I'm - I mean Spider-Man is better
Whatever Tenth Doctor wannabe. We all know how he saved you in Manhattan, and you became so obsessed with him that you stole his hairstyle.
Then you started a bromance with the Eleventh Doctor. What next, you gonna steal his bow-tie too?
And, you thought he was so cool with his blonde girlfriend, that you had to get your own blonde girlfriend.
And don't even get me started on redheads...
Guest_Jesus Christ_*
Then you started a bromance with the Eleventh Doctor. What next, you gonna steal his bow-tie too?
He just might.
He just might.
Did you have to share that embarrassing photo of me?!
Just kidding, I'm all kinds of swag
I personally like him because hes been loyal to you since Mass Effect 1
He is your bro. To the point that in ME3, he never expresses harsh criticism. When I had to choose between the geth and the quarians, I literally had to throw a dime. The geth won and when he dropped the angel line on me, I nearly lost it. And I´m a very rational SOB. But it showed what he thought of Tali as a person and it also shows a certain dislike of the solution you took. But why make it harder on you as it already is? That is not what friends are meant to do.
He is your bro. To the point that in ME3, he never expresses harsh criticism. When I had to choose between the geth and the quarians, I literally had to throw a dime. The geth won and when he dropped the angel line on me, I nearly lost it. And I´m a very rational SOB. But it showed what he thought of Tali as a person and it also shows a certain dislike of the solution you took. But why make it harder on you as it already is? That is not what friends are meant to do.
No offense, but this is hardly rationalism.
No offense, but this is hardly rationalism.
Because humanity on a whole is such a rational species, right?
Because humanity on a whole is such a rational species, right?
Honestly, I thought the entire crew severely underreacted to the whole thing (why were any of them trying to comfort Shepard in the first place? He made it happen). Seriously - after seeing something like that, you walk in on Kaidan and James playing poker in the lounge? I'd rather Garrus gave Shepard a black eye over something on that scale than be one meek voice among a gaggle of sycophants - no friendly bottle-shooting contest for you! (And I know your stance on this, Massively - see below). To have no negative reaction at all because God forbid it might make the player feel bad or second-guess their decision would be even more disruptive to suspension of disbelief.He is your bro. To the point that in ME3, he never expresses harsh criticism. When I had to choose between the geth and the quarians, I literally had to throw a dime. The geth won and when he dropped the angel line on me, I nearly lost it. And I´m a very rational SOB. But it showed what he thought of Tali as a person and it also shows a certain dislike of the solution you took. But why make it harder on you as it already is? That is not what friends are meant to do.
Because humanity on a whole is such a rational species, right?
He called himself a 'rational SOB'. I'm just telling him how his statement wasn't rational.
Honestly, I thought the entire crew severely underreacted to the whole thing (why were any of them trying to comfort Shepard in the first place? He made it happen). Seriously - after seeing something like that, you walk in on Kaidan and James playing poker in the lounge? I'd rather Garrus gave Shepard a black eye over something on that scale than be one meek voice among a gaggle of sycophants - no friendly bottle-shooting contest for you! (And I know your stance on this, Massively - see below). To have no negative reaction at all because it might make the player feel bad or second-guess their decision would be even more disruptive to suspension of disbelief.
I think it'd be interesting if they forced you to go into more detail explaining your choice. If you side with the Quarians, the next time you go up to your cabin, EDI locks the door behind you and seals you in for a little one-on-one "chat" via the intercom ("Open the pod bay doors, HAL" - we already know she has no regard for military rank if the conversation in Purgatory is any indication). If you side with the Geth, Garrus will knock your ass out in the hangar as you get off the shuttle (toss in a very quick renegade interrupt to intercept his punch and put him in an armlock), followed by a similar discussion where you justify your choice. If Garrus' attack offends the player badly enough, throw in an option to kick him off the ship (similarly, include an option to refuse Tali's offer to come back, and another option to send Liara to Hackett if you have more than a certain number of squadmates).
In DA:O, we had full control over whom to recruit into our party (Morrigan can be booted pretty much immediately and Alistair can be killed - I think Oghren may be the only exception). You can have party members bail on you or even turn on you and fight you if you take certain courses of action. As it is, ME3 is too static.
I've never disagreed with that. Only that Garrus trying anything against Shepard would result in anything other than Garrus getting hilariously whallomped as a result. My Shepard doesn't pull punches. But I'll take the Renegade interrupt, and I'll justify my decision with ease.
Hell, if that were the case, I might have to start killing the Quarians all the time. Certainly beats never seeing the decision have any real consequence ever again.
I'm not like David. I don't think everyone on the Normandy should be a gaggle of sycophants, especially since I dislike to hate half of the crew (and downright invented a new Reaper form just to brutally kill every alliance personnel in a gory, bloody way on board the Normandy to get the ship back up to the Cerberus SR-2 standard, sans the logo.
He called himself a 'rational SOB'. I'm just telling him how his statement wasn't rational.
My bad.
I'd say this is an instance where they should have sprung for between four and six different ways to respond. I liked the array of justifications we could offer at the end of Mordin's loyalty mission.I've never disagreed with that. Only that Garrus trying anything against Shepard would result in anything other than Garrus getting hilariously whallomped as a result. My Shepard doesn't pull punches. But I'll take the Renegade interrupt, and I'll justify my decision with ease.
I can't remember if you saw the idea I posted about different mixtures of aliens being added to the war room after major arcs, with their background dialogue changing based on events in-game. Good way to showcase consequences - we never hear any dialogue on the Citadel change as a result of the choices we make.Hell, if that were the case, I might have to start killing the Quarians all the time. Certainly beats never seeing the decision have any real consequence ever again.
Uh... yeah.I'm not like David. I don't think everyone on the Normandy should be a gaggle of sycophants, especially since I dislike to hate half of the crew (and downright invented a new Reaper form just to brutally kill every alliance personnel in a gory, bloody way on board the Normandy to get the ship back up to the Cerberus SR-2 standard, sans the logo.
I just watched a video on the crew's reaction, and Kaidan blames the Geth for Ashley and Tali. No animosity at all for Shepard, from any of the crew, except for Garrus's tone change when he says "but I'll respect your decision."
Liara, the VS, Garrus, Joker, and even Engineer Adams have known Tali for years. One of the crew was down on Rannoch with Shepard, right? Someone had to have witnessed Shepard betraying the Quarian fleet, if he doesn't warn them.
Such a missed opportunity is all I'll say.
I just watched a video on the crew's reaction, and Kaidan blames the Geth for Ashley and Tali. No animosity at all for Shepard, from any of the crew, except for Garrus's tone change when he says "but I'll respect your decision."
Liara, the VS, Garrus, Joker, and even Engineer Adams have known Tali for years. One of the crew was down on Rannoch with Shepard, right? Someone had to have witnessed Shepard betraying the Quarian fleet, if he doesn't warn them.
Such a missed opportunity is all I'll say.
Shepard always tells Tali/Raan to warn the quarian fleet. I don't see why the crew should blame Shep for their (and Gerrels) incompetence. I mean, it isn't exactly Shepards fault that Tali/Raan withhold relevant information and Gerrel only listens to Shepards silver tongue of diplomacy +1.
No offense, but this is hardly rationalism.
My emotional reaction was to throw the keyboard out the window and tear my shirt apart, yet I´m still capable of typing this message and still have my shirt.
Honestly, I thought the entire crew severely underreacted to the whole thing (why were any of them trying to comfort Shepard in the first place? He made it happen). Seriously - after seeing something like that, you walk in on Kaidan and James playing poker in the lounge? I'd rather Garrus gave Shepard a black eye over something on that scale than be one meek voice among a gaggle of sycophants - no friendly bottle-shooting contest for you! (And I know your stance on this, Massively - see below). To have no negative reaction at all because God forbid it might make the player feel bad or second-guess their decision would be even more disruptive to suspension of disbelief.
I think it'd be interesting if they forced you to go into more detail explaining your choice (and actually provide multiple choices, multiple dialogue trees - not just one option up or down). If you side with the Quarians, the next time you go up to your cabin, EDI locks the door behind you and seals you in for a little one-on-one "chat" via the intercom ("Open the pod bay doors, HAL" - we already know she has no regard for military rank if the conversation in Purgatory is any indication). If you side with the Geth, Garrus will knock your ass out in the hangar as you get off the shuttle (toss in a very quick (like 1/8th second) renegade interrupt to intercept his punch and put him in an armlock), followed by a similar discussion where you justify your choice. If Garrus' attack offends the player badly enough, throw in an option to kick him off the ship (similarly, include an option to refuse Tali's offer to come back, and another option to send Liara to Hackett if you have more than a certain number of squadmates). I'm aware the real-life punishment for striking a superior is far more severe, but Garrus was always a hothead, and the exact nature of his position on the ship is never really made clear.
In DA:O, we had full control over whom to recruit into our party (Morrigan can be booted pretty much immediately and Alistair can be killed - I think Oghren may be the only exception). You can have party members bail on you or even turn on you and fight you if you take certain courses of action. As it is, ME3 is too static.
Wouldn´t you say Shepard needs a little comfort here and there too? Shepard tried to warns the Quarians, only they won`t listen. I´d say a little comfort might be the right thing here. He is a human being afterall. But I wholeheartedly agree on your second part of the post.
My emotional reaction was to throw the keyboard out the window and tear my shirt apart, yet I´m still capable of typing this message and still have my shirt.
A rationalist or pragmatist would be more or less unaffected by the emotions in the first place. I didn't have any difficulty coming to my conclusion. If I couldn't make peace, the Quarians die. It doesn't bother me one iota. I want the more useful fleet. The Geth have a higher utility being able to do everything the Quarians can do logistically, and having a much higher combat utility in Space and on the ground. All my Shepard feels is bitter cynicism over the Quarians. I don't have any aversion or guilt for their fate, only that bitterness that they squandered resources that I could have used in their war. Can't say I'm personally sad to see them gone. Then again, people here will tell you about me and my Shepard. Notably DeinonSlayer, since he's the most likely to give a fair and semi-accurate account of me.
My Shepard needs no comfort. He's above that. He's not traumatized by the war or the Quarians or anything. He doesn't even hate the Reapers. Hell, he thinks the galaxy deserves much worse than anything the Reapers could ever do to them. In this instance, one of the things he's like is Littlefinger from 'A song of fire and ice'. He has his own motivations and agenda for stopping the Reapers, much more in line with Cerberus than anything else.
Not in this situation, not in the slightest. I think less of Garrus for being such a dishrag.Wouldn´t you say Shepard needs a little comfort here and there too? Shepard tried to warns the Quarians, only they won`t listen. I´d say a little comfort might be the right thing here. He is a human being afterall. But I wholeheartedly agree on your second part of the post.
Which they do because reasons. I agree the writing is crap (there's no reason for them not to except to put the choice in The Shepard's hands), but the fact remains that it is Shepard's choice. The least you can do is have the courage to own the consequences of your actions.Shepard always tells Tali/Raan to warn the quarian fleet. I don't see why the crew should blame Shep for their (and Gerrels) incompetence. I mean, it isn't exactly Shepards fault that Tali/Raan withhold relevant information and Gerrel only listens to Shepards silver tongue of diplomacy +1.
Sometimes you don't need a friend to be a shoulder to cry on; sometimes you need a friend to knock some sense back into you.
I know. It's a good thing my Shepard would beat the **** out of Garrus to knock that sense back into him.
The reason the Geth are willing to honor a ceasefire? For the first time in history, they have more to expect from organics than blind hatred and homicidal racism just for being synthetics. If not from the Quarians, at least from the rest of the galaxy.
That said, I think Shepard would feel the Quarians have earned their situation. Not informing them and watching them burn is finally eliminating them as a problem once and for all. They're one of the worst written species in the games in my opinion, and going off the writing portrayed, easily one of the species that really doesn't deserve anything more than what they get. Honestly, going by what's been written, they're extinction is the universe fixing an error.
That kind of RP latitude is a good thing. I think it'd have made for a very interesting scene.I know. It's a good thing my Shepard would beat the **** out of Garrus to knock that sense back into him.
That kind of RP latitude is a good thing. I think it'd have made for a very interesting scene.
There'd be multiple ways to handle it. Perhaps throwing Garrus' "ruthless calculus" musings right back at him. I doubt it'd be smoothed over in a single conversation, though. Maybe more like Tali's post-mission reaction in ME2 if you turned over the evidence, where she's there for the mission but refuses to talk about anything else.
My Shepard is a very Machiavellian type leader.
It's like Band of Brothers: Machiavelli and his two qualities to be had for leadership is presented by two different leaders.
Major Richard Winters clearly loves Easy Company, treats his men well, and as such the soldiers respect him and would do anything for him.
Captain Ronald Speirs develops a reputation for being such a Badass that the soldiers in Easy fear him, but respect him because he gets the job done. He was seen as the ultra-punishing and extreme leader with terrifying, though they still respected him because his methods produced results. Speirs also knew all about the chatter going on behind his back, and approves it.
Guest_xray16_*
In ME2 Garrus was the epitome of cool cop.
- total Clint Eastwood. imo - all that was missing was the poncho (or 357 magnum).
...and that was down to great writing and voice acting.
Characters failing to react or object to renegade decisions is a fairly widespread problem. I don't place any special fault on Garrus for being under its umbrella.
I admit the issue is a bit moot for me, however, and I may not have perspective. I almost never make the kinds of decisions that he ought to confront me over, so "Spineless Garrus" has never existed for me except in the testimony of others.
Characters failing to react or object to renegade decisions is a fairly widespread problem. I don't place any special fault on Garrus for being under its umbrella.
I admit the issue is a bit moot for me, however, and I may not have perspective. I almost never make the kinds of decisions that he ought to confront me over, so "Spineless Garrus" has never existed for me except in the testimony of others.
Games wouldn't be very fun if characters reacted realistically to 'evil' decisions. And that goes for pretty much every game in existence. You never really see a game where being evil compromises the player character's freedom or power. Nobody wants to play 'Sit-in-Prison-Simulator-4000.'
Making a fun and functional game has to come first.
Of course, it reinforces the non-canoncity of 'evil' playthroughs, which is desirable.
Retour en haut