183 réponses à ce sujet

[Estelindis]

Xilizhra wrote...

Would Ashley or Kaidan have joined Shepard's mission in ME2 given enough time? Would they want to if duty prevented them?

It's difficult to say.  Obviously the game lets one arse around as much as one wishes, but I think that's a gameplay convention.  Realistically, in-world, ME2 only lasts a few months (I think).  Personally, I don't think that would ever have been enough time to make Ashley or Kaidan join Shep's ME2 mission.  If the mission had gone on longer, though, the effects of the Collectors would have become more and more apparent.  In those circumstances, I can see Kaidan or Ashley doing as much as they can to help Shepard without deserting the Alliance.  Still not joining the mission, but doing more than what we see in ME2.  Of course, it's possible that we'll find out that they were helping Shep behind the scenes, but I'm just going on what we know now.

[Xilizhra]

fortunesque wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And A/K's loyalty to the Alliance isn't personal?

That is. But they're loyal to Shepard in large part because Shepard is Alliance.

Based on what? They believe in the mission. They believe in stopping the reapers. There's nothing in their dialog from ME1 that they're loyal to Shepard because of the Alliance.

What they don't believe in is teaming up with a terrorist organization to try to accomplish something; they're trying to do their work without compromising their morals. This isn't pro-Alliance as much as it's anti-Cerberus.

Given that no one from the original squad has morals compatible with Cerberus, I don't believe it's primarily a moral issue.

[FoxHound109]

MegaBadExample wrote...

Ashley/Kaidan followed Shepard when he/she stole Normandy in ME1. Even encouraged it. At that moment I'd say their loyalty to shepard was personal, not professional, considering they could get court-martialed for going along with it. But they followed anyway.

Beat me to it. This is a really important point, especially because they display the exact same level of personal trust that Anderson puts in Shepard. 

[MegaBadExample]

Xilizhra wrote...

MegaBadExample wrote...

What's this all about?

Is it because Tali EVENTUALLY joins Shepard in ME2? Keep in mind Tali didn't join up with him/her at the start. She had things to do, things that came before Shepard. Much like Kaidan/Ashley had during ME2. The VS had things they couldn't simply walk away from at the time for Shepard.

Would Ashley or Kaidan have joined Shepard's mission in ME2 given enough time? Would they want to if duty prevented them?

But we didn't get enough time to see, did we? The VS probably earned their spectre status shortly after Shepard finished his mission. It's just BioWare's way of keeping the characters for ME3.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

MegaBadExample wrote...

What's this all about?

Is it because Tali EVENTUALLY joins Shepard in ME2? Keep in mind Tali didn't join up with him/her at the start. She had things to do, things that came before Shepard. Much like Kaidan/Ashley had during ME2. The VS had things they couldn't simply walk away from at the time for Shepard.

Would Ashley or Kaidan have joined Shepard's mission in ME2 given enough time? Would they want to if duty prevented them?

The problem for me isn't that the VS refuses to join Shepard, or disapproves.  Both are totally understandable.  It's that they do not care to listen to any explanation from Shepard.  Though to be fair, Shepard doesn't seem to inclined to provide one.  Shepard can explain his or her reasoning to Garrus.  To Tali.  To Anderson.  Even to the Council.  Shepard can even show distrust for Cerberus to Jacob and Miranda.  But around Ash or Kaidan, Bioware assumes direct control

Which really stinks, because Shepard can be just as loyal to the Alliance as the VS, but can't express that.

[FoxHound109]

I pretty much thought the entire Horizon fiasco was just garbage. They greet Shepard, talk for five seconds, leave, and then apologies and questions happen off-screen in some e-mail. Bah!

[BobZilla84]

Man it's always nice to see a well thought out topic that is minus the haters anyways heres my opinion.

I think that the thing to consider first and formost is that Ashley & Kaidan are devoted Alliance Soldiers so Horizon didn't really suprise me at all it sucked big time but true enough it was in character for them to turn on Shepard.

And I still think that Horizon was written to damage the Relationship between Shepard and The Virmire Survivor both Romance and not I have a feeling that in Mass Effect 3 Shepard and The Virmire Survivor will Clash on alot of things like Shepards choices and Big Decisions that might very well lead to another Virmre Situation but this time it won't be Wrex argueing against Shepard It will be Ashley/Kaidan.

[FoxHound109]

elektrego wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

MegaBadExample wrote...

Ashley/Kaidan followed Shepard when he/she stole Normandy in ME1. Even encouraged it. At that moment I'd say their loyalty to shepard was personal, not professional, considering they could get court-martialed for going along with it. But they followed anyway.

Beat me to it. This is a really important point, especially because they display the exact same level of personal trust that Anderson puts in Shepard. 

But they were with Shepard every step pf the way leading up to this, as opposed to coming from a very different situation fueled by grief, rumors, doubts. Context makes all the difference! Why can't people see this. Their loyalty is never blind - neither to the Alliance nor to Shepard. In case of Ilos, they were standing closer to Shepard, because they witnessed the idiocy of the Council, Udina and the Alliance brass, in case of Horizon they were standing closer to the Alliance, because Shepard reappeared out of nowhere under suspicious circumstances.

I'm not arguing that their hesistance to accept Shepard after two years was wrong. Just disagreeing with the idea that the V.S.'s loyalty to Shepard is PURELY professional.

In the same token though, since we're discussing the subject, I'll play devil's advocate here: Anderson knew even MORE information about Shepard and his work with Cerberus and he still trusted him enough to invite him to the Citadel and convince the rest of the Council to give him an audience. There's no way anyone could argue that Ashley or Kaiden are more loyal/better soldiers than Anderson.

Modifié par FoxHound109, 09 novembre 2011 - 05:38 .

[jeweledleah]

FoxHound109 wrote...

elektrego wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

MegaBadExample wrote...

Ashley/Kaidan followed Shepard when he/she stole Normandy in ME1. Even encouraged it. At that moment I'd say their loyalty to shepard was personal, not professional, considering they could get court-martialed for going along with it. But they followed anyway.

Beat me to it. This is a really important point, especially because they display the exact same level of personal trust that Anderson puts in Shepard. 

But they were with Shepard every step pf the way leading up to this, as opposed to coming from a very different situation fueled by grief, rumors, doubts. Context makes all the difference! Why can't people see this. Their loyalty is never blind - neither to the Alliance nor to Shepard. In case of Ilos, they were standing closer to Shepard, because they witnessed the idiocy of the Council, Udina and the Alliance brass, in case of Horizon they were standing closer to the Alliance, because Shepard reappeared out of nowhere under suspicious circumstances.

I'm not arguing that their hesistance to accept Shepard after two years was wrong. Just disagreeing with the idea that the V.S.'s loyalty to Shepard is PURELY professional.

In the same token though, since we're discussing the subject, I'll play devil's advocate here: Anderson knew even MORE information about Shepard and his work with Cerberus and he still trusted him enough to invite him to the Citadel and convince the rest of the Council to give him an audience. 

he took a risk for himself only and the council was protected anyways - can't really assasinate holograms. 

Shepard can explain what happened to the VS but you need to choose specific dialogue.

its a pretty halfhearted explanation that does nothing to explain Cerberus connection or to provide the actual proof of the claims made.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 09 novembre 2011 - 05:40 .

[Xilizhra]

In the same token though, since we're discussing the subject, I'll play devil's advocate here: Anderson knew even MORE information about Shepard and his work with Cerberus and he still trusted him enough to invite him to the Citadel and convince the rest of the Council to give him an audience.

Anderson is quite a bit less idealistic than the VS, as comes from being in a high command position. He better accepts the need to use not-totally-honorable means to get things done in general, and his greater flexibility helps him better accept Shepard.

[FoxHound109]

jeweledleah wrote...

he took a risk for himself only and the council was protected anyways - can't really assasinate holograms.

I'm not sure that's really a point. He goes out of his way to contact Shepard to meet up with him.  I don't think "taking the risk for himself" is really a counter argument here.

[FoxHound109]

Xilizhra wrote...

In the same token though, since we're discussing the subject, I'll play devil's advocate here: Anderson knew even MORE information about Shepard and his work with Cerberus and he still trusted him enough to invite him to the Citadel and convince the rest of the Council to give him an audience.

Anderson is quite a bit less idealistic than the VS, as comes from being in a high command position. He better accepts the need to use not-totally-honorable means to get things done in general, and his greater flexibility helps him better accept Shepard.

But again, the "idealism" is put in question once the V.S. leaves with Shepard on the Normandy to Ilos. I would argue that seeing the treatment of Shepard for the first game should have taught the V.S. to be less idealistic. Not quite on the same level as Anderson, but still there.

Personally, I think we have opposing views. I feel like the V.S.'s response to Shep in Horizon is less professional and more emotional/personal, which I like more. I think it's less about professionalism for them than it is about feeling hurt. 

[jeweledleah]

FoxHound109 wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

he took a risk for himself only and the council was protected anyways - can't really assasinate holograms.

I'm not sure that's really a point. He goes out of his way to contact Shepard to meet up with him.  I don't think "taking the risk for himself" is really a counter argument here.

he needs to know.  he was Shepard's commanding officer and one of 3 people who reccomended him/her for the spectre candidate, if I recognized all the voices correctly.  plus he doesn't go to meet Shepard, he asks Shepard to come to him.  if Shepard shows up, on a citadel, volontarily... maybe there's something to talk about.

in case of VS though - the meeting is almost accidental and under some very incriminating circumstances.

[Iakus]

elektrego wrote...

But they were with Shepard every step pf the way leading up to this, as opposed to coming from a very different situation fueled by grief, rumors, doubts. Context makes all the difference! Why can't people see this. Their loyalty is never blind - neither to the Alliance nor to Shepard. In case of Ilos, they were standing closer to Shepard, because they witnessed the idiocy of the Council, Udina and the Alliance brass, in case of Horizon they were standing closer to the Alliance, because Shepard reappeared out of nowhere under suspicious circumstances.

I agree that context is important.  But Ilos is part fo teh context of Horizon too.

It showwed that Shepard was right about the Reaper threat.  It showed the extremes Shepard is willing to go through to stop them.  For a paragon, it can show how deeply Shepard regrets the extreme choices he or she may have to make, 

"I'm a traitor now.  I probably shouldn't even be wearing this uniform"

But on Horizon, history doesn't matter.  Context doesn't matter.  Personal knowledge doesn't matter.  There's only Cerberus and Shepard.  No explanation or context needed.

 It was headbangingly contrived.  Like something out of a "romantic comedy" where one half of a couple overhears their significant other saying something and totally misinterprets it in the worst possible way.  Half the film is then devoted towards untangling the mess that could have been solved with a queston or two asked right away.

[BobZilla84]

I actually don't think Anderson is all that Trustworthy I mean yes he invites Shepard to the Citadel for that audence with the Council but after Horizon he use's Cerberus as an excuse for deceiving Shepard about The Virmire Survivor being on Horizon.

And I am going to say this as well The Illusive Man set up everything to completely destroy Shepard's Affilation with The Council and The Alliance as well as The Virmire Survivor.

I am hoping that in Mass Effect 3 we get the chance to make it clear to The Alliance, The Council and The Virmire Survivor That we never Joined Cerberus and that they were wrong.

[YouthCultureForever]

Xilizhra wrote...

My questions to you Xilizhra are: Do you think Tali would stick around if TIM held a more visible role in the mission? Would she withdraw all support if so?

I believe that the presence of TIM would not, itself, prevent Tali from giving her support to Shepard, most especially if Shepard was vehement that she wasn't working for TIM for TIM's own sake (perhaps pointing out that if TIM was trying to simply fool Tali into thinking that, he was doing a lousy job of it).

My issue is Shepard doesn't register that he is in fact TIM's tool. Though Shepard doesn't share Cerberus's values, he obliges their goals because he never distinguishs the difference between his own goals and TIM's. The moment the TIM's reveals he knew the Collectors were behind the abductions it's clear his goals aren't as noble as he tries to portray. Defending the frontier was never his primary objective and still Shepard holds to a much more romanticized view of the situation that TIM easily takes advantage of. Shepard should have questioned TIM knowledge of the Collectors involvement and that should have prompted him to question the true purpose behind his ressurection. They didn't bring him back to go on a witch hunt like Freedom's Progress initially suggested.

If I were Tali, Shepard's reassurances (in this scenario and in the actual game) would ring hollow because he doesn't fully understand what's going on.

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 09 novembre 2011 - 06:12 .

[FoxHound109]

BobZilla 2k10 wrote...

I actually don't think Anderson is all that Trustworthy I mean yes he invites Shepard to the Citadel for that audence with the Council but after Horizon he use's Cerberus as an excuse for deceiving Shepard about The Virmire Survivor being on Horizon. 

When did that happen? o_O

[FoxHound109]

Also: Fair points.

[Iakus]

FoxHound109 wrote...

BobZilla 2k10 wrote...

I actually don't think Anderson is all that Trustworthy I mean yes he invites Shepard to the Citadel for that audence with the Council but after Horizon he use's Cerberus as an excuse for deceiving Shepard about The Virmire Survivor being on Horizon. 

When did that happen? o_O

If you go back to Anderson after Horizon and tell him you met the VS, Anderson tells you he knows and that he authorized Ash/Kaidan's mission there.  He also says he didn't tell Shepard because of your Cerberus connection, that they could be manipulating and using Shepard (valid ponts, imo)

But he also says that the VS's report backed up Shepard's version of things.  The only part they couldn't prove was Reaper involvement. That gives me hope that Bioware hasn't decided to completely turn Ash and Kaidan into teh Donald Morgan to Shepard's Harry Dresden.

Modifié par iakus, 09 novembre 2011 - 06:15 .

[CptData]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Really thoughtful analysis, Xil. I never would have approached it from that angle.

Although I'd say Zaeed is a little less personally loyal as well. Ultimately, he did it for the money, and even if Shepard helped him, it was part of his original contract, anyway.

I second this.

It seems there is a huge rift between VS and Shepard and you need to do a lot of hard work to close that rift. I dunno why BW takes this road and I don't really care: Horizon was kinda "badly" written since Shepard doesn't come with some useful options to choose from and the VS doesn't want to listen, even a romanced one.
Maybe BW desperately needed a reason to create that rift between Shepard and VS to make it an issue for whatever they have in their sleeves for ME3.

Lets pretend I never read the "early draft", I'd assume the rift will matter in ME3 and you can't avoid it. The rift between VS and Shepard may jeopardize the mission if not dealt with.
One of the reasons I'm doing that "fan!reboot" in another thread is because I want Shepard acting better on Horizon or to entirely avoid the problem and go a different route. In case Shepard is going down the Cerberus route his loyalty is questionable to the VS and therefore the VS won't follow Shepard that easily and it'll take a lot of work to regain his or her trust.

Last theory: right now half of the fandom believes either the VS is plain stupid or BW's douchebag in favor of Liara and her romance arc. But is that really true?
I doubt so. I'll go for the "Bella-Cullen-rule" (uugh I said it!) - if the romance is against everything we know, it'll end either beautiful and rewarding or with death of one or both lovers.
So maybe the VS!LI is the one BW favors and maybe they want make sure only few will see it? Maybe that's the only romance with impact on the main story line? Any other LI seems to have zero influence on the outcome of the story in ME and ME2 ... maybe that's going to be different in ME3?

[jeweledleah]

CptData wrote...

Last theory: right now half of the fandom believes either the VS is plain stupid or BW's douchebag in favor of Liara and her romance arc. But is that really true?
I doubt so. I'll go for the "Bella-Cullen-rule" (uugh I said it!) - if the romance is against everything we know, it'll end either beautiful and rewarding or with death of one or both lovers.
So maybe the VS!LI is the one BW favors and maybe they want make sure only few will see it? Maybe that's the only romance with impact on the main story line? Any other LI seems to have zero influence on the outcome of the story in ME and ME2 ... maybe that's going to be different in ME3?

this is a very strange reasoning to me.  if they beleive its the best i na series, why would they do everything in their power to ensure that as few people as possible will see it?  wouldn't they want the oposite?  and personaly, I'd rather it didn't impact the main story.  especialy since its Ashley and Kaidan we're talking about here, the "lets keep professional and personal lives separate"  LI's?

we are already different.  this is the only relationship that's damaged going into ME3.  even with Liara, even if you didn't play shadow broker, relationship doesn't seem to be truly damaged.. just on hold.

[Siansonea]

FoxHound109 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

In the same token though, since we're discussing the subject, I'll play devil's advocate here: Anderson knew even MORE information about Shepard and his work with Cerberus and he still trusted him enough to invite him to the Citadel and convince the rest of the Council to give him an audience.

Anderson is quite a bit less idealistic than the VS, as comes from being in a high command position. He better accepts the need to use not-totally-honorable means to get things done in general, and his greater flexibility helps him better accept Shepard.

But again, the "idealism" is put in question once the V.S. leaves with Shepard on the Normandy to Ilos. I would argue that seeing the treatment of Shepard for the first game should have taught the V.S. to be less idealistic. Not quite on the same level as Anderson, but still there.

Personally, I think we have opposing views. I feel like the V.S.'s response to Shep in Horizon is less professional and more emotional/personal, which I like more. I think it's less about professionalism for them than it is about feeling hurt. 

Not sure where "idealism" comes into play here, I don't think it's a question about idealism at all. It's a question of duty and law, more than anything, though there is a personal element. I think the VS felt a personal betrayal on Horizon, certainly. But I think any Alliance soldier would. We know Corporal Toombs also felt betrayed by Shepard working for Cerberus! Captain Anderson is at the top of the food chain, and he has access to more information than your rank and file Alliance soldiers, so does Hackett. They can act with more discretion and autonomy. Kaidan and Ashley would be clapped in irons for fraternizing with Cerberus, they simply don't have as much latitude to act independently.

It's important to evaluate each characters' situation when comparing their willingness to join Shepard or lack thereof. Of the Original Six, only two are willing to rejoin Shepard's posse, Tali and Garrus. Garrus managed to screw up his little vigilante business on Omega so bad that an entire space station of criminals wanted him dead, so naturally a little thing like Cerberus wasn't going to put him off, especially since he came aboard the Normandy on a stretcher. Tali only joins Shepard after the quarians send her on a mission to gather scientific data for a project she knows almost nothing about, after she's lost almost her entire contingent of soldiers. Cerberus is a huge sticking point, but she's had time to process it since Freedom's Progress, and it's the second time in a short interval that Shepard has shown up to help her out. Tali can get the Admirals to overlook the Cerberus thing, after all, her father is an admiral. She won't be clapped in irons or charged with treason or anything. 

Then there's Wrex, who's busy playing the Great Dictator on Tuchanka. And no one says Wrex is wrong for choosing his duty over being just another grunt on Shepard's ship. Why? Because Wrex greets Shepard warmly and doesn't bat an eyelash about Cerberus. And why would he? What do the krogan care about Cerberus? It's not like Cerberus created the genophage or something.

Then there's Liara, who also refuses Shepard's outstretched hand. She's got her own stuff going on, she wants to hunt down the Shadow Broker. That's more important than stopping the Reapers/Collectors? A vendetta? But whatever, people don't seem to harsh on her too much for not hopping on the shuttle as soon as Shepard crooks a finger at her. Again, Liara is nice to Shepard, and that's pretty much all that matters.

And then there's the VS, whose activities are all but unknown outside of the broad strokes of the Horizon mission. We don't know what the VS has been doing all this time, or what they're supposed to do after Horizon is over and done with, but we DO know that the person telling the VS what to do is Captain Anderson, and possibly Admiral Hackett. And letting the Alliance's most visible living hero, Ashley/Kaidan Williams/Alenko, go haring off with Cerberus is probably not anybody's idea of wise resource allocation, especially since the Alliance's most infamous DEAD hero is already working for Cerberus. Does the term political sh¡tstorm mean anything to anyone?

My point is each character has a different set of circumstances, and we can't judge Ashley and Kaidan as being better or worse than the others because they choose not to go with Shepard. It's a much bigger deal for them than it is for Tali or Garrus, it is literally a CRIME for them join Shepard. Never mind the fact that it's a crime for Shepard to be with Cerberus too, Shepard seems to be able to talk her way out that one with Anderson (who blindly trusts Shepard because of Anderson's own past with Saren and his insider information about the Reapers and whatnot.