462 réponses à ce sujet

[eye basher]

i consider the garrus loyalty mission and talis loyalty mission to be the tower of magic mission in DAO something i don't enjoy doing but have to because it's an obligation if you want to have evryone alive at the end.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Garrus was angry. Being angry caused him to make choices that put him in a situation where he would have died if Shepard had not saved him.

There is never any indication of this. Garrus was lured away, but Sidonis was gone. He returned to his hideout to find most of his men dead and the survivors under fire. Garrus, naturally, stayed to try and keep his men alive but once they died he had no way out. It had nothing to do with being reckless or angry on his part beyond his initial decision to go to Omega and work as a vigilante in the first place.

I thought that the fact that the apartment didn't still contain the bodies of his murdered men indicated that there was some period of time or location change between dicovering his men murdered and getting stuck in that place. In every other case where we've sumbled on a place where bad things just happened and people are still in the place where the bad things happened, there have been bodies: Mordin's mission, etc. If Garrus just got blindsided, I would have taken his situation differently.

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Shepard wants to help him not make similar decisions in the future...

Apparently by indulging in his desires until the last possible minute and then hollowly lecturing him about right and wrong while they both scrub blood out of their armor.

I don't remember the exact conversation, and I don't have time to look it up now - getting ready to start on a weekend-long project. But it's not about blood. Blood isn't evil.

I just saw Thor. Now, Thor is a great superhero. He also comes from a culture where you can just kill your enemies in honorable battle. That is the point of them. That doesn't make Thor any less of a hero than, say, Spiderman or cap.

And I can totally see Thor lecturing someone on morality while sponging the blood of honorable battle off of his breastplate. Because for heroes like Thor, killing enemies in battle, any kind of battle, isn't immoral, though other kinds of killing may be. Same thing for Wonder Woman... she might solve murders, but when she has to snap a dude's neck to keep him from mind-controlling Superman, she does it. 

Basically, there is a different variety of morals here. Battle can be noble. Killing can be fine in some circumstances, and foolish in others. If Paragons straight out thought all killing was always bad, they wouldn't be able to work within the framework of Mass Effect. So they have to be more like Thor than like Superman, but they don't have to be Dr. Doom.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 07 mai 2011 - 03:16 .

[Someone With Mass]

A bunch of Blue Suns dying isn't really a bad thing in either Garrus', Zaeed's or Shepard's eyes. Because they're all scum. And for a group that aimlessly mowed down a lot of people and burned their bodies in the open in the streets, took over a refinery (probably more than one), raided cargo ships and trying to enforce their rules on the citizens of Omega, don't expect me to feel sorry for them when they're getting what's coming to them.

[Dean_the_Young]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I thought that the fact that the apartment didn't still contain the bodies of his murdered men indicated that there was some period of time or location change between dicovering his men murdered and getting stuck in that place.

You see? You have no right to claim anyone missed any subtext when you can't pay attention to the plot and the surroundings. The bodies of Garrus' team-mates indeed present. Look for them next time. It's not a big place and they are in plain sight.

Given that I've never noticed them either, possibly on the basis of confusing them for some of the mercs present, I'm afraid I'm obliged to step in an put myself in CGGirl's slot as well.

Am I an ignoramous? Possibly not: it's a relatively minor mistake, and while it may undermine her argument today, it's hardly some hostile conspiracy on her part. While your ego may have been wounded by an unjust accusation, your own hostility is doing your position no favors, Saphra.

It's lousy writing and lousy reasoning to gun down 30 people and then turn around and say that killing for revenge is wrong. You know why? It's because killing to teach a morals lesson to a friend is also wrong.

I would go with 'it's a video game and they don't want to have two no-fight loyalty missions' myself.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Besides, "What Measure is a Mook?"

They exist to be slaughtered.  It's in the job description.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

I actually like Garrus' LM, but more from a gameplay sense. It's one of the more challenging LMs and the level is probably one of, if not the best sniping ranges in the game.

[Dean_the_Young]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CGG doesn't need you to defend her. She can take it as well as she can dish out.

Funny as it is, I have some measure of respect and affection for you both, and am rather sad to (a) see you both so opposed, and ( see either of you slipping to arguing with emotion of this sort.

Don't think of it as defending her. Think of it as sentimentality on my part towards both of you.

I think the overabundance of shooting missions is a bad thing. However this needn't be a non-combat mission. As I explained even just a few changes to script would have fixed it.

Possible, but to date I've been less than impressed with Mass Effect's non-combat missions. Sticking to what they're better at isn't horrible in any sense, even if it is trite for the genre.

[Destroy Raiden_]

The bodies in Garrus's hide out are in the bedroom area once you run up those stairs turn left and go into the room you'll not only find things to raid you'll also find a few men dead. I also didn't see them for many playthroughs until I was on a larger screen and noticed them. It took me a second playthorugh to find one body of Kensen's team in Arrival but he was the only one the way she said it I should've found more. Most people are uses to seeing dead npcs on the floor and ignoring them so missing Garrus's friend's bodies isn't major to most people they're just another batch of dead npcs on the ground.

I saw a few pages up a debate raging over weather it was first or second degree murder in the event of Sidonis on Garrus's part. For him it's first sense he shows intent by telling shep when I find the guy I'm killing him, he shows foresight he brought the gun to kill him with choose the spot to set up brought along a decoy, he has means shep giving him a ride and his gun, he has motive Sidonis killed his squad. He was not insane he shows he understood through conversations with shep that he knows what he is doing, he knew it was wrong, and he still wanted to do it anyway.

Now Garrus could also be charged with second degree aka unplanned murder with the men in the warehouse these men on orders from Harkin came armed they had an intent to kill anyway but Garrus didn't plan to kil these men depending on how it is argued it will come up second degree or murder in self defense sense he went there only seeking to harm Harkin.

Harkin lands him assult with a deadly weapon and attempted murder sense he shot Harkin in the leg if no help would've arrived the man would be dead. He beat Harkin so aka assult. You could even claim cohersion sense he forced Harkin to call up Sidonis which the fact he made Harkin call still leads back into his foresight he went to Harkin actively seeking to get the final info on where to find Sidonis. Though I can see this also as leading into second degree murder sense he had no clue before meeting Harkin of where Sidonis was.

Now based off of this small incident with Harkin calling Sidonis and him adding one more person into the whole accessory to murder addition. A lawyer could argue the whole murder of Sidonis was second degree if you take out the comments on board the ship with him saying to shep he was going to kill the man and during the car ride where shep is pointing out how wrong Garrus is.

Shep is an accessory to murder for Sidonis he provided both the transportation to and from the scene, he went with Garrus who openly stated he was going to kill the man so shep can't claim he really didn't know Garrus was going to kill him, he also is accessory after the fact he helped by letting Garrus flee, meeting him after the death, and of course transport and not informing authorities when he got to ship, also sheps spector status could play a role sense he could always waive that and say spector business look no further if he did that it would be obstruction of justice.

Garrus also gets evading arrest sense he fled the scene. I'm sure they also have laws on discharging weapons while on the citadel by non csec personnel.

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 07 mai 2011 - 04:01 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Funny as it is, I have some measure of respect and affection for you both, and am rather sad to (a) see you both so opposed, and ( see either of you slipping to arguing with emotion of this sort.

Dean, this post made me love you.

In a completely non-creepy, totally respectful admiration sort of way.

[Dean_the_Young]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Funny as it is, I have some measure of respect and affection for you both, and am rather sad to (a) see you both so opposed, and ( see either of you slipping to arguing with emotion of this sort.

Dean, this post made me love you.

In a completely non-creepy, totally respectful admiration sort of way.

Feel free to blame it on the beer, and feel freer to send me more if you want it more often.

[AdmiralCheez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Feel free to blame it on the beer, and feel freer to send me more if you want it more often.

Drunk Dean for Great Justice.  Praise the Lord!

[Dean_the_Young]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Feel free to blame it on the beer, and feel freer to send me more if you want it more often.

Drunk Dean for Great Justice.  Praise the Lord!

Some of my best posts have been made while drunk. Like Zulushanda, the Last Prothean/Love Interest. Or the Cerberus baby-raised Alien commandos, which I still deem nightmare fuel.

I also wrote most of that AU ME2 Cerberus writeup after a beer or few.

[Dean_the_Young]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Don't think of it as defending her. Think of it as sentimentality on my part towards both of you.

Well I don't like the company you keep, human. Well, except for me, of-course.

Frankly, my dear, you don't have the parts to keep me entertained.

[/sexual innuendo]
[/blatant course humor]

I get along well with many people of many backgrounds and personalities. I don't necessarily agree with all of them in all the same ways. Variety is a spice of life.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I don't remember the exact conversation, and I don't have time to look it up now - getting ready to start on a weekend-long project. But it's not about blood. Blood isn't evil.

Sure, and battle can be noble. I never said otherwise. However butchering your way through a crowd just so you can lecture your friend not to kill the man who betrayed him and murdered his teammates, is hypocritical. Suddenly right and wrong is important when a life that matters to Garrus is in question, but when those mercs in your sights? You didn't even hesitate.

Also, as I've said repeatedly, Garrus made it clear what he had planned long before you started the quest. You knew he wanted to kill a man and you took him there to do it anyway. In the process a lot of people died, people who might not have died otherwise.

It's lousy writing and lousy reasoning to gun down 30 people and then turn around and say that killing for revenge is wrong. You know why? It's because killing to teach a morals lesson to a friend is also wrong.

Garrus had a plan to calmly and rationally kill a bad man who he had reason to believe would continue to be dangerous. I'm fine with that.

Then as we went on, I learned two things 1. He is not going to be able to be calm and rational about this and 2. that man isn't likely to continue to be dangerous.

All these mercs we killed were dangerous and would continue to be so. And I think that killing dangerous mercs who will continue to be dangerous is never wrong, regardless of context. If I killed those guys because they were shooting at me on my way to my knitting class, not wrong. If I kill dangerous mercs who jump me on the way to pick up my dry cleaning, not wrong. If I kill dangeous mercs on my way to talk to a guy, not wrong. If I kill dangerous mercs on my way to kill dangerous mercs, not wrong.

"Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes execute dangerous people. Either way helps."

You just seem to think that killing dangerous mercs is wrong. I disagree.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 07 mai 2011 - 05:23 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Garrus had a plan to calmly and rationally kill a bad man who he had reason to believe would continue to be dangerous. I'm fine with that.

Then as we went on, I learned two things 1. He is not going to be able to be calm and rational about this and 2. that man isn't likely to continue to be dangerous.

Garrus never said anything about Sidonis being dangerous. From the very begining when you first brought him on board it was about vengdeance for his murdered squad.

Those mercs were dangerous to you because you attacked them. What about their legal rights? Even if Shepard is a Spectre using that as a cover to go in and shoot up the place seems like a selfish cover to me. Further proof of how undesirable Spectres are in their current form.

Sidonis probably had more blood on his hands than those mercs did and there is at no point any indication Sidonis won't have more blood on his hands in the future. He was, after all, a dangerous vigilante who went into the Terminus to murder people. Garrus and his squad were hardly good guys.

You just seem to think that killing dangerous mercs is wrong. I disagree.

It's not wrong, but slaughtering mercs and then arguing it is wrong to kill a traitor who has already helped murder a dozen people is at least hypocritical.

I considered Sidonis dangerous because he's a traitor, and might betray people in the future, gettind a squad like Garrus's killed again. By the end of the mission, I don't think that's likely. But even then, I would have let Garrus kill him if he hadn't gotten angry and reckless about it. If he hadn't shown that his feelings about Sidonis were preventing him from behaving rationally.

Those mercs will attack you whether or not you attack them. Go into that mission and just walk around without firing your gun, put your squad on passive - nope, they'll still fire on you. If some random civilian had wandered into that warehouse, they would probably have ventilated her too.

We've been through this before: I don't think being a paragon has anything to do with legal rights, or believing killing is wrong. It's all about not being racist, helping your friends make good decisions, and occasionally giving someone the benefit of the doubt, if you feel you have reason. That's all. While you sometimes err on the side of giving people a chance to surrender rather than killing them, I don't think that's a gameplay mechanic that can be incorporated into every situation in the entire game.

Yes, I wish the game gave me the ability to walk into every room of mercs and say "Hi, I'm Commander Shepard. Maybe you've heard of me. Anyone who lies face down right now and throws their gun away will be allowed to leave. Any takers? No? All right then." But that would get repetitive after a while, and also it couldn't work very often at all, or it would ruin the game. So it's not an option. I'm cool with that. Gameplay reasons. Still, if any of those mercs said "Oh crap, this guy is totally killing all of us, maybe I'll just surrender!" I would probably have let them go.

"Anyone who fights us is either stupid or on Saren's payroll. Killing the latter is business. Killing the former is a favor to the universe"

Again... the reason you talk Garrus down isn't because killing is wrong, or even because killing for revenge is wrong. It's because going insane with rage is bad, and it seems like Garrus is headed in that direction.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 07 mai 2011 - 06:23 .

[CroGamer002]

Also how is this unpopular opinion?

[Labrev]

Not sure what to feel about this one, tbh. Yeah, it's not like Sidonis is a fugitive or anything, but he violated his trust and is responsible for the deaths of that whole squad and damn near Garrus's own as well.

I talk him down because, after hearing him, it's clear that he knows he made a mistake. And we all do. But I can't really blame Garrus for acting the way he did. Those were Garrus' people, if it's anyone's right to decide what Sidonis' punishment should be, it's him.

[soft black stars]

Saphra Deden wrote...
However butchering your way through a crowd just so you can lecture your friend not to kill the man who betrayed him and murdered his teammates, is hypocritical.

You can be completely pragmatic about this, though. Shepard wants Garrus to be in peak condition for the mission, so off they go to do this yet another quest where they kill people. On the way, Shepard comes to see how strongly this affects Garrus. Even if you want to disregard the "You sure you want to do this?" dialogues, you can't very well ignore the look of stark surprise on Shep's face when Garrus brings his boot down on Harkin's neck and soon after wants to shoot him. It's not a dark side / light side type of thing either, it's just that with Garrus so heavily troubled, killing a guy won't help him get over the issue. It has to be investigated to a greater depth and only sane way to do that is to talk with the other party. Hence, Shep will want to talk to Sidonis, during which Garrus has time to reflect on it all and make his own decision. What makes it a Paragon choice is that as a good friend, Shepard wants to help Garrus heal, but that point has been argued by others in this thread many times already.

Shortly put, not only Garrus, but also Shepard can change his/her mind about how to approach this thing during the quest.

Maybe I was lucky with my character, since I played ME 1 with making a lot of renegade choices, but had my Shepard mellow out during ME 2. The quality of the dialogue, and the great VA alone make Garrus's loyalty mission one of my favourites.


Btw does anyone happen to remember off-hand how many covered bodies are laid out there in Garrus' base? I was wondering about how many members he had in his Omega team.

Modifié par soft black stars, 07 mai 2011 - 06:51 .

[aimlessgun]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Again... the reason you talk Garrus down isn't because killing is wrong, or even because killing for revenge is wrong. It's because going insane with rage is bad, and it seems like Garrus is headed in that direction.

Is this an exaggeration or do you really think Garrus was "going insane with rage". Seems like a stretch to me. Of course he was a little angry, but he never does anything that makes me concerned about his mental health. And everything seems pretty good after he kills Sidonis. As Shep says, "Clean and simple."