462 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

That's something impulsive. What Garrus wanted was not an impulsive decision. It was something he thought long and hard about and planned. First degree, in other words.  Not what I'd call a crime of passion.

But it was a destructive one, fueled by his rage and loathing of a certain spineless coward.  Pre-meditated or not, the motivation and goal are the same--someone hurt (the people close to) you bad, and you want to hurt them back.  Brooding on it only gives it time to fester and allows you to come up with a more tactical approach.

And I thought long and hard about punching a few jerkwads in the face, trust me.

[RunicDragons]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

So...a friend stopping you from commiting GBH is not betraying you, but one who stops you from committing Murder is?  Are you serious?

If this friend went to the trouble of helping me raid a mafia complex, gunning down several dozen people in the process, and then at the last minute started preaching to me about the wrongness of revenge? Yeah, they'd be betraying me.

Dear Saph.. After 6 pages of fu*king troll.. Could you please accept that you have lost...?? Thank you! 

[Clonedzero]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Clonedzero

lolwut666 wrote...

@Clonedzero

The point is that Sidonis did what he did because he is a coward. It was not for personal gain.

More importantly, Shepard DOES question Garrus several times about killing Sidonis (even before the mission starts, when you talk with Garrus to activate the mission), and Garrus will have none of that.

It's only when Garrus is face-to-face (so to speak) with Sidonis that Shepard has a *real* shot at convincing him. If you actually got off your high horse and tried to understand what happened, you'd know that Shepard did *not* forbid Garrus to kill Sidonis. The dialog is more or less like this:

Shepard: "You gotta let it go, Garrus. He's already paying for his crime."

Garrus: "He hasn't paid enough. He still has his life."

Sidonis: "Tell Garrus... I guess there's nothing I can do to make it right."

Garrus: "Let him go..."

Garrus saw with his own eyes that Sidonis regretted what he did, and that's why he chose not to pull the trigger.

And you meta-gamed when you said that Shepard should have predicted what the Sidonis/Garrus interaction would've been like, and that we should've arrested Sidonis because he turns himself in later.

First of all, Sidonis committed his crime outside of C-Sec jurisdiction, so arresting him is not an option.

Second, stop with this stupid argument of "LOL YOU KILLED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE TO GET TO HARKIN", because it doesn't hold water. They were armed and hostile. IT COULD NOT BE HELPED.

Why don't you answer this rather than trolling?

because i already said so.

it being all at last minute is a bit dumb and bad writing. thats been my point the entire time. up until the very end of the mission with the whole shooting him or not bit your shepard has been going along with tracking down a guy and revenge murdering him.

dont tell me those couple of times of "you sure you wanna kill him?" count. because thats weak at best.

my entire point this whole time has been that the paragon path should have felt like the paragon path the whole time rather than being super renegade and then at the VERY LAST INSTANT not pulling the trigger.

because going along with it till the very end doesnt really have the whole "im trying to convince him not to do it, or teach him a lesson" thing. its more completely enabling him and then him listening to you talk to someoen else and deciding not to pull the trigger.

and please. you're being extremely childish with the "trolling " thing, sure i took your bait and bit back but come on dude, its really tiresome having someone call you a troll for simply disagreeing with you. it makes you look REALLY bad and makes me lose all respect for you. it also made me stop caring about this because its no longer fun to discuss and the only reason im responding is because of your harassing personal message egging me on.

but to make it more clear.

paragon version of the mission is exactly the same as renegade except for the very end, it doesnt flow and doesnt feel very "paragony" at all.

renegade version fo the mission flows and works alot better. makes sense in context of whats going on the entire time, so i think its easily the better way to do the mission.

personally i would have preffered if the mission split off early on sorta like zaeed's mission.

but please. call me a troll again for having a different opinion. please. makes these boards really welcoming.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
That's something impulsive. What Garrus wanted was not an impulsive decision. It was something he thought long and hard about and planned. First degree, in other words.  Not what I'd call a crime of passion.

That's funny. Garrus going "ShepardIhavealeadonSidonisweneedtogototheCitadelnow" and was ready to hurt people so quick and reckless to get to Sidonis seemed rather impulsive to me.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 07 mai 2011 - 12:42 .

[Seboist]

mrsph wrote...

Garrus is impulsive.

It is the main reason he gets into so much trouble. He never thinks ahead.

He's like Zaeed!

[Dave666]

Seboist wrote...

mrsph wrote...

Garrus is impulsive.

It is the main reason he gets into so much trouble. He never thinks ahead.

He's like Zaeed!

He was the only one who came out alive...

Sorry!!! *looks shamefacedly away*

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Doesn't look that way to me. I gave him a long time to think about it.

You simply can't get the fact that there's a major difference between gameplay and story into your very thick skull, can you?

In fact, what the **** am I even arguing about? You'll never understand it, so I won't even bother explaining it.

[Clonedzero]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...
Doesn't look that way to me. I gave him a long time to think about it.

You simply can't get the fact that there's a major difference between gameplay and story into your very thick skull, can you?

In fact, what the **** am I even arguing about? You'll never understand it, so I won't even bother explaining it.

well once you go down that road, does shepard really fight all those geth? do any of the fights have any significance?

which ones are "real"? and which ones are simply there to pad out the gameplay?

the only time i can say the gameplay/story seperation is ok is when its absolutely needed for gameplay purposes . example: thermal clips on jacobs loyalty mission. aside from that, its best to assume that all gameplay that happens is actually happening in the story.

because if you dont it gets really murky with whats really happening and whats just there for gameplay reasons. does shepard really blow up a gunship on samaras recruitment mission, or is that just there as a mini-boss? you gotta say it happens or none of it does. its not a "i accept what works for my argument" thing.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

If this friend went to the trouble of helping me raid a mafia complex, gunning down several dozen people in the process, and then at the last minute started preaching to me about the wrongness of revenge? Yeah, they'd be betraying me.

"This is wrong."

"Shut up, I've made my mind."

"Listen, there may be more to this than--**** PEOPLE ARE SHOOTING AT US!"

*blam blam blam*

"Jesus.  I can't believe that just--Where the hell are you going?!"

"Imma beat people up for information!"

"Chrissakes, man!  You're insane!  Oh, no no no, do NOT shoot him!"

*the shooting is prevented*

"Argh, fine, whatever.  I got what I needed.  Let's go."

*they depart*

"I still don't think you should be doing this."

"You're not talking me out of this one, okay?"

"This isn't like you."

"Just stop lecturing me and go get that guy over there to come out in the open.  I need a clear shot."

"I...  Whatever.  Fine.  You aren't listening to reason.  Just so you know, I am never forgiving you--or myself--for this."

*lures guy out into open*

"That's it.  Just a little more..."

*steps in the way of shot*

"What the f*ck?!"

"Listen, I can't let you do this.  It's wrong."

"I told you I don't care what you think!"

"Please, stop this.  He doesn't deserve it."

"Would you fu--"

"Please!"

*moment of realization*

"Okay.  This isn't...  Let him go."

*later*

"Hey.  About what happened back there..."

"I don't want to talk about it."

"I know, but I need to know you're okay."

"It's just...  It's hard.  The more I thought about it, the more I realized I couldn't take the shot.  And all along I thought that..."

"Things like this get confusing when they're personal, don't they?"

"Ha!  No sh*t.  Ugh, let's get out of here.  Oh, and Shepard?"

"Yeah?"

"Thanks."

[lolwut666]

@Clonedzero

"harassing personal message egging me on"

I sent you one private message in a completely neutral tone and you say that to me? And it was only because you chose to ignore my reply to your post and instead replied to ANOTHER post of mine in a tremendously condescending manner, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

So, as you asked me to, and also in spite of that, I do call you a troll again, because you are trying to smear me.

And I'm also going to ignore you, because I have no time to waste with an ignorant, think-headed troll the likes of you.

Modifié par lolwut666, 07 mai 2011 - 01:01 .

[Someone With Mass]

Clonedzero wrote...
well once you go down that road, does shepard really fight all those geth? do any of the fights have any significance? 

which ones are "real"? and which ones are simply there to pad out the gameplay?

the only time i can say the gameplay/story seperation is ok is when its absolutely needed for gameplay purposes . example: thermal clips on jacobs loyalty mission. aside from that, its best to assume that all gameplay that happens is actually happening in the story.

because if you dont it gets really murky with whats really happening and whats just there for gameplay reasons. does shepard really blow up a gunship on samaras recruitment mission, or is that just there as a mini-boss? you gotta say it happens or none of it does. its not a "i accept what works for my argument" thing.

I guess it's up to the game to tell what's significant and what's not. The game speaks of Shepard's battles  with the geth, so they are somewhat important.

It's just that some people are taking the gameplay padding into their argument when everyone else is talking about it from a story standpoint, which is very, very ****ing stupid for several reasons.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 07 mai 2011 - 01:06 .

[Clonedzero]

well i guess im an ignorant, thick-headed troll for thinking the renegade version of the mission flows and makes more sense.

to me personally the paragon version feels very wishy-washy with shepard making halfassed comments trying to get garrus to reconsider but nothing having any real impact in any way at all. then garrus standing down at the end. its really anti-climatic and feels like they tacked on a different ending to the msision for paragons. personally i would have preferred the paragon version to play out in a different way. perhaps instead of going after sidonis to kill him you convince garrus to track down sidonis and get info from him to go after the guys who turned sidonis or something. i dunno.

but i guess feeling the renegade version flows better makes me an ignorant troll. i apologize for having a different opinion.

[Homebound]

all the loyalty missions except for jacobs and mordin r easy peezy lemonsqueezy. storywise for garrus, it didnt really impact me. maybe i just need better taste, i dunno.

[Mykel54]

I understand the point of Saphra Deden, it is true that the quest could have be written in a better way, but even so i think it is doable for a paragon shepard as it is. A paragon shepard would want to help garrus deal with his problems, throught the mission you can see shepard trying to calm garrus down (asking if he really wants to kill sidonis -> making garrus doubt himself, making garrus not pay his frustation with harkin or with the volus) and ultimately trying to know the truth. Garrus wants to kill Sidonis, but he also wants to know why Sidonis betrayed him, even if it is not his top priority at the moment (he is revenge driven). Shepard is trying to give Garrus the chance to find out the whole story before killing Sidonis. It is at this time when garrus is convinced that sidonis is already suffering (in fact there is a moment where it is made evident that both sidonis and garrus are losing sleep over what happened), garruse empathises with him and let sidonis go.

I don´t see the problem with this way of handling the quest, perhaps paragon shepard should have started questioning garrus intentions earlier, but really if you pay attention to the dialogue, garrus even say one time "i don´t need you to agree with me, just help me, i´ll press the trigger and deal with the consequences".

[Clonedzero]

storywise i think garrus works ALOT better going renegade. he's got a good counterbalance with Jack in that aspect.

Garrus is a good person with a ruthless monster inside him.
Jack is a murderous sociopath with an innocent little girl inside her.

its more interesting to me to go that way with them since they're so opposite of each other.

[LadyJaneGrey]

mrsph wrote...

If anything, the major fault with Garrus' loyalty mission is that it was an improved rehash of his personal mission in Mass Effect. Still, I enjoyed it.

Nah, the major fault of the whole mission is Harkin can't be killed.  <_<

[PrinceLionheart]

Honestly, I did not care much for his loyalty mission. Garrus is my favorite Squadmate from both games, but ME2 was a total regression for his character. Like Tali, it felt like Garrus was totally dependent on Shepard's whims and got way to swept up in his vedetta against Sidonis, especially since it goes against the fact that you had the ability to "Paragonize" Garrus in the first game.

[Niddy']

I thought the loyalty mission was stupid. How did he NOT see Garrus right behind me with a rifle? WHY when seeing Garrus did he go, "Oh that guy is pointing a gun at me, i'll just walk away."


Poorly done if you ask me.

[PsychoWARD23]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Who cares what is best for Sidonis? It's about what Garrus wants. Let him kill the bastard. You Paragon meddlers always have to but in and insist you know what's best for everyone. It's arrogance, at its core.

As for the mission itself, it's "meh". For a Paragon it makes no sense to do the mission in the first place. It's poorly written in that regard.

Plus once again we see that our "important decisions with consequences" have no real consequences. Whether you betray Garrus or not he's still loyal.

My canon's Paragon, but he'll help out a friend. It's not that different from Saleon (sp?) really.

[PsychoWARD23]

Niddy' wrote...

I thought the loyalty mission was stupid. How did he NOT see Garrus right behind me with a rifle? WHY when seeing Garrus did he go, "Oh that guy is pointing a gun at me, i'll just walk away."


Poorly done if you ask me.

I dunno, Garrus seemed pretty well hidden. Not everyone checks the rafters or wherever he was. And for him just walking away, it's pretty simple; shock, not knowing what to do etc.