527 réponses à ce sujet

[jlb524]

Yeah, they didn't do anything wrong..

[shepskisaac]

DoNotIngest wrote...

Allow me to elaborate, old bean. I was merely upholding Mongol tradition, removing unnecessary words in favour of symbolism representing your argument.

*sips tea*

I see *spills your tea*

[alperez]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Some people literally cannot stand when their companions confront them, or have doubts, or question their leadership.

These characters are usually - but not always - my favorites. In every case though, I like that they have an independent thought process. Disagreement is not a problem for me as such, and while not every poster who demands utter devotion from their companions due to the Protagonist's Awesome Ego strikes me as silly... most do.

That's exactly the problem i have with how some people react to the VS's stance, irrespective of how badly written or incorporated Horizon is, one thing that doesn't seem to reasonate enough is the fact that the VS raises some interesting points.

Shepard working with cerberus is a complete U-turn from the Shepard the VS knew in me1, we off course know the complete details of why he's working with Cerberus and why its the only course of action he can take, the VS though is presented with it as a fait accompli, then when Shepard is pressed upon it he answers with a you can trust me because you know me defence.

Faced with the same situation and with the same knowledge the VS has most people would react pretty much how they did imo, yet because the VS just doesn't accept the non explantions that Shepard offers, because they then also react emotionally to what is an emotional situation, they're then held up as being completely in the wrong.

One of the major problems imo, is that apart from the VS no one else really questions the actions that Shepard takes, Tali and Garrus are easily persuaded which makes the VS look like they're being difficult or unloyal when in fact they're the only ones questioning what looks like a complete U-Turn on Shepard's part.

Its then the fact that they've dared to confront Shepard and haven't accepted the ridicolous explanations he offers that in some peoples mind prove them disloyal, surely its the other way round.

If someone you cared about was either acting in a manner which seemed to prove something was wrong with them or showed them heading down a dangerous path, then you would confront that person and try to get them to realise the error in their ways.

Now off course the VS doesn't actually do this fully either but at least they try to, something other characters fail to do repeatedly.

[Mr.House]

jlb524 wrote...

Yeah, they didn't do anything wrong..

Silly jlb, don't you know that if the character does not follow Shepard all the time or has no life then they are bad and can't be trusted.

[Ryzaki]

Eh.
That said I'm amused by the "OMG you don't like them so you obviously don't like independant characters!" from some people here. Funny how they're arguing that some people don't like others disagreeing with them so much they disregard the actual points that are being made and then...go ahead and display that same behavior. *slow clap* Bravo for proving your point. Bravo. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 octobre 2011 - 10:29 .

[Zjarcal]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Some people literally cannot stand when their companions confront them, or have doubts, or question their leadership.

These characters are usually - but not always - my favorites. In every case though, I like that they have an independent thought process. Disagreement is not a problem for me as such, and while not every poster who demands utter devotion from their companions due to the Protagonist's Awesome Ego strikes me as silly... most do.

Why does everyone keep assuming anyone who is bothered by the VS, is only bothered because they questioned Shepard and that we want characters that gravitate around the PC? That they questioned Shep isn't an issue to me, in fact I can respect that (much like I respect characters like Sten when they question the Warden at Haven), it's that they don't even give you a f***in chance to actually explain yourself.

I don't care if that's bad writing or whatever, it made them look bad in my eyes. If they had at least given you a chance to explain the situation, I wouldn't have been that bothered, but when it goes, "Cerberus! EVIL! YOU'VE CHANGED, RUN AWAY!" and I have no chance to even explain the situation, of course I'm going to be annoyed.

[upsettingshorts]

Zjarcal wrote...

Why does everyone keep assuming anyone who is bothered by the VS, is only bothered because they questioned Shepard and that we want characters that gravitate around the PC?

Who said I was?  I was making a general statement that also applies to say, Sten questioning the Warden.

Also many people have made that argument as I presented it before, that others don't isn't really something I attempted to address.  There is no need to get defensive.

[Mr.House]

Zjarcal wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Some people literally cannot stand when their companions confront them, or have doubts, or question their leadership.

These characters are usually - but not always - my favorites. In every case though, I like that they have an independent thought process. Disagreement is not a problem for me as such, and while not every poster who demands utter devotion from their companions due to the Protagonist's Awesome Ego strikes me as silly... most do.

Why does everyone keep assuming anyone who is bothered by the VS, is only bothered because they questioned Shepard and that we want characters that gravitate around the PC? That they questioned Shep isn't an issue to me, in fact I can respect that (much like I respect characters like Sten when they question the Warden at Haven), it's that they don't even give you a f***in chance to actually explain yourself.

I don't care if that's bad writing or whatever, it made them look bad in my eyes. If they had at least given you a chance to explain the situation, I wouldn't have been that bothered, but when it goes, "Cerberus! EVIL! YOU'VE CHANGED, RUN AWAY!" and I have no chance to even explain the situation, of course I'm going to be annoyed.

The fact that you can't explain anything has noithng to do with the VS, it has to do with the hack who wrote that scene.

[Ryzaki]

Rojahar wrote...

Have you ever considered that maybe THEY were right and SHEPARD was wrong? Maybe SHEPARD should have stood by them, and the Alliance, instead of getting caught up with Cerberus? Especially in retrospect, considering what we know about ME3? It sounds like you consider Shepard the center of the universe, and everyone who doesn't revolve around Shepard be damned.

And here it goes again.  

Again just because I didn't go OMG VS YOU WERE SO RIGHT! =/= not liking characters questioning my Shepard .

If that was the case Mordin's back and forth with my paragade Shepard about the genophage would not be one of my favorite scenes. (Especialy considering my Shepard acknowledged eventually that Mordin was right and loved how Mordin stood his ground). 

But somehow not liking the VS immediately means I don't like characters with their own minds. Obviously. The VS is the only character in the history of ever that has a spine. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 octobre 2011 - 10:33 .

[Another_Golden_Dragon]

alperez wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

The bigger sh*tstorm will still happen once VS learns the Alliance works with Cerberus.

You raise an excellent point here, once that cat is out of the proverbial bag then the fit will really hit the shan.

Fixed.

My take on the Horizon fiasco: 

First:  What if the VS is already being evaluated for SPECTRE canidadcy/ already become a SPECTRE?  the latter part is unlikely, since there is no reason to not join Shepard, but the former could be ruined by joining Shepard at that time.  It's already common knowledge that the VS is a SPECTRE him/herself in ME 3...

As for why the VS isn't taken by the Collectors:  One of your companions will comment on the stasis when you examine the colonists on the stairs as being fully aware, but totally immobilized.  For Kaidan, he possibly could have used his biotics (hope you remembered he has them) to re-locate himself elsewhere, but this doesn't explain Ash.  Alternatively:  a Collector could be reaching for the VS (perhaps even placing the VS into a pod) when tha alarm comes in about Shepard, and new orders come saying to catch Shepard (or something like that).  Talk about in the nick of time.

As for trusting the VS?  One of my (female) Shepards will do so almost immediately, the other women will want a good explanation first.  The male Shepard (Kaidan is VS here, too, so no real issues for Tali being LI) probably won't fully trust Kaidan, but will accept help/appology.

[Siansonea]

To me, the hatred/mistrust toward the VS can be summed up by the phrase "my player character, right or wrong". The player becomes SO identified with the PC, they lose any sense of perspective. Much the way they rationalize their own mistakes, they rationalize Shepard's lapses in judgement. The VS comes along and says "wait a minute, you're working for the enemy there Bucko", and they have an emotional reaction. THEY have been "attacked", and they just respond emotionally and try to rationalize Shepard's activities.

They postulate that because Shepard's path turns out to be successful, i.e., that Shepard successfully stops the Collectors from assembling a "human Reaper", that the path they took to achieve that goal was justified. "The ends justifies the means", those Renegade wannabes will shout from the roof tops. Meanwhile, an armada of Reapers are headed for the Alpha Relay, rendering the strategic importance of said Human Reaper moot. That thing was months if not YEARS away from being completed, and in the meanwhilst the Reapers are well on their way to catching the galactic bus and Reaping us all. Can you say "misdirection'? Intentional or not, the entire storyline of ME2 amounts to a giant wild goose chase when you take the events of Arrival into account. The Collectors were abducting human colonies, but was TIM's plan the only workable one? Well, we'll never know, will we? Shepard didn't explore any other options, just went along with anything TIM said, with only the most impotent of objections to TIM's methods. I think if I was a loyal Alliance Marine who had served with Shepard, I would think something was fishy. Especially given Cerberus' actions toward the Alliance over the years. You know, murdering Admirals and scores of Marines on various planets, torture, vivisection, etc. Shepard used to be against all that stuff. Now Shepard's best buds with Cerberus? What the hell, hero?

[TheBlackBaron]

IsaacShep wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

I wonder what will happen when the VS finds out that the whole reason the Collectors were on Horizon in the first place was because of the Illusive Man—Shepard's employer. "A calculated risk", "acceptable losses", spouts the Illusive Man in that callous way of his. I'm sure Lilith's family doesn't find the loss all that "acceptable", but hey, Cerberus is our ally, right? Oh wait, they're the enemy again...

The bigger sh*tstorm will still happen once VS learns the Alliance works with Cerberus.

I don't have any trust issues with the VS and happen to like Ashley very much...but oh man am I going to enjoy that moment if (when?) it happens. 

[mesmerizedish]

alperez wrote...

Can you trust the VS. post horizon?

No.

[Iakus]

alperez wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Some people literally cannot stand when their companions confront them, or have doubts, or question their leadership.

These characters are usually - but not always - my favorites. In every case though, I like that they have an independent thought process. Disagreement is not a problem for me as such, and while not every poster who demands utter devotion from their companions due to the Protagonist's Awesome Ego strikes me as silly... most do.

That's exactly the problem i have with how some people react to the VS's stance, irrespective of how badly written or incorporated Horizon is, one thing that doesn't seem to reasonate enough is the fact that the VS raises some interesting points.

Shepard working with cerberus is a complete U-turn from the Shepard the VS knew in me1, we off course know the complete details of why he's working with Cerberus and why its the only course of action he can take, the VS though is presented with it as a fait accompli, then when Shepard is pressed upon it he answers with a you can trust me because you know me defence.

Faced with the same situation and with the same knowledge the VS has most people would react pretty much how they did imo, yet because the VS just doesn't accept the non explantions that Shepard offers, because they then also react emotionally to what is an emotional situation, they're then held up as being completely in the wrong.

One of the major problems imo, is that apart from the VS no one else really questions the actions that Shepard takes, Tali and Garrus are easily persuaded which makes the VS look like they're being difficult or unloyal when in fact they're the only ones questioning what looks like a complete U-Turn on Shepard's part.

Its then the fact that they've dared to confront Shepard and haven't accepted the ridicolous explanations he offers that in some peoples mind prove them disloyal, surely its the other way round.

If someone you cared about was either acting in a manner which seemed to prove something was wrong with them or showed them heading down a dangerous path, then you would confront that person and try to get them to realise the error in their ways.

Now off course the VS doesn't actually do this fully either but at least they try to, something other characters fail to do repeatedly.

I think it's a combination of factors.

Yeah working with Cerberus is suspicious, but compare how the conversation with the VS went on Horizon with how the talk with Tali on Freedom's Progress went.  Both start out suspicious, but Shepard can allay Tali's fears while the VS only gets reinforced.  I always thought it would have been better to have the VS meeting on Freedom's Progress instead of Tali.  It's not that the VS shows worry or disapproval that gets people (or me at least) but it's the anger.  They're not worried that Shep's starting down a dangerous path, but the assumption that Shepard just finished a hundred yard sprint down it, and is now drawing a hopscotch grid on the pavement.

The fact that Tali (initially), Wrex, Liara, and Anderson can all refuse to join Shepard without calling him/her a traitor shows that such suspicion was not necessary to keeping the VS off the team.

And yes, Shepard's failure to explain is inexcusable.  I think I pointed out on other threads that Shepard has a ton of evidence literally at this fingertips that could have been shown to the VS.  

[alperez]

Zjarcal

No one's saying that the only reason people are annoyed at the VS is because they questioned Shepard, as you rightly point out there are other reasons.

In terms of the reason you say, we could put it down simply to bad writing but if we do then we may as well put the whole scene down to that, whether the writing was bad or not its what we're given so its all we have to go on.

So dealing with the issue you raise itself, while the VS does give Shepard an opportunity, but Shepard's responses inflame rather than calm the situation imo, Shepard becomes dumber than a post on Horizon, he can't explain his position irrespective of what response we pick anyway.

As for the VS not giving him that opportunity, he's the one with the full facts yet he offers nothing other than a you can trust me because you know me defence when its clearly the case the VS is unsure of whether that's true anymore.

I've said previously in another thread that imo nothing Shepard could have did or said on Horizon would have made the slighest bit of difference to the outcome, its the situation itself that causes the problem imo.

Shepard being presumed dead and then returning from the dead causes the real problem, cerberus is just the straw that breaks the camels back imo.

[Iakus]

alperez wrote...
In terms of the reason you say, we could put it down simply to bad writing but if we do then we may as well put the whole scene down to that, whether the writing was bad or not its what we're given so its all we have to go on.

The problem here is, how do you move on from the nonsensical?  At some point, it has to be justified, or at least explained.  Or the entire relationship becomes a weird chaotic mess.  

[Siansonea]

Easy fix:

VS: "What the hell, hero?"

Shepard: "Talk to Anderson, he'll tell you what's really going on. Contact me after you've talked to him. I can't really give you any detailed information now, for obvious reasons, but Anderson will be able to fill in the blanks."

[alperez]

iakus wrote...


The problem here is, how do you move on from the nonsensical?  At some point, it has to be justified, or at least explained.  Or the entire relationship becomes a weird chaotic mess.  

Unfortunately i can't see them rectifying the road to the outcome too much, more so they'll concentrate on the outcome itself, so rather than fully or properly explain why the VS acted how they did, we'll more than likely get a snippet of a reason (evidence of the rumours tim spread or something like that) then we'll quickly move onto the " i was wrong i should have trusted you" response from the VS imo.

Almost similar to how the Liara relationship was restored in LOSB.

[General User]

Is it really enough to understand someone's reasons for acting a certain way, or making certain decisions?   At what point should they be held accountable for the consequences of those decisions regardless of why they made them?  In my eyes anyway, the single damning thing the VS's did was kneecap their own mission.

The fact is, subsequent events DID vindicate Shepard.   No matter the circumstances, being right matters.  What that means in this case is that the VS's owe Shepard and apology, or at least an admission of error, and that Shepard is entitled to at least one "I told you so" in ME3.

Modifié par General User, 27 octobre 2011 - 10:46 .

[alperez]

Siansonea II wrote...

Easy fix:

VS: "What the hell, hero?"

Shepard: "Talk to Anderson, he'll tell you what's really going on. Contact me after you've talked to him. I can't really give you any detailed information now, for obvious reasons, but Anderson will be able to fill in the blanks."

I may be taking this in the wrong context and if i am i apologise, but if your talking about an easy solution that Shepard could have used on Horizon you may be mistaken.

Anderson wouldn't discuss the rumours spread about Shepard with the VS and then to make matters worse if you visit him pre Horizon he refuses to tell you where or what the VS is working on, in fact i blame Anderson more for Horizon than anyone else.

[alperez]

General User wrote...

Is it really enough to understand someone's reasons for acting a certain way, or making certain decisions?   At what point should they be held accountable for the consequences of those decisions regardless of why they made them?  In my eyes anyway, the single damning thing the VS's did was kneecap their own mission.

The fact is, subsequent events DID vindicate Shepard.   No matter the circumstances, being right matters.  What that means in this case is that the VS's owe Shepard and apology, or at least an admission of error, and that Shepard is entitled to at least one "I told you so" in ME3.

But isn't it also a key in trying to restore a relationship that its important to understand the reasons someone acts a certain way?

For example say your accused of being unfaithful by your significant other because someone has told her you were with someone else, then later on its proved you were faithful, would you not care about why you were accused in the first place and simply accept an apology and move on?

Being right also doesn't preclude the fact that you could have been wrong, so yes while technically you could say Shepard is proved right, isn't the fact that we're going to be fighting against Cerberus also proof that the VS too was right.

Modifié par alperez, 27 octobre 2011 - 10:53 .

[Siansonea]

alperez wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Easy fix:

VS: "What the hell, hero?"

Shepard: "Talk to Anderson, he'll tell you what's really going on. Contact me after you've talked to him. I can't really give you any detailed information now, for obvious reasons, but Anderson will be able to fill in the blanks."

I may be taking this in the wrong context and if i am i apologise, but if your talking about an easy solution that Shepard could have used on Horizon you may be mistaken.

Anderson wouldn't discuss the rumours spread about Shepard with the VS and then to make matters worse if you visit him pre Horizon he refuses to tell you where or what the VS is working on, in fact i blame Anderson more for Horizon than anyone else.

So do I. I understand Anderson not being forthcoming with Shepard about the VS, but I don't understand why Anderson didn't give the VS a head's up about Shepard being alive and being with Cerberus. As Kaidan says "Anderson stonewalled me". What, Anderson? Is the info above Kaidan's pay grade? Isn't part of Kaidan's assignment to investigate a possible Cerberus connection to the colony disappearances? Note to Anderson: When you have an operative investigating something, and you get information about that same something, you should pass along that information to that operative. It's just a good idea.