1121 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

spirosz wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Ashley is basically dependant on being romanced.

You realize that doesn't make it any less viable, right?  

Please tell me this is a joke.

A character who's development depends on you sleeping with them is a ****** poor excuse for a character. (And no I'm not saying Ashley is dependant on being romanced).

[spirosz]

Apologizing equals development?

[Ryzaki]

spirosz wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well let's see in ME2 Ashley actually can email you apologizing for how she acted, which shows that she actually can work out the issues

If you romance her, which I somehow don't think Silverexile did.

This.

I'm tired of people syaing "but they apologize in a letter!" No. You get diddly squat if you didn't romance them (which is utterly stupid).

It isn't stupid. 

Yes actually it is.

They only bother reflecting on their actions if they go "whoops might've burned my bridge with my LI! Gotta try to give an apology letter so I don't get dumped!" reflects very poorly on the characters. Kaidan at least apologizes in ME3 (in his first hospital scene when he's awake no less).

spirosz wrote...

Apologizing equals development?

Depends on what the apology is about.

But for me honestly I find it shows a willingless to forgive and a maturity. That Ashley extremely lacks so I'm not at all surprised she only apologizes to a Shep she's romancing.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 novembre 2013 - 05:57 .

[silverexile17s]

Hazegurl wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...
1) No,  the main character is praised for being a war hero due to either conquering...

I'm talking about from the perspective of the person playing the game. Not the story. 
 

And yet, this somehow doesn't need to apply to Ashley? Kaidan talks it out and clears the air in the hospital and works to re-earn your trust. Ashley by contrast acts like she's entitled, as if Horzion didn't happen.

This I can understand. But those who love/like Ashley seem to be okay with it. So why does it matter? Personally I always keep Kaidan alive so I can't judge the convo with Ash.

2) It still ignores the simple baseline fact that very few people seem to realize that "the bear and the dog" applies to everyone in the galaxy and how they view the Alliance. Ashley never seems to realize that the entire reason the Council treats us like that, is because they're afraid of being the ones left to fend off the bear by the Alliance. It's a situation that will never change unless someone takes the plunge and says "sooner or later, you're going to have to trust something I say on faith."

I think the mistrust goes deeper than Ash's quote. Power is a hard thing to share or give up. Also, the way I see it Ash isn't saying the same fear isn't the case for aliens. She's not saying humans are innocent of this behavior. All she is saying is that humans shouldn't place themselves in that position. Which imo, is a smart decision. Who is rescuing the Elcor from Dekunna even after the Council agrees to help the Alliance? Shepard. Not the Council that's for sure. Humans shouldn't allow themselves to be placed in that position and that is the position many anti-human aliens want for humans.

3) And that's why [/u][/i]the Council fears that humans will make them fight the bear. Because humans are developing so fast, they believe humans would take any oppertunity to get ahead...

You're ignoring every other element to this, it extends beyond simple fear. The Asari illegally hording Prothean tech, the Turians as the strongest military in the galaxy. The Salarians with info at their finger tips, along with their own secret research going on. It's all about power and staying ahead. Not passing it along to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that asks for it.  

I still don't see how any of this makes Ashley a bad person. As a matter of fact, it means that she recognizes the game better than a pro alien Shepard.  Heck, even Kaidan gets sick of the Council after a while.

As for the squad-mates, that's not true -- look at Samara. Her affiliation with Shepard doesn't mean she has to quit being a Justicar....

Once again you are listing non Alliance personnel which makes your point moot. Not even Joker or Dr. Chakwas was Alliance when they joined Shepard.  

Admiral Hackett [/u][/i]can board a Cerberus-controled  Normandy pre-suicide mission and serve as a leasion between Shepard and the Admiralty Board for what happend with Arrival. Without leaving the Alliance or getting demoted, or losing any influence with the Alliance Leadership.

Ah, the same Admiral who was supplying Alliance weapons to criminals and asks Shepard to "assassinate" them when they start making demands?

The same Admiral who sent Shepard to infiltrate a Batarian prison "off the grid"? 

I highly doubt he's speaking the truth to the Admiralty board or Shepard.

I bet Hackett's report to the board is more along the lines of: Shepard found out about an undercover agent in a Batarian prison and decided to rescue her when he found out about an imminent reaper invasion... 

4) Easy to say when she somehow gets a pass on having to re-earn Shepard's trust. Hell, at least Kaidan accepted that he needed to clear the air if he was going to ever work with Shepard again.

Don't think she earned your Shepard's trust? Don't invite her back on the Normandy. Your problem is solved. But I guess it's tough trying to control other player's playthroughs as well as your own.  

1) But that's because the character is coming from a highly reccomended background that people will have a predisposition to respect. It's pretty much prefrabicated for your character to be a hero. That is a staple of most BioWare games of late, after all. Like Dragon Age.

2) That's my point though -- I don't believe that Ash is all that sympathetic compared to Kaidan, who apologizes and accepts that you must have had good reasons for doing what you did on Horizon. Ashley  never acknowledges that she made the wrong choice in calling you a traitor on Horizon, unless you are actively romancing her.

3) But she doesn't seem to realize that her views are shared by all the other races -- they want to avoid that position and anyone that might put them in that position if they trust them too much. And to be fair, Shepard isn't the Alliance. Shepard is pretty much independant of the Alliance, which is all but fractured at this point. And many aliens fear that if humans get too much power, they will be the dogs that the humans will sick on the bears -- this is most prevelant if the Council died in ME1.

4) But they fear that if the Alliance get's that far, they will do to the Council what the Council did to every other race before now -- make them the dogs. They fear that a race as agressive as humans could potentially do to them what the Council did to the volus, hanar, elcor, quarians, and batarians. And the turians have the similar "bear and the dog" menatlity with the krogan and vice versa. Same can be said for the geth and quarians, and vice versa.
The problem is that Ashley never seems to relaize that the possibility that the Alliance may be the ones to sick the Council (dog) on the bear (geth). That the Alliance will be guilty of it long before the Council will. It's a bit hypocritical.

5) Actually, Dr. Chakwas states in ME3 that being medical staff who got an offical leave, she was never offically Ex-Alliance. And the point is that none of them had to give up on prior affiliations or commitments (Grunt to Clan Urdnot, Tali to the Migrant Fleet, Legion to the Geth Collective, ect).

6) That only happens if Shepard is a ruthless bastard who doesn't give a damn. And it's not like the Council is any better - and even the Council answers to a higher power, as their respective governments can enforce power or have their respective Councilors pulled from office.

And yet, Hackett wasn't brought to court-martial for that by the rest of the Alliance Parlament. And Hackett is like Anderson -- someone that knows that you need to get your hands dirty sometimes to get the job done.

He's speaking the truth to both, as lying to either one isn't productive -- they need to get their asses in gear to stop the Reapers. Lying ins't going to make that happen.

No -- the Admiralty Board and Alliance Parlament are the only groups he has to be truthful to, if he wants to stay the Head of Alliance Military.

7) But most don't -- they completely ignore her faults, and for reasons that more often then not aren't justified.

[AresKeith]

Ryzaki wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well let's see in ME2 Ashley actually can email you apologizing for how she acted, which shows that she actually can work out the issues

If you romance her, which I somehow don't think Silverexile did.

This.

I'm tired of people syaing "but they apologize in a letter!" No. You get diddly squat if you didn't romance them (which is utterly stupid).

It isn't stupid. 

Yes actually it is.

They only bother reflecting on their actions if they go "whoops might've burned my bridge with my LI! Gotta try to give an apology letter so I don't get dumped!" reflects very poorly on the characters. Kaidan at least apologizes in ME3 (in his first hospital scene when he's awake no less).

Reflecting on the relationship they had to make them reconsider faster doesn't make it poor, it actually makes sense in a way

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I've never really considered Ashley to be a "B****", quick to judge? Sure, a bit mistrusting? Absolutely. But not a b****.

Admittedly her CHARACTERIZATION suffered a bit in 3 (mostly because she seemed a lot more CERBERUS IZ EVUHLZ! than Kaidan)

I don't like the direction they decided to take with her but I hold no particular grudge against the character.

[SlottsMachine]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Why?

You wouldn't understand. 

I'm sorry, Slotts. I have to tell him. It's the only way he'll understand.

You see, Geth, Slotts father was an astronaut. He would often go up an fix the oribital satellites that are oh so essential for the quality of life that we enjoy today. Well, something went horribly wrong. The Federation betrayed Slott's father's employers and blew up the space station. Slott's father survived the inital explosion, but he unfortunately fell into the planet's orbit. Unfortunately what was left of the noble man was about what I'd imagine a piece of pizza would look like if you dropped it on the floor. The way he views it, and it's a viewpoint that I agree with, is that it is simply unfair that we lack the technology to bring his father back, for he was just as brave and noble a man as Shepard was. Therefore, Shepard should not have been allowed to be ressurected. There is simply not enough justice in this world.

I think it would be best for everyone if you never mentioned this around him again. We must always consider the feeling of the people we interact with. Thank you.

Not to mention my father might have been persuaded to work for the organization that eventually betrayed him, blowing him out of the sky was just nonsense. But yeah, Shepard killed my dad in a way. ****'in ****. 

[silverexile17s]

wolfhowwl wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

Hackett is one of the highest ranking officers in the military. Maybe there is a difference between what he knows about Cerberus and can get away with versus Ashley, who is what, a Lieutenant?

Vs the entirety of the Alliance High Command?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's equivilant that Hackett standing before the entire Alliance Leadership would even out compared to Ashley standing before an Admiral?

Hackett is, per the codex, head of the Alliance military.

It is not equivalent.

Wrong. He is the head of one single fleet out of EIGHT. He becomes head of the Alliance military only after the Reapers kill everyone else in the attack on Earth and Arcturus Station. Prior to ME3, he is one fleet commander out of eight that reports to the Alliance Admiralty Board (the three Admirals that get wasted in the Earth prolouge when the Reapers land). So, yes, it is equivilant.
Honestly, dude, check your timestamps - this is pre-ME3.

From the codex:

Admiral Steven Hackett is a decorated officer in the Systems Alliance, currently assigned to Arcturus Station on the far side of the Sol Relay. In the battle for the Citadel, Admiral Hackett commanded the Fifth Fleet. Following that victory, he was promoted to head of the Alliance military.

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Known_Associates#Steven_Hackett

Also I checked up on Ashley too, you are comparing an NCO to the head of the military.

Following the complete and utter collapse of the Alliance military. And FYI, Alliance military isn't the entire Alliance.

So, NO, I'm not. Hackett reports to a Council of Admirals just like Tali did on the quarian Admiralty board. Gerrel was head of his military, but he still answered to the Board. Same for Hackett. So, compared to them, no, it's NOT an inaccurate comparison.

No the Codex said following "the battle for the Citadel."

The Alliance has branded Cerberus as terrorists and tries collaborators as such. Regardless if Hackett answers to a board, he is still head of the military and has vastly more power in the organization than Ashley. Who do you think can break the rules more easily, the man at the top or a peon? Their situation cannot be compared.

Speaking of Boards,  the CEO of Walmart reports to the Board of Directors but he is still head of the business. When it comes to violating corporate policy, do you really think his (Hackett's) situation is equivalent to that of a shift manager (Ashley's)?

And the Codex also doesn't state "leader of the military" equaling "leader of the Alliance." Again, Hackett reports to a Council of Admirals, just like how a Secretary of Defense reports to the senate.

The proof of Shepard being right is all around them on Horizon. Collectors. Husks. An entity calling itself Harbinger. He answers to the board of directors, and the Alliance parlament, which is a massive senate. So, in comparison, Ashley reporting to an Admiral is evaned out by Hackett reporting to the Alliance Admiralty Board and Alliance Parlament. When there is an entire board of equally-ranked Admirals and a massive senate that watches over your every move, you don't have nearly as much freedom as you think, so, yes, the situations ARE comparible.

Hackett compared to the Rest of the Alliance is comparible to Ashley reporting to one single Admiral.

No.

What no amount of underlining or italics will get around is the vast gulf of power that exists between the head of the Alliance military and a NCO.

The situations are not comparable no matter how much you want  them to be.

Wrong.

What no amount of denial will get around is that Hackett facing the entire Alliance Parlament, and it's ajoining Admiralty Board pretty much evens out to Ashley reporting to one single Alliance Admiral and his/her aides. A superior power that can decide her fate. There is always a bigger fish.

The situations are comparible, no matter how much you don't want them to be.
And stop with the quote pyramids! Haven't you people learned by now that I suck at editing these things?!

Modifié par silverexile17s, 13 novembre 2013 - 06:01 .

[Ryzaki]

AresKeith wrote...
Reflecting on the relationship they had to make them reconsider faster doesn't make it poor, it actually makes sense in a way

Except Ashley never apologizes.

Unless she did so on the conversation she has after you invite her back into the Normandy (I only saw that conversation on youtube.)

And Kaidan takes months to man up and say sorry. (But I can type forgive this because time skips and how early on in ME3 he apologizes).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 novembre 2013 - 06:04 .

[AresKeith]

Ryzaki wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
Reflecting on the relationship they had to make them reconsider faster doesn't make it poor, it actually makes sense in a way

Except Ashley never apologizes.

Unless she did so on the conversation she has after you invite her back into the Normandy (I only saw that conversation on youtube.)

And Kaidan takes almost a year to man up and say sorry. (But I can type forgive this because stupid time skips)

To be fair, a lot of things from ME2 to ME3 has be poorly handled especially things regarding Ashley and Kaidan

[silverexile17s]

Ryzaki wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
Reflecting on the relationship they had to make them reconsider faster doesn't make it poor, it actually makes sense in a way

Except Ashley never apologizes.

Unless she did so on the conversation she has after you invite her back into the Normandy (I only saw that conversation on youtube.)

And Kaidan takes almost a year to man up and say sorry. (But I can type forgive this because stupid time skips)

I think that variation of the conversation only happens if she's the LI. Even then, I think it's on the Normandy itself, not the invite scene.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 13 novembre 2013 - 06:05 .

[wolfhowwl]

AresKeith wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
Reflecting on the relationship they had to make them reconsider faster doesn't make it poor, it actually makes sense in a way

Except Ashley never apologizes.

Unless she did so on the conversation she has after you invite her back into the Normandy (I only saw that conversation on youtube.)

And Kaidan takes almost a year to man up and say sorry. (But I can type forgive this because stupid time skips)

To be fair, a lot of things from ME2 to ME3 has be poorly handled especially things regarding Ashley and Kaidan

Their reaction to Shepard is tied into the Cerberus plot which was troubled from very beginning.

[silverexile17s]

AresKeith wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
Reflecting on the relationship they had to make them reconsider faster doesn't make it poor, it actually makes sense in a way

Except Ashley never apologizes.

Unless she did so on the conversation she has after you invite her back into the Normandy (I only saw that conversation on youtube.)

And Kaidan takes almost a year to man up and say sorry. (But I can type forgive this because stupid time skips)

To be fair, a lot of things from ME2 to ME3 has be poorly handled especially things regarding Ashley and Kaidan

But that doesn't really excuse Ashley's actions in comparison to Kaidan, and to the rest of Shepard's crew.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 13 novembre 2013 - 06:06 .

[Ryzaki]

AresKeith wrote...
To be fair, a lot of things from ME2 to ME3 has be poorly handled especially things regarding Ashley and Kaidan

Fair enough but I hate the whole "I'm only going to be decent to you if I'm boning you cause reasons." crapola. It's one of the things that'll have me write off a character immediately.

Reminds me too much of otome games with the jerkass bastard boyfriend who's abusive as all hell til the magical power of vagina makes him nice and understanding.

silverexile17s wrote...
I think that conversation only happens if she's the LI.

...I really really hope that's not the case.

Ugh maybe I should romance Ashley drop her for Jack in ME2 have Jack get killed than move on to Liara? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 novembre 2013 - 06:09 .

[Obadiah]

Ryzaki wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
To be fair, a lot of things from ME2 to ME3 has be poorly handled especially things regarding Ashley and Kaidan

Fair enough but I hate the whole "I'm only going to be decent to you if I'm boning you cause reasons." crapola. It's one of the things that'll have me write off a character immediately.

silverexile17s wrote...
I think that conversation only happens if she's the LI.

...I really really hope that's not the case.

Well... you don't really have to guess. Most of the conversations are youtube. You can just look for the ME3 hospital conversation with unromanced Shepard to make a determination.

[AresKeith]

silverexile17s wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
Reflecting on the relationship they had to make them reconsider faster doesn't make it poor, it actually makes sense in a way

Except Ashley never apologizes.

Unless she did so on the conversation she has after you invite her back into the Normandy (I only saw that conversation on youtube.)

And Kaidan takes almost a year to man up and say sorry. (But I can type forgive this because stupid time skips)

To be fair, a lot of things from ME2 to ME3 has be poorly handled especially things regarding Ashley and Kaidan

But that doesn't really excuse Ashley's actions in comparison to Kaidan, and to the rest of Shepard's crew.

Ashley and Kaidan ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON, stop trying to compare them

Ashley has every right to distrust Shepard in that situation, but regardless it was dne poorly

[Ryzaki]

Too lazy plus way too much searching.

[Hazegurl]

silverexile17s wrote...

1) But that's because the character is coming from a highly reccomended background that people will have a predisposition to respect. It's pretty much prefrabicated for your character to be a hero. That is a staple of most BioWare games of late, after all. Like Dragon Age.

You can respect someone and still disagree with them. Something DA does better than ME. It's not perfect but I love the arguments with my companions. When it's something I disagree with them on. I also love it that some will leave you if you do not help them or if they end up just hating your guts. Heck they'll even turn on you and attack you if your actions extend beyond what they are willing to tolerate from you.

2) That's my point though -- I don't believe that Ash is all that sympathetic compared to Kaidan, who apologizes and accepts that you must have had good reasons for doing what you did on Horizon. Ashley  never acknowledges that she made the wrong choice in calling you a traitor on Horizon, unless you are actively romancing her.

I agree. Having her apology depend on a romance is silly, imo. I honestly think it would have been better if she never apologized for it.because she just doesn't think she's wrong and it's left up to the player to decide how to feel about it.

3) But she doesn't seem to realize that her views are shared by all the other races --

How do you know that she believes that?

5) Actually, Dr. Chakwas states in ME3 that being medical staff who got an offical leave, she was never offically Ex-Alliance.

 
Got me there on the Doc. However, the VS was in the middle as an actual mission that they had to report on. Dr. Chakwas is expendable.

6) That only happens if Shepard is a ruthless bastard who doesn't give a damn. And it's not like the Council is any better - and even the Council answers to a higher power, as their respective governments can enforce power or have their respective Councilors pulled from office.

And yet, Hackett wasn't brought to court-martial for that by the rest of the Alliance Parlament. And Hackett is like Anderson -- someone that knows that you need to get your hands dirty sometimes to get the job done.

He's speaking the truth to both, as lying to either one isn't productive -- they need to get their asses in gear to stop the Reapers. Lying ins't going to make that happen.

No -- the Admiralty Board and Alliance Parlament are the only groups he has to be truthful to, if he wants to stay the Head of Alliance Military.

Hackett knows not to bring that mission to some golden boy. It doesn't mean he was never doing it to begin with.

You continue to place the head of the military on equal status to a lower ranking officer. Hackett could easily have his whereabouts erased and even if he was truthful about seeing Shepard face-to-face in a 10 minute meeting how does it compare to someone living onboard the ship and forsaking their mission and report? That's like saying you can take a two hour lunch break cause the CEO can. 

No Hackett is not speaking the truth to both. He flat out tells you he's going to lie. He just can't cover up a huge incident like a Relay being destroyed.  

You do realize that the main reason why Shepard is even at the Batarian prison in the first place is because Hackett is lying to the Board. 

7) But most don't -- they completely ignore her faults, and for reasons that more often then not aren't justified.

And...?

Modifié par Hazegurl, 13 novembre 2013 - 06:33 .

[Ryzaki]

And no not seeing any apology in the dinner on the citadel scene. Just her talking about her family and calling Shep a crappy commander (fondly).

[silverexile17s]

Hazegurl wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1) But that's because the character is coming from a highly reccomended background that people will have a predisposition to respect. It's pretty much prefrabicated for your character to be a hero. That is a staple of most BioWare games of late, after all. Like Dragon Age.

You can respect someone and still disagree with them. Something DA does better than ME. It's not perfect but I love the arguments with my companions. When it's something I disagree with them on. I also love it that some will leave you if you do not help them or if they end up just hating your guts. Heck they'll even turn on you and attack you if your actions extend beyond what they are willing to tolerate from you.

2) That's my point though -- I don't believe that Ash is all that sympathetic compared to Kaidan, who apologizes and accepts that you must have had good reasons for doing what you did on Horizon. Ashley  never acknowledges that she made the wrong choice in calling you a traitor on Horizon, unless you are actively romancing her.

I agree. Having her apology depend on a romance is silly, imo. I honestly think it would have been better if she never apologized for it.because she just doesn't think she's wrong and it's left up to the player to decide how to feel about it.

3) But she doesn't seem to realize that her views are shared by all the other races --

How do you know that she believes that?

5) Actually, Dr. Chakwas states in ME3 that being medical staff who got an offical leave, she was never offically Ex-Alliance.

 
Got me there on the Doc. However, the VS was in the middle as an actual mission that they had to report on. Dr. Chakwas is expendable.

6) That only happens if Shepard is a ruthless bastard who doesn't give a damn. And it's not like the Council is any better - and even the Council answers to a higher power, as their respective governments can enforce power or have their respective Councilors pulled from office.

And yet, Hackett wasn't brought to court-martial for that by the rest of the Alliance Parlament. And Hackett is like Anderson -- someone that knows that you need to get your hands dirty sometimes to get the job done.

He's speaking the truth to both, as lying to either one isn't productive -- they need to get their asses in gear to stop the Reapers. Lying ins't going to make that happen.

No -- the Admiralty Board and Alliance Parlament are the only groups he has to be truthful to, if he wants to stay the Head of Alliance Military.

Hackett knows not to bring that mission to some golden boy. It doesn't mean he was never doing it to begin with.

You continue to place the head of the military on equal status to a lower ranking officer. Hackett could easily have his whereabouts erased and even if he was truthful about seeing Shepard face-to-face in a 10 minute meeting how does it compare to someone living onboard the ship and forsaking their mission and report? That's like saying you can take a two hour lunch break cause the CEO can. 

No Hackett is not speaking the truth to both. He flat out tells you he's going to lie. He just can't cover up a huge incident like a Relay being destroyed.  

7) But most don't -- they completely ignore her faults, and for reasons that more often then not aren't justified.

And...?

1) There's still a difference here, since your Shepard is a hero no matter what -- the difference is that you're either a hero or dark hero, but you still have the same overall goal of Stopping the Reapers. It wasn't quite as ambigius as it was with Dragon Age.

2)..... You know what? I actually don't have a problem with that idea. It would have been a great plot to work through for people who were romancing her. If Ash were like that, it would have been better -- at least it would have been consistant that she didn't trust you and that you had stuff to work through.

3) Well, it never really seems to occur to her, unless directly told by Shepard, that aliens and humans are pretty much in the same boat when it comes to the "bear and the dog."

4) Maybe, but since the person they were responding to was Anderson, I doubt they couldn't have compromised. Hell, why not have them accompiny Shepard to the Normandy for a ride back to the Citadel, just so that they'll have the full story to report back with, and talk to Garrus and the other squadmates about this. Get some exposition and information, maybe? And at least Kaidan realizes that he should have figured Shepard would have good reasons for this, which is more then Ashley does.

5) It still shows that he knows you can't always get the jod done with clean hands. Sometimes you have to dirty them, one way or another.

Because he can be judged by the Alliance Admiralty Board the same way a quarian Admiral can be judged by the Quarian Admiralty Board. Both report to a higher power, and both have superiors that decide their actions. For Ashley/Kaidan, it's Anderson. For Hackett, it's the three members of the Admiralty Board in Vancouver, Earth, and the Alliance Parlament at Arcturus Station. They are his superiors no differently then Anderson is Ashley/Kaidan's superior, and he has to report to them just the same. There's always a bigger fish. The Alliance isn't like the Turians -- the military and government are seperate entities for the Alliance, and the military reports to the Government.

No, he says that he's going to stall the Alliance inquiries into your actions. Buy you some time. Something he likely couldn't do without the help of people like the politically-connected Anderson, who is either Councilor, or Councilor's Aide. He can stall the Board with the pretense that Shepard is needed to stop the Collectors, but he can't lie to them about something this big, lest he lose his job entirely.

6) And this is the person that is supposed to be your second-in-command? The person that supposed to watch your back figuratively as well as literally? Kaidan at least did everything he could to let you know that he trusted you fully. Ashley brushes it off completely. That's the point I'm making -- that between the two, which seems the best choice to put trust in based on their actions?

[Obadiah]

Ryzaki wrote...

And no not seeing any apology in the dinner on the citadel scene. Just her talking about her family and calling Shep a crappy commander (fondly).

It's not an apology. It's an apologetic "couldn't face you" statement about when Shepard was in alliance custody. So, not an apology.

[silverexile17s]

AresKeith wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
Reflecting on the relationship they had to make them reconsider faster doesn't make it poor, it actually makes sense in a way

Except Ashley never apologizes.

Unless she did so on the conversation she has after you invite her back into the Normandy (I only saw that conversation on youtube.)

And Kaidan takes almost a year to man up and say sorry. (But I can type forgive this because stupid time skips)

To be fair, a lot of things from ME2 to ME3 has be poorly handled especially things regarding Ashley and Kaidan

But that doesn't really excuse Ashley's actions in comparison to Kaidan, and to the rest of Shepard's crew.

Ashley and Kaidan ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON, stop trying to compare them

Ashley has every right to distrust Shepard in that situation, but regardless it was dne poorly

That's my point -- one is more honest and mature then the other. Kaidan has a bit more of what you call intregiaty compared to Ashley.

Ashley & Kaidan didn't have any right to distrust Shepard in that situation, based on their past together in ME1, from Eden Prime, to Stealing the Normandy and illegally entering the Terminus Systems, to, of course, Virmire. When he looks back at this, Kaidan realizes this and that he was wrong. Ashley doesn't.

[silverexile17s]

Obadiah wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And no not seeing any apology in the dinner on the citadel scene. Just her talking about her family and calling Shep a crappy commander (fondly).

It's not an apology. It's an apologetic "couldn't face you" statement about when Shepard was in alliance custody. So, not an apology.

Well, that's even worse now, isn't it? It's pretty ballsy to do that when you can't even admit that you were wrong to the person that you called a traitor. Kaidan got it off his chest and cleared the air with you the moment he regained conciousness in the hospital, compared to Ashley, who even at that point in the game, can't say more then a "couldn't face you" statement.

[Ryzaki]

Obadiah wrote...

It's not an apology. It's an apologetic "couldn't face you" statement about when Shepard was in alliance custody. So, not an apology.

Bleh.

Ah well. Saved me some time at least.

[Obadiah]

silverexile17s wrote...
...
Well, that's even worse now, isn't it?
...

No it isn't. See my previous statements as to why I think that.

You don't have to post yours, you've been posting them in triplicate on each page for the last 25 pages.

Somehow I think you'll do it anyway with underlines amd italics. Please, prove me wrong.