82 réponses à ce sujet

[Hatchetman77]

The Apostate wrote...

Why would Hackett betray Shepard at the trial? Because Shepard obliterated an entire star system, killing 300 000. And because Shepard failed in his mission -- Hackett's personal friend, Dr. Kenson, dies when she was supposed to be rescued.

To be honest I have no idea what's going to happen with Hackett; basically the only things I know about him are that he led the Alliance fleets in ME1 and that the Voice Actor for Hackett played Bishop in Aliens.

He also manipulates a ruthless origin Shepard by telling him to "enter negotiations" in a situation that is meant to be an obvious assasination in ME1.  He's a shifty bastard and I think he was always inteded to be as such. 

[amcnow]

Mesina2 wrote...

amcnow wrote...

I trust Admiral Hackett about as much as I trust Cerberus... not at all. He comes across as a self-serving weasel. I hope he's the obligatory characher who dies at the beginning of ME3

You mean only guy but Anderson in power that believes there are Reapers and tries everything in his power to help like you know, NOT GETTING YOU ARRESTED?!

Oh and he tries to buy you some time after Arrival instead of taking you back on Earth.
And he says he'll fight for you.

There was never an indication for him to betray Shepard.

...and you don't think it's possible for him to be doing these things for his own self-serving reasons? I think that is a naive point of view, but one to which you are entitled.

Just because you're buying what he's selling doesn't mean I have to do the same.

Mesina2 wrote...

amcnow wrote...

and not Councilor/Admiral Anderson as many people are suspecting.

Anderson dies at the start of Mass Effect 3
Anderson Totally Dies in the Intro

Well considering that Shepard can talk to Anderson after he/she get's on Normandy and we can see Anderson talking to Shepard in E3 Earth Demo on Machinima.

He won't die, just stay on Earth.

I said this was being speculated. I never said I believed it. To play devil's advocate... Isn't there always the possibility he dies at the end of the Earth mission?

Mesina2 wrote...

amcnow wrote...

As for the trial... Are we even sure it's a full-fledged trial and not (let's say) a hearing (maybe to determine if he should stand trial)? I would think Admiral Hackett would have Shepard arrested if that were the case (which would make a great addition to the prologue). We could then be given the choice to either surrender peacefully (Paragon) or go down with a fight (Renegade). Make it happen BioWare!!!

It's already confirmed that ME3 will start with trial and having 2 long tutorial fights is bad game design( especially if 1st one is skipable as "good" choice).


Also Hackett had opportunity to arrest Shepard many times. Why betray Shepard now?




You're asking for giant retcon for not understanding Hackett's character.

1. Who says it has to be a long tutorial fight? Shepard can simply resist and be forced into custody. The fight doesn't have to be drawn out. ME2 had a three-part prologue: Save Joker, Awakening, Freedom's Progress. ME3 can have a prologue of similar format: surrender/resist arrest, trial (I guess they'll just jump right into it without an appropriate hearing.), escape earth.

2. Hackett knew exactly what he was doing when he sent Shepard into the Bahak system. He knew Shepard would make for an easy scapegoat if something went wrong on the mission to rescue Dr. Kenson. He's not protecting Shepard. He's manipulating him. I learned this in ME1 from all of those side quests.

3. This is about interpreting Hackett's actions in different fashions (which is probably what BioWare intended). You obviously think he's genuinely helping Shepard. I think he's simply manipulating him to serve his own (and probably the Alliance's) agenda. I don't question Hackett's (possibly newfound) belief in the Reapers. I do question whether or not he believes Shepard is the key to defeating them.

[CroGamer002]

amcnow wrote...


1. Who says it has to be a long tutorial fight? Shepard can simply resist and be forced into custody. The fight doesn't have to be drawn out. ME2 had a three-part prologue: Save Joker, Awakening, Freedom's Progress. ME3 can have a prologue of similar format: surrender/resist arrest, trial (I guess they'll just jump right into it without an appropriate hearing.), escape earth.

How will that happen if Shepard is in Terminus System's?

Besides Shepard says he will turn in and he/she would be an self-righteous idiot not to.
Shepard can't risk Batarians and Alliance to be in war while Reapers are already here, just slowed down for who knows how long.

And Shepard's doesn't know they'll come in 2 months.

2. Hackett knew exactly what he was doing when he sent Shepard into the Bahak system. He knew Shepard would make for an easy scapegoat if something went wrong on the mission to rescue Dr. Kenson. He's not protecting Shepard. He's manipulating him. I learned this in ME1 from all of those side quests.

OK who is also capable, out of Alliance and trustful to this mission but Shepard?

Also where's your evidence that Hackett knew Shepard will blow up the Alpha Relay and that Kenson was doing that.
This is just baseless assumption.

And his reaction to Shepard after finding out about that he had no idea what happen is natural.
Manipulation doesn't work that way.

And why would he manipulate you?
What's the reason? Hackett is not pro-human nor those he has some agenda against Shepard or Batarians.

He doing that would be Modern Warefare 2 General Shepherd retarded.

3. This is about interpreting Hackett's actions in different fashions (which is probably what BioWare intended). You obviously think he's genuinely helping Shepard. I think he's simply manipulating him to serve his own (and probably the Alliance's) agenda. I don't question Hackett's (possibly newfound) belief in the Reapers. I do question whether or not he believes Shepard is the key to defeating them.

WHAT AGENDA?!
Why would he get rid off Shepard when he belives in Reapers?
He did everything in his hand not get Shepard arrested for working with Cerberus and now for some unknown agenda that was never even hinted through both games he does it?!

WHY?!

Please tell me more then just wave "You're naive" flag.

[Destroy Raiden_]

Ok...the boards got rid of my post....let's try this again.


The way extradition works OP in the case of fleeing crimianls as I understand the US does it is:


If criminal flees to a say European country all we can do is ask that the criminal be apprehended and returned for justice.

It depends on the Euro countries stance on this matter. Some countries won't return criminals regardless of their crime because they feel they won't get a fair trial or they won't want to send him back because if the crime has a death penalty attached to it they feel he could potentially get said maximum sentence and they don't want that.

Other countries won't return said criminal regardless of crime committed because the criminal is a law abiding citizen in their country and that country feels no issue with allowing the person to stay so long as they are good to it's population.

Now if the country has no issue with the eye for an eye sentence then they will try to apprehend said criminal and send him back to the country in which he fled from.

Now in the case of shep Earth wouldn't send shep to the batarian homeworld because shep is guaranteed to not get a fair trial. In this case. Earth will do their best to try shep for the murder of the batraians and the batarians can come to Earth to watch and film the trial as they feel a need to.

[amcnow]

Mesina2 wrote...

amcnow wrote...


1. Who says it has to be a long tutorial fight? Shepard can simply resist and be forced into custody. The fight doesn't have to be drawn out. ME2 had a three-part prologue: Save Joker, Awakening, Freedom's Progress. ME3 can have a prologue of similar format: surrender/resist arrest, trial (I guess they'll just jump right into it without an appropriate hearing.), escape earth.

How will that happen if Shepard is in Terminus System's?

Besides Shepard says he will turn in and he/she would be an self-righteous idiot not to.
Shepard can't risk Batarians and Alliance to be in war while Reapers are already here, just slowed down for who knows how long.

And Shepard's doesn't know they'll come in 2 months.

2. Hackett knew exactly what he was doing when he sent Shepard into the Bahak system. He knew Shepard would make for an easy scapegoat if something went wrong on the mission to rescue Dr. Kenson. He's not protecting Shepard. He's manipulating him. I learned this in ME1 from all of those side quests.

OK who is also capable, out of Alliance and trustful to this mission but Shepard?

Also where's your evidence that Hackett knew Shepard will blow up the Alpha Relay and that Kenson was doing that.
This is just baseless assumption.

And his reaction to Shepard after finding out about that he had no idea what happen is natural.
Manipulation doesn't work that way.

And why would he manipulate you?
What's the reason? Hackett is not pro-human nor those he has some agenda against Shepard or Batarians.

He doing that would be Modern Warefare 2 General Shepherd retarded.

3. This is about interpreting Hackett's actions in different fashions (which is probably what BioWare intended). You obviously think he's genuinely helping Shepard. I think he's simply manipulating him to serve his own (and probably the Alliance's) agenda. I don't question Hackett's (possibly newfound) belief in the Reapers. I do question whether or not he believes Shepard is the key to defeating them.

WHAT AGENDA?!
Why would he get rid off Shepard when he belives in Reapers?
He did everything in his hand not get Shepard arrested for working with Cerberus and now for some unknown agenda that was never even hinted through both games he does it?!

WHY?!

Please tell me more then just wave "You're naive" flag.

The quotes are getting kind of long. So I will package this together...

1. The same way they did ME2. They can fast-forward through time. Last I remember, Shepard volunteering to turn himself in was only the Paragon response. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone wants to be pigeonholed into surrendering peacefully. Shepard being a self-righteous idiot for not turning himself in is your opinion (and I disagree).

2. Now you're putting words into my mouth. I NEVER said Hackett wound know what Shepard would do. I said Hackett was covering his ass so he wouldn't get burned. He requested Shepard's help knowing the alliance effectively wants his head for helping Cerberus. More importantly, he's smart enough to know Shepard wouldn't refuse given the circumstances. It's Hackett's word against Shepard's. Shepard's word means squat right now given all his talk about Reapers. Like I said, I think Hackett is a manipulator. You're free to disagree. That won't change my opinion of him.

Also, why do criminals commit crimes? There's a host of possibly reasons and we don't always know which one(s). I don't need to know why he has an ulterior motive to suspect he has an ulterior motive. Call it intuition.

3. See the above statement with regards to his motives. Once again, just because he believes in the Reapers doesn't mean he believes Shepard is key (or even needed) to stop them. He is an Alliance Admiral. He has a whole fleet at his disposal. Maybe, just maybe, he feels he can cast Shepard aside whenever it's most convenient.

Hackett attempted to use Shepard's SPECTRE status to the maximum advantage in ME1. Obviously, Shepard could simply not complete those side quests. Then again, who's to say Hackett wouldn't hold that against Shepard? Hackett seems content if you volunteer to turn yourself in. In Arrival, Hackett seems ready to sell you out first chance he gets if Shepard mentions he should be thanking him. The hintings are there, dependant on how you decide to play and interpret the games.

I offered my take on Admiral Hackett. You disagreed. Fair enough. I will not change my opinion of him unless ME3 dictates it. Respond how you wish. I'm done with this conversation.

Modifié par amcnow, 11 juin 2011 - 09:51 .

[Phaedon]

amcnow wrote...

I trust Admiral Hackett about as much as I trust Cerberus... not at all. He comes across as a self-serving weasel. I hope he's the obligatory characher who dies at the beginning of ME3 and not Councilor/Admiral Anderson as many people are suspecting.

Anderson dies at the start of Mass Effect 3
Anderson Totally Dies in the Intro

As for the trial... Are we even sure it's a full-fledged trial and not (let's say) a hearing (maybe to determine if he should stand trial)? I would think Admiral Hackett would have Shepard arrested if that were the case (which would make a great addition to the prologue). We could then be given the choice to either surrender peacefully (Paragon) or go down with a fight (Renegade). Make it happen BioWare!!!

Self-serving?

Hackett? 

[The Apostate]

Anything could be true about Hackett at this point -- we simply don't know enough about him. He just gave us random side quests in ME1, and he makes a brief appearance in the Arrival DLC.
Hopefully he'll play a major role in Shepard's trial.

[CroGamer002]

amcnow wrote...

The quotes are getting kind of long. So I will package this together...

1. The same way they did ME2. They can fast-forward through time. Last I remember, Shepard volunteering to turn himself in was only the Paragon response. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone wants to be pigeonholed into surrendering peacefully. Shepard being a self-righteous idiot for not turning himself in is your opinion (and I disagree).

Oh really?

Batarians are preparing for war against Alliance and Reaper will start attacking in few months and only way to stop the war is to go to trial.

So yeah, Shepard would be self-righteous idiot not to surrender.

2. Now you're putting words into my mouth. I NEVER said Hackett wound know what Shepard would do. I said Hackett was covering his ass so he wouldn't get burned. He requested Shepard's help knowing the alliance effectively wants his head for helping Cerberus. More importantly, he's smart enough to know Shepard wouldn't refuse given the circumstances. It's Hackett's word against Shepard's. Shepard's word means squat right now given all his talk about Reapers. Like I said, I think Hackett is a manipulator. You're free to disagree. That won't change my opinion of him.

Where did you even get this idea?!

Manipulator?! Prove it!
It's very easy to say with Illusive Man( his words, evading answers, voice, body language).

Also, why do criminals commit crimes? There's a host of possibly reasons and we don't always know which one(s). I don't need to know why he has an ulterior motive to suspect he has an ulterior motive. Call it intuition.

That doesn't make any sense.

3. See the above statement with regards to his motives. Once again, just because he believes in the Reapers doesn't mean he believes Shepard is key (or even needed) to stop them. He is an Alliance Admiral. He has a whole fleet at his disposal. Maybe, just maybe, he feels he can cast Shepard aside whenever it's most convenient.

Oh really? A character trait that was never told in both ME1&2 and Hackett isn't very secretive to Shepard.
That would be giant retcon to happen in ME3.

Hackett attempted to use Shepard's SPECTRE status to the maximum advantage in ME1. Obviously, Shepard could simply not complete those side quests. Then again, who's to say Hackett wouldn't hold that against Shepard? Hackett seems content if you volunteer to turn yourself in. In Arrival, Hackett seems ready to sell you out first chance he gets if Shepard mentions he should be thanking him. The hintings are there, dependant on how you decide to play and interpret the games.

"Hey Shepard, Alliance might go to war because of your actions in Bahak System. Even though I'm a sellout, even though I had no indication for that EVER and I was saving your ass whole time from Alliance, I'll let you go for you to do some side quests and hope you won't go to hiding."

It makes perfect sense.

I offered my take on Admiral Hackett. You disagreed. Fair enough. I will not change my opinion of him unless ME3 dictates it. Respond how you wish. I'm done with this conversation.

You're right.

I'm feeling like I'm talking to wall ZULU with his own baseless conspiracy theories.