233 réponses à ce sujet

[SporkFu]

... who dies during the Turian bomb mission on Tuchanka?

Don't get me wrong, I love Garrus. He's Batman... I mean, uh, Archangel. The conversations with Garrus throughout the game are among my favourites. I always let Garrus have his 'favourite spot on the Citadel'. I felt ashamed the one time I tried not missing the bottle on purpose. Like I kicked a puppy or something. He and Zaeed booby-trapping Shepard's apartment in the Citadel DLC is hilarious. Garrus is the man.

I'm just saying, what if Victus' son died during the first part of that mission, and Garrus had to take over? I could see him saying, "It's old tech. I know what to do," when they're talking about it on the Normandy, or on the shuttle on the way to the mission.

Wow. The game would be very different.

And anyone who says it's not so bad because they let Garrus die during the suicide mission through the Omega Relay is a heathen.

j/k.

not really.

[David7204]

That would have been horrendous.

[HellbirdIV]

If the bomb mission was made part of the main story, maybe.

Or if the game was set up in a very different way, so that failing a mission in some capacity (such as letting Victus get killed by the snipers) would still progress the story, just under worse conditions.

[AlexMBrennan]

Then Garrus would be dead. Sorry, but your question is a bit too open ended to answer this early in the morning.

[Sir DeLoria]

Hmm, I like Garrus a lot, but this would be rather interesting.

[Dieb]

I like that idea.

Actually, neither Victus senior or junior would be necessary, considering Garrus' father is also a person highly respected by Turians, and could easily take his place as Primarch with some minor dialogue editing and "withheld backstory" justifying it - which happened and worked many times before.

It would give the mission and persumably the entire Krogan arc a whole new edge, if e.g. you were to decide between allowing Garrus to sacrifice himself and stop the bomb, or talk him down and let the bomb go off.

At least over coffee #2, this sounds quite interesting.

[Wolfva2]

In retrospect, I'm kinda surprised they didn't have that option. "It's the last game! C'mon! Who ELSE can we kill off! Why, the forums are getting quiet..let's liven 'em up!"

[nos_astra]

One possibility to make Garrus interesting. I wasn't too happy with him as a character. Way too much fanservice for my taste.

[Han Shot First]

I think Bioware got it right in having Victus be the one to sacrifice himself, as the alternative would be losing Garrus fairly early in the game. If there were going to be squadmate deaths (and I would have preferred one or two), I'd rather they were during or not long before the end run.

[Kataphrut94]

The thought occurs that if Garrus hadn't exploded in popularity the way he did, that would have been his squadmate cameo quest, with Victus as his replacement. Maybe if he was loyal he'd survive. Maybe Sidonis would do it instead if he survived.

It's probably for the best that Victus did it - that mission was one of the highlights and his relationship with his father was what made it so interesting. Though as far as I know, it's the only major sidequest that's completely standalone, with no plot variables or character changes based on previous choices.

[NeonFlux117]

Then I wouldn't do the tuchanka bomb mission, simple. There is no Shepard without Vakarian. Brothers till' the end.

[Liamv2]

Bsn would blow up

[Reorte]

Compulsory death of main squadmate character? Definitely not.

[Dieb]

Reorte wrote...

Compulsory death of main squadmate character? Definitely not.

Thane is one of my favourite characters in the whole trilogy, you know.

[HellbirdIV]

Baelrahn wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Compulsory death of main squadmate character? Definitely not.

Thane is one of my favourite characters in the whole trilogy, you know.

Not a Squadmate.

[favoritehookeronthecitadel]

Interesting. To me, it doesn't seem like the main thing is necessarily killing Garrus but making him more important to the Palaven/turian/Victus subplot. It just seemed like it was a bit of lossed potential for him as a character. Compared to his arc in ME2, he's kinda useless in ME3 as part of the story.

For example, there was going to be part where Garrus' family that he only mentions actually gets rescured by Sidonis depending on if you saved him. That would've been a great way to make choices in ME2 matter.

[Kataphrut94]

If you're going to make an unavoidable main character death, it should be in a main mission, not a sidequest. Otherwise people will just avoid it.

I would assume that Garrus would only have this role if he wasn't a squadmate, though. As it stands, the only squadmates who can die in ME3 are the VS, Tali, any 2 on a low EMS final battle and EDI.

[Clayless]

favoritehookeronthecitadel wrote...

Interesting. To me, it doesn't seem like the main thing is necessarily killing Garrus but making him more important to the Palaven/turian/Victus subplot. It just seemed like it was a bit of lossed potential for him as a character. Compared to his arc in ME2, he's kinda useless in ME3 as part of the story.

For example, there was going to be part where Garrus' family that he only mentions actually gets rescured by Sidonis depending on if you saved him. That would've been a great way to make choices in ME2 matter.

He's kinda useless as part of the story in every game.

Not all of us were happy he was one of the returning squadmates in ME3 because of that.

[favoritehookeronthecitadel]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

If you're going to make an unavoidable main character death, it should be in a main mission, not a sidequest. Otherwise people will just avoid it.

I would assume that Garrus would only have this role if he wasn't a squadmate, though. As it stands, the only squadmates who can die in ME3 are the VS, Tali, any 2 on a low EMS final battle and EDI.

And all of them if I shoot at a certain bastard child.

[Kataphrut94]

Robosexual wrote...

favoritehookeronthecitadel wrote...

Interesting. To me, it doesn't seem like the main thing is necessarily killing Garrus but making him more important to the Palaven/turian/Victus subplot. It just seemed like it was a bit of lossed potential for him as a character. Compared to his arc in ME2, he's kinda useless in ME3 as part of the story.

For example, there was going to be part where Garrus' family that he only mentions actually gets rescured by Sidonis depending on if you saved him. That would've been a great way to make choices in ME2 matter.

He's kinda useless as part of the story in every game.

Not all of us were happy he was one of the returning squadmates in ME3 because of that.

Be fair, at least he had his whole stint as an advisor for the Primarch. Not much, but it's better than "Da damn beaurecrats and red-tape" or "I'm in the middle of some calibrations". If anything, Mass Effect 3 was the best Garrus has ever been because it was the first time his characterisation truly gelled with his fan perception as Shepard's ultimate wingman.

EDIT: @favoritehooker: True, true, but that kinda goes without saying. Also, be nice, we don't know if that kid was actually a bastard. For all we know, he could be inbred or suffering from some kind of disorder.

Modifié par Kataphrut94, 19 août 2013 - 11:24 .

[Br3admax]

We're killing off squadmates, and I mean in ME3 squadmates, in optional sidequest now? That sounds like an awful idea. None of the missions were squadmates can die, except for Samara carrying out the Code or whatever, are actually side missions. I think it's obvious why.

[Dieb]

Br3ad wrote...

We're killing off squadmates, and I mean in ME3 squadmates, in optional sidequest now? That sounds like an awful idea. None of the missions were squadmates can die, except for Samara carrying out the Code or whatever, are actually side missions. I think it's obvious why.

Considering the possible consequences, there are only few missions in the game that have an equal impact on the war effort just like that. For what it's worth, to me it's more like a "you can even decide to ignore it" than a "you can do it if you feel like it".

[Br3admax]

The husbando retaliation would not be worth it. The Garrusmancers would unite in rage and flame this place. I'm fine with them killing the random mook with the important name, than the squadmate from the past two games.

[Dieb]

Br3ad wrote...

The husbando retaliation would not be worth it. The Garrusmancers would unite in rage and flame this place. I'm fine with them killing the random mook with the important name, than the squadmate from the past two games.

Maybe, but if that is your primary standard for suggesting alternate ideas, than we can scrap the story discussion board altogether. Like I said, Thane was among my favourite bros in the trilogy, yet I thought his death was moving and well done. And in the scenario I suggested, it has to be possible to "save" Garrus - at a high cost, but still.

I just kind of roll with assuming nobody is delusional enough to take stuff like that as anything more than encouragement for interesting discussions.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 19 août 2013 - 12:30 .