416 réponses à ce sujet

[Phatose]

Look, if you let Balak go Shepard is quite clear that he's escaped for today, but that's it. "I'll be out there looking for him tomorrow, as will everybody else in the alliance."

This can only be seen as a moral compromise if it's an actual certainty that he'll try again to kill people, and he will succeed. Expecting Balak will try to do it again if allowed is reasonable. Expecting he will be allowed is not. Shepard does not seem to think Balak will be able to evade capture long enough to do anything else - and really, he's right on that.

[AlanC9]

Phatose wrote...

This can only be seen as a moral compromise if it's an actual certainty that he'll try again to kill people, and he will succeed. Expecting Balak will try to do it again if allowed is reasonable. Expecting he will be allowed is not.

I don't follow the first sentence, but we don't have a definition of moral compromise for the thread yet. Anyone got one?

Shepard does not seem to think Balak will be able to evade capture long enough to do anything else - and really, he's right on that.

He's on the loose all the way from BtdS until halfway through ME3. That's a couple years of terrorism.

[Gewehr_fr]

From reading the whole thread it seems David has a completely different perspective on video games than most of us... He views them as merely interactive movies, which in the case of Bioware games let you choose the fate and decisions of the main character via pressing buttons. You're choosing the story that you wish to be told, nothing more. Which means moral stances should be clearly indicated so you can decide whether you want Shepard to be a hero who manages to save everyone or a jerk who gets the job done (pretty much).

And to me video games, especially rpgs (literally play-a-role games), are much more than that, it's about immersing yourself into a character whether you choose him to be a copy of yourself or a completely made up one, and being faced with unusual situations and moral choices. What would you (or the character you created) do in this particular situation ? Do YOU save the hostages at the price of letting a terrorist get away with it, potentially killing more innocents in the future, or stop him / get rid of him at the cost of death of the hostages. I go with the former but there's no 100% right or wrong choice here. Do YOU think the krogans deserve a chance, is it worth the risks involved? What would YOU do if you were in the character's footsteps? It's not just about smashing buttons, there is thinking involved, thinking that never felt like a chore, neither a frustration, or requiring a particularly brilliant mind... having to think in a rpg IS fun.


And back on the original topic I don't think the morality system to be much of a problem with ME3 either way, since there are actually few instances where a decision flagged as paragon result in backslash, notably letting go the asari scientist on Virmire, she didn't seem indoctrinated from what I remember yet gets to kill a dozen people in a research facility; reprogramming the heretics who happen to reinforce the geths in ME3 resulting in more casualties on the quarians side; curing the genophage with Wreav in charge -> guaranteed future krogan rebellion. All of those being off-screens consequences, but they're still there.

Would it be better if the paragon choice wasn't the right choice 90% of the time, along with real in-game bad consequences ? Yes, definitely.

[ThinkSharp]

If it's being said that Shepard compromised his morals in releasing Balak, or was immoral, sure I'd argue against that. He chose what he considered the "best" route in saving the hostages and risking the release of Balak.

But if you're saying he had to make a moral compromise as in he couldn't choose the absolutely best outcome for everyone--i.e. hostages live and Balak/Terrorism is defeated--that's true. It'd probably be better to say that he had to make a compromise.

Neither killing or releasing Balak is more moral or immoral. Shep's reasons for making either choice would better reveal his moral stance.

This brings up a good point though. We tend to talk about Paragon/Renegade in terms of morality, but it isn't really a moral/immoral split. It's a split in mindset, tone, and approach. Even if releasing Balak is not objectively more moral than killing him, releasing Balak is a Paragon action. It fits that mold. Just as killing Balak fits the "practical" Renegade mold.

Modifié par ThinkSharp, 04 juin 2013 - 01:24 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Bill Casey wrote...

Why doesn't Shepard just tell Joker to shoot Balak's ship down after he leaves?
How does Balak escape the Normandy?

So young, Bill.....

Balak doesn't escape the Normandy. I really don't see how he could even walk after I got through with him. I shot him the maximum amount of times which was in both knees, in both shoulders, and turned him over to the Alliance. What most likely happened was that the Batarians captured an Alliance operative deep in Batarian space, and the Alliance and Batarians cut a deal. Balak for the Alliance operative.

The USA and the USSR used to do that stuff. You have our spy. We have your spy. You want them back, give us our spy. Okay deal.

Why doesn't Joker shoot down Balak's ship when he leaves? Because of the "So Lonestar, now you will see why evil will always triumph, because good is dumb" or Morality Solved trope.

[Steelcan]

What idiot let him go to begin with?

[DeinonSlayer]

I remember you talking a while back about chasing down Vido instead of saving the workers, Julia, on account of Shepard (realistically) not knowing a damned thing about how to put out a refinery fire. It's a good point, which is a reason I liked the engineer-only interrupt in the Omega DLC.

Balak escapes capture for the same reason the Normandy doesn't shoot down Vido if you opt to save the workers. The only question then becomes why Balak doesn't do anything during his two years of freedom between ME1 and ME3. Other batarian terrorists were still causing major damage during that time frame, so it can't be argued that he wouldn't have been able to do so (see N7: Javelin Missiles Launched).

Out of four "main" playthroughs, only my FailShep let Balak go on X57.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 04 juin 2013 - 03:28 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Steelcan wrote...

What idiot let him go to begin with?

Me = 12 plays of ME = Balak either turned over to Alliance or dead. Always enhanced interrogation first. I do not negotiate with terrorists.

[Seboist]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What idiot let him go to begin with?

Me = 12 plays of ME = Balak either turned over to Alliance or dead. Always enhanced interrogation first. I do not negotiate with terrorists.

Good woman.

[Steelcan]

DeinonSlayer wrote...


Out of four "main" playthroughs, only my FailShep let Balak go on X57.

Jayne let him go?

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...


Out of four "main" playthroughs, only my FailShep let Balak go on X57.

Jayne let him go?

He's generally short-sighted. Sold Legion and accepted Anoleis' bribe for the same reason. Made sure to shoot Balak in ME3, though.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 04 juin 2013 - 03:31 .

[Steelcan]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...


Out of four "main" playthroughs, only my FailShep let Balak go on X57.

Jayne let him go?

He's generally short-sighted. Sold Legion and accepted Anoleis' bribe for the same reason. Made sure to shoot Balak in ME3, though.

Maybe if Balak offered to pay him......... Oh wait, there was a human female in that room.

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...


Out of four "main" playthroughs, only my FailShep let Balak go on X57.

Jayne let him go?

He's generally short-sighted. Sold Legion and accepted Anoleis' bribe for the same reason. Made sure to shoot Balak in ME3, though.

Maybe if Balak offered to pay him......... Oh wait, there was a human female in that room.

Two, actually.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 04 juin 2013 - 03:44 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What idiot let him go to begin with?

Me = 12 plays of ME = Balak either turned over to Alliance or dead. Always enhanced interrogation first. I do not negotiate with terrorists.

I like this human, she understands!

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I remember you talking a while back about chasing down Vido instead of saving the workers, Julia, on account of Shepard (realistically) not knowing a damned thing about how to put out a refinery fire. It's a good point, which is a reason I liked the engineer-only interrupt in the Omega DLC.

Balak escapes capture for the same reason the Normandy doesn't shoot down Vido if you opt to save the workers. The only question then becomes why Balak doesn't do anything during his two years of freedom between ME1 and ME3. Other batarian terrorists were still causing major damage during that time frame, so it can't be argued that he wouldn't have been able to do so (see N7: Javelin Missiles Launched).

Out of four "main" playthroughs, only my FailShep let Balak go on X57.

He would have to escape from the Alliance facility, because Kira denied him medical treatment on the Normandy, and had him thrown in one of the stasis pods -- they were labeled "Stasis Pods" -- for transport. Like I said, he wouldn't be able to walk.

Like I said: Alliance/Batarian prisoner exchange. They had someone of high value to the Alliance. We had Balak who was of high value to them. Politicians made the decision.

[DeinonSlayer]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What idiot let him go to begin with?

Me = 12 plays of ME = Balak either turned over to Alliance or dead. Always enhanced interrogation first. I do not negotiate with terrorists.

I like this human, she understands!

Male/Infiltrator shot him in the chest and turned him over to the alliance; recruited him in ME3. Female/Engineer shot him dead on X57. Female/Vanguard was impressed to see him come back after leaving him to bleed out, but shot him anyway. Male/Soldier saved the hostages and popped him in ME3.

Funny. I never realized he only survived in that first playthrough.

@Julia, post-Destroy, Shepard is going to hunt down the bureaucrat who turned him loose and feed him his ass. And other parts. Slowly. Without mustard.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 04 juin 2013 - 03:39 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Yes! The blood must flow! Muahahahahhaaa!

[Steelcan]

My canon shot him dead, he had experience with Batarians before and he was sending a message. Another, Colonist/Ruthless let him bleed out, and my most recent FemShep had him arrested.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I do not negotiate with terrorists.

I have true hate for this general mindset...


... but I did the same.

[Archonsg]

AlanC9 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...
With this in mind, killing the Rachni, the Krogans, shooting Mordin in the back, destroying the Geth, EDI and maybe even the Quarians are all just business. Its war, you use your assets in war and use them for the betterment of the Human race.

The fact that I *can* play as such but not have the same satisfactory end for playing as a Paragon (Paragade really, as *pure* paragon is as ridiculous as *pure* renegade) , and the game (ME3) actually encourages you to go on the Renegade path, makes the whole "morality" paths pointless.

Remember, this is a *game* not sim-life drama where a message of "you can't win without compromising yourself" is shoved down my throat.

So the Paragon view that you don't ever have to do such things should be right? Every time?

In a game, I'd expect a game to allow me to find a way to overcome this hurdle. Perhaps doing something earlier, perhaps doing something retroactively, or both. 
Hence perhaps our differences in opinions. 

I see RPG games, especially RPG games, as games that allow for the player to play a role of choice, a choice that is *provided by the writers* of the game to a successful and by sucessful and rewarding, I mean in the context of that original choice of role the player chose, to its final conclusion. 

It is the respondsibility of a RPG game's writer/s to see to it that the player can take different routes to an ending, and yes, even singular ending, but they must all somehow reflect both context of the player's choice and role he or she played in the game.

Otherwise, it would not be a RPG game.

If I wanted a "single role's" path to sucess or failure, I'd play an action adventure game, or watch a movie where I am a passive audience or read a book which again I am a passive audience. 

Modifié par Archonsg, 04 juin 2013 - 04:07 .

[Megaton_Hope]

I agree with what some people've said, approval from particular characters you deal with closely should be separated out from general reputation among people who know who you are. Paragon/Renegade scores take into account both large actions which everybody around would be aware of, and things that you've only said to one or two people, which would hardly be common knowledge.

As far as how the actions work...doing the "good" thing should lead to more difficult situations that take careful management to resolve, but have a better outcome, while doing the "bad" thing should give you an easier time getting through but have a worse outcome. It's how I'd split things out, anyway.

[Argolas]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What idiot let him go to begin with?

Me = 12 plays of ME = Balak either turned over to Alliance or dead. Always enhanced interrogation first. I do not negotiate with terrorists.

Yeah, I only hate Shepard's reactions. I recall him being rather a dick about the dead hostages (I could have saved them, but letting Balak go? LOLNEVER, not worth it). The reason is just like jUliA said: You don't negotiate with terrorists or you end up at the mercy of whatever they want you to do. It's giving them power and proving that terrorism works.

[Seboist]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Out of four "main" playthroughs, only my FailShep let Balak go on X57.

Jayne let him go?

He's generally short-sighted. Sold Legion and accepted Anoleis' bribe for the same reason. Made sure to shoot Balak in ME3, though.

Selling Legion isn't shortsighted; like keeping David in Overlord or letting the Alliance keep that soldier's body instead of turning it over to her husband, it advances scientific research and could theoretically have initiated a technological breakthrough that could have been invaluable in fighting the geth or Reapers.

Of course, the choice ended up just resulting in Cerberus trolling you with a reprogrammed geth platform on Cronos, but that's ME choice and consequence for you.

It's not even a real Geth platform, it's a palette swapped Nemesis(lol). I'm not even sure if it's an extra enemy there or if it just replaces a regular Nemesis there.

I didn't even notice it was there in my first run since I was breezing through the thing on normal(same with banshee Morinth that I nuked with Cain).

Modifié par Seboist, 04 juin 2013 - 11:12 .

[andy6915]

Well... Balak DOES escape if you don't execute him yourself. But, he's locked up until the Reaper war which means that is 3 years that he isn't doing terrorism. And when he does escape, he comes out a lot more humble and caring about his people then if you outright let him go. Instead of blowing up ships and killing Alliance soldiers in the hospital, he just steals food and meds to give to his own people. Yeah he tries to kill Shepard and is still an awful guy, but being locked up for 3 years made him decide that caring for his people is better then killing Alliance people for no damn reason.