120 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Seriously, a man with Zaeed's face a paragon? ROFLMAO.

[CroGamer002]

casedawgz wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Mad?
Might have to do with the Renegade Shepard proving useless and setting a
deal with outrageous demands, something which you will notice that
Hackett doesn't want. That was the point of sending Renegade Shepard and
not any other Shepard...

Thus, he's ruthless. He sends
you there under false pretense of negotiation because he expects you to
snap and kill the guy. The fact that he didn't send you with orders to
assassinate the man shows Hackett's Machiavellian tendencies. That could
get back to the Alliance brass and create controversy, whereas its
easier to pin the actions on a power mad Spectre who was sent with
orders to do something else.

I don't remember Admiral Hackett being ruthless when asking me to save those scientists from Biotic terrorists.

Modifié par Mesina2, 22 mars 2011 - 08:02 .

[casedawgz]

Mesina2 wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Mad?
Might have to do with the Renegade Shepard proving useless and setting a
deal with outrageous demands, something which you will notice that
Hackett doesn't want. That was the point of sending Renegade Shepard and
not any other Shepard...

Thus, he's ruthless. He sends
you there under false pretense of negotiation because he expects you to
snap and kill the guy. The fact that he didn't send you with orders to
assassinate the man shows Hackett's Machiavellian tendencies. That could
get back to the Alliance brass and create controversy, whereas its
easier to pin the actions on a power mad Spectre who was sent with
orders to do something else.

I don't remember Admiral Hackett being ruthless when asking me to save those scientists from Biotic terrorists.

Real morality doesn't have a little blue and red meter. He's generally a decent fellow but he's capable of ruthlessness when the situation calls for it. You know, sort of like a real person. 

[Phaedon]

casedawgz wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Mad? Might have to do with the Renegade Shepard proving useless and setting a deal with outrageous demands, something which you will notice that Hackett doesn't want. That was the point of sending Renegade Shepard and not any other Shepard...

Thus, he's ruthless. He sends you there under false pretense of negotiation because he expects you to snap and kill the guy. The fact that he didn't send you with orders to assassinate the man shows Hackett's Machiavellian tendencies. That could get back to the Alliance brass and create controversy, whereas its easier to pin the actions on a power mad Spectre who was sent with orders to do something else.

Although I'd love to reply to that, why don't you reply to this one first?

Nashiktal wrote...

Mad? I remember good ol admirable (See what I did there) Hack being pleasantly surprised at renegade sheps ability to negotiate the deal.

[casedawgz]

Phaedon wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Mad? Might have to do with the Renegade Shepard proving useless and setting a deal with outrageous demands, something which you will notice that Hackett doesn't want. That was the point of sending Renegade Shepard and not any other Shepard...

Thus, he's ruthless. He sends you there under false pretense of negotiation because he expects you to snap and kill the guy. The fact that he didn't send you with orders to assassinate the man shows Hackett's Machiavellian tendencies. That could get back to the Alliance brass and create controversy, whereas its easier to pin the actions on a power mad Spectre who was sent with orders to do something else.

Although I'd love to reply to that, why don't you reply to this one first?

Nashiktal wrote...

Mad? I remember good ol admirable (See what I did there) Hack being pleasantly surprised at renegade sheps ability to negotiate the deal.

His words reflect pleasant surprise but you have to listen to his tone. It's wooden and stilted. He's saying it for appearances sake, and if you call him out on sending you under false pretenses he dodges the question and ends the transmission.

[Zulu_DFA]

Hackett's being happy with the paragon outcomes doesn't indicate him as a paragon.

Hackett's being indifferent about the renegade outcomes identifies him as a renegade.

[Reever]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Hackett's being happy with the paragon outcomes doesn't indicate him as a paragon.

Hackett's being indifferent about the renegade outcomes identifies him as a renegade.

Aha, and why´s that?

[CroGamer002]

Didn't you ZULU said you never played as Paragon?

Modifié par Mesina2, 22 mars 2011 - 08:15 .

[Phaedon]

His words reflect pleasant surprise but you have to listen to his tone. It's wooden and stilted. He's saying it for appearances sake, and if you call him out on sending you under false pretenses he dodges the question and ends the transmission.

When did anyone say that he didn't use Renegade Shepard as a tool?

Thus, he's ruthless. He sends you there under false pretense of negotiation because he expects you to snap and kill the guy. The fact that he didn't send you with orders to assassinate the man shows Hackett's Machiavellian tendencies. That could get back to the Alliance brass and create controversy, whereas its easier to pin the actions on a power mad Spectre who was sent with orders to do something else.

And you are looking at this the wrong way.
Yes, he didn't send an entire military unit in, because of that, a Spectre is untouchable.
Negotiating in a -Okay, just take whatever you want- manner and allowing impunity is the exact opposite of a paragon principle.

I'd like to concentrate on some of your words though.

It's wooden and stilted

That's how he treats every renegade dialogue option. If that doesn't show his disapproval of renegade actions then what does?

Well, allowing to extinguish a memorial torch.


ONLY for Renegade Shepard.

[Zulu_DFA]

BlueDemonX wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Hackett's being happy with the paragon outcomes doesn't indicate him as a paragon.

Hackett's being indifferent about the renegade outcomes identifies him as a renegade.

Aha, and why´s that?

Because...

Look, Hitler loved children. And dogs. Did it make him a paragon?

[Clovis Haven]

Hacket, to me, looks more like he just got out of a fight, not in old fights. Notice how his injuries are still red, not white. I do not believe that those are scars, but resent injuries.

[aimlessgun]

casedawgz wrote...

Real morality doesn't have a little blue and red meter. He's generally a decent fellow but he's capable of ruthlessness when the situation calls for it. You know, sort of like a real person. 

Pretty much.

[casedawgz]

Phaedon wrote...

His words reflect pleasant surprise but you have to listen to his tone. It's wooden and stilted. He's saying it for appearances sake, and if you call him out on sending you under false pretenses he dodges the question and ends the transmission.

When did anyone say that he didn't use Renegade Shepard as a tool?

Thus, he's ruthless. He sends you there under false pretense of negotiation because he expects you to snap and kill the guy. The fact that he didn't send you with orders to assassinate the man shows Hackett's Machiavellian tendencies. That could get back to the Alliance brass and create controversy, whereas its easier to pin the actions on a power mad Spectre who was sent with orders to do something else.

And you are looking at this the wrong way.
Yes, he didn't send an entire military unit in, because of that, a Spectre is untouchable.
Negotiating in a -Okay, just take whatever you want- manner and allowing impunity is the exact opposite of a paragon principle.

I'd like to concentrate on some of your words though.

It's wooden and stilted

That's how he treats every renegade dialogue option. If that doesn't show his disapproval of renegade actions then what does?

Well, allowing to extinguish a memorial torch.


ONLY for Renegade Shepard.

No, it's really not. He thanks you for a successful negotation but he sounds disappointed about it. You were sent to tie up a loose end, but they sent you under the pretense of a negotation because nobody expected you to actually negotiate. If you DO negotiate, Hackett still has to SOUND as if he's happy you did what you were supposed to do because he's covering the Alliance's story. He doesn't say "WTF Shepard, you were supposed to kill him" because officially, you were not. Officially, you were sent there to negotiate. Despite the fact that it isn't Hackett's desired outcome, he has to use doublespeak in order to maintain the facade that negotiation was a desired outcome. You never know who's listening.

[aimlessgun]

casedawgz wrote...

No, it's really not. He thanks you for a successful negotation but he sounds disappointed about it. You were sent to tie up a loose end, but they sent you under the pretense of a negotation because nobody expected you to actually negotiate. If you DO negotiate, Hackett still has to SOUND as if he's happy you did what you were supposed to do because he's covering the Alliance's story. He doesn't say "WTF Shepard, you were supposed to kill him" because officially, you were not. Officially, you were sent there to negotiate. Despite the fact that it isn't Hackett's desired outcome, he has to use doublespeak in order to maintain the facade that negotiation was a desired outcome. You never know who's listening.

Perfect explanation.

[Phaedon]

casedawgz wrote...
No, it's really not. He thanks you for a successful negotation but he sounds disappointed about it.

And guess what.
Because the Alliance now has a deal made with a criminal. A criminal who will never be charged with his crimes. 
That's not paragon.
That's utilitarianist.

You were sent to tie up a loose end, but they sent you under the pretense of a negotation because nobody expected you to actually negotiate. If you DO negotiate, Hackett still has to SOUND as if he's happy you did what you were supposed to do because he's covering the Alliance's story. He doesn't say "WTF Shepard, you were supposed to kill him" because officially, you were not. Officially, you were sent there to negotiate. Despite the fact that it isn't Hackett's desired outcome, he has to use doublespeak in order to maintain the facade that negotiation was a desired outcome. You never know who's listening. 

No offence, but what was the point of this entire paragraph. We have said it a million times. Renegade Shepard is used as a tool, an untouchable one. Hackett can obviously not admit that the negotiation was a trap.



And what about the rest of my arguments?

Modifié par Phaedon, 22 mars 2011 - 08:29 .

[casedawgz]

Phaedon wrote...

casedawgz wrote...
No, it's really not. He thanks you for a successful negotation but he sounds disappointed about it.

And guess what.
Because the Alliance now has a deal made with a criminal. A criminal who will never be charged with his crimes. 
That's not paragon.
That's utilitarianist.

You were sent to tie up a loose end, but they sent you under the pretense of a negotation because nobody expected you to actually negotiate. If you DO negotiate, Hackett still has to SOUND as if he's happy you did what you were supposed to do because he's covering the Alliance's story. He doesn't say "WTF Shepard, you were supposed to kill him" because officially, you were not. Officially, you were sent there to negotiate. Despite the fact that it isn't Hackett's desired outcome, he has to use doublespeak in order to maintain the facade that negotiation was a desired outcome. You never know who's listening. 

No offence, but what was the point of this entire paragraph. We have said it a million times. Renegade Shepard is used as a tool, an untouchable one. Hackett can obviously not admit that the negotiation was a trap.



And what about the rest of my arguments?

The rest of your arguments are dumb. And by the way, isn't using Renegade Shepard as an untouchable tool just a BIT renegade? Hackett isn't squeaky clean. That's the point.

[Phaedon]

casedawgz wrote...
The rest of your arguments are dumb.

Nice job invalidating the rest and former of your post(s).
Even if you used to have a point, nobody will consider it anymore.

[Almostfaceman]

casedawgz wrote...

No, it's really not. He thanks you for a successful negotation but he sounds disappointed about it. You were sent to tie up a loose end, but they sent you under the pretense of a negotation because nobody expected you to actually negotiate. If you DO negotiate, Hackett still has to SOUND as if he's happy you did what you were supposed to do because he's covering the Alliance's story. He doesn't say "WTF Shepard, you were supposed to kill him" because officially, you were not. Officially, you were sent there to negotiate. Despite the fact that it isn't Hackett's desired outcome, he has to use doublespeak in order to maintain the facade that negotiation was a desired outcome. You never know who's listening.

Except that he admits to using you to kill the guy (no double-speak) if you say something like "You used me!" on the dialgue wheel.  

[aimlessgun]

The main thing I'm taking from this is that bioware did an amazing job of making a side character like Hackett complex enough for him to be interpreted in many different ways.

[Reever]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

BlueDemonX wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Hackett's being happy with the paragon outcomes doesn't indicate him as a paragon.

Hackett's being indifferent about the renegade outcomes identifies him as a renegade.

Aha, and why´s that?

Because...

Look, Hitler loved children. And dogs. Did it make him a paragon?

Nice one, but that´s another argument entirely!

I know some of your theories, and in a way it would be cool if some of them would be partly true (just to have some surprises in the game...), but some of your arguments are just...meh.

Being happy with the paragon outcomes indicates that he´s happy you managed to bring the things to a good end with (morally) good means.
Being indifferent about renegade outcomes means he knows that in the military sometimes the renegade choice must be made, so he doesn´t really have anything to say about it.

And about the Cerberus/Alliance thing: Don´t think the devs wanted to complicate things as much as you hypothesise.

aimlessgun wrote...

The main thing I'm taking from this is
that bioware did an amazing job of making a side character like Hackett
complex enough for him to be interpreted in many different ways.

That´s what I actually think as well, but they do have to flesh out the "real" admiral for the books etc.
I´m looking forward to him interacting with you in Arrival.

Modifié par BlueDemonX, 22 mars 2011 - 09:19 .

[Phaedon]

Isn't TIM the one who is supposed to be all

"Menschlichkeit uber alles ?" anyway? Not that comparing renegadism as a philosophy to ****sm is very nice.

BlueDemonX wrote...

That´s what I actually think as well, but they do have to flesh out the "real" admiral for the books etc.
I´m looking forward to him interacting with you in Arrival.

Although there are a lot of ambiguous characters, I don't personally see Hackett as one.

Modifié par Phaedon, 22 mars 2011 - 09:32 .

[Reever]

Phaedon wrote...

Isn't TIM the one who is supposed to be all

"Menschlichkeit uber alles ?" anyway? Not that comparing renegades as a philosophy to ****sm is very nice.

BlueDemonX wrote...

That´s what I actually think as well, but they do have to flesh out the "real" admiral for the books etc.
I´m looking forward to him interacting with you in Arrival.

Although there are a lot of ambiguous characters, I don't personally see Hackett as one.

Ehm, humanity over all doesn´t really leave any place for ambiguity, if that´s what you wanted to say...(btw, you German? xD)
And I can´t really remember my Renegade playthrough, and how Hackett acted those times.
But personally, I think that if you are in the Military and have to protect lives, you really can´t be too renegade. You´ve become a soldier for a reason (And yes, I know about corruption etc., but I´m talking about "normal" soldiers - or how they should be )

[Phaedon]

Some people would disagree on that statement, but I won't. I am assuming most professional soldiers don't just do it for the money.

[xSTONEYx187x]

LEAVE HACKETT ALONE!

[Michel1986]

Phaedon wrote...

Admiral Zaeed Massani

I fixed it for you