Moiaussi wrote...
1) getting the IFF was no cakewalk.
2)
I was responding to the suggestion that avoidable casualties should
always be avoided. You are playing fast and lose with the term
'avoidable.' In RL, if you coddle troops that much they are less likely
to take the actual mission seriously and you might even have more
casualties.
1. Do not see relevancy of difficulty of getting IFF. The point is that goal is better accomplished by small team that sneaks in and surgical strikes than sending a more easily detected fleet.
2. No I am not. Within the framework that it has to be my team that does ths strike, I should do everything in my power to make sure my men are 100% focused. That is not coddling, that is showing a basic understanding of the needs of the men.
But you don't get the IFF from there.
You get it from the reaper derelict that neither TIM nor EDI felt
important enough to tell you about. That there is an IFF or equivalent
on each ship is common sense. Besides, you were talking about avoidable
casualties.
I am in China and do not have access to Youtube to watch that scene. Either way, as far as you knew at the time, you need to gather intel on the empty Collector ship. Blowing it up is a bad idea because you can't study it. You (Shepard) didn't know it was a trap, and given how it blew the crap out of the first Normandy, fighting it after you found out it was a trap is also not a good idea. Really, the progression of "ooh, empty ship, let's study it instead of blowing it up" to "it's a trap, let's gtfo instead of blowing it up" is common sense. I am talking about avoidable casualties from the POV of Shepard.
So you feel that
compassionate leaves should always be granted just because the soldier
asks, regardless of situation or mission, and that the main mission
should always be diverted just because a soldier thinks something about
their personal life is more important at the time? Just because the
Collectors might be planning to hit Earth (which is pure
speculation based solely on the capacity of the Collector ship) doesn't
mean they have stopped hitting colonies. You don't know yet what they
are gathering people for. They could have been a lot closer to finishing
a Reaper than they were. Again, you only know you have time due to
metagaming. You only know that the loyalty missions themselves will have
no casualties due to metagaming.
Who said "regardless of situation or mission"? Are you one of those people who respond to "ground officers should be able to refuse stupid orders" with "we can't have LTs refusing every order"? Here, the sacrifice for getting one of your specialists' personal issues that *affects their overall performance* is a few more colonies. It's not a might that the Collectors will hit Earth, it's more or less explicit after the Collector ship and you are told they have to hit Earth to fill up the pods. BULL**** that I only know these things due to metagaming. The fact that I can argue this without making any reference to future events means that's not the case.
And travel is not near-instantaneous. You still have to fly to and from the relays.
It's also not the "WE HAVE NO TIME FOR YOUR SHENANIGANS" scenario you seem to be making it out to be.
Moiaussi wrote...
So you would like to buy some stock then? It is a sure thing, honest.
Doesn't have to be a sure thing. Technically 51% should be enough in the absence of any reason not to.
How about the part where Shepard held off ground troops on Elysium or escaped Thresher Maws on Akuze, or ruthless on the surface of Torfan depending on origin, and the complete lack of any mention of any naval posting or training whatsoever before the Normandy? As for being XO of the Normandy, it is a brand new ship, and Shepard's mission (his first mission) is to lead a ground team to oversee the recovery of the Prothean artifact. An XO would normally be coordinating that from on board ship. The Normandy has a marine contingent for such duties, of which Jenkins is one.
That merely suggests Shep has additional ground combat experience on top of being a naval officer. And that was only his first mission in-game. It is a given that he has had plenty of other naval experiences beforehand by virtue of him being a freaking naval officer. Normandy being a new ship or lack of mentin of Shep's previous naval postings is irrelevant, as if that were the case, then someone like Pressly or Adams or Chakwas or freaking Joker would have been a better XO for a naval vessel.
So you are arguing that your version of renegades is to take a less realistic approach? Without metagaming, you don't know in advance how many humans the Collectors need. Their ship is older than human civilization so it wasn't built for whatever they are up to now and we don't yet know what they are up to now anyway.
Completing loyalty missions = soft coddled crew and unneccessary risk. You only know the missions are risk free because of metagaming.
No it's not. You see the pods in the Collector ship mission, and are explicitly shown that they'd have to go to Earth to fill up all those pods. It is sufficiently far off into the future that the realistic renegade is "screw the boondock colonies, I got time before their plan finishes, and my crew is more important." It is also not less realistic - unless you think leading a squad of specialists is done the same way as leading a company of mooks, in which case I'd have to question your leadership abilities/credentials.
You are assuming though that it is 99%/1% and that your assessment wasn't based on false value judgements somewhere. Moreover, you are insisting the outcome will turn out a certain way and that paragon decisions are all logicly the right ones, despite other renegades arguing that they seemed like foolish decisions to them and that at least some key renegade decisions should turn out better.
Other renegades != me. I am not insisting the outcome will turn out a certain way, merely that thinking through them logically you have a lean towards paragon. Those "other renegades" are but short-sighted or didn't think thigns through enough - ever notice how the decision to kill the rachni generally all boils down to quoting the mantra of "nope, cynical renegade, can't trust 'em" as opposed to proper application of game theory (reapers want to kill all organics. rachni interest better served by helping Shepard than not)? Therein lies the problem - more and better justifications for paragon than for renegade (iow, paragon decisions make better sense than renegade ones).
But that not 50/50 is merely an assumption you are making on insufficient data. You are assuming that your own assessments are 100%. Without spoilers, did you predict that Shepard would be gratuitously kllled at the start of ME2 and that the Council would suddenly stop believing in Reapers and that we would all be working for Cerberus whether we wanted to or not?
Be honest now.
That 50/50 is an ideal that the game should be trying to reach. You *should* be able to roughly make a 50/50 case for either paragon or renegade. You cannot. I am also not assuming my own assessments are 100%. Without spoilers, we could not have predicted those things. But AGAIN, those things are IRRELEVANT.
All that needs to be honest are these statements:
1. decisions can only be judged "good/bad" by what is known at the time.
2. the actual outcome of a decision is irrelevant to whether it was a good/bad one, because you do not know the outcome at the time.
3. based on what we know at the time, paragon decisions generally make more sense that renegade ones.
Retour en haut
