720 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

I have never romanced Liara in ME3

[themikefest]

I've never played the game on action mode.

[whogotsalami]

Never killed Mordin. On my renegade playthrough I came all the way to the point of renegade interruption slow-down, and refused to do it

[Hadeedak]

I've never romanced Liara. I keep meaning to. I keep not doing it. I blame the VS brigade.

 

I've never gotten Parasini killed.

 

I've never died on the suicide mission.

 

I've never played as Sheploo or either default Jane.

 

I've never picked refuse.

 

Never played Action, story, or piddlyeasy.

[von uber]

I've never romanced Liara. I keep meaning to. I keep not doing it. I blame the VS brigade.

 

 

 

You know you want to

 

 

Seriously though, next playthrough I think I'll bite the bullet, play as manshep and either go Tali/Miranda having never done either.

[ImaginaryMatter]

You know you want to

 

Seriously though, next playthrough I think I'll bite the bullet, play as manshep and either go Tali/Miranda having never done either.

 

You can always romance a certain psychotic biotic.

 

<---

[von uber]

I would feel slightly uncomfortable romancing Jack. Too many issues to be resolved comfortably enough for my taste.

[jtav]

I've never romanced Tali or Jack to completion. Ash I did once. Usually romance Miranda or do s/s for MShep.

[Dance Craze]

 

 

I've never played anything but default Sheploo.

 

 

[Barquiel]

You know you want to
 
Seriously though, next playthrough I think I'll bite the bullet, play as manshep and either go Tali/Miranda having never done either.

Good luck

I made my only manShep specifically to romance Miranda, but never finished that ME2 playthrough. Jack's citadel dlc romance content is amazing (from what I've seen)...

[von uber]

Yes, the prospect of wading through ME1, 2 and 3 as manshep is not exactly inspiring for me.

[Kingthlayer]

Good luck

I made my only manShep specifically to romance Miranda, but never finished that ME2 playthrough. Jack's citadel dlc romance content is amazing (from what I've seen)...

 

I love the Jack content, partially because it's the only way for Shepard to get a tattoo.  If we spend as much time in casual gear in the next mass Effect as we do in Mass Effect 3, I'd really like some arm tattoos since they'll be visible with short sleeve shirts on.

[DeinonSlayer]

I love the Jack content, partially because it's the only way for Shepard to get a tattoo. If we spend as much time in casual gear in the next mass Effect as we do in Mass Effect 3, I'd really like some arm tattoos since they'll be visible with short sleeve shirts on.

Does the tattoo stick around after the DLC is finished? Someone made a mod to add the ME1 scars back to Shepard's face; from the look of it in Gibbed it's just another mostly-transparent texture to paint on.

Then again, MaleShep never goes shirtless again, does he? No one to wake up with pre-Chronos.

[Kingthlayer]

Does the tattoo stick around after the DLC is finished?

 

The tattoo is on the back, which IIRC is never shown again, since there is no romance scene prior to Ceberus HQ.

[Hadeedak]

I have a dudeShep I'm pretending I'll romance Liara on marching through ME1 right now....

 

(He's going to end up hooking up with Jack, I just know it.)

 

I JUST ended one of my never-done, because broShep finally got in Kaidan's pants. And it was glorious.

 

It also took me all the way to that playthrough to hang up on the council. It felt terribly unprofessional. But liberating.

[Hadeedak]

I've also never...

 

This is embarassing.

 

OKAY SO I'VE NEVER IMPORTED A GAME INTO ME3 WITH LIVE FISH. I ALWAYS FORGET ABOUT THEM OR DON'T CHAT TO KELLY ENOUGH OR SOMETHING.

[Melbella]

I've also never...

 

This is embarassing.

 

OKAY SO I'VE NEVER IMPORTED A GAME INTO ME3 WITH LIVE FISH. I ALWAYS FORGET ABOUT THEM OR DON'T CHAT TO KELLY ENOUGH OR SOMETHING.

 

I was so devastated when my fish died in one of my early ME2 games that I now compulsively overfeed them in both 2 and 3. I'm sure they're so fat they can hardly swim anymore.

 

OT: I've never romanced Kelly, but I usually talk to her enough to be able to import my fish into 3. Anti-social Shep hasn't even said hi to her though, and probably doesn't know her name unless she read it in the personnel files.

[CrutchCricket]

There are situations where that is indeed a reasonable response, but I'm talking about the type of person who would simply execute every prisoner of war because the resources used to keep them detained could also be used elsewhere - e.g. the guards could be out fighting instead of guarding. He isn't killing them because he's a brutal sadist but because he's an utterly heartless, ruthless type who claims to be merely pragmatic.

If you're that strapped for resources, then yes that is the pragmatic solution. There are few times where it'd get that desperate I think. The Reaper war, definitely qualifies.
 

Right, and what perspective is acceptable? You can't just say "A question of perspective" and leave it at that, seemingly considering everyone from the stunned choirboy's to the psychopath's perspective as equally valid. Leave that sort of thing for fiddling around with the grey areas.

 
Actually I can because I'm betting any criteria you lay out for deciding what perspective is "acceptable" will be biased and favoring your position.

Objectively, each perspective is equally valid. Which one wins out is usually decided by a majority or a really vocal minority that can't easily be silenced.
 

I was never talking about a blind idealist. What I'm concerned about is someone who's only reason for not being ruthless is because he's weighed it up and has worked out that he might not get the best results from it. A fundamentally ruthless person is different from someone capable of it if and when the situation requires it. Self-centered about themselves (or their goals) and utterly callous to anything else.

 
That would actually also be ruthless, or at least pragmatic. The two are not the same. I brought up the blind idealist and equated it with a "blind ruthlessness" as both are defined by automatically applying a way of thinking regardless of factors that may be against it.

Your definition of "fundamentally ruthless" on the other hand is nowhere near as clear. You're saying the definition of fundamentally ruthless is self-centered and callous? I think not. Neither of those traits are intrinsic to ruthlessness, though they may accompany it. The problem is you seem to lump all traits you find undesirable (out of the ones you mention) into one package, regardless of whether one necessitates another. Ruthlessness is separate from callousness and egotism. Believe it or not you can be a ruthless altruist, even an emphatic one.
 

That is tyranny. Some tyrants might well have been psychopathic nutjobs but there are doubtless many people reviled in later ages who regarded themselves as being purely pragmatic. Interesting that you mention the political dissidents - from his point of view they are simply dangerous troublemakers who'll turn society upside down. Best just to kill them. Sure, you can have a tyrant who never engages in such behaviour but it'll simply be because no opportunity for doing so that'll benefit him has presented itself.

No it really isn't. I suggest you look up the definitions again. And pragmatism =/= ruthlessness.

Bottom line: you can have tyrants who aren't ruthless. And you can have ruthless people who aren't tyrants. If both those statements are true, ruthlessness=/= tyranny, and the presence of one does not necessitate the other.

For the first statement, I give you the benevolent tyrant. The original definition of the word "tyrant" simply meant "rules with absolute power, without law" with no judgment of character. That got tacked on later because most people who fit this bill did end up being assholes. But the root of the definition is illegitimate absolute power. Which means a bastard that takes the throne and is nice to everyone is still technically a tyrant. Hence tyranny without ruthlessness.

The second statement is obvious. Anyone that's ruthless but not in power is by definition not a tyrant.
 
 

What people consider says a lot about a person even though it's their actions that ultimately decide how they're judged. That said motives do get questioned too. Someone who's done good for the sake of it will usually be better regarded than someone who's done good purely for PR reasons.
 
Not all factors need considering straight away, which is why the police don't think about getting the army in to destroy a town because they know someone who stole a loaf of bread lives there
 
That isn't the choice. The choice is between the ruthless man who's still capable of not being and the idealist who's capable of not being.

Yes it tells us whether they're a lateral thinker, able to see multiple angles and think outside the box, or whether they're just chained to one dogma or another. And no one said they were doing good for PR points. That's not in discussion. But I consider someone who rationally comes to a good decision based on careful consideration of all relevant factors a much wiser and more morally responsible person than one who just follows a simple instruction like "thou shalt not do x".

 

Going to absurd examples does nothing to disprove my point, it only makes you look bad. I believe that's a favorite pastime of David's. When I say consider all options I mean consider all relevant, reasonable options. If you want to argue which options are reasonable or relevant, you'll have to do it on a case-by case basis. Calling in the army is not reasonable for a bread thief but may be reasonable for a terrorist.

 

The ruthless man who's not capable of not being ruthless is no better or worse than the idealist who can't stop being idealistic. Both are committing the same error. The latter is just romanticized more.

[CrutchCricket]

Despite this fascinating discussion, I don't think I've been on topic for a while now.

 

Let's see... I don't think I ever banged Allers. Though I was planning on it.

[SporkFu]

I would feel slightly uncomfortable romancing Jack. Too many issues to be resolved comfortably enough for my taste.

Jack's and Miranda's are both well done - with citadel DLC which I know you have, from the pics. So is Tali's. Broshep has it pretty good when it comes to romances actually.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Despite this fascinating discussion, I don't think I've been on topic for a while now.

 

Let's see... I don't think I ever banged Allers. Though I was planning on it.

 

I've never done that either. Then again I always refuse to let her on the ship or invite her on for the sole intention of kicking her off.

[SporkFu]

I did the Allers romance scene once, my renegade shep import where the only people to survive the ME2 suicide mission were Zaeed and Kasumi.

[geth47]

I never cheated on my LI in 3 with the annoying reporter.

 

I never played ME3 with a Tali who survived ME2 but was exiled.

 

I never lost Grunt in ME3. He was either alive till the end or dead (never activated) from the start.

 

I never romanced Jack in Me3, nor Jacob in 2.

 

Since I never played Galaxy, I never had the extra lines with the salarian on Omega.

 

I never played Galaxy nor infiltrator. Why can´t they release them on PC packed with the anime+the comic bookss and (audio) books so I can have a truly complete collection?

 

I never read the books, aside from the manuals and art books. I did read all the comics, but nout the current ones, since I´m waiting for the series to conclued to read it all at once.

 

I never played ME2 with any armor other than Kestrel or N7 (or different parts), But never a full armor that did now allow customization. Not being able to see the protagonist´s face sucks.

 

I never romanced Liara from ME1 till 3 without cheating. It will be my goal when I make my ultimate play (doing all the side-missions in ideal order) and saving as many crewmembers as possible.

 

I never beat the Admiral´s mission on PS without cheating (using console to give me an almost invincible armor) or drastically reducing the difficult level. 

 

I think I could me mistaken (it would be a honest lapse in my memory and not an intentional lie), but I don´t think I ever ran out of ammo in ME2 or 3. 

[Farangbaa]

I've never not opened Grunt's tank.

I've never sold Legion to Cerberus.

I've never agreed with Tali on her views on Quarian-Geth history (contrary to what people on here try to make you believe, in ME1 you can already disagree with the Quarian view and defend the Geth. You still gotta shoot them all though  )

I've never ran out of ammo, not even on my soldier playthrough.

[DeinonSlayer]

I've never not opened Grunt's tank.
I've never sold Legion to Cerberus.
I've never agreed with Tali on her views on Quarian-Geth history (contrary to what people on here try to make you believe, in ME1 you can already disagree with the Quarian view and defend the Geth. You still gotta shoot them all though )
I've never ran out of ammo, not even on my soldier playthrough.

In ME1, you can only disagree. There is no alternative. So... congratulations?

That conversation gives you a "choice" between thumbing your nose at their situation and making excuses for the Geth. I rank it as just as bad as the conversation that forces Shepard to compare the Genophage to the First Contact War. This was one area ME2 and 3 actually improved on, in that they gave us more options.