95 réponses à ce sujet

[Djehutynakht]

Jzadek72, Jack is more than merely disturbed. Yes, Cerberus is to blame for shredding her mind when she was a child and for turning her into a monster. But she's still a monster. She enjoys killing innocent people -- that's not just disturbed, that's evil. And that's the sole source of my problem with Jack. If she ran around killing Cerberus agents and blowing up their space stations, OK, well, she's a mess and needs help but I could understand that. But no, she likes hunting down innocent people who have harmed no one and she enjoys murdering them. Did you not hear her justification? "Everyone wants something." That justifies kidnapping, murder, wholesale slaughter.



She would have been such a sympathetic character, too, if she'd been a Cerberus-hunter instead of a wanton murderer. Imagine: Disturbed, nearly mad from childhood torture, hunting and killing the hated agents of Cerberus is all that brings her any semblance of peace. She became so dangerous to them that TIM launched a massive effort to capture her (for more study -- she's too valuable to kill). They finally caught her, and locked her in Purgatory, a "prison" actually run as an extortion racket by a corrupt "warden" no better than a slaver. Paragon Shepard must heroically break Jack out of this unjust imprisonment, and help her along the path to healing while finding out precisely who is responsible for her torment.



I'd have brought that character aboard the Normandy without a moment's hesitation. Someone like that needs a Paragon Shepard, and we all know Paragon Shep is all about collecting stray dogs, vagabond quarians, and other hard-luck cases.

[AngryFrozenWater]

BinaryHelix101 wrote...

You wouldn't survive the suicide mission without these guys so of course you have to take them. That's what the f-ing game is about! You hire a crew of the most dangerous, but also the most capable people in the galaxy. If you go hiring some goody two shoes Kaidan Alenko types, you're not gonna survive the mission because they don't have the killer instinct Jack and Zaaed have. Are you seriously saying you'd rather the galaxy gets destroyed than take Jack and Zaaed with to help you defeat the threat? So called "true" paragons would never be able to save the galaxy. I played paragon, but I would choose renegade options whenever it seemed like the reasonable thing to do. Like if you had a mass murderer cornered and disarmed, a "true" paragon wouldn't kill the murderer, becuase he/she's a "helpless victim".

Those Kaidan Alenko types were able to kill enough enemies in ME1 that it could be called mass murder. What a crap.

[Ghrelt]

RiverRat wrote...

Aye, supposedly Thane never killed any good guys. But when you listen to his Drell rationalization, an assassin is just a tool or weapon, you can't really be sure. But, you're right.. Personally I'd like to have intervened and prevented Nassana's assassination.. and given, between Jack and Thane... Thane has to be the lesser evil.

Even as a paragon, I wanted to kill Nassana myself.

[Oawa]

I really don't mean to step on anyones toes....and I hope most of the reasoning here is based on RP thinking, but if not....some of you come off as extremely judgemental.



I understand it's human nature to look back at someones passed actions and become apprehensive about their current/future behavior. I also understand that some may feel taking a chance on them because of these passed actions with the hopes that they won't continue can be defined as naive, but it's only being naive in hindsight if the choice ends up biting you in the ass.

[GenericPlayer2]

I still do not understand why Grunt is optional and Jack is not. I can't think of an RP reason why Shep would waste time arguing with someone who does not want to be saved and the station is going to start plunging at any moment.

As for abilities and surviving the mission - that argument is already null and void with making Grunt optional. Besides, if you use that argument, then hard-coding Jack's recruitment should also hard-code mission survival for Shep - but we know that is not the case.

Edit: From a purely RP, no metagaming standpoint, you can say that Jack is a liability, not an asset. You can make that determination when she refuses to leave with you on the station, and when she threatens to destroy the ship "you know how much damage I can do on a frigate....don't keep me waiting Shepard..."

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 27 février 2010 - 03:18 .

[mundus66]

In the first you could only avoid Wrex or Garrus and not both of them in the same playthough, unless you ignored Garrus and killed Wrex on Virmire. In this you can skip either of the last 3 dossiers, Zaeed, Grunt and Legion.

Modifié par mundus66, 27 février 2010 - 03:16 .

[ExtremeOne]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

if you dont like them, try to kill them off on the suicide... that eliminates the ME3 problem...

  


thats exactly what I did with Tali and Jack  

[Oawa]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

As for abilities and surviving the mission - that argument is already null and void with making Grunt optional. Besides, if you use that argument, then hard-coding Jack's recruitment should also hard-code mission survival for Shep - but we know that is not the case.

I can understand Grunt being optional.  You were trying to recruit Okeer, not Grunt.

[Djehutynakht]

Oawa -- judgmental? I suppose, technically, that's accurate. But imagine this happened in the real world. Imagine someone hijacked one of those Carnival cruise ships, filled with happy vacationing people, and murdered every single living soul aboard. Would you really consider it a personality defect if I judged the murderer to be a bad person and one with whom I would not willingly share living space?



Remember, Jack has committed that exact crime often enough that she tried kidnapping some of the victims just for the sake of variety, and then wrote that off as more bothersome than simply killing them all.



GenericPlayer2, I agree completely.

[The Angry One]

BinaryHelix101 wrote...

You wouldn't survive the suicide mission without these guys so of course you have to take them. That's what the f-ing game is about! You hire a crew of the most dangerous, but also the most capable people in the galaxy. If you go hiring some goody two shoes Kaidan Alenko types, you're not gonna survive the mission because they don't have the killer instinct Jack and Zaaed have. Are you seriously saying you'd rather the galaxy gets destroyed than take Jack and Zaaed with to help you defeat the threat? So called "true" paragons would never be able to save the galaxy. I played paragon, but I would choose renegade options whenever it seemed like the reasonable thing to do. Like if you had a mass murderer cornered and disarmed, a "true" paragon wouldn't kill the murderer, becuase he/she's a "helpless victim".

I'd take one Kaidan Alenko over 10 Jacks and Zaeeds thank you very much.
And that's my Renegade talking. Not fangirlism either, Kaidan would kick Jack's tattooed ass.

[Gabey5]

it wouldnt fit the story

[ATKT]

What would be ideal IMHO would be if you chose between squadmates. For example, if Tali and Legion refused to work together, you'd have to choose one, or if Samara and Jack refused worked together, you'd have to choose one. They both fill the same role in the endgame, and it would create much more re-playability. You could also outfit your squad to your style.



The annoying thing about that is that you wouldn't be able to experience all the content in one playthrough. I think that if they originally made you choose between squadmates I'd have complained in the other direction, to be honest. But looking at what we have, I think a more interesting story would have been choosing between squadmates.



Also, before ME2 came out, we were told for a short time that some squadmates, Jack included, were optional.

[DarthCaine]

Gabey5 wrote...

it wouldnt fit the story

Actually, every squad mate has dialogue for every recruit mission, the final order was decided later

[rabbitchannel]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

You're not paragon, you're paragon stupid. You're letting your personal feelings get in the way of the mission.

You recruit them for their skills, not because you like/dislike them. You need the best people to do the suicide mission. You'd sacrifice the lives of billions just 'cos you don't like them or because they might kill a few people afterward? Thank god Shepard's not as stupid or naive

The mission can succeed with no casualties without Jack. In fact, try to get Jack killed takes more effort. Jack is a team liability, not a team addition.

I think arguments that so-and-so was useless and we could have completed the mission with or without him/her are incorrect. At the time of recruitment you/Shepard had no idea how the suicide mission would play out. You had no idea who or what you would need. The objective of recruiting all these people is to increase the probability of survival and success. Therefore, that argument would imply that Shepard has some sort of omniscience that enables him to say, "oh, in the future I definitely know I won't be needing Jack because I'll be recruiting Samara successfully and get everyone else I need too. I'll be getting Legion in the Reaper and put him in the vents and Samara can be our biotic specialist". Which is not that case. Had you been on your first playthrough and not completed the game yet, you would not have made that argument.

Modifié par rabbitchannel, 27 février 2010 - 03:54 .

[Exile Isan]

I'd like to point out that Jack freaks when she heards that holo recording on Pragia that the Teltin facility was going to try and "piggyback" onto the Acension program. She panics thinking that they are to doing to her what they did to other kids. Yep, that truly sounds like a evil cold blooded murderer to me. I also have to wonder how much of Jacks story were solely her, or what is fact and what is fiction. And just who was paying to keep her in purgatory. My money's on Cereberus, trying to hide their mistake? I'm not trying to defend Jacks deeds, yes she has killed people, but I took a lot of her stories with a grain of salt.

[The Angry One]

rab****annel wrote...

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

You're not paragon, you're paragon stupid. You're letting your personal feelings get in the way of the mission.

You recruit them for their skills, not because you like/dislike them. You need the best people to do the suicide mission. You'd sacrifice the lives of billions just 'cos you don't like them or because they might kill a few people afterward? Thank god Shepard's not as stupid or naive

The mission can succeed with no casualties without Jack. In fact, try to get Jack killed takes more effort. Jack is a team liability, not a team addition.

I think arguments that so-and-so was useless and we could have completed the mission with or without him/her is incorrect. At the time of recruitment you/Shepard had no idea how the suicide mission would play out. You had no idea who or what you would need. The objective of recruiting all these people is to increase the probability of survival and success. Therefore, that argument would imply that Shepard has some sort of omniscience that enables him to say, "oh, in the future I definitely know I won't be needing Jack because I'll be recruiting Samara successfully and get everyone else I need too. I'll be getting Legion in the Reaper and put him in the events and Samara can be our biotic specialist". Which is not that case. Had you been on your first playthrough and not completed the game yet, you would not have made that argument.

So under what possible variable is a psychotic, unstable biotic useful for anything?
Even if Jack wasn't a colossal wimp who talks big, she'd still be a liability... and pro-Jacks have the nerve to criticise Morinth. Morinth may be a sociopathic rapist but at least she can hold her own in a fight and you can be reasonable sure she won't just start tearing up the ship for fun.

[mopotter]

aaniadyen wrote...

If I was Shepard would I really free someone rightfully imprisoned anyway? Come on, you wouldn't be able to trust them for ****, much less expect them to have your back on the end mission. If it was up to me I'd never even land on the prison ship.

I wonder if someone at BioWare watched the dirty dozen back in '67.   edit specific watcher.

Modifié par mopotter, 27 février 2010 - 04:00 .

[Oawa]

Djehutynakht wrote...

Oawa -- judgmental? I suppose, technically, that's accurate. But imagine this happened in the real world. Imagine someone hijacked one of those Carnival cruise ships, filled with happy vacationing people, and murdered every single living soul aboard. Would you really consider it a personality defect if I judged the murderer to be a bad person and one with whom I would not willingly share living space?

Remember, Jack has committed that exact crime often enough that she tried kidnapping some of the victims just for the sake of variety, and then wrote that off as more bothersome than simply killing them all.

GenericPlayer2, I agree completely.

Of course I don't consider being judgemental as a personality defect.  I see it as a definition of ones character, and what makes each one of us who we are, for better or worse.

For arguments sake, I can't remember when we get the dossier on Samara, but I believe it's already after we recruited Jack.  Up until that point, Jack is our only option for a strong biotic.  To quote Spock "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one".  Shep feels it's their responsibility to stop the Collector/Reaper threat.  Shep is willing to sacrifice his own safety, to protect the galaxy.  If he goes into the fight without the necessary tools, he knows he'll fail and the galaxy is lost.  Sure, Jack is a risk, but a risk he has more personal control over.  Either way, Shep feels the galaxy is lost if he fails.  It's about the end payoff.  Risk going into the unknown unprepared, or risk his own safety, for the chance to come out successful?

[Mlow44]

Djehutynakht wrote...

In ME1, there was an element of choice where the crew was concerned.  You could avoid certain crew members -- all of them but Tali, I think.  This would only be an issue for a xenophobic Shepard, but it was still possible.

Now, in ME2, when there are very strong reasons for Shepard to refuse certain potential squadmates, that choice has been taken away from us.  Why?  As a Paragon, my Shepard is not at all happy about being forced -- by a terrorist organization no less! -- to take on vicious, dangerous, evil people.

The problem is that BioWare wrote true Paragons into a corner.  Most of the squad is acceptable, and most of those for whom there might be issues of conscience can be rationalized.  Grunt is violent as hell, but he's not evil; he's a child who needs direction.  Thane gave me some concern, but upon meeting him I could tell he wasn't evil.  Morinth is obviously out, and the only one for whom there was any choice.  I was willing to talk to Legion before deciding whether or not it needed to be destroyed, so I had no problem taking it on board.  But then there are the two big problems....

First, Zaeed.  I had no choice but to take into my crew this vicious, horrible, murderous mercenary hired by Cerberus.  I couldn't void his contract even after watching him beat and murder a helpless victim.  I couldn't even choose to STOP the beating or murder.  That bothers me greatly.  Talking to Zaeed in his part of the cargo hold only makes it worse.  He enjoys killing innocents.  I keep spacing compressed garbage while he talks, wishing I could space HIM.

And then there's Jack.  BioWare, what the hell were you thinking?  Jack was so easy to make palatable to Paragons!  Why couldn't you have directed her rage slightly?  With all that hatred toward Cerberus, all you had to do to make her acceptable (with reservations) to a Paragon was say that her murderous rage and violence was aimed at Cerberus targets.  So why make her evil?

Before the Jack fans eviscerate me, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not objecting to her appearance, her abrasive character, her swearing, her messed-up psyche, or her violent rages.  I'm objecting to the fact that she is truly EVIL.  She enjoys murdering innocents.  She's happy about, for instance, capturing passenger liners and slaughtering everyone aboard, and considers the time she kidnapped some of the passengers instead of killing them one of her few mistakes.  She doesn't kill only those who threaten her or try to harm her, she kills anyone and everyone, because she can, and because she enjoys it.  How many victims has Jack murdered, BioWare?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  And yet a Paragon Shepard has NO CHOICE but to take this vicious pyschopath on as a member of the Normandy's crew!

What's really insulting is that you can try to heal her, as if a tortured past justifies or excuses the slaughter of innocents, and she now deserves to be treated as if she's still the frightened little girl in that Cerberus cell.

With all these vaunted Paragon and Renegade interrupts, and the claims that our choices change the galaxy, why couldn't we be given any choice where our squad was concerned?  "I decide who's on my team!" Shepard growled at TIM.  Yeah, right, sure you do.  TIM hands out the dossiers, and you dance to his tune.  Shepard has no choices that matter.

As a Paragon, I would have shot Zaeed to protect that batarian.  I would never have gone to collect Jack.  Had I visited Purgatory anyway, after the kidnapping attempt I certainly would not have released all the prisoners.  And, on a related but somewhat tangential subject, I would have knocked Liara out and dragged her back to the Normandy rather than allow her to become a murderer.

I am not at all happy to have the most important choices taken out of my hands, especially not considering that choice is supposed to be the core of the Mass Effect games.  I'd rather like an explanation (though I don't actually expect  to hear one).

well, it's an incredibly dangerous missin on which you need all the help you can get from the best of the best. And i've always sort of looked at it as "as long as they're on your team, you can keep them on a leash." While they're under your command, their actions are restricted to those you allow them to take. Plus you give them a chance to direct their abilities toward a greater good, rather than their usual selfish or sadistic reasons. Can't get much more Paragon than that.

I did have some ethical dilemmas about causing the jailbreak for Jack though. I do wish we had an option to free JUST Jack, even if it would have taken more effort to do so. I did not like having to free more sociopaths than necessary, and that email you get from one of the guys that broke free got to me.

Modifié par Mlow44, 27 février 2010 - 04:06 .

[rabbitchannel]

The Angry One wrote...

rab****annel wrote...

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

You're not paragon, you're paragon stupid. You're letting your personal feelings get in the way of the mission.

You recruit them for their skills, not because you like/dislike them. You need the best people to do the suicide mission. You'd sacrifice the lives of billions just 'cos you don't like them or because they might kill a few people afterward? Thank god Shepard's not as stupid or naive

The mission can succeed with no casualties without Jack. In fact, try to get Jack killed takes more effort. Jack is a team liability, not a team addition.

I think arguments that so-and-so was useless and we could have completed the mission with or without him/her is incorrect. At the time of recruitment you/Shepard had no idea how the suicide mission would play out. You had no idea who or what you would need. The objective of recruiting all these people is to increase the probability of survival and success. Therefore, that argument would imply that Shepard has some sort of omniscience that enables him to say, "oh, in the future I definitely know I won't be needing Jack because I'll be recruiting Samara successfully and get everyone else I need too. I'll be getting Legion in the Reaper and put him in the events and Samara can be our biotic specialist". Which is not that case. Had you been on your first playthrough and not completed the game yet, you would not have made that argument.

So under what possible variable is a psychotic, unstable biotic useful for anything?
Even if Jack wasn't a colossal wimp who talks big, she'd still be a liability... and pro-Jacks have the nerve to criticise Morinth. Morinth may be a sociopathic rapist but at least she can hold her own in a fight and you can be reasonable sure she won't just start tearing up the ship for fun.

You misunderstand. I wasn't arguing that Jack isn't useless. I never use her myself. I am arguing against the line of reasoning that you don't need a certain squad member because he/she is not useful/can be replaced by another during the suicide mission. Though I'm sure I can think of a use for Jack and possibly argue that ALL of squad members are useful but I've got to eat lunch now and I'll be back in a while. 

[AngryFrozenWater]

Inarborat wrote...

I never knew Paragons were such nancies. BinaryHelix knows what's up. The plot was Bioware's "The Dirty Dozen." Getting Jack out of Purgatory was a Paragon action. Did you miss the guards beating the prisoner? The warden tried to take you prisoner! Didn't Zaeed only shoot the Batarian in the leg? Besides, you're probably not innocent if one of the best bounty hunters in the galaxy is after you.

There's no pleasing you people.

/me plays the paragon Shepard...

The best thing for humanity is to lock her up and to get some shrinks to try to get rid of her problems.

Beating up other prisoners doesn't make Jack sane.

I've noticed that the Warden tried to take me prisoner. An unfortunate mistake.

Shooting a prisoner in a leg because he may not be friendly is OK with you?

What did I do to get the best bounty hunters in the galaxy after me that makes me a bad? And what does that have to do with any of the above?

[Driving Ghost]

If you prejudge Legion because he's a geth, you're being renegade.

[Oawa]

The Angry One wrote...

So under what possible variable is a psychotic, unstable biotic useful for anything?
Even if Jack wasn't a colossal wimp who talks big, she'd still be a liability... and pro-Jacks have the nerve to criticise Morinth. Morinth may be a sociopathic rapist but at least she can hold her own in a fight and you can be reasonable sure she won't just start tearing up the ship for fun.

I totally understand what you're saying, but if you really think about it psychotic, and unstable are perspective terms used by people who have or think they are in control.

That's like a slaver claiming a slave that fought for their own freedom is psychotic and unstable because they didn't conform to what the slaver wanted out of them.

[IoCaster]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

if you dont like them, try to kill them off on the suicide... that eliminates the ME3 problem...

^^^^
There you go. Solved my Miranda problem and highly recommended. 

Modifié par IoCaster, 27 février 2010 - 04:05 .