39 réponses à ce sujet

[cap and gown]

Firing on the dreadnought is a problem - it's the sort of thing that should've at least been mentioned before the mission (since the whole point of the mission is to disable it). If it was just Tali onboard it might've been acceptable without prior discussion, with someone pretty important from another power it's a really, really stupid move. It's not as if it was a completely unexpected change that needed to be taken advantage of quickly - since you board with the intention of disabling it.

 

Tactically it might've been just about justified, strategically the man was an idiot.

 

But Shepard did not board the Dreadnaught to disable it. He/She boarded it to disable the reaper signal. It was Legion/Geth VI that disabled the shields and drive core. The reaper control had allowed the Geth to fight smarter/better, but they did not know that it also was connected to the shield generator on the Dreadnaught. And, in fact, it was not. Legion/Geth VI is responsible for that "as a gesture of good faith."

[IndianaJonesYay]

But Shepard did not board the Dreadnaught to disable it. He/She boarded it to disable the reaper signal. It was Legion/Geth VI that disabled the shields and drive core. The reaper control had allowed the Geth to fight smarter/better, but they did not know that it also was connected to the shield generator on the Dreadnaught. And, in fact, it was not. Legion/Geth VI is responsible for that "as a gesture of good faith."

 

True, and as paragon Shepard later says, the mission parameters changed. It might be roughly the equivalent of finding out that some big terrorist leader is in the same building as a SEAL team you sent in to retrieve a package, and having to decide whether to blow up the building and sacrifice the SEALs. Personally, I still think the answer is no. When you hunt, you never take the shot , no matter how good it is, until you know what's behind your target; likewise, better to err on the side of caution and let the bad guy get away than take the shot and risk collateral damage.

 

And besides, the geth are not the bad guys in this war. Aside form Korris and Tali and Kal-Reegar, there aren't too many quarians I'm a fan of. Maybe Jona's parents (what a sad kid he must be!).

[sjsharp2011]

I sort of disagree about the Paragon speech, and also someone who studied some philosophy. 

 

What Shepard was appealing to was not dodging the issue, okay, it was, but it was all about highlighting Tali's service record, a record that was swept under the carpet and ignored in favor of deciding a course of action on the geth. 

 

The trial was NOT about Tali or the Alari at all, it was all about Garel and Koris having a fight over getting the Quarian race to either attack the Geth or not, and Xen was only interested in learning if Raal discovered anything. Tali's innocence or guilt was only periphery to the politics. The paragon speech is reminding a people technically under martial law the value of military honor and looking at the service record. 

 

It was about Tali's qualifications and character, not the deaths. 

 

The whole trial was really largely about the politics. 

 

 

Exactly and thaqt's why mkost of the time i support Tali in this instance as far as I'm concerned Tali hasan exemplary record no beinmg treated like a common thug and most of my Shepards acknowledge this and support Tali.

[Reorte]

But Shepard did not board the Dreadnaught to disable it. He/She boarded it to disable the reaper signal.

And if you're going to achieve that there's a pretty good chance of screwing up the rest of the ship to some degree or other. It wasn't some completely unexpected out-of-the-blue event that shouldn't have been considered beforehand.

[themikefest]

1) Yes. Legion had already disabled the dreadnought, so it was out of the fight anyway. It could have been a valuable asset if you resolved the war peacefully or kept the geth.

I agree
 

2) Even if it hadn't, Gerrel would still have been wrong. He acted as the aggressor against an enemy seeking solely to defend itself and risked the lives of several of his allies, including his fellow admiral. Even if he had been right on everything else (and I don't think he was), it would be wrong to initiate an attack that sacrifices the life of an equal officer. Sacrifices, if they absolutely must be made, should be down the chain of command, not across or up.

Gerrel had an itchy trigger finger. He didn't care who was on the dreadnought. He fired at the ship out of frustration without realizing what the consequences would be. Shepard didn't have to help the quarians. The game says he/she had to though I would've made it an option.

[dragonflight288]

If only Veetor had said to the admirals, "Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you." That would have rocked.

 

And I'll give you props for your argument. Character witness does have some merit, and she should be innocent until proven guilty. And no matter how you view it, the case is a travesty; there's no firm proof against Tali, and the trial ultimately is about the geth war. Side note: it always struck me as odd how in ME2 Garrel is a decent guy but Korris is rather a jerk, but then in ME3 Korris is the total reasonable and heroic one while Garrel is the idiotic war-bent jock who fires on the Geth dreadnought with you inside. Strange how the two roles reversed. Too bad Garrel's ship didn't get shot down...

 

*As Tali is being sentenced to exile, she cries out:* Help, help! I'm being oppressed! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

 

LOL. 

 

Thing is, I was actually totally expecting the reversal of roles. I knew Koris was against the war and Garel was for it, and I figured if there were a war during a time when the Reapers are harvesting everyone, Koris would be the guy that seems reasonable and Garel the violence inherent in the system. lol. 

 

I think he was really reasonable in ME2 because he was best friends with Tali's father and was on her side, and Tali had been, until she develops a friendship with Legion, for the war as well, something Koris points out. 

 

But there is one thing I think Garel makes a very strong point on in ME2.

 

My paragon Shepard urged peace and said that the Quarins had the largest fleet in the galaxy, and they would need that fleet to fight when the Reapers came. Garel responds with "then we'll need a place to house our non-combatants while we do it."

 

I was almost swayed in my first playthrough from that line alone. If the Reapers destroy the fleet, even if the the Geth are destroyed, it's almost the equivalent of genocide unless the non-combatants have a home. 

[dragonflight288]

True, and as paragon Shepard later says, the mission parameters changed. It might be roughly the equivalent of finding out that some big terrorist leader is in the same building as a SEAL team you sent in to retrieve a package, and having to decide whether to blow up the building and sacrifice the SEALs. Personally, I still think the answer is no. When you hunt, you never take the shot , no matter how good it is, until you know what's behind your target; likewise, better to err on the side of caution and let the bad guy get away than take the shot and risk collateral damage.

 

And besides, the geth are not the bad guys in this war. Aside form Korris and Tali and Kal-Reegar, there aren't too many quarians I'm a fan of. Maybe Jona's parents (what a sad kid he must be!).

 

Some people may follow a philosophy that collateral damage is acceptable if is guaranteed to stop the threat and save more lives in the long run.

 

Not saying I agree with it, but simply putting it out there that the argument can be made.

[cap and gown]

 

I think he was really reasonable in ME2 because he was best friends with Tali's father and was on her side, and Tali had been, until she develops a friendship with Legion, for the war as well, something Koris points out. 

 

But there is one thing I think Garel makes a very strong point on in ME2.

 

My paragon Shepard urged peace and said that the Quarins had the largest fleet in the galaxy, and they would need that fleet to fight when the Reapers came. Garel responds with "then we'll need a place to house our non-combatants while we do it."

 

I was almost swayed in my first playthrough from that line alone. If the Reapers destroy the fleet, even if the the Geth are destroyed, it's almost the equivalent of genocide unless the non-combatants have a home. 

 

First, Tali was against the war in ME2 because she did not think they could win it and because she wanted to use the fleet against the Reapers. It is only when you get to ME3 and you successfully resolve the Legion/Tali dispute that Tali thinks there was a possibility of peace between the Geth and Quarians.

 

My own thinking, however, is that, up until we meet Legion, a peace-loving Shepard makes no sense. Until we meet Legion all we know about the Geth is that they are allied with the Reapers. We spent all of ME1 learning the Geth worship the Reapers and want to kill all organics. Thus, if the Quarians can wipe out the Geth before the Reapers arrive that would be a better use of their fleet than preserving it to fight the Reapers since, as far as we know, we will be fighting the Geth then anyway.

 

Most of the dialogue options Shepard has during the trial, particularly their Renegade/Paragon positioning make no sense unless Shepard has already met with and talked with Legion. Why would Shepard object to Rael performing tests on "living beings" if all he/she knew were that the Geth were the robots he/she slaughtered by the dozens during the hunt for Saren? Why would Shepard urge peace with the Geth if he thought they were all allied with the Reapers? Why is telling Tali you'll help her reclaim her homeworld a renegade choice?

 

Actually, how does paragon and renegade ever make sense in this game?

[gothpunkboy89]

First, Tali was against the war in ME2 because she did not think they could win it and because she wanted to use the fleet against the Reapers. It is only when you get to ME3 and you successfully resolve the Legion/Tali dispute that Tali thinks there was a possibility of peace between the Geth and Quarians.

 

My own thinking, however, is that, up until we meet Legion, a peace-loving Shepard makes no sense. Until we meet Legion all we know about the Geth is that they are allied with the Reapers. We spent all of ME1 learning the Geth worship the Reapers and want to kill all organics. Thus, if the Quarians can wipe out the Geth before the Reapers arrive that would be a better use of their fleet than preserving it to fight the Reapers since, as far as we know, we will be fighting the Geth then anyway.

 

Most of the dialogue options Shepard has during the trial, particularly their Renegade/Paragon positioning make no sense unless Shepard has already met with and talked with Legion. Why would Shepard object to Rael performing tests on "living beings" if all he/she knew were that the Geth were the robots he/she slaughtered by the dozens during the hunt for Saren? Why would Shepard urge peace with the Geth if he thought they were all allied with the Reapers? Why is telling Tali you'll help her reclaim her homeworld a renegade choice?

 

Actually, how does paragon and renegade ever make sense in this game?

 

The way the game is laid out I think they changed their mind on how it actually functions. Given there is hidden dialogue from Legion on missions normally you can't use him on. What is it save editors can let you put legion on your team when recruiting Jack or Grunt and he has his own dialogue for those missions. Which normally he couldn't be part of in game because you can't recuit him yet.

 

I think personally it was good way into the game development they decided to remove him till the end. And add in the stupid mission counter bit to trigger certain events. To the point of almost forcing you to have to do the Reaper IFF mission last then his loyalty mission. If you want to save the crew.  Because If I remember right if you do the IFF mission right away then try and do all the loyalty missions + the random planet ones. You will end up losing all the crew.

[straykat]

I think personally it was good way into the game development they decided to remove him till the end. And add in the stupid mission counter bit to trigger certain events. To the point of almost forcing you to have to do the Reaper IFF mission last then his loyalty mission. If you want to save the crew.  Because If I remember right if you do the IFF mission right away then try and do all the loyalty missions + the random planet ones. You will end up losing all the crew.

 

Offtopic, but I think it'd have been cooler if we had him from the very beginning (like his hidden dialogue suggests)... where it wouldn't even be Cerberus or Lazarus that ressurected us... but the Geth. You could still have the Collectors and Cerberus in there, and the Alliance wouldn't help (since you'd be trying to convince them of a new Geth faction). Cerberus could slip in later somehow.

 

The other thing about recruitments though is that they originally planned a more free-for-all model to recruit whoever at any moment. But it was X360 exclusive at first, and they had to split the game into two discs. So they adjusted the story to reflect that.

[gothpunkboy89]

Offtopic, but I think it'd have been cooler if we had him from the very beginning (like his hidden dialogue suggests)... where it wouldn't even be Cerberus or Lazarus that ressurected us... but the Geth. You could still have the Collectors and Cerberus in there, and the Alliance wouldn't help (since you'd be trying to convince them of a new Geth faction). Cerberus could slip in later somehow.

 

The other thing about recruitments though is that they originally planned a more free-for-all model to recruit whoever at any moment. But it was X360 exclusive at first, and they had to split the game into two discs. So they adjusted the story to reflect that.

 

How was free for all set up of recruitment split into 2 discs?

[voteDC]

 

While I really do want to tell the truth about Raal, I usually just end up letting Veetor and Kal'Reeger put on the show. I personally find the paragon option a fairly lousy speech that also dodges the issue (arguing that just because Tali did good things in ME1 is really poor logic to argue she wouldn't do them in ME2. Philosophy minor talking here).

I've never picked that option before, always gone with the Renegade option, but on my next trip through I am definitely picking that one. Watched a YouTube video of it and it is awesome.

[capn233]

How was free for all set up of recruitment split into 2 discs?

 

It wasn't, that's why they had to change the structure of the game.

[This is the End My Friend]

I like that if you hand over the data during the trial Tali comments about it in ME3, I'm pretty sure she apologizes to Shep. And speaking of ME2's recruitment structure I really like Mordin's dialogue if you bring Samara for his recruitment mission. Mordin's basically like, what the hecks an Asari doing here. Haha.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

As with many, many of the stories in ME, after thinking about Tali's trial and, in particular, Tali's reason for not wanting to present the evidence of her father's experiments, I come away completely baffled as to how her reasoning is supposed to make sense.

 

What did her father do that was a war crime? How did her father commit treason? Why would an experiment gone bad turn him into a monster? Does anything Tali says make sense?

 

 

What Tali's father did was ignore safety protocols. That was wrong and it got everyone on the Alarei killed. As far as reassembling Geth to study their new networks so the Quarians could figure out how to counter them, how the hell else are you going to figure out how to defeat a synthetic enemy like the Geth that can simply download its software into their server? Criminally negligent? Yes. War criminal? Hardly. But the feelz, man. The feelz. 

 

Does anything Tali say make any sense? No. About the only one who made any sense among the entire lot was Daro'Xen vas Moreh.