Dave of Canada wrote...
Because it's poor writing, dear. You don't introduce random consequences without some previous hint at it existing, something which introduces why the character does what he/she does.
If writing needs to be fixed, that's another issue altogether.
Let's say Balak were to feed the poor in ME3, does a Shepard who took the renegade path on that mission think like: "Darn it! In some alternate universe which I don't exist in, Balak turned his life around! I made the wrong decsion..." - ?
Bad writing? Sure. Reason to be upset? Not unless it actually somehow negatively affects your own game without a good reason (which it doesn't on either count). I'd put a pretty strong wager on Balak as live or dead not being the difference maker between a successful and unsuccessful outcome in the game.
They don't craft these outcomes for pissing contests on BSN so fans can say "I told you so!" because one decision was "right" and one was "wrong." The decisions are moral grey-areas where both moralities and their decisions are justified by the players themselves (for their own reasons for choosing it). Players that choose either decisions get their own consequences to live with. As it should be.
Funny how we also don't hear about things like the heretic geth outcome from the usual suspects around here. *spoiler* -
rewriting results in more geth allying with the Reapers. *spoiler* Oh, those dern paragons at Bioware!
Look at Balak, how the hell does one figure he'd join and be the most competent surviving military officer in the entire Batarian army and he'd be able to mobilize the survivors? He was a terrorist who got his entire team nearly killed and tried to destroy Terra Nova and absolutely loathes humanity, there's no reason one would suspect this to occur.
Had they introduced in ME1's BDTS that he was an extremist renegade Batarian officer who hits human colonies and the like during his spare time, it would make far more sense for him to be in his role in ME3. You're taking the risk of him hitting other colonies, though you understand he's still important in the hierarchy in the Batarian army.
Probably the same way the series' main character finds himself a home with the Alliance again despite having worked for a group recognized as terrorist, and his plan to wipe out an entire colony actually worked. Balak, like Shepard, probably has his uses for their military, especially seeing as batarian space will get hit hardest first by the Reapers. I wouldn't exactly underestimate what he's capable of either, seeing as he is resourceful enough to get a team of thugs that are regularly slavers to coordinate a large-scale terrorist attack, hurling an asteroid into Terra Nova.
That his plan was thwarted by Shepard is more reason he'd be sympathized with. At this point, Shepard is probably batarian public-enemy #1. He could very easily appeal to the hatred that many batarians harbor against humanity and Shepard alike to mobilize followers to his cause.
Now I still fail to see where this constitues a victory for the paragon path. A very literal "you should have killed me when you had a chance" scenario typically points to failure.
Though judging by ME1's scenario, all you'd expect from him is more terrorism. Writing certainly hints that he'd do this elsewhere in ME1, then why do we hear nothing of it in ME2? Why does he suddenly appear and help the player out in ME3, while those who've played the same content but decided it was too risky find a more incompetent officer? Why does one get punished for a decision which had nothing to do with Batarian military?
In ME2 you hear that Balak is "alive and at large" if he was spared. Not sure about you but personally, I would consider a terrorist being alive and at large a decidedly negative outcome. Is there no point in hunting Osama bin Laden if he's not actively carrying out attacks?
I'm still not clear where we learned of his supposed help to the player. It reads more like he's about to attack him or something.
Though people instinctively metagame the decision after that playthrough, know why? The "feel good" feeling, they don't care that they screwed up. They pick the option which makes them win, it just happens that the ME series seems to do this about every damn paragon decision whether or not it makes sense.
And metagaming is exactly the issue I'm having here - using out-of-universe consequences to validate/invalidate your own ones. You'll excuse me for disbelieving the notion that a terrorist walking free is "feel good" for the player and a win. Or, for that matter, the majority of paragon decisions - for which the consequences have not even manifested - are as well (and to which many a leak points to failure).
By the way, I "felt good" putting a bullet in Balak's head. What about you?
Retour en haut
