250 réponses à ce sujet

[Naltair]

DuffyMJ wrote...
That's not what the mission called for.. it specifically called for the ability to command loyalty through experience.

If you say so.

That to me says they need a leader, no matter how you want to word it.  I gave them one, the best one by my reasoning.  If you want to hang up on loyalty through experience be my guest, but I went with Garrus because he held out on Omega of all places and kept 12 people alive until Sidonis betrayed him.

[KainrycKarr]

DuffyMJ wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

I have never seen a larger bunch of hypocrites. You do nothing but whine about Garrus being betrayed and it's not his fault, and you argue Nihlus died because he was a loner and COMPLETELY WHITE-WASH the fact that he was betrayed by a friend and fellow spectre?

What a joke.

I am not arguing that. nihlus died because he got betrayed. he was just as screwed as Garrus was.

However, he even says he is better on his own.

And as you say, samara being stoic and cool DOES make her good for getting the job done.

But it DOESN'T make her good for getting the job done AND keeping the team alive in doing it. They are two separate things.

And Garrus says "I got my team killed, I was responsible" So can we stop with this subjective application of quotes and actions?

How come when Samara says "I'm not used to people" or whatever she says you all take that SOOOOO to heart, but when Garrus says "I got my whole team killed" you all sudenly say "oh he resolved that in his quest DUH you lose how can't you know that?" and use your hindsight justifications?  Give me a break.

Samara DOESN'T get the job doen when she leads though! SHE dies, not her team! That's why the whole thing is so ridiculous.

well for one thing, you're taking the quotes out of context, and you darn well know it. ANY good leader takes responsibility when something happens to those under his command, regardless of truth. You know this, being that you're in law enforcement.

Nihlus DECLINES even being part of the squad.

I'm not taking what Samara says. I'm taking what she DOES. She's a justicar. She's batman, except actually kills peeps.

You have a bias, I think. Or I at least suspect it. I don't know why you do, but your attitude certainly suggest it.

[InvaderErl]

DuffyMJ wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

Yeah but Samara has no experience as a leader. Garrus does. End of line. Really.

Less than 2 years of experience is not noteworthy unless you're a bean counter.

Except as I mentioned Garrus' resume includes:

Successful career as a Turian military recruit
Successful career as a C-SEC agent (he mentions he rose through the ranks)
Worked with Shepard to stop Sovereign
Destabilized the power structure of Omega
Worked with Shepard to stop Collectors.

He is hardly some green recruit.

[DuffyMJ]

Remaix wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Madecologist wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Ah more excuses, it seems like the entire basis of reality is excuse-making like "oh when I do this it's a meme, it's not offensive."

Ironic that you accuse me of making excuses. The same person that has been spending 7 threads making excuses that Bioware is wrong to make Samara a bad team leader and that we all don't get it. Making excuses why competent leaders are not good leader.

Is the kettle calling the tea pot black?

Also your constant use of the word "reality" in half your comments is making me chuckle.

Lastly, stop being a hypocrit. You say I am offensive for pulling a cheap net joke. Yet you have on many occassion actually insulted people arguing against you directly. Unlike a verbal conversation, and internet arguement has records. You were the first to launch attacks against people arguing against you.

That's why YOU are a hypocrite, because when I say something it's "offensive and insulting" but when you do it "hey chill out man, it's just a meme, it's just joking around".

When you flat-out insult someone, yes. Yes, it is insulting. Because you insulted someone. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. There's a difference between a personal attack and an imagine posted for fun.

Passive aggressive underhanded B.S. is much nastier and deplorable than honest aggression, if you're going to take shots at me, do it directly don't post goofy pictures mocking my intelligence.

[Madecologist]

DuffyMJ wrote...

That's why YOU are a hypocrite, because when I say something it's "offensive and insulting" but when you do it "hey chill out man, it's just a meme, it's just joking around".

Wow... yeah I guess direct attacks against half the people in this thread is comparable to a Mordin picture. How the hell is it even offensive. Mordin is displeased, I have Mordin's avatar. So I am saying I am displeased. How the heck is that even offensive. Yet direct attacks thats cool. You unload fire on others, but when some lights a match next to you, you freak. Yeah..... (see I am admiting, I also playing with fire). You however deny your own actions. You call me a hypocrit.

[KainrycKarr]

...Does anyone actually care? It seems rather evident noone's minds are going to change, regardless of arguments put forth, for either party.

[Naltair]

imported_beer wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

Turian military training emphasizes the importance of the team and fighting as a unit. Garrus is a maverick but understands the value of teamwork above all else. Hell, he holds off on sexing up FemShep because he doesn't want to hurt group cohesion.

Again, what I am trying to illustrate is how you as a player approach those final choices.

Miranda is established as some one with some experience leading teams- whether or not she is good at it. Same with Jacob. Garrus has that mercenary gang that ends up dead. Ergo as a player, you can either metagame, use turian lore, or get advance knowledge of the winning teammates  or say- given the info I have Garrus is not the right choice.

When I played the game, I thought Garrus seemed like a poor choice. The game thought otherwise.

Some people may think experience trumps everything else, and for them, the thought of Samara being a "bad leader" may seem inexplicable. 

Even if you don't agree with their logic, I am saying your perspective as a player- as to what defines leadership will to a large extent dictate the plausibility of the choices the game decrees is suitable leadership.

Good point I think experience helps a leader, but experience as a leader is more important than knowing everything.  A good leader can utilize his/her people to the best of their abilities and apply the right specialists for the right tasks to achieve success.  They also utilize their skills to keep the team moving towards a goal without hopefully sacrificing someone in the process.  

[Naltair]

KainrycKarr wrote...

...Does anyone actually care? It seems rather evident noone's minds are going to change, regardless of arguments put forth, for either party.

True point I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

[DuffyMJ]

InvaderErl wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

Yeah but Samara has no experience as a leader. Garrus does. End of line. Really.

Less than 2 years of experience is not noteworthy unless you're a bean counter.

Except as I mentioned Garrus' resume includes:

Successful career as a Turian military recruit
Successful career as a C-SEC agent (he mentions he rose through the ranks)
Worked with Shepard to stop Sovereign
Destabilized the power structure of Omega
Worked with Shepard to stop Collectors.

He is hardly some green recruit.

C-Sec is a police agency not combat experience and is the majority of his career, those other things are smaller parts, the campaign against Saren wasn't that long, and Garrus wasn't even in charge, Shepard was.

[Madecologist]

Naltair wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...
That's not what the mission called for.. it specifically called for the ability to command loyalty through experience.

If you say so.

That to me says they need a leader, no matter how you want to word it.  I gave them one, the best one by my reasoning.  If you want to hang up on loyalty through experience be my guest, but I went with Garrus because he held out on Omega of all places and kept 12 people alive until Sidonis betrayed him.

Wait a minute! Not you Naltair... but DuffyMJ... you been arguing that you do not trust Miranda, yet you take her words to face value? Okay...

[Cutlass Jack]

DuffyMJ wrote...

That's not what the mission called for.. it specifically called for the ability to command loyalty through experience.

I'm not sure how much loyalty she would command, experience or no. Given that most of your team knows she'd kill them if she wasn't under oath. And may do so following the mission. Not a high incentive to watch her back. And not terribly surprising why she's the one that dies if she leads.

[Naltair]

Madecologist wrote...

Naltair wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...
That's not what the mission called for.. it specifically called for the ability to command loyalty through experience.

If you say so.

That to me says they need a leader, no matter how you want to word it.  I gave them one, the best one by my reasoning.  If you want to hang up on loyalty through experience be my guest, but I went with Garrus because he held out on Omega of all places and kept 12 people alive until Sidonis betrayed him.

Wait a minute! Not you Naltair... but DuffyMJ... you been arguing that you do not trust Miranda, yet you take her words to face value? Okay...

I am confused?

I never said anything about Miranda?

[DuffyMJ]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

That's not what the mission called for.. it specifically called for the ability to command loyalty through experience.

I'm not sure how much loyalty she would command, experience or no. Given that most of your team knows she'd kill them if she wasn't under oath. And may do so following the mission. Not a high incentive to watch her back. And not terribly surprising why she's the one that dies if she leads.

What?  Miranda doesn't die when she leads.  Miranda is the one who said that right before you pick your fireteam choice, Samara doesn't say that.

[KainrycKarr]

Naltair wrote...

Madecologist wrote...

Naltair wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...
That's not what the mission called for.. it specifically called for the ability to command loyalty through experience.

If you say so.

That to me says they need a leader, no matter how you want to word it.  I gave them one, the best one by my reasoning.  If you want to hang up on loyalty through experience be my guest, but I went with Garrus because he held out on Omega of all places and kept 12 people alive until Sidonis betrayed him.

Wait a minute! Not you Naltair... but DuffyMJ... you been arguing that you do not trust Miranda, yet you take her words to face value? Okay...

I am confused?

I never said anything about Miranda?

He was talkin' about DuffyMJ.

[hawat333]

Okkomon wrote...

True, but you dismissed anything else we have learned about her, other than she works alone being justicar. Miranda i believe in your mind is great leader  ibelieve? Social skills of ice queen, and an attitude of self centered 'i'm the best there is', that's your pick of a squad leader?

True. As long as we are talking about social skills. Have you ever served in the army? I wasn't under live fire situations, not once, but when it comes to even practices, in the field you will listen to the one who has tactical expertise. Not the social/good-looking/popular or funny guy out there.
Miranda is probably not as popular as Samara among the team members, they don't respect her as they respect a nearly thousand old asari. But she has tactical experience, and a good sight on complicated situations, and on top of that a commanding attitude. These are the important factors when it comes to effectiveness.
It's not a popularity/respect contest. It's a suicide mission.

[KainrycKarr]

None of you are going to win. The argument won't stop. Just give up and agree to disagree.

[Naltair]

DuffyMJ wrote...
C-Sec is a police agency not combat experience and is the majority of his career, those other things are smaller parts, the campaign against Saren wasn't that long, and Garrus wasn't even in charge, Shepard was.

C-Sec is essentially a para-military operation though.  They would have to learn small group tactics and operations.

[Madecologist]

Naltair wrote...

I never said anything about Miranda?

Sorry, I will clarify, not your comment. His, imbedded in your post. He was saying to you why he chooses Samara. That line he said is Miranada's quote. So basically he is using Miranda's line to prove Samara is a good leader.

Considering he does not trust Miranda... see the irony?

[Cutlass Jack]

DuffyMJ wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

That's not what the mission called for.. it specifically called for the ability to command loyalty through experience.

I'm not sure how much loyalty she would command, experience or no. Given that most of your team knows she'd kill them if she wasn't under oath. And may do so following the mission. Not a high incentive to watch her back. And not terribly surprising why she's the one that dies if she leads.

What?  Miranda doesn't die when she leads.  Miranda is the one who said that right before you pick your fireteam choice, Samara doesn't say that.

I wasn't talking about Miranda. Weren't you talking about Samara?

[InvaderErl]

And as Garrus was clearly inspired by Shepard he as he says likely would have made the best of the time that he was there that he could by studying Shepard's command style.

[Madecologist]

KainrycKarr wrote...

None of you are going to win. The argument won't stop. Just give up and agree to disagree.

Alas, I can not agree to disagree. I can agree that he is flat out wrong and is just being annoying. That it be a more prudent and wise action to just stop arguing with him since it seems he is the only one that thinks this anyways and why should we care what he things.

The agree to disagree to me reeks of accepting other people's opinions no matter how invalid. That I won't do, Walk away from a mess because it is pointless. That I will.

[Xanfaus]

 I think that the tech specialist job is the only one that's explicit enough not to lead to this sort of confusion. 
As for the squad leader job, Miranda does nothing except interject herself whenever the story progresses so much so that it seemed that she viewed herself as a kind of defacto second in command while during nothing to prove herself to the player beforehand. Miranda was in charge of the Lazarus project meaning that she lead some scientists for two years. There is no in game mention of her being an awesome or even an okay combat sqaud leader. 

Furthermore, arguably Jacob would be a more acceptable squad judging by his response in his loyalty mission.

As for Samara herself, even if she couldn't lead a team properly, its reasonable to think that an asari matriarch would be able to power through a couple dozen collectors. To make matters worse, no one in samara's team dies if she is chosen, the tech person is somehow the one that gets. That's supposedly because she doesn't know to call for cover fire which shouldn't matter because half a dozen heavily armed people are standing right next to them.

[Naltair]

imported_beer wrote...

Naltair wrote...

Good point I think experience helps a leader, but experience as a leader is more important than knowing everything.  A good leader can utilize his/her people to the best of their abilities and apply the right specialists for the right tasks to achieve success.  They also utilize their skills to keep the team moving towards a goal without hopefully sacrificing someone in the process.  

I agree. Which was my justification for not using Samara for that position in the first place- though I never did a mission without her once she was in my party.

However, I can at least understand where the "but she has so much experience" people come from.  Experience and ability is what they think is the most important component of leadership and then to have someone like Miranda accomplish what a Samara can't seems weird. 

Oh I understand that stance, I guess for me having taken military leadership classes and having experience leading teams, it comes down to more than just plain experience.  I have met many really experienced people who just don't make good leaders.  They are excellent at what they do but don't have the skills to run a team effectively.

it really takes a collection skills to be an effective and good leader and although experience is a vital component it's how you apply that that matters.  I can be the greatest swordsman ever with a hundred years of experience but if I ca';t effectively tell my troops to be where they need to because I am too focused on being the most badass swordsman ever then I am not doing my job as a leader.  It's a collection of skills and talents and every leader does it a little differently.

[Okkomon]

imported_beer wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

Turian military training emphasizes the importance of the team and fighting as a unit. Garrus is a maverick but understands the value of teamwork above all else. Hell, he holds off on sexing up FemShep because he doesn't want to hurt group cohesion.

Again, what I am trying to illustrate is how you as a player approach those final choices.

Miranda is established as some one with some experience leading teams- whether or not she is good at it. Same with Jacob. Garrus has that mercenary gang that ends up dead. Ergo as a player, you can either metagame, use turian lore, or get advance knowledge of the winning teammates  or say- given the info I have Garrus is not the right choice.

When I played the game, I thought Garrus seemed like a poor choice. The game thought otherwise.

Some people may think experience trumps everything else, and for them, the thought of Samara being a "bad leader" may seem inexplicable. 

Even if you don't agree with their logic, I am saying your perspective as a player- as to what defines leadership will to a large extent dictate the plausibility of the choices the game decrees is suitable leadership.

Myeah, i suppose my leadership lacks heavily on playing sole survivor character from ME1 and not to play by the 'respect my cerberus' forced gameplay in place, which annoyed troughout the game along with the other poor design to that regard.

P.S. Only legion got killed.

Modifié par Okkomon, 18 février 2010 - 09:17 .