you'd read my post above, you'd see that I didn't intend on "betraying" Garrus the entire time. She went there with the idea of helping her friend, however she could. I mentioned TWO factors here, both of which contribute to the final decision. When Shepard decides to talk to Sidonis, she has already seen that factor 1 (Can Garrus do this without it getting to him?) has changed, which makes her want to check the other factor. Even then, it's Garrus's choice - it seems to me that he could probably have still gotten Sidonis easily, if Sidonis had gloated and Shepard had stepped aside, or if Sidonis had simply walked away. I feel like Shepard knew she was just forcing Garrus to listen and think, rather than making the decision for him.

But I wasn't sure of that during the mission. I could have messed things up, and lost Garrus's trust forever. That was the great thing about it... what is more important to Garrus - our friendship, or his revenge? I gambled that our friendship was enough to make him appreciate what I was trying to do, and I was right. But it was a gamble, and that's what makes it so tense.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 05:09 .

[AdmiralCheez]

@Bluko: When there usually is only one way to solve a problem, Bioware forces you to do it, hence stealing the Normandy in ME1 and the events of Arrival. They're too obsessed with not cheating either side to do an "only solvable by one path" mission. As interesting as it may be, just as many people would complain that it forces the player to play the "better" way.

But I can see why you might want to try that sort of thing. Interesting analysis.

[Golden Owl]

Bluko wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Bluko wrote...

To me the game would have been a lot more interesting if you couldn't actually get everyone's loyalty by being purely Paragon or Renegade.

For sh*ts and giggles, what missions would only be resolvable as a paragon?

Thane's, maybe?  Kasumi is only loyal if you let her keep the Greybox?  Dunno, just thinking, if you had to split everyone into two categories...

Personally, I like that every conflict can be resolved by both sides.  That way, nobody's punished, and no one has an edge.  Granted, I think taking certain routes should be more difficult (for example, you needed a pretty high paragon ratio to convince Zaeed to remain loyal if you didn't go after Vido), but the fact that the game doesn't force an obviously "better" decision on you is what makes it worth playing both sides.

Well not everyone.

In Zaeed's case I was really surprised you could Paragon you're way out of it. Doesn't really make sense. You let the man Zaeed's been hunting for 20 years get away, and simply by giving him alittle speech that makes it all cool? I thought for sure Zaeed would be unloyal my first playthrough. Kind of would have been neat if only Paragons could gain Kasumi's loyalty and only Renegades could gain Zaeed's loyalty. That's probably how those characters were designed to be from the start. But I think they changed things since that wouldn't be a real wise move to do that with a DLC.................

..............I sort of prefer that not every situation can be solved by every Shepard. It sort of devalues the point of choosing one path over the other if it's always possible to talk your way out things/shoot your way out things. Taking a different path should result in a different trip. It'd just be nice if there was a pair of missions that you could only effectively solve by doing things only the Paragon/Renegade way. That way you can actually see the merit of the other side of the spectrum for once when you fail. But you can revalidate yourself by knowing that the way you do things is the only reason that other mission was a success...............

Makes sense...though I would be p*ssed if I couldn't get Zaeed's loyalty too...he's one of my favorites, I like having my cake and eating it......but your idea makes sense
 and if it had been played out that way, I would have accepted because of the sense it makes.

Modifié par Golden Owl, 09 mai 2011 - 05:15 .

[Destroy Raiden_]

But in my game unloyal Zeed lives so long as I've got another unloyal person to die when evacuating to the Normandy.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Fair enough. The mission is well written if your Shepard is an idiot. (well, in ways not directly related to being a Paragon, I mean)

Because obviously, changing your course of action when new information becomes available makes you an idiot.

Welp.  Back to leeches and powdered ox hair for headaches, I guess.

[AdmiralCheez]

Yes, because when people shoot at you, a true paragon would stand there and get shot.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Bluko wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Bluko wrote...

To me the game would have been a lot more interesting if you couldn't actually get everyone's loyalty by being purely Paragon or Renegade.

For sh*ts and giggles, what missions would only be resolvable as a paragon?

Thane's, maybe?  Kasumi is only loyal if you let her keep the Greybox?  Dunno, just thinking, if you had to split everyone into two categories...

Personally, I like that every conflict can be resolved by both sides.  That way, nobody's punished, and no one has an edge.  Granted, I think taking certain routes should be more difficult (for example, you needed a pretty high paragon ratio to convince Zaeed to remain loyal if you didn't go after Vido), but the fact that the game doesn't force an obviously "better" decision on you is what makes it worth playing both sides.

Well not everyone.

I just thought it odd that you could talk Garrus out of it. I mean after Dr. Saleon can you really blame him? Dr. Saleon ends up dying no matter what you do. So I don't see why Garrus would be anymore fond of the Paragon way of things now. Garrus is sort of meant to be that Renegade Turian that shoots first and asks questions later. He is the law.

In Zaeed's case I was really surprised you could Paragon you're way out of it. Doesn't really make sense. You let the man Zaeed's been hunting for 20 years get away, and simply by giving him alittle speech that makes it all cool? I thought for sure Zaeed would be unloyal my first playthrough. Kind of would have been neat if only Paragons could gain Kasumi's loyalty and only Renegades could gain Zaeed's loyalty. That's probably how those characters were designed to be from the start. But I think they changed things since that wouldn't be a real wise move to do that with a DLC.

I sort of prefer that not every situation can be solved by every Shepard. It sort of devalues the point of choosing one path over the other if it's always possible to talk your way out things/shoot your way out things. Taking a different path should result in a different trip. It'd just be nice if there was a pair of missions that you could only effectively solve by doing things only the Paragon/Renegade way. That way you can actually see the merit of the other side of the spectrum for once when you fail. But you can revalidate yourself by knowing that the way you do things is the only reason that other mission was a success.

I'm not saying however that only those who save the Collector Base should be rewarded, and those who don't should be punished or something like that. Big plot events like those should be arbitrary, since in most situations both choices are meant to have merit.

I agree with you about Zaeed. I thought that was really weird, but I was like "hey, I'll just go with it!" One problem was the choice to call these missions "loyalty" missions, rather than "focus" missions, or "mind at ease" missions, or some other name that is less poetic but more apt at covering the wide array of issues these various missions address.

For me, doing a Paragon ending for Zaeed is basically saying "Hey, you want to get paid? Finish the mission. If you let this get to you, you'll probably end up dying out there. Want to let this guy kill you, after all?" A disloyal Zaeed has more of a chance of dying on the Suicide mission, so deciding to **** about this one little thing and not just buckle down and get his job done actually hurts HIM more than it hurts Shepard. I think he understands this. That's the best reasoning I can come up with, anyway. I know that mixes gameplay mechanics and story... but meh.

I'll agree with the idea that some scenarios being solvable only one way or the other would make sense. I don't think that Garrus's should be one of them, though (Zaeed, yes. Mordin, sure.)

For me, Garrus being OK with the Paragon ending of that mission was a huge character development plot point for him. Garrus's most definitive quality seems to be his... brotasticness; the fact that he really genuinely likes and trusts Shepard. If your friend, or someone you really admire, gives you some advice, you're more likely to look upon that advice favorably.

If it hadn't been for how things went down with Sidonis, I would never have fallen for Garrus, and I would have liked him much less. Garrus seems to genuinely want to hear what Shepard is saying, and he seems truly willing to think about it. If he just blindly accepted my commands it would be different, but I feel like I'm showing him a different way, rather than walking his road for him.

If you really think he couldn't have ping'd Sidonis after Shepard said "He's giving you another chance," then we have different assessments of Garrus's abilities. But I feel like I just gave him enough time to think, and a few things to think about.

[Someone With Mass]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Yes, because when people shoot at you, a true paragon would stand there and get shot.

Pff. What a hippie.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Retreat. Some things aren't worth killing people for. I know, it's a weird theory.

Because it's so easy to retreat from a docking area for aircars, while the way behind you is blocked off, and the enemy is right in front of you.

Besides, at that point, Shepard had probably killed hundreds of mercenaries. Why should this time be any different from the rest?

[Leonia]

Ok, been lurking here but feel like I should make a comment or two..

Without meta-game knowledge, my totally paragon Shepard found herself renegading Garrus on this mission. Granted, she renegaded him in ME1 also using the logic "What would I do in his position?" She used every paragon interrupt along the way, she gave him multiple chances to change his mind (though she pretty much knew from the start that he was going to be stubborn about it but hey she wasn't going to take away his chance to back out if he wanted to).

Ultimately she knew it was a bad idea to allow a revenge killing (though again, she would have wanted to do the same thing had she been in his position), unlike in ME1, this was the Citadel and killing Sidonis was going to be nothing but cold-blooded murder (not much different to Thane going after the people who killed his wife, come to think of it). Was she going to let her closest friend walk down that dark path? Not if she could help it but ultimately it would have to be his decision and not hers. She could only try to show him the other options.

She doesn't know Sidonis' side of the story, she doesn't know how Garrus will get closure if he doesn't take the shot. She gave him many chances and he didn't change his mind, in fact he got more emotional about tthe whole thing as the mission progressed. This sends more red flags to Shepard and really nudges her in the direction of intervening but again she reminds herself that this is his problem and he has to be the one to handle it. If she prevents him from killing Sidonis, even when she would have done the same thing, what has she taught him? Will he trust her again if she does a complete 180 and gets in the way? At the end of the day, she decides she rather have his trust and respect than the alternative.

But allowing the death of Sidonis is a one-off. No more revenge killings, no more emotional dilemmas. After he takes the shot and she asks "Is this the end of it?" she is making sure he got his closure and won't be bothered by similar situations in the future. And he assures he that he is satisfied and ready to move on. The only line that really gives her any solace is that before the shooting when he said: "I'm not you. I'll live with the consequences."

What more could she have done without taking his choice and his decision away from him? What would have been the pointing of giving him options if she was going to take things into her own hands in the end? Yes, she is the commander, the leader, but Garrus is her friend and his loyalty mission is more than just "kill the bad guy at the end". She can't solve all his problems for him and expect him to learn from them or grow as a result.

Now, had she known anything about Sidonis' side of the story or known that getting in the way of the shot would have also given Garrus closure and resolved things with loyalty and trust left intact, she would have gladly done that. But she didn't have that knowledge. All she got out of Garrus during those paragon interrupts was that his mind was already made up and he knew the consequences he would face. Frankly, she didn't care about Sidonis' opinion and she loathed the guy for bringing down Garrus on Omega. So she felt no remorse for him and wanted to see him get some justice just as much as Garrus did. However, she didn't think murder/revenge was the answer but she wasn't going to try and give her best friend orders, especially when she knows he is unlikely to follow orders he doesn't agree with.

Anyway, she felt bad about it afterwards and suspects post-romance scene that even Garrus is beginning to feel a little bit of regret but even looking back, she would have made the same choice with the information she had at that time.

Ultimately, the moral dilemma for Shepard during that mission was harder than the one Garrus faced.

Modifié par leonia42, 09 mai 2011 - 05:51 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

WHAT NEW INFORMATION??????

Shepard doesn't gain any new information until after betraying Garrus.

Encounter with Harkin = realizes that Garrus is damn insane when he takes things personally.

Ride to the meeting = Garrus isn't acting like himself.  His tone hints that

Encountering Sidonis = Garrus is about to shoot an unarmed man in a public place, from a distance so he can avoid actually facing him.

OH AND GET THIS--Garrus actually gives Shep permission to stall all he/she wants.

Shepard: Let me talk to him.

Garrus: Talk all you want, but it won't change my mind.

Sauce.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

He was already planning to kill Sidonis! You're shocked that he'd beat somebody up for information?

Christ, it isn't just your Shepard who is a dolt.

There's a fine line between intimidation and pointless cruelty.

[Ottemis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
For sh*ts and giggles, what missions would only be resolvable as a paragon?

Thane's, maybe?  Kasumi is only loyal if you let her keep the Greybox?  Dunno, just thinking, if you had to split everyone into two categories...

Even though this is prolly not a point that's been given much thought, I thought to add the following.
Disagree on Kasumi. Arguably the 'right' thing to do is to have her destroy it, but she should ideally choose to do so herself. Which is why I normally pick the option to say something along the lines of "what would he have wanted" If she cares enough, and she does, she destroys it, which on the long run is tons better for her mental health.

Bluko wrote...
In Zaeed's case I was really surprised you could Paragon you're way out of it. Doesn't really make sense. You let the man Zaeed's been hunting for 20 years get away, and simply by giving him alittle speech that makes it all cool? I thought for sure Zaeed would be unloyal my first playthrough. Kind of would have been neat if only Paragons could gain Kasumi's loyalty and only Renegades could gain Zaeed's loyalty. That's probably how those characters were designed to be from the start. But I think they changed things since that wouldn't be a real wise move to do that with a DLC.

I agree on Zaeed's part, that would have made sense. He's proper renegade as far as I can see. It's like combining a chaotic evil with a lawfull good and them not being compelled to destroy eachother on sight.
Even with the whole looming destruction of the galaxy, the utilizing "all means nessecary" argument seems rather obsolete against such huge moral-differences.

Bluko wrote...
I sort of prefer that not every situation can be solved by every Shepard. It sort of devalues the point of choosing one path over the other if it's always possible to talk your way out things/shoot your way out things. Taking a different path should result in a different trip. It'd just be nice if there was a pair of missions that you could only effectively solve by doing things only the Paragon/Renegade way. That way you can actually see the merit of the other side of the spectrum for once when you fail. But you can revalidate yourself by knowing that the way you do things is the only reason that other mission was a success.

Agreed.


Ontopic: Yeah, I really did enjoy the Garrus mission alot aswell. Hard choice to make in the end.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
For me, Garrus being OK with the Paragon ending of that mission was a huge character development plot point for him. Garrus's most definitive quality seems to be his... brotasticness; the fact that he really genuinely likes and trusts Shepard. If your friend, or someone you really admire, gives you some advice, you're more likely to look upon that advice favorably. 

^ This

Modifié par Ottemis, 09 mai 2011 - 05:55 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

He was already planning to kill Sidonis! You're shocked that he'd beat somebody up for information?

Christ, it isn't just your Shepard who is a dolt.

He was also ready to shoot Harkin, in case you didn't notice. That's beyond interrogation.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
How so?

It's bordering on torture.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

How so?

He got the information he wanted.

Shooting Harkin in the leg?  That would have done nothing but make him hurt.  A lot.

[Leonia]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

He was already planning to kill Sidonis! You're shocked that he'd beat somebody up for information?

Christ, it isn't just your Shepard who is a dolt.

He was also ready to shoot Harkin, in case you didn't notice. That's beyond interrogation.

But he says before he wouldn't kill Harkin, only wound him. So going off that you can assume that's what he has in mind.

Still, I never let him shoot Harkin.. just in case he has changed his mind. The headbutt is far more satisfying anyway.

[Leonia]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

WHAT NEW INFORMATION??????

Shepard doesn't gain any new information until after betraying Garrus.

Encounter with Harkin = realizes that Garrus is damn insane when he takes things personally.

Ride to the meeting = Garrus isn't acting like himself.  His tone hints that

Encountering Sidonis = Garrus is about to shoot an unarmed man in a public place, from a distance so he can avoid actually facing him.

OH AND GET THIS--Garrus actually gives Shep permission to stall all he/she wants.

Shepard: Let me talk to him.

Garrus: Talk all you want, but it won't change my mind.

Sauce.

Those are all definitely red flags but ultimately, for my Shepard, regardless of his level of sanity.. this is his choice to make and she will not take that right of choice away from him. Even if it sends him down a dark path that she understands all to well. At least if he is walking down that road, she will have his trust and can maybe try to help him walk away from it later.