527 réponses à ce sujet

[Siansonea]

General User wrote...

Obviously a major military campaign in the Terminus is no small matter. It's just that anything that makes a business of completely depopulating human colonies, like the Collectors, is almost certainly a threat to the Alliance itself.

With that in mind, the Alliance has an absolute obligation to investigate the threat and, depending on their findings, they may not only have the right to intervene but the obligation to do so. With regards to independent colonies that could mean anything from a temporary occupation, to forcing them to accept protectorate status, to outright annexation.

Of course since, as of Horizon, the Alliance never got past step one, and the crisis was resolved before any major decisions were made, it's impossible to say how far it would ultimately have gone.

I don't fundamentally disagree, but this is a primrose path. A more powerful entity can cite "imminent threat" as a means of expanding thier territory, basically imperialism. Like the countries of Europe using Christianity as a pretext to "save" the various "heathen" populations throughout the world in the past several centuries. It's so easy to create or exploit a situation where a foreign power sees a pretext to essentially invade a sovereign state "for their own good". 

[alperez]

iakus wrote...

If we're talking about technicalities, so was stealing the Normandy.  My Shepard even said "I shouldn't even be wearing this uniform" afterwards.  And it was Ash telling Shepard that it had to be done, rather than accusing him of treason.  

The question isn't "was it treason?" technically or no, the question is "Why was this the first thing that pops into the VS's mind?"
 

Again though your not dealing with the elephant in the room, which in fact in this case is 2 elephants.

Shepard being alive 2 years after being presumed dead, brings into question just exactly what occurred 2 years previously,.

The VS having no knowledge regarding the Lazurus project and living in a universe where up to Shepard's resurrection by said project, people who died couldn't just be resurrected is forced by the fact that Shepard is alive and walking around to re-examine the events of 2 years previously, simply put they can no longer believe that Shepard was in fact dead but now believe that he somehow survived or the whole thing was a giant con.

The words they use are "i believed you were dead, we all did" not "omg you died, how, what the, how can you be alive".  Once they are on that path the problem then becomes if Shepard survived then why didn't he contact me, why didn't he let me know he was alive, why would he let me go through that and believe he was dead again confirmed by their own words.

The second elephant is off course the rumours Shepard was alive for sometime and has been working with Cerberus, rumours now seemingly confirmed by Shepard being alive and working with cerberus.

Both these things together lead to the betrayal they feel personally and the betrayal they feel professionally, if one of them didn't exist the situation and outcome may have been different but its because they are both there that leads to the first thing that pops up being an accusation of said betrayal.

But stealing the Normandy demonstrates that this isn't an action that Shepard takes lightly.  Even if Shepard was wrong to ally with Cerberus, there must have been a compelling reason to do so.  But the VS makes no effort to learn those reasons before leaping to the "traitor" conclusion.  
 

But again they were there when the reasons Shepard took the action occured, they were present during all the events and had their own experiences and viewpoint to prove Shepards actions were neccessary and were made with no outside influences.

They don't have the same viewpoint of events that Shepard does on Horizon because they are approaching the situation with less of the relevant facts, Instead what they have is Shepard seemingly going against everything they may both have believed in with no idea why he's reached the conclussion that this is the only course of action available to him, then when added to Cerberus's involvement they also cannot be sure that its Shepard calling the shots either.

But even worse than this is that during the events that led to stealing the normandy, the fact they were side by side with Shepard, the fact they could see why he was doing what he was doing and was doing so freely meant they could trust him implicitly, the situation they are now in brings into question whether they can actuallly trust Shepard at all,

His perceived actions regarding his death and his resurrection and what that perception leads to along with his alliance with cerberus and how that is perceived remove the key element they always had, complete faith in Shepard, without that they cannot come to the same conclussion because in the end that's what really swung them last time.

And like I said I have no problem with this line of reasoning.  But this was not the VS's first response.  It was "You turned your back on us!"  This is the sticking pont.  The VS seems to assume that Shepard is in fact acting on his or her own free will.  
 

Again its the combination of what Shepard's death and resurrection mean allied to his working with cerberus which creates the sticking point. Without any single element things would have played out differently.

Shepard turning up alone on Horizon without Cerberus would have allowed the VS to properly examine what his death and resurrection actually mean, Shepard turning up on Horizon working with Cerberus not having died 2 years previously would have allowed the VS to properly examine why Shepard is allied with cerberus, but because its both these things at the same time it creates the elements needed for the situation to play out as it does.

Shepard's resurrection creates doubt about the death itself which then lead to questions regarding why in those 2 years he didn't contact the VS, which lead to questions regarding just exactly what Shepard felt about the relationship itself, which then leads to inevitable questions regarding just exactly how much the VS ever really mattered to Shepard, which brings up questions regarding both Shepard's character and the VS's understanding of that character.

"I thought you were dead. we all did"

"I spent the last 2 years believing you were dead" "We had something Shepard, something real i Loved you"

"I thought you were dead, i almost, how could you put me through that"

"Why didn't you try to contact me, Why didn't you let me know you were alive"

These are the opening words the VS uses to Shepard, its this mistaken perception which sets the seal for everything else that goes down, its because this perception isn't cleared up (shepard forgets the ability to speak properly plus the VS has absolutely no idea about the Lazurus project even existing) that create doubt in Shepard and create a feeling in the VS that Shepard abandoned them personally, therby betraying whatever it was they shared.

We then get the other problem brought right front and center in the midst of that exchange, cerberus.

The VS already feeling abandoned personally by a mistaken perception of Shepard's actions is hit with what on the face of it is also a professional abandonment of the beliefs they both shared by Shepard's alliance with Cerberus. Its a one two sucker punch combination which leads to the VS responding emotionally based on a mistaken perception which is never properly cleared up.

"How could you just turn your back on all of us, you betrayed the alliance, Anderson, you betrayed me"

Because Ash and Kaidan have been to Eden Prime, Noveria, Feros, Virmire, and the lockdown.  plus possibly  Chasca, Ontarom  Binthu, and Nepheron.   They've seen Shepard in action, know what he's capable of, How he reacts under pressure.  And they certainly see what Shepard thinks of Cerberus.  Yes, Cerberus may now be manipulating Shepard now.  Perhaps they're playing on the Reaper threat.  Perhaps Shep's under some kind of compulsion, or acting under duress.  But that's not the same as being a traitor.  And that's the first conclusion they come to.  

I find that to be terrible writing.  It's not enough to destroy my trust in the VS, but it shakes my faith in the writers.  If I could I'd simply ignore the whole thing and pretend it didn't happen.  Unfortunately something of that magnitude cannot go unremarked in ME3.  I just hope that somehow it will come together in a way that makes sense.

Again your kinda missing the point, they were there yes so they had their own evaluation of the same events that they and Shepard both went through, so they could see why Shepard was taking a certain course of action is right and that he's doing so freely.

Shepard has come to his conclussions regarding cerberus without them being present, like i said its presented as a fait accompli, so they don't have the same understanding of how he's reached that conclussion or if he's doing so freely without outside influence, so they can't come to the same conclussion he did because they're approaching it from a completely different perspective this time round.

Think of it like this, 2 people walk into a room, have a discussion and make a choice while you wait outside the room, the come out and tell you this is what we need to do, your understanding of why they came to that course of action would be different than it would had you been in the room with them.

But in terms of why they believe Shepard's actions to be a betrayal and why they believe him to be a traitor, well its like i said a combination of the elements added together to give a false or wrong perception of both Shepard and his actions.

A. shepard's death and resurrection create doubt both in the death itself and because of this the resurrection and then open up questions to  just exactly what that really means.

If he's alive he must not have died, if he didn't die then he let me believe he was dead why? if he was willing to do this to me someone he cared about then just exactly what kind of a person is he really?

B. Shepard's working with cerberus allied to rumours he's been doing so for some time.

Working with cerberus means he must have changed either because he's being duped, manipulated or controlled or worse he's not changed but this is who he always really was and it was me who was wrong about him.

C. Shepard betrayed me, he never cared or felt the same way about me as i did him, if he is willing to betray me then he's also willing to betray the alliance by working with cerberus for whatever reason, but either way i can no longer trust him or his motivations.

A + B = C without either A or B then C may not have been on the table but its because both are present it is.

[General User]

Siansonea II wrote...

General User wrote...

Obviously a major military campaign in the Terminus is no small matter. It's just that anything that makes a business of completely depopulating human colonies, like the Collectors, is almost certainly a threat to the Alliance itself.

With that in mind, the Alliance has an absolute obligation to investigate the threat and, depending on their findings, they may not only have the right to intervene but the obligation to do so. With regards to independent colonies that could mean anything from a temporary occupation, to forcing them to accept protectorate status, to outright annexation.

Of course since, as of Horizon, the Alliance never got past step one, and the crisis was resolved before any major decisions were made, it's impossible to say how far it would ultimately have gone.

I don't fundamentally disagree, but this is a primrose path. A more powerful entity can cite "imminent threat" as a means of expanding thier territory, basically imperialism. Like the countries of Europe using Christianity as a pretext to "save" the various "heathen" populations throughout the world in the past several centuries. It's so easy to create or exploit a situation where a foreign power sees a pretext to essentially invade a sovereign state "for their own good". 

Some pretexts are more valid than others.  As I think you might agree, had the Collector attacks continued, they would constitute a valid pretext for the Alliance to intervene at one level or another.  Annexation of any independent colony is the extreme end of the scale, but a major military expedition where the cooperation of local colonial governments would be required would seem to me to be a likely and reasonable course of action.

The historical parallels I'm inclined to draw are America's Mexican Expedition of 1916 and Britain's seizure of Cape Town in 1795.

Modifié par General User, 29 octobre 2011 - 09:24 .

[Iakus]

alperez wrote...
Again though your not dealing with the elephant in the room, which in fact in this case is 2 elephants.

Shepard being alive 2 years after being presumed dead, brings into question just exactly what occurred 2 years previously,.

The VS having no knowledge regarding the Lazurus project and living in a universe where up to Shepard's resurrection by said project, people who died couldn't just be resurrected is forced by the fact that Shepard is alive and walking around to re-examine the events of 2 years previously, simply put they can no longer believe that Shepard was in fact dead but now believe that he somehow survived or the whole thing was a giant con.

The words they use are "i believed you were dead, we all did" not "omg you died, how, what the, how can you be alive".  Once they are on that path the problem then becomes if Shepard survived then why didn't he contact me, why didn't he let me know he was alive, why would he let me go through that and believe he was dead again confirmed by their own words.

The second elephant is off course the rumours Shepard was alive for sometime and has been working with Cerberus, rumours now seemingly confirmed by Shepard being alive and working with cerberus.

Both these things together lead to the betrayal they feel personally and the betrayal they feel professionally, if one of them didn't exist the situation and outcome may have been different but its because they are both there that leads to the first thing that pops up being an accusation of said betrayal.

And when Shepard uses the "clinically dead" or "in some kind of coma" lines.  The VS doesn't express wonder, disbelief, or any reaction at all to that.   The VS only picks up on "Cerberus"  The rumors remain but a passing reference.  Death is brushed aside.  I have to "head canon" that the VS believes Shepard faked his own death.

But again they were there when the reasons Shepard took the action occured, they were present during all the events and had their own experiences and viewpoint to prove Shepards actions were neccessary and were made with no outside influences.

They don't have the same viewpoint of events that Shepard does on Horizon because they are approaching the situation with less of the relevant facts, Instead what they have is Shepard seemingly going against everything they may both have believed in with no idea why he's reached the conclussion that this is the only course of action available to him, then when added to Cerberus's involvement they also cannot be sure that its Shepard calling the shots either.

Events do not take place in a vacuum.  People change, but also tend to follow particular patternl.  Being a loyal ALliance officer and going over to Cerberus should be seen as a radical departure.  Something shocking and unexpected.  But most of all, that happened for a reason.  The last time Shepard betrayed the Alliance, it was to stop the impending Reaper invasion.  It never enters the VS's mind that the same reasoning might apply here?

Again why didn't they ask "Sh*t, is the galaxy ending again?"

I'm not saying they should trust Shepard to know what he's doing, or to be in the right.  Cerberus may in fact be manipulating him.  But they should trust that Shepard wouldn't knowingly betray the Alliance.  (assuming one is playing that kind of Shepard)  That's where the scene fails.

But even worse than this is that during the events that led to stealing the normandy, the fact they were side by side with Shepard, the fact they could see why he was doing what he was doing and was doing so freely meant they could trust him implicitly, the situation they are now in brings into question whether they can actuallly trust Shepard at all,

His perceived actions regarding his death and his resurrection and what that perception leads to along with his alliance with cerberus and how that is perceived remove the key element they always had, complete faith in Shepard, without that they cannot come to the same conclussion because in the end that's what really swung them last time.

They saw what it took go get Shepard to act against the Alliance once.  If they can't apply what they learned of Shepard's personality  in that one incident to Horizon, then it suggests that they never really trusted Shepard to begin with.  They shouldn't need to know every detail of a particular event to understand Shepard's actions.  Even the asari Councilor believed that Shepard believed in the Reapers.  

To me, it would take more than just allying with Cerberus.  There'd have to be something darker and more sinister than that.  Rumors of a truly unpleasant nature to make the VS skip over "dupe" and go straught to "traitor"

Again your kinda missing the point, they were there yes so they had their own evaluation of the same events that they and Shepard both went through, so they could see why Shepard was taking a certain course of action is right and that he's doing so freely.

I think the point is that in observing Shepard in these situations, they get a good feel on how he's going to react, his personality, his judgement, how far he can be pushed in a given direction.  Knowing this, they should then be able to predict how Shepard will react in similar situations outside their presence.  If they have to be present and privy to all data every time Shepard makes a choice, then they don't really know him.

I'm not saying they have to approve of all his choices, I'm saying they should be able to understand why those choices are made.  The VS in this case clearly does not.  Not at first, at least. 

Think of it like this, 2 people walk into a room, have a discussion and make a choice while you wait outside the room, the come out and tell you this is what we need to do, your understanding of why they came to that course of action would be different than it would had you been in the room with them.

My understanding of the choice would be based on my undestanding of the people involved.  If the choice made is radically against the nature of of or more of the personas involved, yet he seems to be genuinely backing the decisions I would be more likely to think that there's something going on that I don't know about that changed his mind rather than the person casually betrayed his principles (unless this person was prone to that type of behavior).  

But in terms of why they believe Shepard's actions to be a betrayal and why they believe him to be a traitor, well its like i said a combination of the elements added together to give a false or wrong perception of both Shepard and his actions.

A. shepard's death and resurrection create doubt both in the death itself and because of this the resurrection and then open up questions to  just exactly what that really means.

If he's alive he must not have died, if he didn't die then he let me believe he was dead why? if he was willing to do this to me someone he cared about then just exactly what kind of a person is he really?

I was in some kind of coma
I was clinically dead

B. Shepard's working with cerberus allied to rumours he's been doing so for some time.

Working with cerberus means he must have changed either because he's being duped, manipulated or controlled or worse he's not changed but this is who he always really was and it was me who was wrong about him.

And I could get behind this, but that's not what the VS leads with.  They lead with "You betrayed the Alliance!"  This is why the rumors should have been played up.  On Horizon and elsewhere.  If Tali could think Shepard was on an undercover mission to tear up Cerberus from the inside, why shouldn't the VS?  Unless they were hearing other, darker things.

C. Shepard betrayed me, he never cared or felt the same way about me as i did him, if he is willing to betray me then he's also willing to betray the alliance by working with cerberus for whatever reason, but either way i can no longer trust him or his motivations.

A + B = C without either A or B then C may not have been on the table but its because both are present it is.

Shepard explains A coma or clincial death.  Yes the real truth would be unbelievable but what he gave makes sense in teh short term, at least.

B needs to be greatly expanded on.  It does no good to the story if a character knows what B is but neither th eprotagonist nor the player does.  It just becomes...frustrating.

Modifié par iakus, 29 octobre 2011 - 10:32 .

[alperez]

iakus wrote...

And when Shepard uses the "clinically dead" or "in some kind of coma" lines.  The VS doesn't express wonder, disbelief, or any reaction at all to that.   The VS only picks up on "Cerberus"  The rumors remain but a passing reference.  Death is brushed aside.  I have to "head canon" that the VS believes Shepard faked his own death.

Its because the dye's already been cast, Shepard alive and working with cerberus and the ramifications for what that may mean has already been set in the VS's head, once that's happened pretty much every word from Shepard's mouth at that particular time are not looked at in a clear rational un-emotional way.

Put simply, shepard being alive means he did not die, Shepard working with cerberus proves the rumours he's been alive for sometime and working with cerberus were in fact true so its impossible to take anything Shepard says with any trust in it because the perceived actions have already in the VS's mind proved Shepard untrustworthy.

As for "head canon" well the VS's own words should be enough proof of where they're head lies "I thought you were dead, we all did" "i believed you were dead".

Its not "Omg Your Alive, How is that possible" its a clear indication that they now believe they were wrong to accept that Shepard had indeed died, especially when added to the fact they have no info regarding the Lazurus project or up to Shepard's ressurrection have any idea its even possible for a person to be brought back from the dead.

Events do not take place in a vacuum.  People change, but also tend to follow particular patternl.  Being a loyal ALliance officer and going over to Cerberus should be seen as a radical departure.  Something shocking and unexpected.  But most of all, that happened for a reason.  The last time Shepard betrayed the Alliance, it was to stop the impending Reaper invasion.  It never enters the VS's mind that the same reasoning might apply here?

Again why didn't they ask "Sh*t, is the galaxy ending again?"

I'm not saying they should trust Shepard to know what he's doing, or to be in the right.  Cerberus may in fact be manipulating him.  But they should trust that Shepard wouldn't knowingly betray the Alliance.  (assuming one is playing that kind of Shepard)  That's where the scene fails.

Firstly they have experiences of people suddenly radically departing from how they once were, Saren, Benezia, Shiala, all radically changed due to outside influences, secondly they have whats clearly an outside influence right in front of them, Cerberus.

The reason it doesn't enter into their head that Shepard is doing what he's doing for the same reasons is the perception created by their interpretation of Shepards actions and alliance with Cerberus becomes the overriding concern.

Wheras previously they alongside Shepard could see him in action, see the events unfold from the same perspective and therefore understand that Shepards actions were justified and his alone, the problem is that they can no longer trust Shepard himself because they've wrongly perceived his actions regarding his death and resurrection and working with cerberus.

They do claim Cerberus may be manipulating or controlling or duping Shepard and he responds with "Your letting your feelings about cerberus cloud your judgement" the problem is that they believe its Shepard who's doing that which creates the problem in itself, it becomes a catch 22, Shepard can't prove his positon because the problem is Shepard.

They saw what it took go get Shepard to act against the Alliance once.  If they can't apply what they learned of Shepard's personality  in that one incident to Horizon, then it suggests that they never really trusted Shepard to begin with.  They shouldn't need to know every detail of a particular event to understand Shepard's actions.  Even the asari Councilor believed that Shepard believed in the Reapers.  

To me, it would take more than just allying with Cerberus.  There'd have to be something darker and more sinister than that.  Rumors of a truly unpleasant nature to make the VS skip over "dupe" and go straught to "traitor"

Indeed they did, the problem is that because how they've perceived Shepards actions in relation to his death and resurrection and the appearance of Shepard working with Cerberus seemingly proving the rumours true means they can't apply what they know about Shepard previously, because on the face of it everythings changed.

Shepard's death creates the initial problem, they believe he's been alive and didn't care enough about them to let them know this, in fact its worse he let them believe it, let them go through whatever emotional turmoil they've gone through for the past 2 years alone, which considering he supposedly cared about them is proof that either he really didn't or he played them and that they never in fact knew him at all, its a decimation of whatever personal relationship they shared.

Its then made even worse because he's now allied himself with people the VS and they thought Shepard himself considered enemies, people that the Shepard they once knew would never have allied himself with, which proves he's either changed what he once believed in for whatever reason or they actually never knew what he really did believe in and is a decimation of the professional relationship they shared.

Its because of the actions they perceive Shepard to have taken that destroys the personal relationship and the actions he's now taking that destroys the professional one, once they get to the point where they believe the former its that much easier to believe the latter is true also.

I think the point is that in observing Shepard in these situations, they get a good feel on how he's going to react, his personality, his judgement, how far he can be pushed in a given direction.  Knowing this, they should then be able to predict how Shepard will react in similar situations outside their presence.  If they have to be present and privy to all data every time Shepard makes a choice, then they don't really know him.

I'm not saying they have to approve of all his choices, I'm saying they should be able to understand why those choices are made.  The VS in this case clearly does not.  Not at first, at least. 

The problem though is the seperation of the past 2 years, allied to how they now pervceive the nature of that seperation, its because of that perception that the events of those 2 years become even more questionable in thier minds..

Like i said if Shepard had not died and had just turned up on Horizon with cerberus in tow, the VS would be much more inclined to accept that he hadn't changed or wasn't being manipulated,duped,controlled, they would have evaluated the situation that much more level headedly.

Likewise if he had died and had turned up alone on Horizon, they would have been able to deal with that situation much differently, the problem is its both things at once, so it creates a problem that develops into a larger one and it just snowballs from there.

My understanding of the choice would be based on my undestanding of the people involved.  If the choice made is radically against the nature of of or more of the personas involved, yet he seems to be genuinely backing the decisions I would be more likely to think that there's something going on that I don't know about that changed his mind rather than the person casually betrayed his principles (unless this person was prone to that type of behavior).  

Again though we end up with the elephant in the room, cerberus.

The problem with Shepard's position is that we have an outside element which calls everything into question, their very presence creates the additional problem of, what made that person change their postion, some relevant fact or info i'm unaware off or this nefarious,dangerous outside influence who are not above doing whatever it takes in order to further their agenda.

When its added to the seperation of the past 2 years and the perception of Shepard's actions during those 2 years in the VS's mind then it becomes a case of one thing proving the other even though we know the conclussion is wrong.

I wasi n some kind of coma
I was clinically dead

 
But was he?

The problem with this line is that rumours have been spread that he's been alive and working with cerberus for some time, rumours now seemingly proved true by the fact he is alive and working with cerberus.

Given the nature of cerberus and what the VS knows about them, given what looks to be Shepard actions seemingly being completely against the nature of the person they once knew, this creates the doubt that anything Shepard say's is actually true, that any explanation he gives can be taken on face value.

Simply put, its the well you would say something like that wouldn't you problem.

How can you believe anything Shepard says when A. your perception of his actions forces you to re-evaluate Shepard himself and B. if he is in fact being duped,manipulated or controlled by cerberus then wouldn't anything he said be untrustworthy anyway.

And I could get behind this, but that's not what the VS leads with.  They lead with "You betrayed the Alliance!"  This is why the rumors should have been played up.  On Horizon and elsewhere.  If Tali could think Shepard was on an undercover mission to tear up Cerberus from the inside, why shouldn't the VS?  Unless they were hearing other, darker things.

Like i said earlier, if A doesn't exist then B becomes less of a problem, with A in the VS mind seemingly being true then the B becomes even truer.

The reason they lead with "You betrayed the Alliance, Anderson, You betrayed me" is because A has proved the personal betrayal and because A is true then B must also be true proving the professional one.

The emphasis though is not on the betrayal of the alliance or Anderson but on the personal betrayal, its because they believe this to be certain that they can now accept the professional betrayal has taken place also.

Shepard explains A coma or clincial death.  Yes the real truth would be unbelievable but what he gave makes sense in teh short term, at least.

B needs to be greatly expanded on.  It does no good to the story if a character knows what B is but neither th eprotagonist nor the player does.  It just becomes...frustrating.

As i've said the problem with the Coma or Clinical death explanation is partly the fact Shepard is alive in the first place, partly the VS having no idea about just exactly what Shepard has gone through in the past 2 years and partly cerberus being involved.

The VS believing that Shepard did not die believes they've been abandoned by someone they loved and who supposedly cared about them, this abandonment caused them great emotional distress and is now forcing them to re-evaluate that person in a completely different light.

Not knowing the nature of what Shepard has actually gone through only re-inforces this feeling that Shepard abandoned them, when its then added that Shepard is now working with cerbeus it becomes a greater example that the abandonment wasn't just of them personally but it was also an abandonment of the beliefs they both shared.

Which forces them to also re-examine the rumours that were spead about Shepard working with cerberus, rumours seemingly proved true by Shepard working with cerberus.

Given their knowledge of Cerberus or their understanding of cerberus's goals and agenda, given their knowledge of just exactly what lengths they would go to this also then forces them to consider if Shepard's abandonment is a willing one or if he's being influences by cerberus be it through duping, manipulation or control.

But its because they've been forced to re-evaluate Shepard that creates the vast majority of the problems.

Either the Shepard they thought they kknew never really existed which places everything Shepard says in doubt or because of Cerberus's direct involvement something has changed that Shepard which still places everything he says in doubt.

But either way the end result is the same, they can't trust Shepard's word at that point in time.

As for expanding on the rumours themselves, i really hope so, a simple finding of reports on a terminal in me3 would go a long way in clearing things up.

Lastly, don't get me wrong in my posts, Horizon was horribly written, horribly created and in the end horribly inadequate.

In trying to be all things to all people, they completely mess things up, a little time and effort and the creation of seperate scenes depending on A. Which VS you were dealing with and B what exactly the nature of the relationship you had with them would have made such a huge difference.

Modifié par alperez, 30 octobre 2011 - 12:08 .

[Iakus]

alperez wrote...
Put simply, shepard being alive means he did not die, Shepard working with cerberus proves the rumours he's been alive for sometime and working with cerberus were in fact true so its impossible to take anything Shepard says with any trust in it because the perceived actions have already in the VS's mind proved Shepard untrustworthy.

This assumes that:

"I survived but was badly injured and in no condition to contact anyone" is less plausible than "I faked my own death to join a terrorist organization"  WIthout supporting information or evidence, more than Shepard simply working alongside Cerberus, this is very thin indeed.  Which again leads back to these so-called rumors.  For the VS's rage to make sense, we need to know more about the rumors.

The reason it doesn't enter into their head that Shepard is doing what he's doing for the same reasons is the perception created by their interpretation of Shepards actions and alliance with Cerberus becomes the overriding concern.

Wheras previously they alongside Shepard could see him in action, see the events unfold from the same perspective and therefore understand that Shepards actions were justified and his alone, the problem is that they can no longer trust Shepard himself because they've wrongly perceived his actions regarding his death and resurrection and working with cerberus.

Which goes towards there being more than what we know going on behind the scenes.  Simply siding with Cerberus against the Reapers should not have incurred such a strong negative reaction.  Not without something else reinforcing it.  Shepard had a perfectly plausible explanation to why he's not dead (all the better for being mostly true) and Shepard has a known history of taking extreme measures to stop the Reapers.  That means there must be something else poisoning the well.

They do claim Cerberus may be manipulating or controlling or duping Shepard and he responds with "Your letting your feelings about cerberus cloud your judgement" the problem is that they believe its Shepard who's doing that which creates the problem in itself, it becomes a catch 22, Shepard can't prove his positon because the problem is Shepard.

And this comes after the VS essentially calls Shepard a traitor.  Like I said they should have focused on "Cerberus is using you" rather than playing the traitor card.  I doubt the scene would have caused half the uproar it did.

Indeed they did, the problem is that because how they've perceived Shepards actions in relation to his death and resurrection and the appearance of Shepard working with Cerberus seemingly proving the rumours true means they can't apply what they know about Shepard previously, because on the face of it everythings changed.

Sure they can.  Even the Council heard out Shepard, though they "dismissed his claim"

"Commander Shepard.  Captain of the Normandy.  First human Spectre.  Savior of the Citadel.  We all thought you were dead, and there's terrible rumors circulating about you.  But I want to hear your side.  I owe you that much."

Its then made even worse because he's now allied himself with people the VS and they thought Shepard himself considered enemies, people that the Shepard they once knew would never have allied himself with, which proves he's either changed what he once believed in for whatever reason or they actually never knew what he really did believe in and is a decimation of the professional relationship they shared.

Its because of the actions they perceive Shepard to have taken that destroys the personal relationship and the actions he's now taking that destroys the professional one, once they get to the point where they believe the former its that much easier to believe the latter is true also.

All of which depends heavily on how much Shepard's imaged may have been tarnished by rumor.  I don't think a paragon Shep that they observed in ME1 wouldn't incur such doubt, even after two years.

Again though we end up with the elephant in the room, cerberus.

The problem with Shepard's position is that we have an outside element which calls everything into question, their very presence creates the additional problem of, what made that person change their postion, some relevant fact or info i'm unaware off or this nefarious,dangerous outside influence who are not above doing whatever it takes in order to further their agenda.

When its added to the seperation of the past 2 years and the perception of Shepard's actions during those 2 years in the VS's mind then it becomes a case of one thing proving the other even though we know the conclussion is wrong.

All of which ponts to Shepard being a dupe, not a traitor.  Heck aside from working alongside Cerberus personell (and the possibility of being AWOL) there's nothing to show Shepard betrayed the Alliance at all.  Again, unless the rumnors say otherwise.

How can you believe anything Shepard says when A. your perception of his actions forces you to re-evaluate Shepard himself and B. if he is in fact being duped,manipulated or controlled by cerberus then wouldn't anything he said be untrustworthy anyway.

Then why hug/shake hands with Shepard?  Why talk to him at all?  Why not simply slip away quietly?  The VS calls attention to him/herself by telling Delann who Shepard is.  Why embrace someone you've already dismissed as a traitor?  If the VS wasn't going to believe anything Shepard said about why the VS wasn't contacted, whay ask the question to begin with?

As i've said the problem with the Coma or Clinical death explanation is partly the fact Shepard is alive in the first place, partly the VS having no idea about just exactly what Shepard has gone through in the past 2 years and partly cerberus being involved.

The VS believing that Shepard did not die believes they've been abandoned by someone they loved and who supposedly cared about them, this abandonment caused them great emotional distress and is now forcing them to re-evaluate that person in a completely different light.

Not knowing the nature of what Shepard has actually gone through only re-inforces this feeling that Shepard abandoned them, when its then added that Shepard is now working with cerbeus it becomes a greater example that the abandonment wasn't just of them personally but it was also an abandonment of the beliefs they both shared.

Which forces them to also re-examine the rumours that were spead about Shepard working with cerberus, rumours seemingly proved true by Shepard working with cerberus.

All this again goes back to the rumors.  WIhtout knowing these rumors, A & B are essentially railroaded plot points.  A is explainable.  Coma, badly injured.  Exploding starships do that.  B Working with Cerberus.  Again explainable.  Joker and Chakwas can help explain it.  Maybe even jacob, there's a chance Ash at least knows him.  
The reason this doesn't work is because the VS is now convinced Shep is a horrible horrible person.  Why?  It must be the rumors.  The rumors we don't know.  And that's what makes teh confrontation on Horizon so terrible.  WE literally have no odea what the frak is going on.  

Modifié par iakus, 30 octobre 2011 - 12:52 .

[alperez]

iakus wrote...

This assumes that:

"I survived but was badly injured and in no condition to contact anyone" is less plausible than "I faked my own death to join a terrorist organization"  WIthout supporting information or evidence, more than Shepard simply working alongside Cerberus, this is very thin indeed.  Which again leads back to these so-called rumors.  For the VS's rage to make sense, we need to know more about the rumors.

It's less plausible partly because of the rumours themselves yes, but also because the perception the fact Shepard is alive and working with cerberus gives to those rumours but even moreso the perception Shepard being alive gives to the VS in relation to thier relatonship and what that really meant.

The problem is that Shepard standing in front of them working with cerberus proves the rumours seemingly true which then creates the doubt that Shepard died in the first place leading to the questioning of the nature of the relationship they shared.

In other words seeing Shepard alive and with cerberus means the rumours were true that he's been alive and working with cerberus for sometime, which then means that for the past 2 years he's let the VS believe he died, let them go through the emotional distress this caused not caring that they were going through this distress alone, not bothering to contact them or let them know any different.

Irrespective of whether or not the relationship was romantic or not (although its worse if it was) this in the VS mind shatters whatever belief they had in Shepard up to that point, if he was willing to put them through this then everything they knew about him or thought they knew becomes a lie.

So when Shepard tries to explain what actually occured everything he says only comes across as even more lies, they can't accept his word because in their own mind at that point in time its his word that creates the entire problem.

The nature of the rumours themselves is actually less important than the existence of those rumours, basically it becomes akin to walking in on a loved one who's in bed with someone else who then says "who you going to believe me or your lying eyes".

Which goes towards there being more than what we know going on behind the scenes.  Simply siding with Cerberus against the Reapers should not have incurred such a strong negative reaction.  Not without something else reinforcing it.  Shepard had a perfectly plausible explanation to why he's not dead (all the better for being mostly true) and Shepard has a known history of taking extreme measures to stop the Reapers.  That means there must be something else poisoning the well.

There is, its the mistaken perception that the VS has in relation to Shepard's death and resurrection and what it means regarding both their relationship with Shepard and Shepards character.

And this comes after the VS essentially calls Shepard a traitor.  Like I said they should have focused on "Cerberus is using you" rather than playing the traitor card.  I doubt the scene would have caused half the uproar it did.

I agree completely with you on this, the problem like i've said elsewhere is in trying to be all things to everyone they end up making a complete hash of things, rather than create the seperate scenes needed to portray which VS we're dealing with and what relationship we have with that person, they attempted to create one scene to fit all and it as clearly show does not.

Sure they can.  Even the Council heard out Shepard, though they "dismissed his claim"

"Commander Shepard.  Captain of the Normandy.  First human Spectre.  Savior of the Citadel.  We all thought you were dead, and there's terrible rumors circulating about you.  But I want to hear your side.  I owe you that much."

The problem though is the council has no emotional attachment to Shepard, so it does not perceive Shepard being alive and what that means as a personal betrayal.

They can unemotionally deal with Shepard, something the VS cannot.

All of which depends heavily on how much Shepard's imaged may have been tarnished by rumor.  I don't think a paragon Shep that they observed in ME1 wouldn't incur such doubt, even after two years.

Again i think while the nature of the rumors help explain certain things, its the fact the rumours exist at all which create the problem.

For example, a wife who never had any reason to suspect her husband of infidelty walks in on that husband in what looks like a compromising position with another woman, the husband explains that he was in fact comforting the other woman who had just lost a loved one, would be much more inclined to hear her husband out than a woman who's been told by a friend that her husband was cheating on her, who then walked in on exactly the same situation.

The fact that the rumours exist, that Shepard is actually alive and working with cerberus seemingly then prove those rumours true make it harder for the VS to actually accept Shepard's explanation, when this is then added to the VS already feeling that Shepard's actions have personally betrayed them in terms of his death, it makes it almost impossible at that point in time for them to accept Shepard's word.

All of which ponts to Shepard being a dupe, not a traitor.  Heck aside from working alongside Cerberus personell (and the possibility of being AWOL) there's nothing to show Shepard betrayed the Alliance at all.  Again, unless the rumnors say otherwise.

Again though your missing the context the event takes place in, if it was just htat on its own, then it would be less of a problem, unfortunately the VS already perceives Shepard's actions in relation to themselves personally as a betrayal, once they've reached that point its easier to accept his professional actions as a betrayal also.

Working with Cerberus from a soldiers perspective is a treasonous act, the council may be able to quantify it much better and consider it almost treason but from the VS's perspective if they did the same thing they'd be court martialled and accused of treason, which is why thats what they accuse Shepard of.

Try telling a marine that its ok to work with Al qaeda, that if he did so he wouldn't be charged with treason, i guarantee that Marine would have a slightly different understanding than the sec of defense or a general of just exactly what the course of action he takes would mean.

Then why hug/shake hands with Shepard?  Why talk to him at all?  Why not simply slip away quietly?  The VS calls attention to him/herself by telling Delann who Shepard is.  Why embrace someone you've already dismissed as a traitor?  If the VS wasn't going to believe anything Shepard said about why the VS wasn't contacted, whay ask the question to begin with?

Simply because there's still feelings there, irrespective of the rumours, irrespective of how they later analyse things, initially they'd still be happy that it was true Shepard was alive, its only after the intial feeling wears off that the full ramifications would begin to bear down on them.

All this again goes back to the rumors.  WIhtout knowing these rumors, A & B are essentially railroaded plot points.  A is explainable.  Coma, badly injured.  Exploding starships do that.  B Working with Cerberus.  Again explainable.  Joker and Chakwas can help explain it.  Maybe even jacob, there's a chance Ash at least knows him.  
The reason this doesn't work is because the VS is now convinced Shep is a horrible horrible person.  Why?  It must be the rumors.  The rumors we don't know.  And that's what makes teh confrontation on Horizon so terrible.  WE literally have no odea what the frak is going on.  

Actually they aren't the nature of the rumours only have some bearing on the situation, its the fact that the rumours exist that actually matters.

I've said before that personally i don't believe anything Shepard could have done or said on Horizon would have made the slightest bit of difference, At that point in time because of the entire circumstances of the situation imo the VS could not or would not have accepted anything as proof that Shepard was right and everything was ok.

SImply put, they needed the cooling off period between Horizon and the E-mail to come to terms with the enormity of the situation.

For example, a couple get into a fight because one member of that couple believes the other has done something terrible, some times that fight can be rectified right then and there but often that fight ends up with one part of the couple sleeping on the couch, its only the next day when cooler heads prevail that the other person may realise they were completely wrong in what they accused the other of doing, sometimes it may even take an outside party to rectify things.

That's what i believe happens on Horizon, its the unique set of circumstances created by Shepard being alive, allied to his working with cerberus and how this makes the VS feel in relation to the relationship they shared and the professional regard they held Shepard in, which makes it impossible at that time for them to accept or anaylse things with emotional detachment.

If some of these elements had not been in place, if Shepard had arrived alone or if he had not died and had just arrived with Cerberus then these things alone would be analysed less emotionally, but its the fact he did die, its the lack of info regarding the events he's gone through since he died, its the fact that rumours have suggested he's been alive and working with cerberus allied to him arriving with cerberus that create the problem for the VS.

All of these elements imo make the VS emotionally compromised on Horizon, which doesn't allow them at that time or in that place put their trust and faith in Shepard, later on when clearer heads and emotions have been reigned in they do examine things differently and in the end reach the conclussion that Shepard as always is doing what he's doing for the right reasons, but to expect them to do so in a five minute conversation while under emotional distress is unrealistic imo.

Modifié par alperez, 30 octobre 2011 - 02:04 .

[Quole]

This thread reminds me of the time someone asked `` Cant you just go 1 base roach against Protoss?`` The answer of course is no because sentries are ridiculously good.

Modifié par Quole, 30 octobre 2011 - 02:04 .

[General User]

laecraft wrote...

Not sure if it's been pointed out, but does anyone else find it odd that VS doesn't ask Shepard any relevant questions?

"Wow, Shepard, how come you're not paralyzed? Care to share that counter-measure against the seeker swarms?"

"You know, Shepard, I don't think I can join you right now, but I'd love to take a look at that ship of yours. Is this the debriefing room? Mind if I put this bubblegum under the desk?"

VS' mission was to investigate Cerberus' involvement. Let the investigation begin.

Why does the proud, completent, and independent-thinking VS practically runs away without finding out everything they can from the only person who knows the whole truth and ready to share all the available intel? It's as if VS is afraid to linger for another minute. Why approach Shepard in the first place if not for the intel? Nothing really adds up.

Hopefully the writers won't take an easy way out with indoctrination.

Word.

I'm not blaming them for it, but I look at Horizon as the VSs getting thrown into the deep end of the pool only to find out that they couldn't swim.

Modifié par General User, 30 octobre 2011 - 05:00 .

[HopHazzard]

I don't really have much of a problem with how Horizon went down. It certainly doesn't effect my trust of the VS. I do think they maybe let their emotions get the better of them and could've found out a bit more of what was going on with Shepard, but I can also understand why they didn't. If someone I'd worked closely with had seemingly died, and returned two years later working for terrorists, I'd find anything they had to say on the matter suspect as well. For all they know Shepard could've been a Cerberus sleeper agent the whole time.

[Siansonea]

The VS was put in a no-win situation. For the record, the VS' mission was to help the Horizon colony protect itself from a possible attack from...whoever is attacking human colonies. Therefore, the VS was supervising the installation of the AA towers as well as a system of safehouses. Cerberus was just one possible culprit for the colony abductions. Which makes sense, considering that Cerberus lures Alliance Marines into Thresher Maw nests just to see what happens, and things of that sort. Easy to understand why the Alliance would think Cerberus was a likely candidate. So the VS is sent, alone, to help a colony that doesn't want his/her help, to fight an enemy that the VS can't even identify.

Mind you, Captain Anderson could have told the VS about Shepard being alive, Shepard's assertion that the Collectors are to blame, and allowed the VS to coordinate with Shepard to defend the colony. But instead, Anderson does not give any information about Shepard, Cerberus or the Collectors to the VS, severely hamstringing that mission for the VS. Anderson also stonewalls Shepard, keeping the two apart for...what reason exactly? Horizon is outside of Alliance jurisdiction, so what's the big deal if the VS and a Spectre work together to defend the colony, even if Cerberus is involved? Was he worried about political backlash? Really, Anderson being so tight-lipped about this, especially with the VS, makes no sense.

So the Collectors attack, the VS is paralyzed, and after shaking off the paralysis they run into Shepard. In the space of a few minutes, everything is turned upside down. It's a lot for anyone to take in. Initially, the VS is just happy to see Shepard, but then the unpleasant implications of Shepard's presence become clear, once Shepard states that she's there with Cerberus. The VS rightly calls out Shepard for joining Cerberus, this is a betrayal most bitter to any loyal Alliance soldier. I can't emphasize this enough, because a lot of people seem to think Cerberus is just a bunch of hooligans pulling shenanigans. They're criminals. Worse than criminals. Cerberus is depraved. Cerberus killed Admiral Kahoku, countless Marines on Akuze and Edolus, conducted all sorts of sick experiments, and here's Shepard defending Cerberus. What. The. HELL.

The VS is thrown into a maelstrom of conflicting events and implications with very little preparation and very little time to take things in. But people seem to expect the VS to put aside Cerberus' involvement like it's not big deal, like there isn't an enormous amount of bad blood between the Alliance and Cerberus, and "just trust" Shepard because, well, I guess because Shepard is the player character. After all, Shepard may not have a personal relationship with the VS at all, Shepard could be no more than a respected former commander. But people seem to expect the VS to worship Shepard as the pinnacle of all humanity, infallible, incapable of bad judgment, and superceding all others in importance and competence.

Shepard doesn't explain the situation very well, but the real fault for the disaster at Horizon can be placed at the Illusive Man's and Captain Anderson's doorsteps. These two men had information that could have been shared with Shepard and the VS respectively, but because they chose not to share that information, they created an untenable situation. It's unfortunate that this reunion had to happen so contentiously, but you can't fault the people who were deliberately kept in the dark.

Should the VS have asked more questions about Cerberus? Sure. But they were probably still shook up and preoccupied by the fact that long-dead Alliance hero Commander Shepard was alive and well and working for Cerberus. How about Shepard? Do we think that maybe she could have asked some better questions and volunteered more useful information? YES. So if we're going to rake the VS over the coals for things not asked, well, Shepard's got to take a few trips over those coals too.

[Iakus]

jreezy wrote...

I know I do, which is why I can't really take the VS too seriously. The only good thing they did concerning the whole event was confirm Shepard's claims with Anderson afterwards.

I can't take Horizon itself too seriously, except as a slap in the face by the writers.  

[Siansonea]

iakus wrote...

jreezy wrote...

I know I do, which is why I can't really take the VS too seriously. The only good thing they did concerning the whole event was confirm Shepard's claims with Anderson afterwards.

I can't take Horizon itself too seriously, except as a slap in the face by the writers.  

If Horizon was a slap in the face, then the Lazarus Project was a punch in the face, and the Human Reaper was a sucker punch to the stomach. Just trying to keep things in perspective.

[Iakus]

Siansonea II wrote...

iakus wrote...

jreezy wrote...

I know I do, which is why I can't really take the VS too seriously. The only good thing they did concerning the whole event was confirm Shepard's claims with Anderson afterwards.

I can't take Horizon itself too seriously, except as a slap in the face by the writers.  

If Horizon was a slap in the face, then the Lazarus Project was a punch in the face, and the Human Reaper was a sucker punch to the stomach. Just trying to keep things in perspective.

You're right on all three counts.

[AdmiralCheez]

I know I can trust Ash/Kaidan when it counts, so that's good enough for me.

[shepskisaac]

I trust Cheez with my heart & body.

[RGC_Ines]

Why I shouldn't trust VS? I will trust Kaidan, that he will do everything to help Shepard to stop the Reapers, and that's most important thing. For me he failed as an LI in ME2 ( personal opinion), but I will be OK with him as a friend and my companion.

[alperez]

iakus wrote...

I can't take Horizon itself too seriously, except as a slap in the face by the writers.  

This is the only universal truth regarding Horizon, the only thing thats actually set in stone.

Whether you agree or disagree with the stance the VS's takes or whether you agree of disagree with what motivates them to take that stance, pretty much everyone can agree that the writers messed up big time.

Whatever reasoning or justification or whatever intent they tried to portray gets so lost in a combination of bad writing and trying to be all things to everyone, that we get left with a jumbled mess that forces us to almost rewrite the scene just to make it make some sort of sense.

[alperez]

laecraft wrote...

Not sure if it's been pointed out, but does anyone else find it odd that VS doesn't ask Shepard any relevant questions?

"Wow, Shepard, how come you're not paralyzed? Care to share that counter-measure against the seeker swarms?"

"You know, Shepard, I don't think I can join you right now, but I'd love to take a look at that ship of yours. Is this the debriefing room? Mind if I put this bubblegum under the desk?"

VS' mission was to investigate Cerberus' involvement. Let the investigation begin.

Why does the proud, completent, and independent-thinking VS practically runs away without finding out everything they can from the only person who knows the whole truth and ready to share all the available intel? It's as if VS is afraid to linger for another minute. Why approach Shepard in the first place if not for the intel? Nothing really adds up.

Hopefully the writers won't take an easy way out with indoctrination.

I find it about as odd as i do Shepard not offering any evidence to back up his claims and not being able to persuade or charm his way out of a tricky situation.

While the Vs didn't exactly cover them in glory on Horizon, Shepard takes it to an entirely new level, Seriously as annoyed as i was with the outcome on Horizon no matter how many times i've replayed it the one thing that annoys me most is Shepard's responses.

[Iakus]

alperez wrote...

iakus wrote...

I can't take Horizon itself too seriously, except as a slap in the face by the writers.  

This is the only universal truth regarding Horizon, the only thing thats actually set in stone.

Whether you agree or disagree with the stance the VS's takes or whether you agree of disagree with what motivates them to take that stance, pretty much everyone can agree that the writers messed up big time.

Whatever reasoning or justification or whatever intent they tried to portray gets so lost in a combination of bad writing and trying to be all things to everyone, that we get left with a jumbled mess that forces us to almost rewrite the scene just to make it make some sort of sense.

And that's the big question.  How will ME3 handle it?  How do we want it to be handled?

[Shinobu]

alperez wrote...

laecraft wrote...

Not sure if it's been pointed out, but does anyone else find it odd that VS doesn't ask Shepard any relevant questions?

"Wow, Shepard, how come you're not paralyzed? Care to share that counter-measure against the seeker swarms?"

"You know, Shepard, I don't think I can join you right now, but I'd love to take a look at that ship of yours. Is this the debriefing room? Mind if I put this bubblegum under the desk?"

VS' mission was to investigate Cerberus' involvement. Let the investigation begin.

Why does the proud, completent, and independent-thinking VS practically runs away without finding out everything they can from the only person who knows the whole truth and ready to share all the available intel? It's as if VS is afraid to linger for another minute. Why approach Shepard in the first place if not for the intel? Nothing really adds up.

Hopefully the writers won't take an easy way out with indoctrination.

I find it about as odd as i do Shepard not offering any evidence to back up his claims and not being able to persuade or charm his way out of a tricky situation.

While the Vs didn't exactly cover them in glory on Horizon, Shepard takes it to an entirely new level, Seriously as annoyed as i was with the outcome on Horizon no matter how many times i've replayed it the one thing that annoys me most is Shepard's responses.

I totally agree. Shepard's inability to have a meaningful conversation with her former lover was horribly frustrating. After playing Horizon several times, the least derpy conversation options I prefer for her are:

"I'm sorry, I was in a coma for two years." (neutral, I think?)
"Just because I work with Cerberus doesn't mean I answer to them" (renegade)
"You *know* me. You know I'd only do this for the right reasons." (paragon)
"See you." (neutral?)
It's even more frustrating coming from a Sole Survivor Paragon who took Garrus and Mordin as squaddies for that mission. Yes, Kaidan, she knows Cerberus is evil. Thanks. No, Kaidan, she's not a pro-human fanatic convert.

So, to answer the OP: Trust, yes; date again, no. (Well, I'll probably try it, but my canon is running off with the Turian -- assuming he isn't killed off in some heartwrenching Bioware fashion.)

[Another_Golden_Dragon]

Actually, Horizon isn't outside Alliance Jurisdiction, it's just outside the Citadel Council's.

And, Siansonea... TWO squadmates do, in fact, toss out Cerberus' existance to follow Shepard: Garrus and Tali. Garrus does so under duress (Cerberus DID save his life twice, sending Shepard and again with the cybernetics and surgery, and Shepard bodily drags him to the Normandy), and Tali rather bluntly says she's there to help Shepard, and even offers a grenade.

The VS could, in fact do so. Loyalty mission could simply be repercussions from that (trial for treason just like Tali), and Shepard has to go and help (Spectre re-admission would work).

Horizon happens simply because the writers chose it to happen. One could claim that Shepard could find TIM thru the Quantum Entanglement communicator (it's one-way) with help from Tali. But they don't. And the Devs are the only ones who know why.

[Tyko Brian]

No.

My Shepard had a romantic relation with her in ME1 & he was traumatized at her behavior in horizon. Where Ashley is concerned My Shep gets real emotional, but the responsbility he has in his shoulders is bigger than their relationship: bigger than anything... so to stay completely focused in his near impossible mission to eradicate the reaper threat he has decided to steer clear from the Gunnery Chief til the mission's accomplished...