462 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ottemis wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

For me Garrus' loyalty mission is the least favorite. I think he does things there that I was trying to steer him away from in ME1. I felt there was nothing left of the Garrus I knew in ME1. I do that mission for the XP and to end the game properly. It's not that I feel Garrus in ME2 isn't well portrayed, it's more that Garrus has continuity problems.

You've been dead for 2 years. Stuff happens, it explodes, characters change. Shep might have stoold still, but everyone else hasen't, and they've had to deal with him/her not being there anymore.

Thanks for your opinion. I don't agree. It doesn't make the continuity problem from the PC POV go away. It becomes obvious in his recruitement and is emphasized again by the loyalty mission. At least I could have some impact on the final decision, but I wouldn't be surprised when he repeats something like that in the future. I hope you don't mind.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 mai 2011 - 08:04 .

[Ottemis]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

For me Garrus' loyalty mission is the least favorite. I think he does things there that I was trying to steer him away from in ME1. I felt there was nothing left of the Garrus I knew in ME1. I do that mission for the XP and to end the game properly. It's not that I feel Garrus in ME2 isn't well portrayed, it's more that Garrus has continuity problems.

You've been dead for 2 years. Stuff happens, it explodes, characters change. Shep might have stoold still, but everyone else hasen't, and they've had to deal with him/her not being there anymore.

Thanks for your opinion. I don't agree. It doesn't make the continuity problem from the PC POV go away. It becomes obvious in his recruitement and is emphasized again by the loyalty mission. At least I could have some impact on the final decision, but I wouldn't be surprised when he repeats something like that in the future. I hope you don't mind.

No ofc not and I'm sorry if that came off a bit harsch btw (not slept long enough ghehe)
I get the frustration but for me it's easier to erm, see where this new Garrus might have sprung from (again).
I mean the duality you help steer in 1 would be plausible to be back again in 2 with so much time passed where Garrus is on his own, again trying to make a difference (seeing as that 'making a difference' part in ME1 was horribly snowed under by the council).
He's to say the least, horribly conflicted with his vigilante style solutions (due to his lack of belief in the system) while at the core he's 'good' and trying to do things for the 'right' reasons. I'd say it's not inconcievable something similar might happen again. With Shepards absense and what happened in responce to ME1's conclusion it was plausible to me, it might not be if it happens again.
Will have to see I suppose.

Modifié par Ottemis, 09 mai 2011 - 08:15 .

[DeadLetterBox]

I've been pawing through this thread, and I've realized that Saphra and reactions to Saphra have dominated at least five pages (if not more). This is a person who discards logical debate for ad hominem attacks whenever the argument dies down. This person has a link to a post that claims it is impossible to win against the Reapers no matter what (Saphra wrote it.) This person is obviously either a philosophy major or desperately seeking attention, probably both. Certainly Saprha enjoys starting trouble. Seriously, play a Facebook game or something. Get a hobby.

Please stop feeding the agitator. I want to read about Garrus.

[Leonia]

DeadLetterBox wrote...

I've been pawing through this thread, and I've realized that Saphra and reactions to Saphra have dominated at least five pages (if not more). This is a person who discards logical debate for ad hominem attacks whenever the argument dies down. This person has a link to a post that claims it is impossible to win against the Reapers no matter what (Saphra wrote it.) This person is obviously either a philosophy major or desperately seeking attention, probably both. Certainly Saprha enjoys starting trouble. Seriously, play a Facebook game or something. Get a hobby.

Please stop feeding the agitator. I want to read about Garrus.

Which is the exact reason as to why I was reluctant to post in this thread earlier. A lot of threads can go off-topic and back on-topic again as the discussion progresses but sometimes it feels like there are multiple conversations going on at once and not all are related to Garrus' loyalty mission.

If we want to argue about the ethics of killing mooks/mercs (as interesting as that is) unless it relates to Sidonis or Garrus it's not entirely relevant in this particular thread.

[DeadLetterBox]

[Back on Topic]

I don't know which loyalty missions other people liked, but I loved the Garrus mission. I thought it was fun to see Garrus break bad on someone. I always choose the paragon option, because I think the shot of you standing in Garrus' sights to make him consider what he wants to do is really cool.

I never pursue Garrus as a love interest because I prefer the war buddy vibe you have with him if you don't. I think this mission (repetitive combat notwithstanding) does a lot to reinforce that feeling that you're two people who are willing to walk through hell for each other. I like that a lot.

So, yeah, this is in my top three as well. The other two being Tali's mission (which is really cool, especially when you've read Ascension) and Jack's, because it shows a vulnerability in her that she always strives to hide.

[Nimrodell]

Ah CGG, just use paragon interrupt on Saphra or even a renegade one (like I always do with that poor Weyrlock Speaker) lol. Saphra keeps yanking everyone here and to be honest, that's good, 'cause otherwise this topic would die as so many others without saphras around. It's not Saphra's fault for having problem with understanding the paragon path. Conviction that renegade approaches are better, less hypocritical, honest, prevails for quite number of years now... we have to admit that true heroes, knights are quite rare sort nowadays in real life and I honestly think that average modern man has lost his faith in thing we call moral and empathy. Just look at the games, RPG, like The Witcher 1 or even Dragon Age - Origins (but especially The Witcher) - if you take the High Road you're pretty much screwed for money thus meaning less resources, less sex with ladies of night, even political power, throne (say being true Alistair's male Cousland friend... or not sleeping with Morrigan 'cause our Warden doesn't know what are the consequences for the world that he/she is trying so desperately to protect - ofc all those who did the ritual will say - you're a douche for believing in higher purpose and goals). And of course that majority will perceive paragons as stupid or in the worst case - hypocrites... 'cause we all know that society tends to forget very fast selfless deeds and sacrifices... it doesn't pay off. Have to go to work, so this is a bit messy post, but I can explain better this whole situation... and Saphra, stop yanking around people lol, gosh, you're like Mordin when he's talking about sex between Shepard and some other alien LI... and don't tell me 'I wouldn't dream of it!' like he does, 'cause you enjoy this, I can see that lol.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ottemis wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

For me Garrus' loyalty mission is the least favorite. I think he does things there that I was trying to steer him away from in ME1. I felt there was nothing left of the Garrus I knew in ME1. I do that mission for the XP and to end the game properly. It's not that I feel Garrus in ME2 isn't well portrayed, it's more that Garrus has continuity problems.

You've been dead for 2 years. Stuff happens, it explodes, characters change. Shep might have stoold still, but everyone else hasen't, and they've had to deal with him/her not being there anymore.

Thanks for your opinion. I don't agree. It doesn't make the continuity problem from the PC POV go away. It becomes obvious in his recruitement and is emphasized again by the loyalty mission. At least I could have some impact on the final decision, but I wouldn't be surprised when he repeats something like that in the future. I hope you don't mind.

No ofc not and I'm sorry if that came off a bit harsch btw (not slept long enough ghehe)
I get the frustration but for me it's easier to erm, see where this new Garrus might have sprung from (again).
I mean the duality you help steer in 1 would be plausible to be back again in 2 with so much time passed where Garrus is on his own, again trying to make a difference (seeing as that 'making a difference' part in ME1 was horribly snowed under by the council).
He's to say the least, horribly conflicted with his vigilante style solutions (due to his lack of belief in the system) while at the core he's 'good' and trying to do things for the 'right' reasons. I'd say it's not inconcievable something similar might happen again. With Shepards absense and what happened in responce to ME1's conclusion it was plausible to me, it might not be if it happens again.
Will have to see I suppose.

Nah. Don't worry. It's just that a lot people are using your line of reasoning to invalidate what I think about it.. And it just doesn't work for me.

I understand what you mean, but some kind of acknowledgement would have been nice. When I saw Garrus' recruitment, I thought... Not again... And the same thought popped up again around the loyalty mission.

ME2 had to have that "dark and edgy" story (which was discussed a lot in the past). I just happen to think that the new Garrus had to be part of that. It sure made Garrus more popular in ME2 than in ME1 (in which Wrex was very popular). So the acknowledgement had to go.

OK... It must be clear by now what we both feel about that.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 mai 2011 - 10:49 .

[Undertone]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Hence why videogame logic is broken.  Shepard can't go grocery shopping without killing three dozen mooks.

"Toombs!  Don't kill that scientist!  Killing is wrong!  Please ignore all the mercs I gunned down to get here!"

It's one of those weird disconnects that doesn't make sense...

It makes perfect sense if you play a practical-minded Renegade and not a wussy, holier-than-though, Paragon.

I shot the scientist for Toombs. You know why? I'd killed too many people getting there to suddenly start preaching about peace. Same reason I let Garrus shoot Sidonis, the same reason I shot Fist (Wrex wasn't there in my canon import).

There is no disconnect here. I point again, to Fist. Shepard directly adresses all the mooks he just killed to get to him. If what you said was true then really there is no reason for the Blue Suns or Blood Pack or whoever to exist in the lore because they are just gameplay devices. Except they aren't. They are real factions who we wind up fighting against.

That's my opinion exactly. Sometimes I wonder how Paragon Shepard decided to join the military in the first place   Oh well. You have to understand the majority on these forums are paragons, some of them of the ultra-preachy, holier-then-thou type. But there's also a small number of paragons I've come to respect.

Garrus is probably my favorite companion, I rolled with him the entire time in ME1 and again in ME2. Obviously I rene-ed him over the course of the first game. But I expected him to have become a spectre in ME2. I mean his actions made sense to me on Omega but I still wondered why he didn't become a spectre when he could have achieved what he wanted and get some backing too.

I didn't like the loyalty mission much though - I mean it was good and all that but it felt like repetition of the "LM" in the first game - "ethics vs justice". It fitted Garrus though so I suppose I'm fine with that.

[Undertone]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well your example says otherwise. Your squadmates are too infantile to make their own decisions.

It was a bad example, okay?  My point was that life can force you to do bad things at times, but that doesn't mean you should just allow the people you care about to do those same things voluntarily for personal reasons.

And besides, in the end, Garrus was the one that made the decision.  He had the gun.  Sidonis wasn't going anywhere.  All he had to do was wait for Shepard to move.  Meanwhile, Shep can't do anything apart from get in the way and beg him to change his mind.

Yeah but making mistakes and doing what you have to do even if it's wrong makes you a mature person. It allows you to see the contrast. Making mistakes is the only real freedom we have. No strife, no progression. Otherwise I agree with you. Actually if there was a third choice I would have said my opinion to Garrus and stand away and let him make that choice himself. Not convincing him my perspective was right - whether it was paragon or renegade.

As for the rest of you paragon talk-no-jutsu monks - I love it how anything different from your paragon naivitet is considered trolling. You're like a little crowd of angry children swarming on anything different from your pink paint.

[Leonia]

Curious, Undertone, did you renegade him in ME2 as well? I do hope the next "loyalty" quest for Garrus is less focused on ethics/justice though, it's starting to become a pattern. Maybe in ME3 he'll finally reach his full potential. Poor guy just wants to see the world in black and white and he's the most grey character of all.

[Clonedzero]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

i very much apperciate the nerdy analogies you're using .

im not really saying you're wrong for wanting him to be more peaceful i guess would be the word.

it just doesnt seem very practical to be working outside the law and cooperating with it at the same time. plus the thing with garrus is that he actually was a cop basically and saw how inefficent and full of red tape and loopholes the legal system can be, so he's stepped outside the constrants of that to dish out alittle bit of justice.

[Undertone]

leonia42 wrote...

Curious, Undertone, did you renegade him in ME2 as well? I do hope the next "loyalty" quest for Garrus is less focused on ethics/justice though, it's starting to become a pattern. Maybe in ME3 he'll finally reach his full potential. Poor guy just wants to see the world in black and white and he's the most grey character of all.

I renegaded him in ME1 because I agreed with his morality compass - getting the job done is more important then how you do it. Why? Because rules and regulation can benefit anyone. It's the same **** as "Thou shall not kill/steal". It's all good on paper, but we both know that **** ain't fly all the time.

Getting into that kind of dealings, into that kind of job or life means you are going to have to do questionable things or sometimes things you outright disagree with but you do them nevertheless because you have to. It's the way things work in life. Maybe I'm a bit dense for playing games as I would do in real life since it's what it is - just a game. But being a soldier means you have to make calls and decisions at the expense of your own morality and a piece of yourself for the greater good. 

Who is Shepard to argue with Garrus not to take the kill? It's real easy for him (the player) to convince him into something standing there comfortably. Being a coward and betraying everyone else - you've made your choice. You deserve to die. Sidonis got it easy - a clean and simple headshot. Now that was professionalism. If it was me it would have been a much slower death.

[Nimrodell]

Undertone wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well your example says otherwise. Your squadmates are too infantile to make their own decisions.

It was a bad example, okay?  My point was that life can force you to do bad things at times, but that doesn't mean you should just allow the people you care about to do those same things voluntarily for personal reasons.

And besides, in the end, Garrus was the one that made the decision.  He had the gun.  Sidonis wasn't going anywhere.  All he had to do was wait for Shepard to move.  Meanwhile, Shep can't do anything apart from get in the way and beg him to change his mind.

Yeah but making mistakes and doing what you have to do even if it's wrong makes you a mature person. It allows you to see the contrast. Making mistakes is the only real freedom we have. No strife, no progression. Otherwise I agree with you. Actually if there was a third choice I would have said my opinion to Garrus and stand away and let him make that choice himself. Not convincing him my perspective was right - whether it was paragon or renegade.

As for the rest of you paragon talk-no-jutsu monks - I love it how anything different from your paragon naivitet is considered trolling. You're like a little crowd of angry children swarming on anything different from your pink paint.

Making mistakes and taking responsibility for 'em and learning from them IS what makes u an adult - otherwise, you're just simply a fool or spoiled child or just misguided soul. Making right or wrong choices is the freedom we have and along that line, mistakes are what makes us human but also taking responsibility for those is what makes us mature.
And as for paragons being like a little crowd of angry children swarming, same could be said for the other side - and that's not 'cause of paragon or renegade beliefs, tis just the nature of forums and discussions on 'em - I have yet to see this type of topics where two opposite sides are actually ready to understand each others point of view and acknowledge it 'as one of valid possibilities'. You did it yourself too - preaching on paragon's willingness to preach - told ya, that's something that is in every pore of human kind nowadays - just too common thng. There is no right or wrong path in Garrus' case - it all depends on how one perceives that problem, it depends on one's interpretation what friendship is about and beliefs - be those 'right' or 'wrong'. To be honest, I don't know what would I do in such situation if it truly were about me and my friend (and tis good I had to deal with it in game... real life, I don't know) - the only thing that matters here is... taking responsibility and since Garrus is ready to do that, as he says himself, I see both solutions on the situation as valid - depending on person that is with him... both sides offer something special as resolution and valid outcome. Garrus as a character is not simple savant renegade chunk, he has layers and Shepard's duty is only to uncover what type of layers are predominant... otherwise, Garrus would not ask Shepard's help in the first place. Like it or not, Shepard is bound to be involved, willingly or not, 'cause there is something higher there in work - friendship, connection between two people that are warriors and still believe in aspects of law and justice on their different ways.

As for paragons joining the army - well, believe it or not, in many countres people still join the army 'cause they believe in greater good (many times in their own distorted, twisted ways) and many of them actually go out from the wars as paragons after seeing what chaos and destruction, blind fury or deceptive beleifs can produce. It's easy to support the idea of 'end justifying the means' when your own skin or skin of the ones you care about is not endangered, but tis whole another story when it is. Bottom line is - being renegade doesn't mean being pragmatic or worldly wise by default but also being paragon doesn't mean it either - both sides have naive and wise points of view.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Undertone wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well your example says otherwise. Your squadmates are too infantile to make their own decisions.

It was a bad example, okay?  My point was that life can force you to do bad things at times, but that doesn't mean you should just allow the people you care about to do those same things voluntarily for personal reasons.

And besides, in the end, Garrus was the one that made the decision.  He had the gun.  Sidonis wasn't going anywhere.  All he had to do was wait for Shepard to move.  Meanwhile, Shep can't do anything apart from get in the way and beg him to change his mind.

Yeah but making mistakes and doing what you have to do even if it's wrong makes you a mature person. It allows you to see the contrast. Making mistakes is the only real freedom we have. No strife, no progression. Otherwise I agree with you. Actually if there was a third choice I would have said my opinion to Garrus and stand away and let him make that choice himself. Not convincing him my perspective was right - whether it was paragon or renegade.

As for the rest of you paragon talk-no-jutsu monks - I love it how anything different from your paragon naivitet is considered trolling. You're like a little crowd of angry children swarming on anything different from your pink paint.

You show either a lack of reading comprehension, or an unwillingness to read the entire thread. I'm going to assume it's the latter, and try to get you up to date.

Most paragons in this thread (or Paragades, or Renegons) aren't arguing that the paragon choice is correct - we're arguing that both choices are equally valid. It's only one or two fools who are arguing that they are unquestionably correct, and telling others how they should feel.

My argument is simple, and remains unaddressed: 

When I play as a Paragon, I kill if killing that person or thing is likely to cause the galaxy to be a little better, or a little safer. I kill in self-defense. Occasionally, I act as the Space Cops and kill criminals who cannot be captured, or whom there is no way to prosecute.

When I play as a Renegade, I kill if killing that person will benefit me, or the people I'm working for or with, or some cause I believe in.

In both these cases, killing all those mercs on Garrus's mission is fine. But can you see how, in the paragon point of view, killing the mercs is fine, but killing Sidonis deserves a second thought? I'm not saying that killing Sidonis is wrong, by paragon standards, it's just a lot more questionable. If, after I told Sidonis to walk away, Garrus had popped him anyway I would have understood. That he didn't do it made me admire him more.

As for letting someone make their own choices, well... if a friend is a bit drunk and about to get behind the wheel of a car, I will try to stop them. I'm not going to say "oh, well, if they kill someone while drunk driving they'll learn their lesson!" I agree that you've got to let people make their own mistakes sometimes, but when it's a matter of life or death, I'm going to at least try to reason with them, and maybe steal their keys if I can get away with it.

For me, stepping in front of that shot is like saying "Hey man, sit down for a while, drink a few glasses of water, hang out. You can go home in a couple of hours." I know a guy who regularly drives home when he's slightly tipsy, and so far he's been "lucky," but I always worry. And honestly, I'm probably more paranoid about it than I need to be - if I'm going to be driving I often don't drink at all. Since we don't have breathalizers at all the parties, some of the guys I yell at might be fine to go, and Garrus might be calm and reasonable enough to shoot Sidonis. But better safe than sorry.

(Clarification edit: I'm just describing my personal thought process in the games where I make the decision to stop him, not meaning to imply that not stopping him is inherently wrong. There is significant room for debate over whether "shooting while angry" is actually risky or not.)

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 05:49 .

[Undertone]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Undertone wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well your example says otherwise. Your squadmates are too infantile to make their own decisions.

It was a bad example, okay?  My point was that life can force you to do bad things at times, but that doesn't mean you should just allow the people you care about to do those same things voluntarily for personal reasons.

And besides, in the end, Garrus was the one that made the decision.  He had the gun.  Sidonis wasn't going anywhere.  All he had to do was wait for Shepard to move.  Meanwhile, Shep can't do anything apart from get in the way and beg him to change his mind.

Yeah but making mistakes and doing what you have to do even if it's wrong makes you a mature person. It allows you to see the contrast. Making mistakes is the only real freedom we have. No strife, no progression. Otherwise I agree with you. Actually if there was a third choice I would have said my opinion to Garrus and stand away and let him make that choice himself. Not convincing him my perspective was right - whether it was paragon or renegade.

As for the rest of you paragon talk-no-jutsu monks - I love it how anything different from your paragon naivitet is considered trolling. You're like a little crowd of angry children swarming on anything different from your pink paint.

You show either a lack of reading comprehension, or an unwillingness to read the entire thread. I'm going to assume it's the latter, and try to get you up to date.

Most paragons in this thread (or Paragades, or Renegons) aren't arguing that the paragon choice is correct - we're arguing that both choices are equally valid. It's only one or two fools who are arguing that they are unquestionably correct, and telling others how they should feel.

My argument is simple, and remains unaddressed: 

When I play as a Paragon, I kill if killing that person or thing is likely to cause the galaxy to be a little better, or a little safer. I kill in self-defense. Occasionally, I act as the Space Cops and kill criminals who cannot be captured, or whom there is no way to prosecute.

When I play as a Renegade, I kill if killing that person will benefit me, or the people I'm working for or with, or some cause I believe in.

In both these cases, killing all those mercs on Garrus's mission is fine. But can you see how, in the paragon point of view, killing the mercs is fine, but killing Sidonis deserves a second thought? I'm not saying that killing Sidonis is wrong, by paragon standards, it's just a lot more questionable. If, after I told Sidonis to walk away, Garrus had popped him anyway I would have understood. That he didn't do it made me admire him more.

As for letting someone make their own choices, well... if a friend is a bit drunk and about to get behind the wheel of a car, I will try to stop them. I'm not going to say "oh, well, if they kill someone while drunk driving they'll learn their lesson!" I agree that you've got to let people make their own mistakes sometimes, but when it's a matter of life or death, I'm going to at least try to reason with them, and maybe steal their keys if I can get away with it.

For me, stepping in front of that shot is like saying "Hey man, sit down for a while, drink a few glasses of water, hang out. You can go home in a couple of hours." I know a guy who regularly drives home when he's slightly tipsy, and so far he's been "lucky," but I always worry. And honestly, I'm probably more paranoid about it than I need to be - if I'm going to be driving I often don't drink at all. Since we don't have breathalizers at all the parties, some of the guys I yell at might be fine to go, and Garrus might be calm and reasonable enough to shoot Sidonis. But better safe than sorry.

(Clarification edit: I'm just describing my personal thought process in the games where I make the decision to stop him, not meaning to imply that not stopping him is inherently wrong. There is significant room for debate over whether "shooting while angry" is actually risky or not.)

I'll admit I got lazy after the 7 or 8 page and assumed that the argument is based on the most common way of reasoning most paragons have on this forum. My apologies for assuming.

Otherwise I've got no problems with your view or reasoning. I also think both options are valid. In general my problem never was that I think the paragon way is wrong. I'm not even a 100% renegade myself, things are not black or white, despite that I lean more to the renegade method and dealing with objectives.

My problem was always with the result that comes from those choices despite the reason for taking them - so far (without knowledge of how ME3 will be) all paragon choices turn out for the better, all renegade ones turn out for the worse. This is adressed however in a different thread so I'll not go off-topic here. I just thought I would pop in for the party usually it's always a bunch of paragons against a single renegade hehe.

Thanks by the way for clarifying the issue and your arguments clearly and consise.

Modifié par Undertone, 09 mai 2011 - 06:37 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

And thank you for not getting angry at me - looking back at my post I cringe a bit at how sarcastic I sound at the beginning.

I understand the urge to show your support for the minority opinion when there seems to be a dogpile going on, I do that myself quite often (look back at... well... basically any collector base argument on these boards). And these threads often become harder to process as they go on. I pretty much always start out by clearly stating "both choices are good" in posts, and as things go on I get worse and worse about appending that disclaimer. Still, there are actually a few Paragon players in this thread who say they still always (or almost always) let Garrus take the shot, which is fascniating and awesome to me.

I've often said that they need to make Renegade more tempting. A great example of how they managed to do it was Elnora in Samara's mission... a circumstance where letting someone go turns out to be the wrong decision. Another possibility would be something like this: you find a top secret prototype weapon that was stolen from the alliance. You can either keep it yourself, or return it to them. That choice would be very in character for Paragons and Renegades, and would also give a clear, tempting benefit to Renegades. Also, given the cash flow situation in ME2, it would be interesting if they offered Renegades more opportunity to directly profit from amoral actions: have looting in the plague zone give Renegade points, etc. Make it so that Renegades can buy all the upgrades midway through the game, while Paragons have to scrape all the side missions to come up with enough to upgrade everything.

It would have been interesting if Zaeed and Kasumi were only loyal if you completed their missions Renegade/Paragon respectively. I use them both as examples because they're DLC characters, so it feels less like you're losing out on a vital part of the game, and they can be more experimental. I sometimes wonder if Zaeed wasn't designed that way from the start, and the Paragon "out" for him was written in at the last minute.

Garrus is defined by his tendency to saunter vaguely downwards if not encouraged to think things through, but he's also defined by his trust in and respect for Shepard. Putting these two defining qualities in conflict with each other makes for great drama, so I'm glad they left it in.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 07:18 .

[Dean_the_Young]

DeadLetterBox wrote...

I've been pawing through this thread, and I've realized that Saphra and reactions to Saphra have dominated at least five pages (if not more). This is a person who discards logical debate for ad hominem attacks whenever the argument dies down. This person has a link to a post that claims it is impossible to win against the Reapers no matter what (Saphra wrote it.) This person is obviously either a philosophy major or desperately seeking attention, probably both. Certainly Saprha enjoys starting trouble. Seriously, play a Facebook game or something. Get a hobby.

Please stop feeding the agitator. I want to read about Garrus.

I find this post amusing for the irony.

+5!

[Splinter Cell 108]

I didn't allow Garrus to kill Sidonis since the first time I did it. But I only found out because someone told me he'd be loyal to you even if you didn't allow him to do it. I didn't allow him to do it because it was reminding me of Saren way too much. Allowing Garrus to do that would have probably made him just like Saren. Especially since they have one thing in common, Saren lost his brother and then he became ruthless. Garrus lost his team and can become ruthless as a result.

[Lunatic LK47]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

I didn't allow Garrus to kill Sidonis since the first time I did it. But I only found out because someone told me he'd be loyal to you even if you didn't allow him to do it. I didn't allow him to do it because it was reminding me of Saren way too much. Allowing Garrus to do that would have probably made him just like Saren. Especially since they have one thing in common, Saren lost his brother and then he became ruthless. Garrus lost his team and can become ruthless as a result.

Except Saren was a one-dimensional genocidal jack-ass. Garrus doesn't commit genocide.

[GuardianAngel470]

I always spare Sidonis now that I know I won't lose Garrus' loyalty.

Why? Because Garrus would have a Conscience, Garrus would look back at things I didn't see, actions I never heard about, good, honest, righteous things that Sidonis did that I know nothing about and probably never will and rethink his base decision of killing Sidonis.

Garrus would have the taint of murdering an unarmed civilian that he remembers as a friend weighing down his shoulders. I can't have that.

However, letting Garrus hear Sidonis' reasons then allowing him to kill him is even worse. Anger fades but the memory of taking that shot will always haunt Garrus.

Think about it: Would you feel more angry if a random stranger shot your best friend or if your spouse did? What Garrus feels is betrayed, which means at one time he trusted and loved Sidonis. Those memories will always be there but the anger at the betrayal will eventually fade away. How do you think Garrus, a character who is at his core a good person who believes in Justice and helping the helpless, would feel about that?

That's why I spare Sidonis. It has nothing to do with shooting an unarmed civilian (I let him shoot Harken), it has nothing to do with morals.

[GuardianAngel470]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

I didn't allow Garrus to kill Sidonis since the first time I did it. But I only found out because someone told me he'd be loyal to you even if you didn't allow him to do it. I didn't allow him to do it because it was reminding me of Saren way too much. Allowing Garrus to do that would have probably made him just like Saren. Especially since they have one thing in common, Saren lost his brother and then he became ruthless. Garrus lost his team and can become ruthless as a result.

Except Saren was a one-dimensional genocidal jack-ass. Garrus doesn't commit genocide.

How can you say Saren was one-dimensional (a physical impossibility: what you mean is two dimensional)? You start the game thinking he is doing it because he hates humans. Later you find out that the real reason is to save the Galaxy, including Humans. In Revelation, he's ruthless and tyranical but also cold and logical. His character is actually pretty deep.

Anyway, this whole thing is off topic.

[Seboist]

Saphra is right the Paragon path in this mission makes no sense. Shepard raises no objections to killing all those mercs and letting Garrus beat up Harkin but then she preaches mercy and forgiveness all of a sudden with Sidonis?