This is a topic question: What would you do if you had to rely on someone very immoral to help you, and there really was no alternative and they were very crucial and you would 100% fail without them in some aspects and suffer heavy losses. Would you help them in their immoral quests?
I'd explore other options.
I'd explore other options.
Aaand as you explored other options you found that there are none..
That man is helping you save the whole freaking galaxy..
Aaand as you explored other options you found that there are none..
If there were no other options, then I literally by definition have no choice.
He's an expendable asset.
This is just one things I blame the writers for, the team was supposed to be composed of key people that each play a crucial part.
Even if it isn't true by logic in my headcanon I treat him as if he was as important to the mission as every other squadmate.
If there were no other options, then I literally by definition have no choice.
There we go.
There we go.
Doesn't mean I won't punish the monster the moment they outlives their purpose. I hated having to work with Cerberus in ME2 for that very reason.
Doesn't mean I won't punish the monster the moment they outlives their purpose. I hated having to work with Cerberus in ME2 for that very reason.
Fair enough, but the OP suggests throwing out valuable ''assets'' because he doesn't agree with their morals.
Doesn't mean I won't punish the monster the moment they outlives their purpose. I hated having to work with Cerberus in ME2 for that very reason.
I adored TIM and Cerberus's mission statement, ideology and goals in ME 2.
Wish they had remained that pragmatic shade of gray in ME 3 rather then what we got...
"Salvation comes with a cost. Judge us not by our methods, but by what we seek to accomplish.”
- Jack Harper
Fair enough, but the OP suggests throwing out valuable ''assets'' because he doesn't agree with their morals.
And as I said, if there were other options I'd take them.
I adored TIM and Cerberus's mission statement, ideology and goals in ME 2.
Wish they had remained that pragmatic shade of gray in ME 3 rather then what we got...
"Salvation comes with a cost. Judge us not by our methods, but by what we seek to accomplish.”
- Jack Harper
You mean the lies they fed Shepard. They were always the way they were in ME3. They were that way in ME1, then had to put on a show for you in ME2. TIM even admits to this in a video on Cronos Station. Went along the lines of "We need sympathetic faces. We need Shepard invested."
You mean the lies they fed Shepard. They were always the way they were in ME3. They were that way in ME1, then had to put on a show for you in ME2. TIM even admits to this in a video on Cronos Station. Went along the lines of "We need sympathetic faces. We need Shepard invested."
No i mean the BS bioware had to come up with to "cover" for them doing a 180 and going from an organization dedicated to protecting Humanity to being random Reaper mooks.
Apologies but i am one of those fan's who actually complained to Bioware about what we got in game 
Not even for the endings, they were meh, but i actually liked that organization and the books, novels and games leading up to ME 3 didn't indicate anything at all about them "lying" to Shepard, TIM even spoke of working with Shepard again possibly in the future in Retribution, I accept ME 3 happened mind you, Its canon but that doesn't mean i won't dispute that it wasn't just another blanket change over brought up by changing the script at the last minute.
Removed. Quoting didn't take.
The hide button.
It's not really that much of a stretch. In ME 3 The Illusive Man's goal was to not working for the reapers it was to use the Reapers to elevate humanity above everyone else regardless of the cost. He pretty much implies that's always been his goal in the failed suicide mission ending for Mass Effect 2.
It's not really that much of a stretch. In ME 3 The Illusive Man's goal was to not working for the reapers it was to use the Reapers to elevate humanity above everyone else regardless of the cost. He pretty much implies that's always been his goal in the failed suicide mission ending for Mass Effect 2.
So you support the notion of being indoctrinated Pre ME 3?
I don't understand why people complain about disliking companions. I liked that I couldn't truly trust some companions; it made decisions more important. Instead of always recruiting someone because 'why the hell not it's not like they're going to betray me' each of my characters can react differently. A character who hates to waste resources would recruit someone no matter what threat they may pose because we'll all die if we don't save the world anyway, whereas a character who doesn't like the idea of maybe being stabbed in the back would kill/leave them behind.
And there will always be someone who dislikes a character, no matter how popular they are. Heck, some people even dislike Varric. I will never understand how, but.. opinions.
Maybe it's just because I have a hard time actually disliking/hating companions. I've only hated/disliked 3 companions throughout all of the BioWare games I've played.
*glares angrily at the respective companions and grumbles something about forced interaction*
So you support the notion of being indoctrinated Pre ME 3?
I don't know. It's possible. Indoctrination can have multiple stages of severity. Either way though, Illusive Man's methods grew more extreme in the third game, but his goals, at least in a general sense, always seemed to remain essentially the same: Using the Reapers to secure human superiority.
So you support the notion of being indoctrinated Pre ME 3?
Well, he was zapped by a Reaper device.
Guest_Lady Glint_*
You make a good point, but I'm not really sure how they could change this, given the limitation that these are games and not movies or books where you have plenty of time to focus on the development of various characters.Most of them work out okay to great in the long run but at first meeting even as a desperate warden these people are more of a potential hazard than anything else. Either being mentally unstable or having committed a heinous act or attempt. Finding out about these things over time via convo and realizing these guys were riskier than you orignally thought would be fine but to have their acts and deeds stuffed in your face the 1st 10 seconds you meet them is a bit much for me to set aside.
A few people are ,missing the point and the point I made in the 1st post. I said that BioWare did a good job of making characters that you grow to love or hate, There is nothing at all wrong having a companion that is snotty or that bugs you.
The point was the number of characters that are introduced to the player that are very very high risk, as a matter of fact so high risk that a prudent player who is not assuming that bioware won't screw them over would not take them. If I made a list and it had about one character like that, fine but the list is long. If for example Nat Howe did not spill the beans the 1st time you meet him by revealing who he is, lambasting you for ruining the good name of the Howes and killing his dad to go along with admitting he came there to kill you but instead you pulled this info from him over a period of time, no problem.
Having companions you don't like or get along with? Just fine. Having mutliple potential companions who have such huge flaws and who present them the moment they meet you is not okay other than the very very rare time.
I don't understand why people complain about disliking companions.
I think it's a combination of just something that rubs a player the wrong way, combined with the fact you're almost forced to stick with them or you lose an entire character slot. If I don't like say, Imoen in Baldur's Gate, I can tell her to take a hike and replace her with someone else. In DA or ME you're kind of stuck, even more so in DA2 where you can't tell them to get lost until the game wants you to be able to.
You don't like "Anders" and think he's nowhere near the character he was? Tough luck, you're saddled with him until at least Act 2.
ME3's especially grating, because you're supposed to let a character who's actively distrusted you - Ash or Kaidan - and thrown it in your face time and time again just waltz back onto your team instead of any number of people who actually believe in Shepard. If you do tell them to walk, you just lose a character slot.
I think it's a combination of just something that rubs a player the wrong way, combined with the fact you're almost forced to stick with them or you lose an entire character slot. If I don't like say, Imoen in Baldur's Gate, I can tell her to take a hike and replace her with someone else. In DA or ME you're kind of stuck, even more so in DA2 where you can't tell them to get lost until the game wants you to be able to.
You don't like "Anders" and think he's nowhere near the character he was? Tough luck, you're saddled with him until at least Act 2.
ME3's especially grating, because you're supposed to let a character who's actively distrusted you - Ash or Kaidan - and thrown it in your face time and time again just waltz back onto your team instead of any number of people who actually believe in Shepard. If you do tell them to walk, you just lose a character slot.
But at least in ME 3 you are not forced to take Ash/Kaidan, I never did.
Anders was a unique case, but it is understandable because you don't know how much of a whining hypocrite he is.
I really liked DA:O approach to Companion System, If you didn't like someone you could tell them to take a hike.
As for hating Companions as soon as you meet them, well it doesn't matter, because you would start metagaming when recruiting companions, for eg : If there is an insane Companion in DA:I (god I hope not) you would not dismiss them outright like most 'Real' people would, because you know the game will give you 9 permanent companions, so this insane companion would not slit your throat in your sleep, and with enough positive influence you would be able to befriend them.
Guest_Faerunner_*
A few people are ,missing the point and the point I made in the 1st post. I said that BioWare did a good job of making characters that you grow to love or hate, There is nothing at all wrong having a companion that is snotty or that bugs you.
The point was the number of characters that are introduced to the player that are very very high risk, as a matter of fact so high risk that a prudent player who is not assuming that bioware won't screw them over would not take them. If I made a list and it had about one character like that, fine but the list is long. If for example Nat Howe did not spill the beans the 1st time you meet him by revealing who he is, lambasting you for ruining the good name of the Howes and killing his dad to go along with admitting he came there to kill you but instead you pulled this info from him over a period of time, no problem.
Having companions you don't like or get along with? Just fine. Having mutliple potential companions who have such huge flaws and who present them the moment they meet you is not okay other than the very very rare time.
No offense, but you seem to be arguing semantics. Whether it's a character you "like" or one you feel 100% comfortable and confident taking on without any fear of risk of betrayal, your request still boils down to "Don't make companions that I wouldn't want to encounter." Tough. Be a little uncomfortable. Be a little unsure about whether to take them on. When you survive it, it'll make you feel that much more confident from overcoming it. It's part of the game experience.
For Sten? Your party falls over itself trying to out-do each others' endorsement of freeing Sten.
Indeed. "No-one deserves that. Not even a murderer."
Now, I'm sorry Leliana, you're great and all, but that's exactly the kind of person that deserves that.
Retour en haut