462 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Clonedzero wrote...

kill the first 2-3 in self defense then back off and leave?

Game didn't give you the option.  Wouldn't have worked with Cerberus, either, if I had the choice.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Saphra Deden: You really can't count the mooks. Videogame logic is broken in that regard.

Good writing can cover this up or even acknowledge it. Take the Renegade dialog in ME1 when you meet fixed.

"Too many people died here for you to start jerking me around!"

He's talking about the mooks he killed!

Since you are disinclined to direct any brain power at this I'll do it for you. All that is necessary for this to work is for Garrus to lie to Shepard. He doesn't tell Shepard at the start that he wants to kill Sidonis, just that he wants to find him and ask him why he did it. Then when he reveals his true intentions Shepard is shocked and talks him down (by standing in the way of his gun, yikes). At the same time Garrus should ask why it was okay to kill those mercs and Shepard can explain that it was unavoidable once they opened fire on them. He can go further and say that if he'd known from the start that Garrus was gonna try to kill Sidonis that he'd have never taken him to the Citadel in the first place.

Here is a thing I will never understand.

Why do some gamers hate subtext? Why does all character development have to be stated loudly, in monologue? Why must all decisions be explicitly explained to the camera?

By the time you get to Garrus's loyalty mission (one of the later ones you unlock, if I recall correctly), the "killing mercs to get to a thing" ship has already pretty well sailed. Shepard is a soldier, has killed many faceless mooks in his life, and will kill many more. It's his job, and he does it like a job. If this were a slightly different game, maybe we'd have a paragon shep who convinces mercs to surrender most of the time, but it's not that kind of story. Even paragon Shep's not that kind of guy. I think it's pretty well understood that we're going to have to kill people who shoot at us. Explaining that to Garrus like a kindergardener? My eyes would be rolling straight out of my head, there. Fortunately Bioware's writers are good enough to not do that.

As for your proposed setup, Garrus doesn't lie to Shepard because Garrus doesn't lie to Shepard. He trusts you and is honest toward you, regardless of your personal alignment. Having Garrus lie to Shepard would completely destroy his character arc and development.

The idea behind stopping Garrus from killing Sidonis isn't that killing is wrong. It's that this particular killing is taking Garrus down a bad, rough road, a road that leads straight back to dying alone in some terrible slum apartment after a three-day standoff.

"You know who has a lot of feelings? Blokes what bludgeon their wives to death with a golf trophy. Professionals have standards." When I'm killing those mercs, it's merely professional. Letting rage take you over, and turn you into an avatar of murderous revenge? Not healthy.

It's all in the goddamn subtext. But I keep forgetting: you guys HATE that.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 mai 2011 - 11:00 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I've also never see him cover himself in butter and get a sun-tan on the roof. I guess he might be though.

If you can just invent anything you want to explain the story then there isn't much I can argue with you about since you'll just invent a justification. It says a lot about how bad the writing is though if you have invent circumstances to explain Shepard's actions.

How can I explain Shepard's actions? It's up to the individual player.

[Someone With Mass]

Development behind the camera requires actual thinking and imagination on the player's part, though.

[lolwut666]

Clonedzero wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Clonedzero

They were armed and hostile.

Shepard and co. did *not* go there to kill the Blue Suns. They wanted to get the information about Sidonis out of Harkin.

Harkin sics the Blues Suns on Shepard and co.

What did you expect them to do?

kill the first 2-3 in self defense then back off and leave?

And what about the information?

So you expect Shepard and co. to just stop doing something because someone pulled a gun in them?

How about saving the galaxy?

"I wanna stop Saren! Wait, what? Geth in the way? Well, it seems like all I can do is kill these few geth in self-defense and then bail out, because I don't want to be accused of murdering who else gets in my way."

Nice troll logic.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

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.

My point is that the game doesn't give you enough choice sometimes.  If I had the option to completely stealth it and just kill the REALLY bad guys, I would.  If I didn't have to work with Cerberus, I wouldn't.  If I could have both spared the hostages and captured Balak, I would have.  The devs don't think of everything, and sometimes they deserved to be slapped for it, but you can't blame the player.

[lolwut666]

Saphra Deden wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...


If Harkin had given Shepard and co. the information, nobody would have died. He ran away and let his mooks fight for him.

Yeah, shame on him. I mean don't get me wrong, he belongs behind bars (or just dead). However I suppose I should have known you'd be willing to gun down dozens of people to get that non-mission critical information.

Dozens of *armed hostiles* who were trying to *stop me* from getting that info in the first place.

[Clonedzero]

lolwut666 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Clonedzero

They were armed and hostile.

Shepard and co. did *not* go there to kill the Blue Suns. They wanted to get the information about Sidonis out of Harkin.

Harkin sics the Blues Suns on Shepard and co.

What did you expect them to do?

kill the first 2-3 in self defense then back off and leave?

And what about the information?

So you expect Shepard and co. to just stop doing something because someone pulled a gun in them?

How about saving the galaxy?

"I wanna stop Saren! Wait, what? Geth in the way? Well, it seems like all I can do is kill these few geth in self-defense and then bail out, because I don't want to be accused of murdering who else gets in my way."

Nice troll logic.

yeah, instead of maturely arguing your point, just continue to call everyone who disagrees with you a troll. it makes you look GREAT!

since in your paragon way of thinking, fighting through waves of dudes to get info at a guy you wanted to talk garrus out of killing anyways makes no sense? in context with the choice you planned to make wouldnt it have made more sense to kill those guys in self defense and stop garrus and go "hey man, its not worth it, let it go" or something?

the paragon way of doing the mission is poorly written while the renegade one is done well. thats what im saying.

but yeah, go ahead and call me a troll again champ. making yourself out ot be real mature there.

[termokanden]

I think Dean has already explained what annoys me about the story in this mission. I played through ME1 and then ME2 recently, as a paragon. I do think the loyalty mission is something of a repetition of what happened in ME1, and it's disappointing that we can't seem to get beyond that.

At the same time, I feel genuinely bad about letting Sidonis live. In real life, I'm very much against this type of vigilante justice, but in the game I feel like I'm more or less betraying Garrus at this point.

[lolwut666]

@Saphra Deden

wat

Explain.

[lolwut666]

Clonedzero wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Clonedzero

They were armed and hostile.

Shepard and co. did *not* go there to kill the Blue Suns. They wanted to get the information about Sidonis out of Harkin.

Harkin sics the Blues Suns on Shepard and co.

What did you expect them to do?

kill the first 2-3 in self defense then back off and leave?

And what about the information?

So you expect Shepard and co. to just stop doing something because someone pulled a gun in them?

How about saving the galaxy?

"I wanna stop Saren! Wait, what? Geth in the way? Well, it seems like all I can do is kill these few geth in self-defense and then bail out, because I don't want to be accused of murdering who else gets in my way."

Nice troll logic.

yeah, instead of maturely arguing your point, just continue to call everyone who disagrees with you a troll. it makes you look GREAT!

since in your paragon way of thinking, fighting through waves of dudes to get info at a guy you wanted to talk garrus out of killing anyways makes no sense? in context with the choice you planned to make wouldnt it have made more sense to kill those guys in self defense and stop garrus and go "hey man, its not worth it, let it go" or something?

the paragon way of doing the mission is poorly written while the renegade one is done well. thats what im saying.

but yeah, go ahead and call me a troll again champ. making yourself out ot be real mature there.

You're meta-gaming.

Shepard had NO REASON to know weather Sidonis was worth sparing until he met him; and to meet him he needed the information.

Modifié par lolwut666, 06 mai 2011 - 11:06 .

[JaerWolfe]

Clonedzero wrote...

snip

and i dont think its cowardly at all. its just efficient. garrus is an expert marksman, why not take advantage of that and draw him into a perfect spot for a clean shot? why risk letting him get away in some other method of murder?

Thank you for the summary.
Yes, Garrus is an expert marksman and if I thought that Sidonis was in any way a threat to Garrus or any other bystander...think Tela Vasir (sp?) in LotSB...I would have no problem with him OSOKing him. Instead I see Sidonis as a pathetic mook nowhere near Garrus' supposed skill level who in hand to hand combat, Garrus could have wiped the floor with and therefore there was no need for a bullet to the back. Sidonis wasn't out to hurt anyone else again. He was going to be running for the rest of his life whether Garrus was actually there or not.
Garrus could have acheived the same results...Sidonis dead...without traumatizing anyone else. When it comes to running the risk of letting Sidonis get away and leaving the innocents still innocent, I side with letting Sidonis escape to be dealt with another day.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Stop being a fangirl.

Stop being a dick.

[Chuvvy]

Clonedzero wrote...

you let sidonis live? whats wrong with you?!

next time. let garrus take the damn shot!

Best option, let Sidonis mention the sleepless nights. Let Garrus take the shot. "No more sleepless nights, for either of us Sidonis."

[Chuvvy]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Stop being a fangirl.

Stop being a dick.

Who says conversation is dead?

[lolwut666]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Stop being a dick.

A dick is the best thing in the world to be because it means I get to screw the ****** and the ****s.

As if that wasn't obvious enough...

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Yes, it is. Throw "revenge" in there. Apparently killing Sidonis will make Garrus a worse person but killing dozens of people to learn that won't. You are wilfully ignoring the contradictions here.

I have never heard anyone state that killing Sidonis makes Garrus a worse person. Not Shepard, not Garrus. No-one. 

Also, the killing for revenge has to stop somewhere.

[RunicDragons]

Wow... The tension was... Wow... It felt great! After I chose not to kill Sidonis I felt pretty good and I was all shaking and I got sweaty hands, and I thought to myself that... This... was... epic! Garrus is simply my favorite squad mate ever in a video game!

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
A dick is the best thing in the world to be because it means I get to screw the ****** and the ****s.

You're so cool when you talk dirty...

[Clonedzero]

lolwut666 wrote...

You're meta-gaming.

Shepard had NO REASON to know weather Sidonis was worth sparing until he met him; and to meet him he needed the information.

no im not. what crazy fact about sidonis jumps out that makes him suddenly worth killing when you assume shepard is cool with it before talking to him? that he feels bad? really? thats a pretty dumb reason.

"sorry i got all your friends killed, but i feel bad about it, so i can go now right?"

the fact you dont even try to get him arrsted , you dont grab him and deliver him to baily or anything. you just let the guy walk. WHAT? really?

and dont say theres no legal reason for you to do that, because he turns himself in later, so obviously theres some way it could legally work in the citidel. so who's meta gaming now?

[Eradyn]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Here is a thing I will never understand.

Why do some gamers hate subtext? Why does all character development have to be stated loudly, in monologue? Why must all decisions be explicitly explained to the camera?

By the time you get to Garrus's loyalty mission (one of the later ones you unlock, if I recall correctly), the "killing mercs to get to a thing" ship has already pretty well sailed. Shepard is a soldier, has killed many faceless mooks in his life, and will kill many more. It's his job, and he does it like a job. If this were a slightly different game, maybe we'd have a paragon shep who convinces mercs to surrender most of the time, but it's not that kind of story. Even paragon Shep's not that kind of guy. I think it's pretty well understood that we're going to have to kill people who shoot at us. Explaining that to Garrus like a kindergardener? My eyes would be rolling straight out of my head, there. Fortunately Bioware's writers are good enough to not do that.

As for your proposed setup, Garrus doesn't lie to Shepard because Garrus doesn't lie to Shepard. He trusts you and is honest toward you, regardless of your personal alignment. Having Garrus lie to Shepard would completely destroy his character arc and development.

The idea behind stopping Garrus from killing Sidonis isn't that killing is wrong. It's that this particular killing is taking Garrus down a bad, rough road, a road that leads straight back to dying alone in some terrible slum apartment after a three-day standoff.

"You know who has a lot of feelings? Blokes what bludgeon their wives to death with a golf trophy. Professionals have standards." When I'm killing those mercs, it's merely professional. Letting rage take you over, and turn you into an avatar of murderous revenge? Not healthy.

It's all in the goddamn subtext. But I keep forgetting: you guys HATE that.

I really, really wish I could frame this somewhere.  I know you know your stuff and it's a damned shame this was wasted on a mere troll because you've hit the nail on the head.