311 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

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.

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.

No arguement that Shepard's current associations should put a cloud over his reputation.  However, Shepard has in the past pulled a number of insane stunts in pursuit of his goals.  Why are those stunts justified and working with Cerberus worthy of "Grr.  Argh!"?

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.

Shepard's past actions include stealing the Normandy, at the time the Alliance's most advanced warship, from the Citadel, defying orders from both the Alliance and the Council.  What did that action stand 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.

This is the same Shepard that trashed a half dozen or more Cerberus bases, killed dozens of their personell, disrupted several of their projects.  Shepard led teh VS on these raids.  Assuming Shepard did this out of a sense of duty, or revulsion for what they've done, would that not be a really odd switch?  Wouldn't this be an odd change of character, worthy of comment?  Or even some sort of denial?

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.

The same outcome in working with Shepard yes.  But the reasoning behind it is important, else Shepard and the VS are nothing more than pirates for stealing the Normandy in ME1.

If the VS genuinely believes Shepard switched sides, that's one thing.  In such a line of thinking, Shep really is a traitor.  But I'm betting there were a lot of Shepards who were enthusistically anti-Cerberus or pro-Alliance in ME1 that would make such a switch puzzling.  Switching from shooting Cerberus operatives to fighting alongside them should have elicited comment.

If the VS thinks Shepard is brainwashed, then Shepard is not a traitor at all, but a victim.  You can't betray if you have no free will.

If Shepard is a dupe, then the VS should have wondered what promises or threats could have swayed Shepard over to  thier way of thinking.  And try to convince Shepard he's wrong.

The VS makes no attempt to determine which of the three is the case.

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.

What I mean is Shepard could have shown the VS all the information that was used to convince him of Collector involvement.  Lay all the cards on the table right then and there.  Who knows, the VS might have actually believed him.  Instead we get Shepard making an assertion and the VS saying 'I don't trust Cerberus"  when most of Shep's information did not, in fact, come from Cerberus.

[Iakus]

Almostfaceman wrote...

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).

Dangit I just wrote a wall of text and you go and sum it up with just a few lines 

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

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).

Dangit I just wrote a wall of text and you go and sum it up with just a few lines 

It's all good you said it well also. 

[alperez]

Almostfaceman

Your misinterpreting what i meant by context doesn't matter.

I posted a specific scenario that is in someway a parellel to the scenario the VS. faces on Horizon with Shepard.

That scenario was of an american soldier being presumed dead for 2 years reappearing after those 2 years working with Al qaeda and how his former comrades would react to that scenario,especially if during those 2 years rumours had been spread that he was in fact alive and working with Al qaeda.

The truth of the matter would be his former leanings or former character would initially be less important than the mere fact that he is now working with Al qaeda which is the only context initially that actually matters.

Post horizon, things change and the reason why Shepard is actually working with cereberus and Shepards character itself become important to the understanding that the VS. and others have of Shepards motives, but on horizon the key thing that matters is the fact of Shepard working with cerberus, just as it would be in the initial reaction of soldiers seeing their former commander working with Al Qaeda in my scenario.

Or do you think american soldiers would react differently and question the character of the person in front of them before questioning the fact of them working with Al Qaeda?

Now in terms of the specific of horizon itself and whether or not a red flag about Shepards character is raised, in terms of what the VS. was sent to investigate and the aliens working with cerberus, i'll respond.

Firstly the VS. is sent to investigate the disapperance of the colonists and whether or not cerberus are behind them or involved in some way, they're not there to investigate Shepard. If you pay attention to what the VS. says during the encounter with Shepard its clear that this is something at this point they're still not sure of.

Secondly cerberus have worked with aliens in the past so just because they have aliens working with them is an indication of nothing whatsoever.

Lastly Shepards character and whether or not he is ooc or not, the mere fact that he's working with cerberus is ooc as far as the VS. is concerned, its a huge factor in how Shepard is perceived initially and is the reason why nothing else Shepard says or does can be taken at face value on Horizon.

You bring up he's saving colonies, saving the VS. and generally doing everything he's always done, but he's also working with cerberus either willingly or because he's duped/brainwashed/mistaken whatever.

Again go back to the VS.s own comments about what Shepard did on horizon, they still asert that cerberus could be involved and are playing Shepard, so while to you this may seem like Shepard is still acting completely in character, its clear to the VS. that the mere fact he's working with Cerberus shows he's actually acting ooc.

Later on once the dust has settled, the questions that you think should be important, such as Shepards actual actions and his actual character do somehow get addressed.

The VS, Anderson or a combination of both have had time to examine properly the character and motivations of Shepard and the context itself becomes important in determining these facts.

But on Horizon the only factor thats important is the initial Shepard working with cerberus, this is the only context that is used to determine the actions of the VS. just as it would be initially in the scenario i presented.

[Almostfaceman]

alperez wrote...

Almostfaceman

Your misinterpreting what i meant by context doesn't matter.

I posted a specific scenario that is in someway a parellel to the scenario the VS. faces on Horizon with Shepard.

That scenario was of an american soldier being presumed dead for 2 years reappearing after those 2 years working with Al qaeda and how his former comrades would react to that scenario,especially if during those 2 years rumours had been spread that he was in fact alive and working with Al qaeda.

The truth of the matter would be his former leanings or former character would initially be less important than the mere fact that he is now working with Al qaeda which is the only context initially that actually matters.

Post horizon, things change and the reason why Shepard is actually working with cereberus and Shepards character itself become important to the understanding that the VS. and others have of Shepards motives, but on horizon the key thing that matters is the fact of Shepard working with cerberus, just as it would be in the initial reaction of soldiers seeing their former commander working with Al Qaeda in my scenario.

Or do you think american soldiers would react differently and question the character of the person in front of them before questioning the fact of them working with Al Qaeda?

Well the thing you seem to be neglecting is that these aren't just american soldiers. A closer equivalent would be officers or nco's who had been deep in the trenches with the commander of your scenario. Yes, such close brothers (and sisters) in arms would definitely give their former commander the benefit of the doubt before passing judgement. Remember, these would have been soldiers who would have defied their chain of command previously for this commander, indicating a huge amount of trust and a serious bond. A bond forged in the fire of combat. Even Joker acknowledges that Ash's attitude doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Almostfaceman]

alperez wrote...

Almostfaceman

Now in terms of the specific of horizon itself and whether or not a red flag about Shepards character is raised, in terms of what the VS. was sent to investigate and the aliens working with cerberus, i'll respond.

Firstly the VS. is sent to investigate the disapperance of the colonists and whether or not cerberus are behind them or involved in some way, they're not there to investigate Shepard. If you pay attention to what the VS. says during the encounter with Shepard its clear that this is something at this point they're still not sure of.

Secondly cerberus have worked with aliens in the past so just because they have aliens working with them is an indication of nothing whatsoever.

Lastly Shepards character and whether or not he is ooc or not, the mere fact that he's working with cerberus is ooc as far as the VS. is concerned, its a huge factor in how Shepard is perceived initially and is the reason why nothing else Shepard says or does can be taken at face value on Horizon.

You bring up he's saving colonies, saving the VS. and generally doing everything he's always done, but he's also working with cerberus either willingly or because he's duped/brainwashed/mistaken whatever.

Again go back to the VS.s own comments about what Shepard did on horizon, they still asert that cerberus could be involved and are playing Shepard, so while to you this may seem like Shepard is still acting completely in character, its clear to the VS. that the mere fact he's working with Cerberus shows he's actually acting ooc.

Later on once the dust has settled, the questions that you think should be important, such as Shepards actual actions and his actual character do somehow get addressed.

The VS, Anderson or a combination of both have had time to examine properly the character and motivations of Shepard and the context itself becomes important in determining these facts.

But on Horizon the only factor thats important is the initial Shepard working with cerberus, this is the only context that is used to determine the actions of the VS. just as it would be initially in the scenario i presented.

You admit that the VS is sent to Horizon to investigate whether or not Cerberus is involved in the colony disappearances. Then they see Shepard working with Cerberus.

So... why not investigate what's going on with a non-hostile Shepard instead of walking away like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum? Like others have mentioned, there's actual evidence that Shep can present that the VS could take back to Anderson. It simply doesn't make any sense for a professional soldier/investigator to walk away from someone with answers. You have reiterated what has happened, but you haven't addressed these questions I and others have brought up. The answer is - there is no good reason for the VS to walk away without getting more information about what's going on from a cooperative Shepard.

[alperez]

iakus wrote...


No arguement that Shepard's current associations should put a cloud over his reputation.  However, Shepard has in the past pulled a number of insane stunts in pursuit of his goals.  Why are those stunts justified and working with Cerberus worthy of "Grr.  Argh!"?

SImply because unlike in the situation on Horizon the VS. was present during the reasoning behind pulling those stunts, they have the complete context of why Shepard did what he did, something they don't on Horizon.

Shepard's past actions include stealing the Normandy, at the time the Alliance's most advanced warship, from the Citadel, defying orders from both the Alliance and the Council.  What did that action stand for?

Again the vs was present during those events, they have a clear understanding of the complete context of why those actions were justified, something they don't have on horizon.

To put it simply, if two people go into a room to discuss a situation and make you wait outside, then they come out with a plan and say to you this is why we must do this, you'd react completely differently than you would if all 3 of you went inside the room and discussed the situation and came up with a plan together.

In me1 the VS. was there with Shepard through all the events, they could see exactly why Shepards actions were justified, in me2 the reasoning behind Shepard working with cereberus was made without the VS. being present so rather than have a clear understanding of why this is the only way, they instead are faced with a fait accompli and asked to go with it.

This is the same Shepard that trashed a half dozen or more Cerberus bases, killed dozens of their personell, disrupted several of their projects.  Shepard led teh VS on these raids.  Assuming Shepard did this out of a sense of duty, or revulsion for what they've done, would that not be a really odd switch?  Wouldn't this be an odd change of character, worthy of comment?  Or even some sort of denial?

Shepard is working with cerberus, what he did is less important initially than what he's now perceived to be doing, the vs. brings this up in pretty much the first thing they say, your with cerberus now, this shows that its clearly that point that is foremost in their minds. 

The same outcome in working with Shepard yes.  But the reasoning behind it is important, else Shepard and the VS are nothing more than pirates for stealing the Normandy in ME1.

If the VS genuinely believes Shepard switched sides, that's one thing.  In such a line of thinking, Shep really is a traitor.  But I'm betting there were a lot of Shepards who were enthusistically anti-Cerberus or pro-Alliance in ME1 that would make such a switch puzzling.  Switching from shooting Cerberus operatives to fighting alongside them should have elicited comment.

If the VS thinks Shepard is brainwashed, then Shepard is not a traitor at all, but a victim.  You can't betray if you have no free will.

If Shepard is a dupe, then the VS should have wondered what promises or threats could have swayed Shepard over to  thier way of thinking.  And try to convince Shepard he's wrong.

The VS makes no attempt to determine which of the three is the case.

The problem again though is on Horizon the first part outweighs the rest initially and its only later once the VS. has left Horizon that the questions and the evidence itself are really gotten into.

Shepard working with cerberus is on the face of it no matter how Shepard was two years previously a betrayal, its because of this initial perception that everything goes to hell, when questioned on things every answer Shepard gives is reacted to with this in mind.

The VS. brings up that Cerberus could still be behind everything thats going on, that Shepard perhaps is being manipulated and isn't aware of it and that Shepard is betraying them, the council and Anderson by his actions, Shepard responds to all of this badly but even if he had responded well it may not have had an effect simply because of the initial fact that he's now working with cerberus.

As for the VS. not trying to bring Shepard around or convince him he's wrong or being brainwashed, they do.

You need to rewatch the scene, the VS. says "do you really believe that or is that just what cerberus wants you to think", they also say "i'd like to belive you Shepard but i don't trust cerberus and it worrys me that you do" "what did they do to you, what if they're behind it, what if there working with the collectors", "or maybe you feel like you owe cerberus because they saved you, maybe its you".

These are questions and statements made by the VS. on Horizon, they've asked the questions, the problem again is the fact that shepard's working with cerberus means they probably wouldn't listen to the answers at that point anyway.

What I mean is Shepard could have shown the VS all the information that was used to convince him of Collector involvement.  Lay all the cards on the table right then and there.  Who knows, the VS might have actually believed him.  Instead we get Shepard making an assertion and the VS saying 'I don't trust Cerberus"  when most of Shep's information did not, in fact, come from Cerberus.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

The problem is that Shepard doesn't do any of this, instead he answers really badly and inflames a situation rather than calm it down.

Some people blame the VS. but shouldn't the onus be on Shepard?

Isn't he the one who should convince the VS and point out where they're wrong or mistaken/?

like you say he had other evidence yet for some reason he doesn't use it.

[alperez]

Almostfaceman wrote...


Well the thing you seem to be neglecting is that these aren't just american soldiers. A closer equivalent would be officers or nco's who had been deep in the trenches with the commander of your scenario. Yes, such close brothers (and sisters) in arms would definitely give their former commander the benefit of the doubt before passing judgement. Remember, these would have been soldiers who would have defied their chain of command previously for this commander, indicating a huge amount of trust and a serious bond. A bond forged in the fire of combat. Even Joker acknowledges that Ash's attitude doesn't make a lick of sense.

By american soldier i meant irrespective of rank.

I guarantee that no matter what rank if an american general was presumed dead and suddenly reappeared after 2 years working with people considered to be the enemy, the initial reaction would not be about the character of that general or whether or not 2 years ago that general could be trusted to be doing what he's doing for the right reasons.

The first reaction would be omg he's working with the enemy, its then up to the general to correct that reaction.

But before he got the chance to put his case across it'd be the fact he's working with the enemy that would be the prevelant one in the minds of his men, now what do you think, would they ignore this based on personal history or would they in fact throw him in chains and let others decide the merits of what he's doing?

As a serving military man who's in command of others, if i presented myself in the same situation and my men took my word at face value i'd be extremely dissappointed in them.

You bring up Joker and his reaction, the problem though is like Shepard, Jokers aware of information that paints things completely differently, he can't understand Ash's attitude because like Shepard he's aware of why they're doing what they're doing and of cerberus's presumed intentions, working for cerberus as he does now he's coming at things with a completely different perspective than Ash is, so of course he can't understand her attitude.

[YouthCultureForever]

iakus wrote...

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.

Angry. Fine. I'm not trying to undercut the tone of the VS, just to be clear. But their anger has a logical origin, it stems from a failed expectation. There is a progression, a continuation of the suggestion, from line to line. They tell Shepard about the rumor and Shepard gives them this BS line about how s/he isn't really working for Cerberus, they ask if Shepard genuinely believe that garbage (because if s/he does their an idiot and who would really give such a stupid answer?) and then go into an angry if you're legitimately working for them, your're a piece of crap rant - Shepard's response is so inflammatory I can certainly understand their outburst. They don't stick with that stance, however. Shepard smooths it over with, "You know me." and they go back to blaming Cerberus questioning what they did to make him/her believe them. They question Cerberus' motives and Shepard ignores them with an I know whats really going silly goose statement, also inflammatory, and the VS proposes again Cerberus has manipulated you with a favor. Alliance soldiers don't go out like suckers and they remind Shepard that's what s/he is.

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?

Why would the VS ask compromised Shepard any of those questions anyways?
 
Why do s/he trust Cerberus? How is Shepard not paralyzed by the Seekers? All Shepard is going to say is "my Cerberus scientist hooked up us." It wouldn't explain anything. It still goes back to Cerberus. The VS assumes it's because Cerberus is making a big enough show of saving the colonies and Shepard's response wouldn't discredit that. 

How does Shepard know the Collectors are working with the Reapers, not Cerberus? Because TIM told him so, and just because he says it doesn't mean it's true. That answer wouldn't relieve any concern.

How did Shepard "survive" the Normandy's destruction? S/he didn't. Shepard tells them, s/he says, "Cerberus rebuilt me.". The vaguest of vague explanations they could give. Shepard can't tell the VS what "rebuilt" means when s/he doesn't even know.

Essentially, how can Shepard back up his assertions? They can't. Any explanation has Cerberus taint all over it.

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 07 octobre 2011 - 04:28 .

[alperez]

Almostfaceman wrote...




You admit that the VS is sent to Horizon to investigate whether or not Cerberus is involved in the colony disappearances. Then they see Shepard working with Cerberus.

So... why not investigate what's going on with a non-hostile Shepard instead of walking away like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum? Like others have mentioned, there's actual evidence that Shep can present that the VS could take back to Anderson. It simply doesn't make any sense for a professional soldier/investigator to walk away from someone with answers. You have reiterated what has happened, but you haven't addressed these questions I and others have brought up. The answer is - there is no good reason for the VS to walk away without getting more information about what's going on from a cooperative Shepard.

The fact that Shepard is working with cerberus clouds all further judgements at that time.

Rather than continue and investigate unemotionally and logically examine whatever evidence they may find, they see Shepard working with cerberus and its this which informs every choice they make thereafter.

They question Shepard, the make statements to Shepard about this fact, they even go so far as to call out Shepard and say he's betrayed not just them but the alliance and Anderson also.

They question if Shepards working with cerberus because he's being manipulated or because he feels he owes them somehow and they question whether or not cerberus are involved and that perhaps shepards not aware of it.

The problem is because Shepard's working with cerberus this fact alone makes anything he may say questionable, it can't be taken at face value, because he may be unaware of the fact he's being manipulated or worse may be working with them of his own free will and so anything he says is unreliable at best and misinformation at worst.

So what do they do, what do they say at the end of the encounter.

They'll report back to the citadel and let them decide whether to believe Shepards story.

They in essence do what any military person would do, leave it to people higher in the food chain to decide the merits of something they're not sure about.

[Iakus]

alperez wrote...

SImply because unlike in the situation on Horizon the VS. was present during the reasoning behind pulling those stunts, they have the complete context of why Shepard did what he did, something they don't on Horizon.

Yes.  Shepard had reason to do what he did.  Everything from the fate of the rachni queen to Zhu's Hope to stealing the Normandy.  There was a reasoning behind it.  The VS saw it and understood, even if they don't always agree.  

So why can they not believe that Shepard had a reason behind working with Cerberus?  Even if they don't have the context, why do they have to believe that this time Shepard's gone around the bend?  Or gone Dark Side?  Barring information that we as the players are not privy to but the VS is, why shouldn't the VS believe that Shepard working with Cerberus isn't just one more stunt in an increasing number of crazy stunts going all the back to Eden Prime?  Earlier if you include Akuze/Elysium/Torfan.

Again the vs was present during those events, they have a clear understanding of the complete context of why those actions were justified, something they don't have on horizon.

To put it simply, if two people go into a room to discuss a situation and make you wait outside, then they come out with a plan and say to you this is why we must do this, you'd react completely differently than you would if all 3 of you went inside the room and discussed the situation and came up with a plan together.

In me1 the VS. was there with Shepard through all the events, they could see exactly why Shepards actions were justified, in me2 the reasoning behind Shepard working with cereberus was made without the VS. being present so rather than have a clear understanding of why this is the only way, they instead are faced with a fait accompli and asked to go with it.

Yes, the VS sat in on several of these "conversations" and planning sessions over the course of ME1.  They would know Shepard's thoughts about Cerberus.  About protecting colonies.  About stopping the Reapers.  They'd have a pretty good idea how Shepard would respond if such topics came up in a "conversation"  A Shepard who had a clear dislike of Cerberus suddenly deciding to work alongside them would, as the VS should know, require a rather heated "conversation" and would not be a decision made lightly.  Yet the VS seems to think Shepard had turned his coat regardless of previous patterns of behavior.

Shepard is working with cerberus, what he did is less important initially than what he's now perceived to be doing, the vs. brings this up in pretty much the first thing they say, your with cerberus now, this shows that its clearly that point that is foremost in their minds.

And that's the odd part.  The fact that the VS doesn't questioon this connection should it be ooc for this particular Shepard.  Shepard in ME1 could have the Sole Survivor history, have a nice chat with Tooms, and later crawled over a pile of Cerberus corpses avenging Kahoku, the VS accepts without question that Shepard would walk away from the Alliance and join Cerberus.  Like these fact fit together like Leggos rather than square peg, round hole.
 

The problem again though is on Horizon the first part outweighs the rest initially and its only later once the VS. has left Horizon that the questions and the evidence itself are really gotten into.

Shepard working with cerberus is on the face of it no matter how Shepard was two years previously a betrayal, its because of this initial perception that everything goes to hell, when questioned on things every answer Shepard gives is reacted to with this in mind.

The VS. brings up that Cerberus could still be behind everything thats going on, that Shepard perhaps is being manipulated and isn't aware of it and that Shepard is betraying them, the council and Anderson by his actions, Shepard responds to all of this badly but even if he had responded well it may not have had an effect simply because of the initial fact that he's now working with cerberus.

Shepard is working with Cerberus.  There is no denynig that.  But again, the VS automatically assumes that Shepard betrayed the Alliance.  Even after everything Shepard has done for the Alliance.  Even after everything Shepard has done to Cerberus.  No other possibility seems to enter their mind.  Even Tali initially though Shepard was infiltrating Cerberus to destroy them from within.  

As for the VS. not trying to bring Shepard around or convince him he's wrong or being brainwashed, they do.

You need to rewatch the scene, the VS. says "do you really believe that or is that just what cerberus wants you to think", they also say "i'd like to belive you Shepard but i don't trust cerberus and it worrys me that you do" "what did they do to you, what if they're behind it, what if there working with the collectors", "or maybe you feel like you owe cerberus because they saved you, maybe its you".

These are questions and statements made by the VS. on Horizon, they've asked the questions, the problem again is the fact that shepard's working with cerberus means they probably wouldn't listen to the answers at that point anyway.

The VS (Ash at least) only really asks two non-rhetorical questions:  Why didn't  Shepard contact her and what if Cerberus is working with the Collectors.  Nothing about what evidence Shepard has.  Nothing about how Shepard can still be alive.  

And Shepard has the option to say "You know me.  You know I'd only do this for the right reason"  Because Shepard does in fact have a pattern of pulling stunts that are crazy, illegal, even treasonous, for the right reason.  the VS knows this.  

Not that handing over some solid evidence right then wouldn't have helped matters.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

The problem is that Shepard doesn't do any of this, instead he answers really badly and inflames a situation rather than calm it down.

Some people blame the VS. but shouldn't the onus be on Shepard?

Isn't he the one who should convince the VS and point out where they're wrong or mistaken/?

like you say he had other evidence yet for some reason he doesn't use it.

The onus is on the writers to make a conflict a convincing one, not to get me concussed by causing me to bang my head against a desk.

The reason Shepard inflames the situation further is all the answers you can give are universally bad.  Not just unconvincing.  Bad.  Yes, Shepard should try to convince the VS that his story is true.  But there isn't a single option to offer evidence.  The VS should also remember that Shepard has in the past done questionable acts in the name of preserving the Alliance and Council security.  Including stealing a warship.  And maybe should  try to get all the facts before hurling accusations of betrayal around.  Keep in mind the VS does that before Shepard asserts that the Collectors are behind the attacks and are working with the Reapers.

Modifié par iakus, 07 octobre 2011 - 05:41 .

[CptData]

iakus wrote...
The reason Shepard inflames the situation further is all the answers you can give are universally bad.  Not just unconvincing.  Bad.  Yes, Shepard should try to convince the VS that his story is true.  But there isn't a single option to offer evidence.  The VS should also remember that Shepard has in the past done questionable acts in the name of preserving the Alliance and Council security.  Including stealing a warship.  And maybe should  try to get all the facts before hurling accusations of betrayal around.  Keep in mind the VS does that before Shepard asserts that the Collectors are behind the attacks and are working with the Reapers.

As I said before: bad writing. or cut content.

Shepard is known as a suave person - with the right words he/she saved Wrex from getting killed on Virmire. Saren shot himself because of Shepard's words. He/she convinced Tali to work for him/her and nearly a dozen other ppl in ME2.

And then Shepard fails entirely when talking to the VS on Horizon. As if someone took all of Shepard's sovereignty away for just a couple of lines - my Shepard could not say anything convincing he's still working for the galaxy and NOT for Cerberus.

And as I said before, I believe it's not just bad writing, but is the result of cut content. Once BW removed content from Horizon / interaction with VS they missed to review the scene.
Or they tried hard to "kill off" the romance of ME to give room for a romance in ME2. Without that letter of Ash/Kaidan after Horizon, I'd say Horizon was intented as "break up".

[Iakus]

YouthCultureForever wrote...

Angry. Fine. I'm not trying to undercut the tone of the VS, just to be clear. But their anger has a logical origin, it stems from a failed expectation. There is a progression, a continuation of the suggestion, from line to line. They tell Shepard about the rumor and Shepard gives them this BS line about how s/he isn't really working for Cerberus, they ask if Shepard genuinely believe that garbage (because if s/he does their an idiot and who would really give such a stupid answer?) and then go into an angry if you're legitimately working for them, your're a piece of crap rant - Shepard's response is so inflammatory I can certainly understand their outburst. They don't stick with that stance, however. Shepard smooths it over with, "You know me." and they go back to blaming Cerberus questioning what they did to make him/her believe them. They question Cerberus' motives and Shepard ignores them with an I know whats really going silly goose statement, also inflammatory, and the VS proposes again Cerberus has manipulated you with a favor. Alliance soldiers don't go out like suckers and they remind Shepard that's what s/he is.

Like I said, the whole scene is screwed up.  The conflict artificial.  Every word designed to dig Shepard in a deeper hole.  There is no escape.  It's railroading at its finest.  It's all set up to deliberately cause a rift between Shepard and the VS.  I am left to wonder why Bioware chose of all the potential LIs, to deliberately put the relationship with the VS behind the eight-ball.  Did they really think Ash/Kaidan were that hated?

I find it amusing that towards the end Garrus tells the VS that they're focusing too much on Cerberus and ignoring the real enemy.  If Garrus tells you your emotions are clouding your judgement, you're well past the deep end and heading out to sea:lol:

Why would the VS ask compromised Shepard any of those questions anyways?

To verify and see if Shepard really is compromised?
 

Why do s/he trust Cerberus? How is Shepard not paralyzed by the Seekers? All Shepard is going to say is "my Cerberus scientist hooked up us." It wouldn't explain anything. It still goes back to Cerberus. The VS assumes it's because Cerberus is making a big enough show of saving the colonies and Shepard's response wouldn't discredit that.

Actually, I think Shepard's answer would be "My retired STG scientist hooked us up.  Here's a free sample for the guys at Alliance R&D.  Might come in handy next time a colony gets hit."

How does Shepard know the Collectors are working with the Reapers, not Cerberus? Because TIM told him so, and just because he says it doesn't mean it's true. That answer wouldn't relieve any concern.

Just because the VS might not like the answer doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked.

How did Shepard "survive" the Normandy's destruction? S/he didn't. Shepard tells them, s/he says, "Cerberus rebuilt me.". The vaguest of vague explanations they could give. Shepard can't tell the VS what "rebuilt" means when s/he doesn't even know.

That was in answer to "why didn't you contact me?" The question I proposed the VS ask was "How did you survive the attack on the Normandy"?"  We know the answer, but the VS doesn't.  Nor does he/she ask.  For that matter, even Shepard doesn't wonder about this.  It's this incurious nature of the game in general that really bugs me

Essentially, how can Shepard back up his assertions? They can't. Any explanation has Cerberus taint all over it.

Tali and Veetor disagree;)

[Almostfaceman]

alperez wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...




You admit that the VS is sent to Horizon to investigate whether or not Cerberus is involved in the colony disappearances. Then they see Shepard working with Cerberus.

So... why not investigate what's going on with a non-hostile Shepard instead of walking away like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum? Like others have mentioned, there's actual evidence that Shep can present that the VS could take back to Anderson. It simply doesn't make any sense for a professional soldier/investigator to walk away from someone with answers. You have reiterated what has happened, but you haven't addressed these questions I and others have brought up. The answer is - there is no good reason for the VS to walk away without getting more information about what's going on from a cooperative Shepard.

The fact that Shepard is working with cerberus clouds all further judgements at that time.

Rather than continue and investigate unemotionally and logically examine whatever evidence they may find, they see Shepard working with cerberus and its this which informs every choice they make thereafter.

They question Shepard, the make statements to Shepard about this fact, they even go so far as to call out Shepard and say he's betrayed not just them but the alliance and Anderson also.

They question if Shepards working with cerberus because he's being manipulated or because he feels he owes them somehow and they question whether or not cerberus are involved and that perhaps shepards not aware of it.

The problem is because Shepard's working with cerberus this fact alone makes anything he may say questionable, it can't be taken at face value, because he may be unaware of the fact he's being manipulated or worse may be working with them of his own free will and so anything he says is unreliable at best and misinformation at worst.

So what do they do, what do they say at the end of the encounter.

They'll report back to the citadel and let them decide whether to believe Shepards story.

They in essence do what any military person would do, leave it to people higher in the food chain to decide the merits of something they're not sure about.

Really? Because I was a military policeman, and I wouldn't do what they did.

All you keep doing is repeating what they do. I already know what they do, I've played the game a zillion times. You can't give me a plausible reason that they wouldn't further investigate the situation with Shepard, who is cooperative and non-hostile. Facts are facts, and Shepard has collected samples of how the Collectors attack and Mordin (who's STG, not Cerberus) has data on how to counter the Collector attack. At this point in the story the Alliance has no idea what's going on, so any data would be valuable. The Mordin swarm-counter would be invaluable for helping the Alliance protect other colonies in case there was more than one Collector ship making attacks. The VS not doing their job is gross incompetence at best.

Human lives are at stake, time to drop the high school drama.

[Almostfaceman]

alperez wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...


Well the thing you seem to be neglecting is that these aren't just american soldiers. A closer equivalent would be officers or nco's who had been deep in the trenches with the commander of your scenario. Yes, such close brothers (and sisters) in arms would definitely give their former commander the benefit of the doubt before passing judgement. Remember, these would have been soldiers who would have defied their chain of command previously for this commander, indicating a huge amount of trust and a serious bond. A bond forged in the fire of combat. Even Joker acknowledges that Ash's attitude doesn't make a lick of sense.

By american soldier i meant irrespective of rank.

I guarantee that no matter what rank if an american general was presumed dead and suddenly reappeared after 2 years working with people considered to be the enemy, the initial reaction would not be about the character of that general or whether or not 2 years ago that general could be trusted to be doing what he's doing for the right reasons.

The first reaction would be omg he's working with the enemy, its then up to the general to correct that reaction.

But before he got the chance to put his case across it'd be the fact he's working with the enemy that would be the prevelant one in the minds of his men, now what do you think, would they ignore this based on personal history or would they in fact throw him in chains and let others decide the merits of what he's doing?

As a serving military man who's in command of others, if i presented myself in the same situation and my men took my word at face value i'd be extremely dissappointed in them.

You bring up Joker and his reaction, the problem though is like Shepard, Jokers aware of information that paints things completely differently, he can't understand Ash's attitude because like Shepard he's aware of why they're doing what they're doing and of cerberus's presumed intentions, working for cerberus as he does now he's coming at things with a completely different perspective than Ash is, so of course he can't understand her attitude.

Yeah, that's the thing. Ash doesn't have to take Shep's word at face value. There's hard evidence to back up what Shepard's claiming. But the VS is going all high school drama and not doing their job. No excuse. It's bad writing just for the sake of keeping the VS alive, imho.

Please, just stop telling me I'm not taking the VS's viewpoint into consideration. I am. I'm just coming to different conclusions than you are, for perfectly logical reasons.

Anderson: Ash, go to Horizon and see what you can find out about the colonists disappearing. We've got a tip it's Cerberus.

Ash: Yes sir.

*Ash goes to Horizon, is saved by Shepard*

Ash: You're alive! How?
(oh, wait, that reasonable question isn't asked)

Ash: You were in a coma for two years? OmG! Are you okay?
(oh, wait, that reasonable question isn't asked)

Ash: You're with Cerberus? Why? How? Do you agree with them or are you freelance?
(oh, wait, that reasonable question isn't asked)

Ash: You say it's the Collectors taking human colonies? What evidence do you have, I mean, I saw these aliens and bugs flying around but...
(oh, wait, that reasonable question isn't asked)

Ash: Hey there's Garrus, who else is on your squad?
(oh wait, that reasonable question isn't asked)

Ash: You're working with the Illusive Man? Can you feed the Alliance intel while you're working with him?
(oh wait, that reasonable question isn't asked)

And on and on, I mean there's just a bunch of really basic questions she should have asked to give the Alliance an idea what Shepard is up to - in case the Alliance wanted to help or hinder. It's her duty.

[Someone With Mass]

Mr.House wrote...
Not really. Tali and Garrus just sat in the Normandy the whole time while Kaidan, Ash, Liara and Wrex worked there ass of in ME. Once Shepard got evidence Tali just sits in the engine room and does nothing, samething with Garrus. They just took up room while the real heroes where with Shepard and who do I get in ME2. Tow peopel who did nothing in ME and worse I'm forced to have them on my team, <_<

Wrex? All Wrex did was getting grumpy because Shepard was about to destroy the cure.

Tali did more than Ashley and Kaidan ever did too. Without her, Shepard wouldn't be a Spectre and he'd be stuck on the Citadel while Sovereign unleashed the apocalypse on the galaxy.

Garrus saved Dr. Chloe.

All the VS did was getting themselves killed the heroic sacrifice way because nobody in Mass Effect has ever heard of the wonderful contraption called a remote detonator.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Whahuh?

How does the VS get killed on Vermire when they're the Vermire Survivor?

And... it's a makeshift bomb built from a drive core, isn't it? Yeah, so unreasonable that such a thing would need to be armed by hand... not detonated, armed.

[K_Tabris]

NeroSparda wrote...

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. 

Feel the same way as ADLegend.  The 'You betrayed the Alliance" comment was out of place, for the dialogue choices both my main Shepards choose.   No VS is getting into any of my Shepard's pants in ME3 w/o an epic apology scene.  Others may disagree, that's fine, but my reaction and the alternative ones are all equally valid.

[ADLegend21]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Not really. Tali and Garrus just sat in the Normandy the whole time while Kaidan, Ash, Liara and Wrex worked there ass of in ME. Once Shepard got evidence Tali just sits in the engine room and does nothing, samething with Garrus. They just took up room while the real heroes where with Shepard and who do I get in ME2. Tow peopel who did nothing in ME and worse I'm forced to have them on my team, <_<

Wrex? All Wrex did was getting grumpy because Shepard was about to destroy the cure.

Tali did more than Ashley and Kaidan ever did too. Without her, Shepard wouldn't be a Spectre and he'd be stuck on the Citadel while Sovereign unleashed the apocalypse on the galaxy.

Garrus saved Dr. Chloe.

All the VS did was getting themselves killed the heroic sacrifice way because nobody in Mass Effect has ever heard of the wonderful contraption called a remote detonator.

Kaidan and Ashley saved Eden Prime with Shepard. They saved an entire human colony from being eradicated by the Geth. All Tali did was hack a geth while KaiShley killed dozens. Also Garrus sving Dr Michel is optional. If you go to Wrex first then you don't even get that quest.

Wrex also goes from being "grumpy" to ruling over his species in 2 years. Which is much more than Tali and Garrus are doing in 2185-86

[alperez]

Almostfaceman

Seriously your trying to say as a former military policeman if a soldier was presumed dead for 2 years, rumours circulated that he wasn't dead and was in fact working with terrorists, then suddenly after those 2 years had passed he turned up accompanied by those very same terrorists, you'd welcome him back with open arms? You'd simply accept his word that he was doing what he was doing for the right reasons?

I've used the comparison between an american soldier and Al Qaeda because it's as close to a parellel situation we could come up with and you honestly believe that an american soldier in the same situation would just be accepted back by his comrades based solely upon his word and his past record.

Are you really that naive or are you so blinded in your dislike of the vs, that your trying to suggest that this is how a real world situation would be handled.

The simple truth of the matter is this an american soldier in the same situation would immediately be whisked off for a complete debriefing and in order to ascertain if he had in fact been turned, that's if he was lucky enough not to have been shot on sight.

You say i haven't given a plausible explanation why the vs, acts how they have and instead have just repeated the situation itself, partly that's because you imo misunderstand the situation.

A soldier returns after being presumed dead for 2 years, during those 2 years rumours have circulated that the soldier is alive and working with the enemy, upon his return it looks as if this is indeed the case as he is in fact working with the enemy.

The plausible reason your looking for is the mere fact that Shepard is working with cerberus, once that's been established then from that point on anything gained from speaking to Shepard is called completely into question.

How can someone trust Shepard if he's working with people considered to be the enemy?

Do they simply accept his word?

What if he's lying?

The thing you can't seem to accept is that the onus is on Shepard to prove himself in this situation, he's the one who should convince the VS. that they are mistaken or unaware of facts.

You bring up the evidence Shepard is in possession of as if this in some way absolves him of this responsibility, but again does he present this evidence, does he show this proof, no he does not.

He has the ability to calm the vs, to reassure them that he's still the same man he used to be and is still doing what's right, but instead he ignores all this evidence he has and rather than calm the situation he inflames it with his responses.

So what does the vs. in the end do, they say they'll report back to the citadel and let them judge whether or not Shepards story flies, isn't that what a soldier is supposed to do?

If your unable to make a judgement call based on lack of evidence or because your emotional state is compromised, then aren't you as a soldier supposed to simply pass on your assessment to people who may be in a better position to make that judgement call.

The vs. brings up relevant points that on Horizon shepard doesn't give clear cut answers to, he fobs them off with trust me, i'm still the same and you don't know the situation answers.

Yet you expect them to make a clear rational judgement with no evidence provided other than Shepard's word, when the problem itself is that because of his association with cerberus its his word that can't be trusted.

This situation doesn't take place just moments after the last meeting between the vs and shepard, it takes place 2 years after Shepard was supposedly KIA, at some point prior to the encounter on Horizon rumours that Shepard was alive and working with cerberus were circulated, rumours that Shepard arriving on Horizon with cerberus in tow now seem to confirm.

When pressed upon the situation, Shepard responds with non answers or dismisses the concerns raised as if he's talking to a child, he offers no evidence to back up his version of events other than his word, even though he has physical evidence that may actually confim his story, but you think its the VS who's at fault because they don't accept his word, even though its the situation he's in that could make his word untrustworthy.

Like i said if in a real life situation an american soldier came back working with the enemy after being presumed dead for 2 years and offered no evidence other than a you can trust me, you know me defence then he would be very lucky not to be arrested for treason or shot.

[Iakus]

alperez wrote...

The simple truth of the matter is this an american soldier in the same situation would immediately be whisked off for a complete debriefing and in order to ascertain if he had in fact been turned, that's if he was lucky enough not to have been shot on sight.

And the VS does neither.  Does not even ask Shepard to come with him/her for a debriefing (Shepard, ironcially does offer them to come with him, which imo is even more stupid)

A soldier returns after being presumed dead for 2 years, during those 2 years rumours have circulated that the soldier is alive and working with the enemy, upon his return it looks as if this is indeed the case as he is in fact working with the enemy.

It also looked like Saren had convinced an army of geth to follow him
It looked like Sovereign was simply a really big dreadnaught
It looked like Zhu's Hope was just a human colony under seige .
The relay statue on the Citadel looked like just a piece of artwork.

The plausible reason your looking for is the mere fact that Shepard is working with cerberus, once that's been established then from that point on anything gained from speaking to Shepard is called completely into question.

How can someone trust Shepard if he's working with people considered to be the enemy?

Do they simply accept his word?

What if he's lying?

What if he's not?  What does his service record say?  Past actions?  Is working with Cerberus in character for him?  If he was staunchly pro-Council before why would he now work for Cerberus?

He has the ability to calm the vs, to reassure them that he's still the same man he used to be and is still doing what's right, but instead he ignores all this evidence he has and rather than calm the situation he inflames it with his responses.

And this is a big chunk of what makes the scene so bad.  The evidence is there, but is neither asked for nor offered.  The entire confrontation is nothing but an artificial means to form a rift between the two.  It was stupid and unnecessary and Bioware should feel bad about doing it.

So what does the vs. in the end do, they say they'll report back to the citadel and let them judge whether or not Shepards story flies, isn't that what a soldier is supposed to do?

The VS is there to investigate, s/he should, well, investigate (to their credit, they do, eventually.  After SHep leaves, it seems) But Shepard is still a potential source gold mine of information.  They should still get as much information from him as possible, even if it all has to be marked "questionable" because, hey!  He just might be right, like he was in ME1!

The vs. brings up relevant points that on Horizon shepard doesn't give clear cut answers to, he fobs them off with trust me, i'm still the same and you don't know the situation answers.

And this isn't bad writing how?  Especially for those Shepards who don't like Cerberus to begin with?

This situation doesn't take place just moments after the last meeting between the vs and shepard, it takes place 2 years after Shepard was supposedly KIA, at some point prior to the encounter on Horizon rumours that Shepard was alive and working with cerberus were circulated, rumours that Shepard arriving on Horizon with cerberus in tow now seem to confirm.

This is a good point.

[alperez]

Almostfaceman wrote...

*Snip*


Yeah, that's the thing. Ash doesn't have to take Shep's word at face value. There's hard evidence to back up what Shepard's claiming. But the VS is going all high school drama and not doing their job. No excuse. It's bad writing just for the sake of keeping the VS alive, imho.

Please, just stop telling me I'm not taking the VS's viewpoint into consideration. I am. I'm just coming to different conclusions than you are, for perfectly logical reasons.

You bolded the part about the fact that they've defied the chain of command previously, so i assume you want to integrate that into your argument.

Yes they have indeed defied the chain of command previously, but the situation was completely different, at that time they had gone through exactly the same events as Shepard had, they could trust not just Shepards intentions and judgement but their own because like Shepard they were fully aware of the entire situation.

On horizon though Shepard turns up working with cerberus (considered terrorists by the alliance) he's been presumed dead for 2 years and during those 2 years rumours were circulated about him, the vs has been completely out of the loop in regards both to the situation and the reasoning behind why Shepard is doing what he's now doing, so they cannot come to the same conclussion they did in me1.

Would the vs. have gone along with stealing the normandy if they had just turned up at that particular point in time?

If they had not have been with Shepard throughout all the events of me1, then what exactly do you think their reaction would have been when Shepard suggested they steal the Normandy?

Would they have defied the chain of command in that situation or understood why Shepard was doing so or would they have thought, hey what the hell is this guy up to?

On horizon the situation is pretty much the same, they cannot be clear in Shepard's motivations so therefore cannot come to the same conclussion that they would if they were clear, instead it comes down to trust, which is a serious problem because 1. 2 years have passed between meetings, 2. Shepard is working with people considered the enemy, 3. They have less understanding of events and the situation overall.

Now onto the other points you raise.

Ash doesn't have to take Shepards word at face value there is evidence to prove his case.

Yet does Shepard offer this evidence, does he present it, does he answer any of her points with a here you go this proves me right, no he does not, instead he responds with a You have no idea, your not aware of things, you can trust me serious of responses.

You say Ash is not doing her job, that she doesn't ask for proof, she instead acts like a spoilt child and throws a tantrum.

To an extent this is true, she does throw a tantrum, but the problem is that its up to Shepard to proof her wrong, he's the one in possession of all this evidence, he's the one who's in the position to calm the situation, but he doesn't do either of these things, instead he inflames it.

Ash asks questions that Shepard doesn't answer, she calls him out on working with cerberus and what his could actually mean, Shepard responds by saying your wrong and you know me, when the problem itself is because of the gap between meetings and the fact he's now working with cerberus, Ash cannot be sure she is wrong or she does know him anymore.

Its up to Shepard as the person fully aware of the facts of the situation and being the one who's in possession of the evidence and who's character and motivations are being called into question, to offer these facts, to provide this evidence and proof that Ash is wrong in her assessment, instead he offers nothing more than a you can trust me defence of his position, a positon which is weakened by his involvement with cerberus.

You then bring up a multitude of questions Ash could have asked, the problem is that some of these questions are asked and not answered and its because of this the situation detoriates so badly.

Ash says she believes he was dead, that he let her believe he was dead, shepard responds by saying what, i got better, i was in a coma, he offers no other explantion other than this little titbit, yet you think the question wasn't asked.

She asks about cerberus, she points out that he may be being manipulated by them, he may feel he owes them a debt or he may be being duped by them, shepard responds with cerberus and i want the same things but i don't answer to them response.

She says she doesn't trust cerberus and it worries her that Shepard does,what if they're working with the collectors, what did they do to you, Shepard responds with a maybe your letting your feelings about cerberus get in the way of facts, yet he offers none of thes facts now does he.

Upon seeing Garrus she says, garrus too, its clear that she's noticed this, so the question is actually moot, the fact that garrus and Shepard are both working together with cerberus doesn't do anything to dismiss the underlying feeling that working with cerberus is wrong, so why would bringing anyone else into the equation make any difference.

As far as i can recollect the illusive man is never brough up, but even subsituiting cerberus for the illusive man,why would somone ask someone to funnel info back to the alliance when the problem they have with that person is the feeling they've already betrayed the alliance?

The important questions are asked on Horizon, the ones that really matter, the points raised are not dealt with so why would asking any other questions be valuable when the problem boils down in essence to being able to trust Shepard?

If Ash can no longer trust Shepard, then how could she trust the answers he gives?

Again the onus here is on Shepard not Ash, he's in possession of evidence that could back up his story, he's in possession of facts that can prove him right, instead of offering up any of this though he responds basically with a you can trust me line of defence, when trust is the one thing he cannot bring to the situation at that point simply because he' working for people that can't be trusted.

I say you don't take Ash's view into consideration, what i mean by this is not that you don't acknowledge her view, but you simply give it less importance than you do to Shepards. You place all blame firmly at Ash's door when the problem is blame is at best equal and at worst in the hands of the person with full knowledge and evidence to back up that knowledge.

I do agree with you on one thing, the writing is bad, imo that's because they tried to do the encounter with the least amount of effort whatsoever, so we have 2 characters being shoehorned into basically one and since both these characters are also romancable we have 2 relationships being shoehorned into one also.

Modifié par alperez, 07 octobre 2011 - 07:38 .

[Eyeshield21]

damn, this thread has gone to a debate, I like it!

[alperez]

iakus wrote...


And the VS does neither.  Does not even ask Shepard to come with him/her for a debriefing (Shepard, ironcially does offer them to come with him, which imo is even more stupid)

Considering they were on their own on Horizon and what they may have been forced to do if Shepard refused then perhaps this was simply a self preservation issue and could also explain why they did not try to arrest Shepard.

As for the last part, he doesn't actually, instead he asks the VS. to join him on his mission, something that if they do at this point would be desertion.

It also looked like Saren had convinced an army of geth to follow him
It looked like Sovereign was simply a really big dreadnaught
It looked like Zhu's Hope was just a human colony under seige .
The relay statue on the Citadel looked like just a piece of artwork.

Indeed it did but in each of those examples there is proof to show this is not the case, in Shepards case on horizon he has that proof but never offers it so like in those examples its taken at face value.

If your not aware of the fact behind Saren and the geth then would you believe it wasn't true he simply convinced geth to follow him.

If your not aware of reapers can you believe that sovereign was not a dreadnought.

If you weren't on Zhu's hope and had not seen the thorian with your own eyes could you believe anything other than it was a human colony under siege.

Considering until Shepard came along every believed the relay was actually a statue i think this kinda prooves the point.

Without proof to show otherwise, you can only believe what you see, remember people believed the world was flat for centuries, shepard has proof he just doesn't offer it.

What if he's not?  What does his service record say?  Past actions?  Is working with Cerberus in character for him?  If he was staunchly pro-Council before why would he now work for Cerberus?

The problem is he offers no proof that he's not lying, his service record, his past actions, his previous character are all called into question because of the situation itself.

The fact is that 2 years previous he supposedly died, rumours circulated that he is alive and working with cerberus, he shows up on horizon and is surprise surprise alive and working with cerberus, he offers no proof or no evidence that he's not being duped, being controlled or working voluntarily for them because he believes in them other than a simple, you know me, you can trust me defence.

So how can you trust his words when his actions are called into question by both the nature of his supposed death and resurrection, the rumours of his activties prior to horizon and the company he now keeps.

And this is a big chunk of what makes the scene so bad.  The evidence is there, but is neither asked for nor offered.  The entire confrontation is nothing but an artificial means to form a rift between the two.  It was stupid and unnecessary and Bioware should feel bad about doing it.

Again don't get me wrong, i hate horizon, its lazy and bad writing, but its what we have and what we're stuck with, so i look at it from both sides and can see where the faults lie with each, just because i'm defending the VS. here doesn't mean i don't hold them equally at fault for how Horizon played out, it takes 2 people to mess things up not just 1, all i'm trying to do is show the others perspective also.

The VS is there to investigate, s/he should, well, investigate (to their credit, they do, eventually.  After SHep leaves, it seems) But Shepard is still a potential source gold mine of information.  They should still get as much information from him as possible, even if it all has to be marked "questionable" because, hey!  He just might be right, like he was in ME1!

Again i completely agree they should investigate and in the end the do, the problem is though this investigation almost has to be without Shepard in order for the right conclussion to be reached, Shepards presence, his working with cerberus, his reappearance after being presumed dead for 2 years and his inane responses don't allow a logical conclussion to occur, they infact hinder it because they heighten the emotions of the person investigating.

As for Shepard being a potential gold mine of information, the factors above also make him a potential gold mine for misinformation, if indeed he is now working with cerberus for the wrong reasons, then anything he may say is called into question.

Shepard is right, we know this, the VS does not, so it comes down to initially at least a trust thing and the situation presented and the responses given don't allow for initially Shepard to be trusted imo, later on calmer heads have prevailed and the investigation proofs shepard right, but this requires for certain factors to be removed from the equation in order to reach that point.

And this isn't bad writing how?  Especially for those Shepards who don't like Cerberus to begin with?

Again i agree the writing is bad, not just on horizon but throughout me2 Shepards who don't trust or like cerberus have very little opportunity to express this, in order to force us to work with cerberus we at times have to suspend or own disbelief, but in the end thats how the cookie crumbles, we're left with what we're left with, the fact its badly written doesn't change the views, just our interpretation of them.

This is a good point.

Thank you glad to see i got at least one lol.

[alperez]

Eyeshield21 wrote...

damn, this thread has gone to a debate, I like it!

Shhh shouldn't have said that, now its guranteed that we'll resort to usual name calling and insults lol.