Sarah (Trust the Science) Morgan is a horrible human being

[Rick Dagless]

So I'm sure most of you have grown to hate Sarah Morgan by now for disliking every decision you make with her as a companion. But I just played her companion quest, and boy oh boy, she is so much worse than just being a stuck up shrew. (Spoilers ahead).

So Sarah's companion quest revolves around her guilt for not investigating what happened to her crew after evacuating from the ship she was captaining during the war. You find her escape pod which contains some notes she wrote while awaiting rescue. She'd been able to pinpoint the location of her crew's pod, but it was too far away for her to get to on foot.

Fast forward to her getting rescued by the UC, and the source of her guilty conscience. When the UC rocked up to Cassiopeia (the planet she'd landed on), she went with them without asking them to even look for the rest of her crew. Why? Because, as she reasoned, if they'd been alive, they would have contacted her by now.

Makes sense, right? But what if they didn't have the means to contact her because their stuff got busted during landing? Seems kind of illogical for a gal who's brain usually works at the speed of science, no? But wait. Earlier in conversation with her, she recollects how she was the last person to bail out from their ship (her being the captain and all). So how would they even know she'd made it out? And let's say she makes it back to UC space, recovers in hospital for a bit and then kind of mentions to UC brass that her crew may or may not still be alive on a horribly inhospitable planet? Nope. She's too busy feeling sorry for herself and instead resigns from the UC in a fit.

So if you haven't played her quest and don't intend to because of how insufferable she is, here's what happened. At least two of her crew did survive. They had a kid. And by the time she finally gets around to checking up on them (not sure about the timeline but it's at least a decade later), with your help, everyone except for the kid is dead. Great job, captain Morgan. I'm looking forward to dismissing her to the worst, most inhospitable outpost I can find. Maybe on Cassiopeia, eh?

[zulu2222]

Jesus when you return to the UC admiral she even has the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ courage to say "WE abandoned a child. WE let her down" to which he responds rightly "I'm sorry how could i have known". I swear to god she left her crew to die twice, the whole quest is about her atonement for the first one and she doesn't even acknowledge the second one that's on another level of lazy writing.

[Redhalo]

What did you expect from a bunch of blue haired gender confused freaks who couldn't program their way out of a paper bag?? This is the future of gaming sir/mam(sorry, but your avatar and name have me confused)!

[ZombieHunter]

I don't like her nagging but I don't think the OP understood her back story. That, or they took only the bits and pieces they agreed with and spun them into a new narrative.

She did not go back to look for them because she saw their shuttle break up. Thus she thought they were dead. Then she accepted responsibility for it and it haunted her. Sometimes, as a leader in the military, you must give orders that will result in the loss of the lives of some of your men and women. To paraphrase the late great Bill Paxton in U571, 'Until you are ready to give such orders, you have no business being in command'

'who couldn't program their way out of a paper bag'

Can you? Based on your arrogance and ignorance I would guess the answer is 'no'. If you could, you would have no need to be so condescending and arrogant.

[Bingy Bingy]

Originally posted by MagicHp:

Funny how most people misunderstood that "Trust the science" moment...

They tell you to "Trust the science".
The science tells us in the context of this game that there is a one in a million chances for the microbe to mutate, so it is the safer option.
That is the moment you are supposed to think "Wait, science tells me that this is the bad solution then, we will release hundreds of billions of these microbes..."
Therefore, if despite losing affinity and having everyone disagree you choose to actually "Trust the science" and go with the macro solution , you are rewarded with the ending snippet clearly telling you that this was the better choice.

So yes, you actually should have trusted the science ;)

The game was written by the Twitter "I heart science" crowd, who, as an actual scientist, I find very anti-scientific (science being about objectivity and unbiased observation and testing - or supposed to be, at least). And you're right, bacteria have an extremely high reproduction and consequently mutation rate, on a population level. Her (and the writers) 'trust the science' is misrepresenting the science, which is very typical.

[andersonm]

Originally posted by LeBurns:

When in the military you don't go tell your superiors what to do and to go find a crash site you think they should be looking for. You do as told and have to assume those in charge are taking care of the rest. If you had done Sarah's story you would know that it's her former commander, who is still in the military, who ends up taking full responsibility for their failure in following up on finding the crash site. Sarah is faultless in this, though she still feels the guilt, though much of that appears to be survivor guilt. Again, if you've been in a battle and survived when many of your friends didn't, would be something you could relate to.

Except that in this case, the lost military mates would be MIA and potentially alive near a lake in Canada, and in 10-20 years you never bothered to drive up there and look for them.

[ZombieHunter]

Originally posted by Bingy Bingy:

Originally posted by MagicHp:

Funny how most people misunderstood that "Trust the science" moment...

They tell you to "Trust the science".
The science tells us in the context of this game that there is a one in a million chances for the microbe to mutate, so it is the safer option.
That is the moment you are supposed to think "Wait, science tells me that this is the bad solution then, we will release hundreds of billions of these microbes..."
Therefore, if despite losing affinity and having everyone disagree you choose to actually "Trust the science" and go with the macro solution , you are rewarded with the ending snippet clearly telling you that this was the better choice.

So yes, you actually should have trusted the science ;)

The game was written by the Twitter "I heart science" crowd, who, as an actual scientist, I find very anti-scientific (science being about objectivity and unbiased observation and testing - or supposed to be, at least). And you're right, bacteria have an extremely high reproduction and consequently mutation rate, on a population level. Her (and the writers) 'trust the science' is misrepresenting the science, which is very typical.

I do not consider a video game to be a valid source of correct science. It is called science fiction for a reason. Science fiction. Fiction. As in not real.

[Bone23]

This reinforces my thinking that all the writing was done by MBAs in a boardroom. Only a writers room filled with corporate executives would the write such an awful human as a good guy. Leaving your crew behind on a planet because they didn't remind you they are still alive is the type of thing that would only be done by someone who majored in business.

[Bingy Bingy]

Originally posted by ZombieHunter:

Originally posted by Bingy Bingy:

The game was written by the Twitter "I heart science" crowd, who, as an actual scientist, I find very anti-scientific (science being about objectivity and unbiased observation and testing - or supposed to be, at least). And you're right, bacteria have an extremely high reproduction and consequently mutation rate, on a population level. Her (and the writers) 'trust the science' is misrepresenting the science, which is very typical.

I do not consider a video game to be a valid source of correct science. It is called science fiction for a reason. Science fiction. Fiction. As in not real.

They talk about real world things like bacteria mutation rates. At the very least you'd expect them to not completely misrepresent 'the science' like that.

Good science fiction extrapolates but respects basic scientific principles. This is bad, poorly written science fiction.

[Deebz__]

Originally posted by DerekTree:

The core problem is Sarah's characterization--it's internally inconsistent.
She's got a military background (strength, independence, hard work) and was marooned after a crash (survival situation). Check.

However, she's now a high maintenance on what planets/cities she's in (stereotypical Mayfair Brit)...doesn't work with back story.

She's also clingy AF if you romance her, which doesn't fit with her backstory.

Yes, the writing isn't good and superficial, but really this is my #1 issue with Starfield. The team characters are unbelievably superficial, inconsistent and more trouble than they're worth. Isolation perk for the win.

Well she never exactly fit in with the military, or really even wanted to be a part of it. Her parents pushed her into it. She says as much in her dialogue. So that part of her isn't really the "true" her. The "clingy, mayfair brit" is who she really is, and it makes a lot more sense when you see it this way. Particularly when you notice that she loves to explore planets, but only pleasant ones that don't need space suits. She generally complains about the rest of them.

To be fair though, it's not exactly like even Star Trek characters enjoyed wandering around boiling planets in suits, while still managing to accumulate burns, lung damage, hyperthermia... etc. Even they only enjoyed exploring pleasant planets. So, eh. Guess that's fair enough? I'd probably avoid "dead, boiling rocks" too if I could feel what my character feels.

As for cities, well, she was raised on UC propaganda. Of course she looks down on Akila City or Neon, just like Sam looks down on New Atlantis. Try taking her through the UC Vanguard questline with you sometime though, and watch her world view get shattered into a million pieces once she finds out who the UC has been hiding beneath the city since the war.

And as for the clinginess... makes sense too. 40 years old, felt like an outcast who is unworthy of love for her entire life, despite still clearly wanting someone to love. Then the player comes in and proves to her that someone actually can love her. Of course she is overwhelmed and happy. Would that feeling last forever? Of course not, but neither does a savegame. Your character's journey will end during the honeymoon period, unless you are in the 1% who somehow keeps one save going for 10 years. Not much sense in writing "old married couple" dialogue that most people won't ever see.

She's still pretty judgmental, and loves to "look down" on people she perceives as being wrong. That much is certainly a character flaw. A realistic and believable one, but a flaw nonetheless. Makes a lot of sense with her general insecurity about herself. I can certainly see people being rightfully turned off by that though, especially if they don't play a "good guy" character lol.

Tl;dr: she's actually pretty consistently written when you think about it

[chefcook90]

Cassiopeia III ain't even that bad of a planet.

Maroon her on Earth instead. That'll teach her.

[Bone23]

Sarah is framed as good because she thinks like the tech bros in charge at Bethesda. She did a cost/benefit analysis and decided it wasn't profitable enough to implement the rescue of two crew members in the game. It was much less expensive to reuse assets to make Cora's doppelganger.

Sure Sarah feels a little guilty but the bio weapon doesn't require as many assets thus the bio weapon is the correct choice in game. Think of how good those profits make you feel.

[Bone23]

Originally posted by LeBurns:

When in the military you don't go tell your superiors what to do and to go find a crash site you think they should be looking for. You do as told and have to assume those in charge are taking care of the rest. If you had done Sarah's story you would know that it's her former commander, who is still in the military, who ends up taking full responsibility for their failure in following up on finding the crash site. Sarah is faultless in this, though she still feels the guilt, though much of that appears to be survivor guilt. Again, if you've been in a battle and survived when many of your friends didn't, would be something you could relate to.

Were you even in the military? You would very much be expected to report something like the possibility of other survivors. To not do so would be negligent. if she did and her commander didn't act that's on him but she didn't report it so its on her.

[Vexillarius]

I've said it before and i will say it again. Sarah was written by a female incel with at least 18 cats minimum. She's literally the least likeable character in video game history. And yes i'm including Claptrap.

[chefcook90]

Originally posted by Vexillarius:

I've said it before and i will say it again. Sarah was written by a female incel with at least 18 cats minimum. She's literally the least likeable character in video game history. And yes i'm including Claptrap.

What??? Claptrap is AWESOME! Don't you dare compare him to Sarah Morgan!

The dude actually won AWARDS for most popular NPC of the year!

He was the spokesperson who accepted Borderlands 2's GOTY award!

[Jaden]

And don't forget, the kid who has never ever seen more than two people in her life (her parents) and knows only wilderness, has to wander alone through the capital of the UC, through thousands of strange people to the Lodge... but don't worry, Sarah "gave her directions".

And then (spoilers ahead) she makes you go with her to a concrete enclosed "waterfall" where you have the options of saying yes, yes or yes to how beautiful it supposedly is (it's not).
And when you tell her "let's be friends" to her clearly leading the conversation towards romance, she is "glad you didn't stomp away" - yeah well, there was not option to do so!

Who writes this stuff? It is awful.