@epidehl: you’re right, the cause and effect is a bit obfuscated but on the other hand I think I prefer it to ‘you choose wrong person and they die’. This way every decision matters and you can’t just send people you don’t care about
@ciddative: You aren't replying to what I said at all, just as you are ignoring what Miranda asks for.
I think we've both gone over Miranda's exact wording ad nauseum so I don't think I've ignored her.
But which points of yours did I ignore?
You said the game's phrasing was bad, that it was not Alex' fault and it should have been more detailed in it's criteria. I said the phrasing was fine and good enough and Alex messed up.
You then criticised the phrasing again and argued the correct team members haven't had experience with commanding the Normandy Crew or been shown to have gained any loyalty from them to warrant their selection. I stated the experience in question includes time before they join the mission, which hasn't been very long. I added that choosing Samara would imply you include pre-Normandy life experience, so why the different standard?
You edited on the bit about Jack's line suggesting Miranda was a bad choice for the player which I just saw, and as I implied in my reply to radish about Miranda praising the Samara choice, I can see how that would have an influence. But unlike that line, Jack has a explicit and well-defined bias against Miranda, far moreso than Jacob. I woudn't use yet another in a long line of incidents where Jack mistrusts Miranda and is vocal about it to assume Jack is right.
Yes its clear if you sit and think for a few minutes who the game really wants and is asking. Yes we know those characters are the team leaders.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a player to put some thought into potentially life-or-death decisions in a mission called the "suicide mission" that the whole game has been building up to.
Jack immediately shows that Miranda can't do that because she's still not trusted and neither is Jacob.
... by Jack. There's that name again.
This is where the crux of your argument seems to have shifted a little since your initial comment. You acknowledged that Miranda's line and the menu text afterwards are clear if you give it some thought, and I concede it isn't ideal.
But then you start taking Jack as a reliable judge of Miranda's merits, in a story where Jack has proven herself to be at the very least biased against Miranda and at worst a hot-headed impulsive unstable danger to herself and others. This is coming from someone who LOVES Jack, especially her character development. But at this point in the game I wouldn't take her testimony on Miranda's pros and cons as particularly reliable or reasonable.
Is the phrase 'command loyalty through experience' perfect? No. and you could absolutely substitute words or rearrange them to make it more immediately crystal clear. But again, I don't mind being asked to think about a decision I'm making in a strongly narrative-based game concerning characters I've grown attached to over 20-60 hours.
I want to the game to make me think about that type of thing.
Suicide mission parameters really should have been better laid out instead of just the "I feel this..." Especially when Miranda says how awesome your wrong choice is.
The descriptors used in each case were fairly clear, if given a moment's thought. I will grant you the Miranda line was a real stinker though.
@ciddative: 'Command loyalty through experience' is a terrible phrase. Miranda and Jacob are still barely trusted by other crewmembers, Jack and alien crew who still see them as Cerberus. Its asking for something that isn't there, when it just wants experienced team leaders/tacticians.
If the crew's experiences began when they joined Shepard. you'd be right. But Miranda Jacob and Garrus clearly had experience of command years before Shepard was revived.
A decision to pick Samara based off the short time she's been on the Normandy would be even more ludicrous than the above.
ciddative's comments