311 réponses à ce sujet

[K_Tabris]

I like them all, with varying degrees. it's the us. vs. them mentality between the fanbases on here that are unnecessary, and propagating them with threads like this one is not helpful.

To speak to the OP's point, I think Tali and Garrus were more in a position to understand what Shepard was up to. They also ended up free to join Shepard, whereas Kaidan and Ashley were not Nor did they have time or to figure out Shepard and what she was really up to.

Still, Horizon sucked.

[Siansonea]

MisterJB wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
When Kaidan and Ashley say that Shepard is betraying everything they stood for by working with Cerberus, it is a TRUE statement. Cerberus represents everything that is wrong with humanity,

That is your opinion and you have all the right to it.
However, there are other people who think diferently and we have the right to be insulted when the VS acuses Shepard of betraying everything he stood for.
Had the VS just said that Shepard was a traitor to the Alliance and I couldn't have cared less.

The exact phrase Kaidan uses is "you betrayed everything we stood for". Considering that what they stood for was the Alliance and the Council, this is an accurate statement. Shepard was an Alliance Marine working as a Council Spectre. People tend to forget that Spectres work FOR the Council. They're not independent agents. They are autonomous agents, but that's not the same thing. They work for the Council. So for Shepard to switch sides to Cerberus, an avowed enemy of the Alliance and the Council, it is a betrayal of everything the Alliance and the Council stands for. You can be mad at Ash and Kaidan for calling you on it, but you can't fault their logic. You may think betraying the Council and the Alliance is the right thing to do, and that's fine. But don't expect everyone you meet to just go into Mindlessly Follow The Player Character Derp Mode. Some characters have principles that differ from yours—I mean Shepard's—and will actually voice their disagreement with your—I mean Shepard's—actions. 

Modifié par Siansonea II, 06 octobre 2011 - 09:42 .

[Xilizhra]

Siansonea II wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
When Kaidan and Ashley say that Shepard is betraying everything they stood for by working with Cerberus, it is a TRUE statement. Cerberus represents everything that is wrong with humanity,

That is your opinion and you have all the right to it.
However, there are other people who think diferently and we have the right to be insulted when the VS acuses Shepard of betraying everything he stood for.
Had the VS just said that Shepard was a traitor to the Alliance and I couldn't have cared less.

The exact phrase Kaidan uses is "you betrayed everything we stood for". Considering that what they stood for was the Alliance and the Council, this is an accurate statement. Shepard was an Alliance Marine working as a Council Spectre. People tend to forget that Spectres work FOR the Council. They're not independent agents. They are autonomous agents, but that's not the same thing. They work for the Council. So for Shepard to switch sides to Cerberus, an avowed enemy of the Alliance and the Council, it is a betrayal of everything the Alliance and the Council stands for. You can be mad at Ash and Kaidan for calling you on it, but you can't fault their logic. You may think betraying the Council and the Alliance is the right thing to do, and that's fine. But don't expect everyone you meet to just go into Mindlessly Follow The Player Character Derp Mode. Some characters have principles that differ from yours—I mean Shepard's—and will actually voice their disagreement with your—I mean Shepard's—actions. 

It's a shame I couldn't say that I had, in fact, been reinstated by the Council and given clearance for all this by Anderson himself.

[MisterJB]

Siansonea II wrote...
The exact phrase Kaidan uses is "you betrayed everything we stood for". Considering that what they stood for was the Alliance and the Council, this is an accurate statement.

Or perhaps what Shepard stood for was the protection of the Galaxy/Humanity and the Alliance, along with the Council, were simply means to that end . If Shepard believes that working with Cerberus is the best way of achieving that, then he did not betray what he stood for.

But don't expect everyone you meet to just go into Mindlessly Follow The Player Character Derp Mode.

Oh, I don't. Heck, I was surprised that Tali was willing to join Shepard and that she got leave to serve aboard a Cerberus vessel.
The VS lost my regard after Horizon for a couple of reasons but I do respect the choice s/he made of not wanting to have anything to do with Cerberus. I don't agree with it but I respect it.

Siansonea II wrote...
Some characters have principles that differ from yours—I mean Shepard's—and will actually voice their disagreement with your—I mean Shepard's—actions. 

Spare me that, please.

Modifié par MisterJB, 06 octobre 2011 - 10:12 .

[Siansonea]

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
When Kaidan and Ashley say that Shepard is betraying everything they stood for by working with Cerberus, it is a TRUE statement. Cerberus represents everything that is wrong with humanity,

That is your opinion and you have all the right to it.
However, there are other people who think diferently and we have the right to be insulted when the VS acuses Shepard of betraying everything he stood for.
Had the VS just said that Shepard was a traitor to the Alliance and I couldn't have cared less.

The exact phrase Kaidan uses is "you betrayed everything we stood for". Considering that what they stood for was the Alliance and the Council, this is an accurate statement. Shepard was an Alliance Marine working as a Council Spectre. People tend to forget that Spectres work FOR the Council. They're not independent agents. They are autonomous agents, but that's not the same thing. They work for the Council. So for Shepard to switch sides to Cerberus, an avowed enemy of the Alliance and the Council, it is a betrayal of everything the Alliance and the Council stands for. You can be mad at Ash and Kaidan for calling you on it, but you can't fault their logic. You may think betraying the Council and the Alliance is the right thing to do, and that's fine. But don't expect everyone you meet to just go into Mindlessly Follow The Player Character Derp Mode. Some characters have principles that differ from yours—I mean Shepard's—and will actually voice their disagreement with your—I mean Shepard's—actions. 

It's a shame I couldn't say that I had, in fact, been reinstated by the Council and given clearance for all this by Anderson himself.

Actually, Anderson should have told the VS about that. After all, the VS is investigating Cerberus. Shepard hands Anderson a lot of intel about Cerberus. But Anderson keeps his operative in the dark? What gives, Anderson, if there was ever a "need to know", that would it. But Anderson "stonewalled" Kaidan and Ashley, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. There should have been an alternate version of the Horizon scene, one for Shepard's who do not visit Anderson before Horizon (the existing scene) and one for Shepards who do talk to Anderson. You would think that if Anderson was really concerned about Cerberus, he would inform his operative on Horizon about all the information given to him by Shepard, as well as, you know, letting the VS know that Commander Shepard is alive and has had his/her Spectre status reinstated (or not). Really, a LOT of the Horizon fail can be laid at Anderson's door, since he is theoretically the only person who could act as intermediary between the VS and Shepard before Horizon. 

[Xilizhra]

True, Anderson screwed up there. I was just pointing out that I'd betrayed no one.

[LadyofRivendell]

Shepard's dialogue on Horizon really sucked. There was no place for really explaining yourself, saying that you don't trust Cerberus, or mentioning you'd talked with Anderson and possibly became a Spectre again. Heck, in every other conversation there's basically Anti-Cerberus option, Neutral Option, Pro-Cerberus option. Not on Horizon. So with Shepard saying, "Herp a derp hurrrr," the VS had the right to react as they did.

Now, had Shepard been given more dialogue to prove they were anti-Cerberus, and the VS still acted the same way, maybe then they could be sworn off.

[ADLegend21]

LadyofRivendell wrote...

Shepard's dialogue on Horizon really sucked.

Actually if you take the all neutral path, Shepard says everything she needs to say. "I was comatose while Cerberus rebuilt me" "Cerberus brought me back to stop the collectors." "The Alliance turned it's back on me" that's pretty much all you need to say. The Alliance didn't bother to confirm Shepard was KIA, Cerberus brought Shepard back to life to fight the Collectors who are Reaper agents. They don't owe the VS an explanation unless romanced, or the VS could , you know, send Shepard a message BEFORE Horizon. "Hey Shepard, I heard you're alive, is that true?"

For my money VS Needs toapoligize for the traitor remark (true but incredibly hurtful for a reunion) and Shepard needs to apologize for not reaching out. That way everyone wins.

[NeroSparda]

ADLegend21 wrote...

LadyofRivendell wrote...

Shepard's dialogue on Horizon really sucked.

Actually if you take the all neutral path, Shepard says everything she needs to say. "I was comatose while Cerberus rebuilt me" "Cerberus brought me back to stop the collectors." "The Alliance turned it's back on me" that's pretty much all you need to say. The Alliance didn't bother to confirm Shepard was KIA, Cerberus brought Shepard back to life to fight the Collectors who are Reaper agents. They don't owe the VS an explanation unless romanced, or the VS could , you know, send Shepard a message BEFORE Horizon. "Hey Shepard, I heard you're alive, is that true?"

For my money VS Needs toapoligize for the traitor remark (true but incredibly hurtful for a reunion) and Shepard needs to apologize for not reaching out. That way everyone wins.

Give this one a round of applause. 

[Yezdigerd]

jeweledleah wrote...


Arrival is not on disc, its a DLC and as such, the limitation on when you can play them?  is very deliberately
story related NOT game mechanic related.  they could have easily made it available the moment you finished freedom's progress if they wished  (like they did with FIREWALKER, NORMANY CRUSH SITE, ZAEED and KASUMI), but it didn't make sence, storywise.

It still doesn't make sense to do after Freedoms progress, since the aftermath completely trivializes the main
plot of ME2. Why waste any resources on the collector attacks when a reaper invasion is imminent?
And really is your assertion that Hackett has such trust in Shepard when he kill 300000 batarians he don't even
need to “read your report to know you did the right thing” because of the VS glowing review of Shepard at Horizon?

you are ASSUMING that VS still thinks Shepard is a traitor. but in their letter IF you romanced them, they say that they know you are not, they BOTH appologize, but they still don't know everything that's going on and they still cannot work with Cerberus, so you come back safe now, you hear?

Well I never romanced them . They don't know everything because they don't bother to find out. The VS leaves
Shepard at the mercy of a terrorist organization s/he doesn't trust. Never asking why Shepard is doing something so extreme as working for them. For all the VS know Cerberus has the control chip in Shepard that Miranda wanted to install. If the VS trust Shepard but not Cerberus it's more the reason to watch his back. I mean that is how Shepard's friends, Tali Garrus who also lack found memories of Cerberus reasons.

Turian council doesn't trust Shepard. spectre status that they offoer (and that can be regected)  is a figurehead only. 

Spectres are above local law only accountable to the council, any criminal action Shepard, the cerberus
terrorist commits will reflect on the councils if he is a spectre. If they don't have faith in his judgement making him a spectre is just insanely stupid.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 07 octobre 2011 - 12:11 .

[Iakus]

[quote]Yezdigerd wrote...

It still doesn't make sense to do after
Freedoms progress, since the aftermath completely trivializes the main
plot of ME2. Why waste any resources on the collector attacks when a
reaper invasion is imminent?
And really is your assertion that Hackett
has such trust in Shepard when he kill 300000 batarians he don't even
need to “read your report to know you did the right thing” because of
the VS glowing review of Shepard at Horizon?[/quote]

I always found the main plot of ME2 to be trivial compared to ME1, Arrival, or even LOTSB.  But that's a topic for another thread.  Many other threads, actually...

And yeah, I believe Hackett trusts Shepard, based at least in part of the VS's report.  Plus the events in ME1. 


[quote]
Well I never romanced them . But even so
isn't letting the love of your life go on a suicide mission alone
because you don't trust the company a little low?
The worst thing here is that the VS leaves
Shepard at the mercy of a terrorist organization s/he doesn't trust.
Never asking why Shepard is doing something so extreme as working for
them. For all the VS know Cerberus has the control chip in Shepard that
Miranda wanted to install. If the VS trust Shepard but not Cerberus it's
more the reason to watch his back. I mean that is how Shepard's friends, Tali Garrus who also lack found memories of Cerberus reasons.[/quote]

The VS doesn't know about the SM.  Just that Shepard is working with Cerberus to stop the Collectors.  While I agree that the VS should have asked more questions, the VS cannot go with Shepard.  They have other loyalties and duties.  Garrus was on his own and really had nowhere else to go.  Tali got permission from the Admiralty Board to go on detatched duty with Shepard (I'm thinking the Cerberus thing was left out of her request).  The VS, however, is still actiive duty Alliance, and can't join up with Cerberus any more than Anderson could tell Shepard the VS was on Horizon.  Conflict.  Of.  Interest.  

[quote]
Spectres are above local law only accountable to the council, any criminal action Shepard, the cerberus
terrorist commits will reflect on the councils if he is a spectre. If they don't have faith in his judgement making him a spectre is just insanely stupid.[/quote]

You realize these are the same people from whom "Ah, yes, 'Reapers'" came from, right?  

But in any case, Shepard's actions were restricted to the Terminus Systems and told not to file reports.  Spectre authority (or any Council authority for that matter)  means little where he is and his actions are easily deniable with no paper trail to the COuncil.  His Spectreship is essentially  honorary.












[/quote]

[Yezdigerd]

Siansonea II wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
When Kaidan and Ashley say that Shepard is betraying everything they stood for by working with Cerberus, it is a TRUE statement. Cerberus represents everything that is wrong with humanity,

That is your opinion and you have all the right to it.
However, there are other people who think diferently and we have the right to be insulted when the VS acuses Shepard of betraying everything he stood for.
Had the VS just said that Shepard was a traitor to the Alliance and I couldn't have cared less.

The exact phrase Kaidan uses is "you betrayed everything we stood for". Considering that what they stood for was the Alliance and the Council, this is an accurate statement. Shepard was an Alliance Marine working as a Council Spectre. People tend to forget that Spectres work FOR the Council. They're not independent agents. They are autonomous agents, but that's not the same thing. They work for the Council. So for Shepard to switch sides to Cerberus, an avowed enemy of the Alliance and the Council, it is a betrayal of everything the Alliance and the Council stands for. You can be mad at Ash and Kaidan for calling you on it, but you can't fault their logic. You may think betraying the Council and the Alliance is the right thing to do, and that's fine. But don't expect everyone you meet to just go into Mindlessly Follow The Player Character Derp Mode. Some characters have principles that differ from yours—I mean Shepard's—and will actually voice their disagreement with your—I mean Shepard's—actions. 

What you seem to miss is that quite a lot of humans doesn't view Cerberus as traitors. Normandy is jam packed with ex alliance military who consider themselves let down by the alliance. Even Admiral Hackett asks for Cerberus assistance having issues with their methods but saying that they are some of the few that are actually doing something. Cerberus is awash with donated money which suggests popular support.
It's actually mostly aliens that express a dim view of Cerberus. and the VS.

[YouthCultureForever]

There is a confounding variable in this situation. Certainly, the VS is disappointed in Shepard working for Cerberus, but there is also the fear that Shepard is being manipulated by Cerberus and s/he can't see it. The suggestion that Cerberus isn't saving the colonies, that it's just the line they're feeding Shepard to get him/her to do their bidding is one thing that sticks out to me in the confrontation. They believe Cerberus is double dealing with the collectors. It shapes alot of what they say.

And I don't get the whole, "They should have asked more questions." line. What questions did they need to ask?The VS knows what Shepard thinks s/he is doing, but that justification isn't enough when you're dealing with an organization as underhanded as Cerberus. They aren't going to give you their blessing to go off and potentially do TIM's dirty work.

I always go to Anderson after Horizon and he says the same thing. He suggest Shepard was being manipulated. The Turian councillor proposes it as well.

And as far as reinstaing Shepard's spectre status, there is a counterfeit quality to it. They tell you not to send them reports so they can deny any knowledge of your activity. It's a great contingency in case you turn out to be a delusional idiot or you really are the Cerberus lackey up to no good. It's not a genuine show of trust.

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 07 octobre 2011 - 12:48 .

[Seboist]

Kaidan had no problem with my femshep being part of a space gestapo force for an alien racial caste system and commiting acts like slaughtering Major Kyle's cult down to the last man or executing people in cold blood but when it comes to working with optional side quest enemy from the last game to take down the Collectors all of sudden she "crossed the line" ? **** out of here with that bull**** and him being so over the top anti-Cerberus that he makes Tali look like a moderate on them is also LOL funny.

The "VS" and Kaidan are the not the same character as far as I'm concerned.

[Yezdigerd]

iakus wrote...


And yeah, I believe Hackett trusts Shepard, based at least in part of the VS's report.

I find that farfetched. why would Hackett trust the VS judgement anyway? does he personally know the VS? No one would dismiss 300k deaths so casually on the character assessment of someone else. Hackett obviously must be quite close to Shepard which kinda makes sense from ME.

While I agree that the VS should have asked more questions, the VS cannot go with Shepard.  They
have other loyalties and duties.

They did so in ME1 so obviously  they can go.

But in any case, Shepard's actions were restricted to the Terminus Systems and told not to file reports.
 Spectre authority (or any Council authority for that matter)  means little where he is and his actions are easily deniable with no paper trail to the COuncil.  His Spectreship is essentially  honorary.

Which doesn't matter. If Shepard stirs**** up, and people complain about it, saying he is spectre “sort
of” will not cover the Council's behind. They will have to strip him of the office and admit it was mistake.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:23 .

[Iakus]

YouthCultureForever wrote...

There is a confounding variable in this situation. Certainly, the VS is disappointed in Shepard working for Cerberus, but there is also the fear that Shepard is being manipulated by Cerberus and s/he can't see it. The suggestion that Cerberus isn't saving the colonies, that it's just the line they're feeding Shepard to get him/her to do their bidding is one thing that sticks out to me in the confrontation. They believe Cerberus is double dealing with the collectors. It shapes alot of what they say.

Not disappointed.  Angry.  Angry to the point of calling Shepard a traitor.  The feear that Shepard is being used by Cerberus is there.  And I understand it.  But that fear is not the driving focus of the VS's attitude.  It's Shepard's apparant betrayal.

And I don't get the whole, "They should have asked more questions." line. What questions did they need to ask?The VS knows what Shepard thinks s/he is doing, but that justification isn't enough when you're dealing with an organization as underhanded as Cerberus. They aren't going to give you their blessing to go off and potentially do TIM's dirty work.

The why doesn't the VS ask why Shepard thinks they can trust Cerberus?  How does Shepard know the Collectors are working with the Reapers, not Cerberus?  How did Shepard "survive" the Normandy's destruction?   Or even How is Shepard not paralyzed by the Seekers?

Essentially, how can Shepard back up his assertions?

[alperez]

I've posted this on another thread concerning the same topic basically but i've yet to see someone come up with a justification for the VS acting any other way than they acted on Horizon.

Imagine the situation using real life parables that we could relate to in our own world and the action of the VS. makes complete sense.

If for example Shepard was an american soldier who was presumed dead for 2 years and during those 2 years rumours circulated that he didn't die and was working for Al Qaeda. If then After those 2 years had passed he suddenly turned up with Al Qaeda members in tow saying that it was allright because they were the only ones doing something about a certain situation, then just exactly how would former comrades of Shepard's react to that situation.

Would they just accept his word on the basis that the person they knew 2 years previously did the things they did for the right reasons?

Wouldn't a more likely scenario be that they would either think, Shepard had been brainwashed, duped or had completely abandoned all the principles that they supposedly shared in common?

People critcise the VS. because unlike Garrus or Tali they did not just blindly accept Shepard as being completely right, but there are major flaws in the comparison between the vs. and other former squadmates.

1. Unlike with both Tali and Garrus, shepard never really explains working with cerberus and why its a reluctant deal for him.

2. The VS. is a serving military person, they are bound completely to the laws and rules of the military organisation they serve, unlike Tali and Garrus the vs. cannot just blindly follow shepard, to do so would not just be dereliction of duty, it would be desertion.

The biggest problem with Horizon is that we as Shepard are aware of certain info and fact that the VS. at that time doesn't have access to. We know the events since the destruction of the normandy, we know why Shepard is working with cerberus and that its the only option available to us, we also know that Shepard did try and seek out the VS. from the moment he spoke to TIM.

Its because we know Shepard is right and doing what he/she is doing for the right reasons that when faced with the VS. (who isn't aware of what we are and whos perspective is skewed because of this lack of info) that we can see the VS. is wrong, that the things they're concerned about aren't actually true.

The problem is we forget that they aren't as aware as we are of all these things and the person who should make them aware (shepard) does a pretty ****** poor job of it. So we leave Horizon feeling wronged because we know we were right, yet we never seem to accept why they wronged us actually had genuine reasons behind it.

The thing that gets me about all these threads is that people get annoyed that the VS. acts how they did and rather than examine the reasons why that is they then decide that their Shepard must do the same, that the only justfiable course of action is to do the very thing that they complain the VS. did in the first place.

[MatrixTheRenegade]

I don't disagree with the basics of the VS encounter, but I think the execution was pretty darn bad. The VS is pretty bipolar and unfair with their logic, but at least their sentiments are understandable.

What really irked me to all hell was how Shepard is forced to defend them. How often do you get to say "don't worry, Cerberus sucks all of the penises and I don't trust them"? Almost never, despite that being a completely reasonable opinion to hold. Especially when 33% of all shepards had their lives ruined by Cerberus on Akuze. More ability to defend yourself (and/or lambast Cerberus) was a glaring oversight.

But that's a crack running straight through the entire game, heh.

[Iakus]

Yezdigerd wrote...

I find that farfetched. why would Hackett trust the VS judgement anyway? does he personally know the VS? No one would dismiss
300k deaths so casually on the character assessment of someone else.
Hackett obviously must be quite close to Shepard which kinda makes
sense from ME.

Why?  They're Anderson's protege.  Anderson and Hackett know each other, they helped select Shepard for Spectre candidacy.  They may very well have done the same with the VS.  Given ME3, it's actually quite likely, I think.

And I said "in part"  Likely the VS's report helped confirm in Anderson and Hackett's minds that Shep is still Shep, and not some Cerberus puppet.  

They did so in ME1 so obviously  they can go.

Indeed, when the end of the galaxy was nigh they took extreme action.  Definite evidence that the VS should have been more trusting of Shepard and less sharp in their rebukes.  But at this point the Collectors, while a serious threat, did not pose an immediate threat to all galactic life.  

Which doesn't matter. If Shepard stirs
**** up, and people complain about it, saying he is spectre “sort
of” will not cover the Council's behind. They will have to strip
him of the office and admit it was mistake.

Or they can cut him loose completely and "dismiss his claim" to be a Spectre.

Modifié par iakus, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:39 .

[Iakus]

alperez wrote...

If for example Shepard was an american soldier who was presumed dead for 2 years and during those 2 years rumours circulated that he didn't die and was working for Al Qaeda. If then After those 2 years had passed he suddenly turned up with Al Qaeda members in tow saying that it was allright because they were the only ones doing something about a certain situation, then just exactly how would former comrades of Shepard's react to that situation.

Would they just accept his word on the basis that the person they knew 2 years previously did the things they did for the right reasons?

Wouldn't a more likely scenario be that they would either think, Shepard had been brainwashed, duped or had completely abandoned all the principles that they supposedly shared in common?

Depends.  Did this hypothetical soldier ever express views sypathetic to their ideology?  Was this soldier known to be an enthusiatic patriot before?  What's this person's service record?  Have they uncovered such conspiracies before?  Or a history of goofy conspiracy theories?  What evidence does this person have?

Context is everything.  Horizon's context seems to assume the most abolute red-renegade Shepard based on the VS's reaction.  Actions in ME1 count for nothing.  

And Shepard's responses on Horizon do not help matters.  Where's the recording of Freedom's Progress?  Where's Veetor's omnitool data?  Mordin Seeker countermeasures?  Drop Tali's name, she's a third party they both trust who can back Shep's claims. 

[alperez]

Iakus

Context in the situation doesn't actually matter, simply put whether a soldier had formerly been completely against Al qaeda or completely supported them in the past the simple fact is both would be received in the same way.

They would initially be judged not on their past record but on the company they're now keeping, the fact is that the time gap eliminates their past record from the equation.

If anything on Horizon Shepard's past actions actually count against him, considering what the VS. accuses him of is betraying the things they both stood for.

The actions that Shepard is perceived to be undertaking, working with cerberus go so against the grain of what Shepard supposedly stood for that the VS. is convinced that Shepard is being manipulated or worse has completely abandoned his ideals for some unknown reason.

Shepard need not have been pro cerberus in the past for these actions to be misconstrued, just the same way that a soldier in the american army suddenly working with Al qaeda's past record would not be the first thing that his comrades would think about, instead its the simple action of working with terrorists that influence the actions taken.

Whether the Vs. believes that Shepard working with Cerberus is going against the very things he supposedly stood for or is working with cerberus because he's lost his mind, been brainwashed or is being manipulated and cannot see it, in the end it all adds up to the same outcome.

As for your point about Shepard's responses, well i'm not sure what you mean by this, since i completely agree with the fact that his responses inflame the situation, i'm not sure what your trying to say here in this regard.

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

Essentially, how can Shepard back up his assertions?

Quite silly the VS didn't take the time to investigate this, considering that was their job.

[Almostfaceman]

alperez wrote...

Iakus

Context in the situation doesn't actually matter, simply put whether a soldier had formerly been completely against Al qaeda or completely supported them in the past the simple fact is both would be received in the same way.

This is wrong. Just so very wrong. When someone does something "out of character" humans notice. It matters. It's a red flag. A big, giant, red flag. Matter of fact, it's the kinda red flag that someone who's sent to investigate, should, well, investigate.

But this of course ignores the fact that Shepard was not "acting" out of character. He was, in fact, doing the very same thing he was doing in ME1 - saving lives at any cost and saving the VS's arse. And doing a good job of it.

Matter of fact, if the VS is paying any attention, they'd notice that there's ALIENS working for Shep - definitely not Cerberus SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 07 octobre 2011 - 02:44 .