The Tempest thread (confirmed 100% weaponry free)

Why have a spac hamster when you have a Salarian Pyjack?

My Shepard did and liked it. Too bad he wasn't on the SR2 in ME3 to cook more of it.

Me too, still I think that most cooks don't wash their hands every 5 minutes 
At least he had short hair which is important to me and my Shep  when it comes to cooking 

Hmm.
Second Picture in the article.
Salarian Pilot on the right side.
HOWEVER isn't that a KROGAN on the left side?

Does anyone else hope the Salarian wears aviators and a pilot's scarf?

No? Just me?

I wasn't aware I wanted this. But I totally do.

As long as they do not reverse that dialog. The game would be priceless for that alone.

It does look really cool, but I know every time I'm up there I will be just like Captain Keyes on The Pillar of Autumn thinking how it is a terrible design flaw. That and of course Legion calling it a structural weakness.

The Game Informer article about the Tempest gave a basic description of most of the Tempest(they weren't allowed everywhere because spoilers I'm guessing). The description had it as the bridge is all in the front, then there is a corridor like on the two Normandys, then where the galaxy map/CIC was there seems to be what they called the galley, which is a two story atrium like place, then further back if the cargo bay and somewhere is your quarters. 

I really would've liked free controls from that cockpit and then steer the Tempest into a nearby sun and just watch as it slowly engulfs the screen.

You can crinkle your nose all you want... but inserting an article in front of a ship's name is a pretty normal thing for people to do.  The difference really comes in how it's written down - "The Tempest" vs. the "Tempest"  Situation A implies that the article is part of the formal name and Situation B clearly indicates that the actual name is just Tempest.  It is common to insert a "the" in front of ships that are named with names of persons because using the article makes it clearer when one is referring to a ship rather than an actual person... which is the example I gave.  The reverse can also be clearer.  For example, a ship named Queen.  If one were to say "I brought the Queen into port." it might be construed as being the ruling monarch rather than the ship.  So, in this case, it is clearer to just say "I brought Queen into port."  However, most people would still tend to say "the Queen."  In this case, the best way to put it is to actually get more specific and say, "I brought the sailing yacht Queen into port." or, even better, use the proper prefix for the type of ship it is:  "I brought SY Queen into port." or "I brought the SY Queen into port."  That way, there is absolutely no possible confusion with what is meant when one says "I brought HM Queen Elizabeth II into port." (the person) since a ship reference would be "HMS."

The point is that it's not a hard and fast, all black or all white sort of grammar rule.  The only thing hard and fast about it is IF the ship's formal name actually contains the article itself... then one would always have to include the article when giving the name of the ship.

The US Navy doesn't, AFAIK, register names as "The _________" (where "The" is part of the actual name); but that does not preclude civilians from having done so with privately owned vessels.  What was odd about Star Trek's Enterprise is that they emblazoned the designation USS on the hull... which is not normal with naval vessels.

I'm glad stairs are back. I missed the stairs from ME1.