Consider this:
Regardless whether Shepard is indoctrinated or not Shepard is being manipulated through the entirety of ME2 and ME3. Now you ask, “How has Shepard, actively opposing the Reapers throughout the entirety of Mass Effect 3, been working directly into the clutches of the Reapers?” Allow me to show you:
1) Why manipulating Shepard is necessary; In Mass Effect Shepard defeated Sovereign and brought knowledge of the Reapers to the galaxy, though it was not widely accepted. Shepard stalled their invasion and stopped their usual means of separating/cutting off the galactic systems. As Harbinger stated “We will find another way”.
2) If flying into the Milky Way Galaxy and just spreading Reaper forces over the systems was an effective way of harvesting the galactic species then why would the Reapers bother initially with cutting off the individual
systems? Their tactics in ME3 are not “another way”. They could have done this from the start, it is not effective.
3) The Reapers/Collectors were seeking Shepard’s corpse for unknown reasons. Many attribute it to the Reapers wanting to incorporate Shepard’s remains into the human Reaper. Yet the inanimate corpse of a dead Shepard would hold little value when included in the malleable paste of millions to billions of humans. Shepard would serve a far better purpose to the Reapers alive…
4) Shepard was brought back from the dead by Cerberus, Illusive Man specifically; who it turns out was indoctrinated. He was able to gain the assistance of Shepard’s desperate and loyal companion in acquiring Shepard’s corpse when their more obvious tools, the Collectors, failed. The Reapers played on Shepard’s allies opposing them to fit them right into their plans.
5) Illusive man had his own belief Control is the only, absolute way to defeat the Reapers. Shepard
and Anderson oppose him, believing Destruction is the only absolute way to defeat the Reapers, and Saren believed Synthesis was the only way. All are powerful Political or Military leaders with incredible galactic influence. Shepard even states to the Illusive Man, “they’ve got us fighting each other instead of fighting them,” pointing out the flaw of Illusive Man’s ideals, while ignoring that he in turn is doing the same thing.
6) Javik repeatedly states the Reapers turned their own people against each other.
7) Shepard, Saren and the Illusive Man were all being played by the Reapers. The Reapers knew their desire to defeat them; the Reapers harnessed this to achieve their own goals. In short; they found another way.
8) From the Codex: Should the Reapers subvert a well-placed political or MILITARY figure the resulting chaos could bring down nations.
9) Shepard was intentionally guided to Object Rho to begin his indoctrination. It was not by accident.
10) Notice how little interaction with any indoctrinated characters there are in ME3, aside from Cerberus. There
is very little mention of any key military or political figures being indoctrinated, aside from the most, blatant and obvious attempts; i.e. the political leaders of Earth entering Reaper superstructures. The Reapers have already indoctrinated the key figures that would guide the species of the galaxy to fulfill their goals.
11) The Crucible is constantly regarded with skepticism (both by players and characters) due to its proximity to Earth on Mars and only recently being discovered. Do not ignore the questions the characters raise and inevitably disregard about the Crucible in game. They state countless cycles have attempted to build the Crucible, an
implausible weapon, without success time and again and failed to defeat the Reapers with it, if even build it.
12) Do not disregard your own questions, “How could the Reapers overlook this device over countless cycles?” “Why would they not destroy the data?” It is their tool. Just like the relays it is initially attributed to the Protheans.
13) The Crucible is an impractical weapon. A weapon of the Reapers. Even after being created the brightest minds of the galaxy cannot calculate or quantify the result of a Crucible explosion. It would take a mind beyond the minds of humans, Asari, Turians, Salarians or all other species to understand…Reapers.
14) The Crucible has never been completed in previous cycles. The Reapers were always able to control the Citadel and Mass Relays in previous cycles, there was no need.
15) The Reapers do not attempt to control the Citadel or Mass Relays till the end of the game. This was the key to their strategic victory in all other cycles as made apparent by Sovereign in Mass Effect. Even after they control the Citadel they do not cut off the other systems.
16) The Catalyst controls the Reapers. It admits that Shepard has changed the inevitability of the cycles, in
his/her initial defeat of Sovereign and stopping the Reapers from cutting off the Mass Relays 3 years before.
17) The Catalyst still allows Shepard options to defeat the Reapers. It does not oppose him/her because it realizes with Sovereigns defeat 3 years prior the cycle is fallible. The Reapers must find another way.
18) Shepard’s choice is not what matters. Red, Blue, Green do not matter. Control, Synthesis, Destroy do not matter. It’s Shepard’s choice to activate the Crucible, to overcome the Citadel lock the Protheans put in place that is important. The Catalyst wants the Crucible to fire. It wants Shepard to succeed where Saren failed.
19) The Crucible shuts down the Mass Relays, effectively cutting off the remaining systems of the Galaxy. FTL travel is the only viable option from that point. And no species is better at FTL than the Reapers; no species is as patient, as infinite as the Reapers. They have found another way.
20) The majority of the galactic might is caught in one system, cut off from the rest of the galaxy. The galaxy map shows before the attack on Earth and London that the Reapers are spread across the entire galaxy. Yet all the might of the galactic forces are caught in one system.
21) Earth has no viable strategic value to the war effort. And in bringing the Citadel to Earth the Reapers have again assumed control of FTL travel, and forced the united forces of the galaxy to come to them, to abandon their homes and focus all their efforts on one weapon, and one planet.
22) This allows for the Reapers to once again systematically destroy the intelligent species of the universe, thus completing their goals, nearly unopposed. By being a doing everything in Shepard’s power to unite the galaxy Shepard is dooming the galaxy and the higher EMS you have the greater chance the Reapers have of winning,
not the lower.
23) There has been speculation as to why the destroy option is the only one available if Shepard does not focus a high enough EMS into the Sol System to defeat the Reapers. The Catalyst does not need the other options to force Shepard to activate the Crucible. If Shepard’s EMS is low the galaxy is not supporting Shepard’s efforts and less of the Galactic forces will be trapped in the Sol system. This leads to less options/opportunities for the Reapers. Thus the Destroy option is the only one available because the Reapers will not win throughout the galaxy with low EMS.
24) You did everything the Reapers need you to do. You effectively cut off the greatest fighting force the galaxy has ever seen on reclaiming one strategically insignificant planet.
25) High EMS = Reapers win. Bioware did not lie at least in that regard. The Reapers can win because you let them.
26)This is why Harbinger flies away from the beam when only Shepard is left alive, this is why the Catalyst allows Shepard to choose because the choice does not matter, it's the action that makes all the difference.
27) No Reapers attempt to attack the Crucible, even though they are in close proximity to it before it fires.
28) The Crucible explosion and the Mass Relay beam are two separate explosions. The crucible explosion returned control of the Citadel to the Reapers, and the mass relay beam was the Reapers deactivating the relays.
29) We never see the mass relay beam destroy a single Reaper, we lead to assume. We only see the beam malfunction the Normandy. The mass relay beam is completely charged from the Citadel. It is a separate explosion. It is the Reaper controlled Citadel deactivating the Mass Relays (which only they can make) to isolate the galaxies species.
30) Catalyst states "releasing the energy of the Crucible will end the cycle, but it will destroy the mass relays". Harbinger "We will find another way".
31) In the control ending you can note that as the Catalyst closes it is being flanked by numerous Reapers while you see nothing but inactive/destroyed ships floating dormant around the Citadel. The Reapers have effectively won.
32) The Catalyst cannot make the "new possibilities" happen because the Prothean system hack is still in effect, it was never deactivated so the Catalyst cannot control the Citadel.
All of this is achieved by an indoctrinated Admiral Hackett:
Admiral Hackett who lead Shepard to Object Rho. Admiral Hackett who was suspiciously absent during the start of ME3 even to the point where Anderson asked "why haven't we heard from Admiral Hackett?" before dismissing the inquiry because the Reapers were already at Earth. Admiral Hackett who lead Shepard to the previously unknown Crucible. Admiral Hackett who oversaw the construction of the Crucible, which no Reapers attempted to attack even after it was attached to the Citadel. Admiral Hackett who suspiciously knew Shepard was on the Citadel and informed Shepard the Crucible wasn't firing.
"Would you kindly fire that Crucible Shepard?" Bioshock twist anyone?
Edit: Formatting.
Edit 2: Coined the Theory. Manipulation Theory. *shrug* unless someone can come up with something catchier.
Edit 3: Thoughtful Speculation.
jumpingkaede wrote...
I'll give you more just off the top of my head (for fun).
Hackett is clearly a bigwig in the Alliance. He also appears to believe Shepard about the Reapers.
Yet....
he allows Shepard to be thrown in the brig for the critical 6 months
between Arrival and ME3. Result: Shepard is helpless to take advantage
of the delay he earned in Arrival... WHEN HE RUINED HACKETT'S PLAN.
Since Hackett's plan was obviously to get Shepard indoctrinated there.
Also
he seizes the Normandy and plans to make it his own battleship. Why?
The Normandy is a frontline frigate, exactly the wrong type of ship for
an Admiral who is supposed to be overseeing all the fleets. It's
arguably the best ship in the Fleet for fighting Reapers and Hackett
commandeers it.
He also let Gaby and Ken get court-martialed or whatever.
Suspiciously, the Crucible is not attacked by Reapers at all. It just floats into the Citadel at super-slow speed.
Edit 4: Valid arguments.
N7Infernox wrote...
The theory mentionsD.Sharrah wrote...
Okay...big
problem with your theory is that you do actually see Reapers being
destroyed (at least in the Sol system) with the Destroy ending. And the
same beam that causes that destruction is spread through out the Mass
Relay network. So, unless your claim is that the Reapers are playing
possum...your theory does not hold water.
the fact that you actually destroy part of the crubible to get that
ending. The Catalyst also seems to downplay that option; the guy's in
your head after all, and he probably didn't omit that option completely
b/c Shepard might fully realize that something was wrong with what the
Ctalyst was telling him.
I will edit my original post to add clarity to this. In all destroy endings the Crucible explosion and Citadel Beam are two separate blasts. The first wave that destroys the Reapers is concentrated entirely in the Sol system. It does not spread beyond as is not a part of the second eruption from the Citadel that blasts through the Mass Relays. It is the "worst" option in the eyes of the Catalyst because it causes Reaper casualties, but those casualties are an acceptable loss if it gets Shepard to agree to unlock the Citadel so the Catalyst can assume control.
The only damage we see caused by the Citadel Beam is the malfunctioning of the Normandy. We are lead to assume when the cinematic pulls back and shows the galaxy that the explosions are destroying Reapers, but we have no proof. However there is evidence the beam can and does damage conventional ships.
Another argument was requesting clarification on the theory that low EMS is "better". That is not actually the intention of my idea of low EMS. My belief is that with low EMS the Crucible construction may not be as developed as with a high EMS, where a copious amount of work was poured into it. This means that the Catalyst is left with less options, as it cannot use the Crucible to achieve it's full goal of Control, but it needs Shepard to agree to fire the Crucible none the less, therefore it provides Destroy option, knowing Shepard has always thought of destroying the Reapers, and it accepts the Reaper losses in the Sol system as necessary to disable the Mass Relays.
Others have stated the critical mission failure if you wait 20 minutes without choosing is evidence MT theory is false. I agree this is a very strong argument. Unfortunately I have not seen this critical mission failure screen so I cannot comment on what exactly I think causes it at this time. Such as: do you see a Reaper fire on the crucible just before receiving it? Does nothing about the surrounding space battle change right before it is destroyed? We're all trying to read into Bioware's..."vision" and "artistic integrity" here, so we have to see. It could also be attributed to the same end as when Shepard lets Illusive Man kill him. It is not the canon, but necessary to force the player to continue.
Edit 5: My Response to the Crucible destroyed.
Now that I have seen this mission failure on youtube I can state I do not believe it debunks MT or IT. It is similar to the mission failure if you fail to shoot Illusive Man with renegade interrupt. It is meant to force action/decision out of the player. Otherwise the ending would have to be taken at face value. Though Bioware devs and Jessica M. have all hinted at not taking everything at face value. More on this later.
Edit 6: Crucible pulse conspiracy.
Just a note I think deserves attention and speculation.
Edit 8: MT is growing. Not completely related, but interesting idea that Hackett might be an antagonist in a different way.
Hanabii wrote...
Posting this in the right section before the mods delete it from the multiplayer thread. I think this post has some good points.Lincoln MuaDib wrote...
Yeah, I know. You were thinking, hmm, well he's annoying and does a Kanye onboard the Normandy when it's
time to give a speech, but, Cerberus Head?
Apologies if you haven't played ME1, a huge point is in there, but I'll get to that . . .
In ME1, Shepard talks to Hackett, but never sees him.
Hackett speaks to Shep and sends her off on mini-missions. Hackett seems very aware of such things as the Shadow Broker, but it's Admiral Kahoku who tells Shepard where to go to find Cerberus. Shortly after transmitting
coordinates to Shepard, he turns up dead.
Who has those coordinates? Shepard and Hackett.
During ME2, Alliance types try to shut Shepard down (you see this in files from Shadow Broker). Who shuts down investigations into Shepard, over and over?
Hackett.
In the last mission, "Arrival", Hackett sends Shepard off with the direction that it must be a hush-hush
mission. He sends her to a place of Indoctrination. She succeeds. But in so doing, she kills thousands of Batarians.
Now examine the opening of ME3.
Shepard- Is that why they grounded me? Took away my ship?
Anderson- You killed thousands of Batarians.
Shepard- It was that or let the Reapers walk in the back door.
Anderson- I know that. So do the Council. If it weren't for that, you'd be court-martialled and put in the brig.
Shepard- That, and your good word.
- Hey, WHAT? ANDERSON'S good word?
Why did Hackett say nothing?
The ONE man that could say, "I sent her."
The ONE man who could have had ALL charges dropped.
Says NOTHING.
Ok, so maybe he's just an ass, but then . . .
When, in ME3, you learn more and more about EDI's past (on the Cerberus Base) it transpires that EDI's first form was as a rogue VI on Luna, Earth's Moon.
Oh, yes. My Shepard did indeed go there and fight the rogue VI.
Wait, who sent me?
Hackett.
How did Cerberus get their hands on the VI?
Apart from Shepard, who knew about the VI? In that mission, there were no human soldiers.
Only Hackett. Yet Cerberus got their hands on it.
Who, when Shepard reaches the Beam, declares "No-one made it to the beam"- an obvious lie?
Hackett.
I'm putting all these pieces together.
Hackett.
The true Head of Cerberus.
Remember what Cerberus looks like?
That's right.
THREE heads.
And you thought TIM was the ONLY head?
Mind Blown yet?[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie]
JustinElenbaas wrote...
You have every right to take Admiral Hackett at face value. That is exactly how BW wants you to take him because that's how they present him. Exactly like Admiral Anderson he is presented as a military leader with the best interests of humanity foremost and the citadel species in mind. At no point do we delve into Hackett's past, nor do we learn more about him as an individual. This is what separates him from Anderson. Anderson has been developed through books and through a relatively weak attempt at attaching him to London in ME3. This is all to develop him as a larger part of the galaxy. At all times Shepard regards him with reverance and defers to Hackett's counsel. Shepard may not always follow Hackett's orders, but he never questions their validity.
As far as the Arrival DLC is concerned Hackett contacts Shepard and immediately begins a blackout campaign. He needs to discuss the matter "privately" having Shepard take the comm in his quarters, initially alienating Shepard
from his crew and leaving even non-Alliance related personnel in the dark. Next Hackett informs Shepard Dr. Kenson has contacted him with proof of an imminent Reaper invasion (very important information that all the galaxy should know). This lends credence to the argument Hackett may have had direct contact with an indoctrinated Kenson in the past. He then asks Shepard to go in alone as a favor to him. There is no precedent for this request. Shepard is a rogue entity at this point, and all of his allies have no affiliation to the Alliance.
It cannot be argued he wants Shepard to hide the mission from Illusive Man because EDI would inevitably be privy to the information and she is the one who makes progress updates to the Illusive man, so that argument is moot. There is no reason for Hackett to request Shepard to limit his resources by going alone, especially when several of Shepard's companions would be perfectly suited for an infiltration mission; i.e. Thane & Kasumi. This all leads to Hackett separating Shepard and leaving him isolated and more vulnerable than he usually is, all under the guise of "a personal favor".
Kenson's mission is an Alliance black-ops mission and even if Shepard does not choose to assist Hackett that does not mean her usefulness to the Reapers is finished. Remember she is indoctrinated at this point, so it could be assumed that Hackett would send a squad to save her, regardless if Shepard goes. She is a brilliant scientist with black-ops clearance. She is not just an expendable indoctrinated asset at this point. An indoctrinated Hackett would therefore still try to save her.
Hackett requests the assistance of an unaffiliated Shepard to save a Black-Ops scientist, instead of immediately sending an Alliance affiliated WET Squad, which he attempts second. Hackett's bypassing protocol by assigning a classified mission to an unaffiliated asset in Shepard. This is more of a personal choice for Hackett, showing if you don't go that he will still attempt to save Kenson through proper channels leads to the thought this is a more personally designed setup.
As far as why he would not contact Kaidan/Ashley for this mission is because the trap is specifically designed for Shepard. Neither Kaidan or Ashley are nearly as vital to the galaxy as Shepard. Both pale in comparison, if the
trap fails to spring on Shepard then it scrapped. As far as why the indoctrinated Kenson and her crew did not kill Shepard it sounds like we are in agreement on this. Harbinger is near, they are attempting to indoctrinate Shepard, it is never the desire of the Reapers to kill Shepard. Kenson even saves Shepard's life after being mortally wounded in the gauntlet "Take him/her to the med-bay, we want Shepard alive." Object Rho, in Harbinger's voice, even claims that "Struggle if you wish. Your mind will be mine." to Shepard during the gauntlet. Then Kenson has Shepard for 2 days, without his/her crew coming to assist him. Two days without any information on what happened to Shepard during that time.
Again we are in agreement on your next point. I agree indoctrination is entirely based of subliminal suggestion instead of direct intervention. This is why MT shines because Shepard does not need to be indoctrinated to serve the Reapers' purpose, suggestions by an indoctrinated Hackett, guiding Shepard down the intended path works without a hitch. Shepard follows Hackett's lead throughout all games. The Reapers are playing to Shepard's ego and his will to stop them, guiding his motivation in the direction they desire. It's utterly brilliant. Your Primarch example fits perfectly with this assumption, just replace the Primarch with Shepard. Shepard's entire goal throughout ME3 is "save earth" and he is willing to do that by any means necessary, though the means do not matter in the end. Earth is utterly strategically useless.
There is no tactical advantage to saving it. Yet Shepard, spurred on by Hackett, who never once disagrees with Shepard, focuses the attention of the entire galaxy to this pointless goal. Many critics of ME3 have pointed to this as a plot hole, that they would not abandon Earth for the sake of the entire galaxy. Again the Reapers playing to Shepard's pride and ego for his/her species.
Back to Dr. Kenson, when Shepard saves her she makes a very telling comment "Commander Shepard, Hackett must have received my message." This is a very tricky line. This shows that she contacted Hackett directly with an unknown message, or that might be a misleading way of revealing she has made contact with Hackett in the
past. She contacted Hackett directly when her op was threatened. She did not contact The Alliance. It can be stated contacting Hackett is contacting the Alliance, but then why the distinction? Why the information blackout by Hackett if it was an Alliance sanctioned rescue? Because Hackett and Kenson want Shepard completely isolated and his/her actions unknown. Hackett is creating an information blackout, making certain the Alliance is completely in the dark in regards to the events taking place.
The indoctrinated Kenson, under control by Harbinger is actively attempting to indoctrinate Shepard, after Shepard
willingly walks into the trap laid for him/her. The entire "arrested for treason" seems plausible, but strangely staged. Take into account as Shepard is following Kenson through Project Base she states "Everything was in place when we were arrested." Consider though that Kenson is the only individual "arrested" and even as she is discussing this you are walking through a Project Base filled with other scientists/crew. Who exactly was arrested and how was the project stopped? It's all very staged. All this is being done to unwittingly lead Shepard directly to Object Rho. It's a staged lie. Kenson knowingly jeopardizes the Mass Relay to draw Shepard into the
indoctrinated trap. This deception would never have been possible without Hackett's assurance/help.
You sum up that you do not believe Hackett is indoctrinated, asking "What was he supposed to do?" Hackett successfully alienates/isolates Shepard from Cerberus, his crew and the Alliance for this mission. Hackett creates an information blackout that causes the Alliance to disavow any knowledge of Shepard's actions. This allows for Shepard to be detained and punished by the Alliance as a rogue terrorist without reprisal. Hackett has full intention for Shepard to stand trial and face court martial. He even orders Shepard to "be prepared to take the hit and show up in your best Navy blues."
Hackett also causes the information regarding the Reaper's arrival in the near future from being disseminated to
appropriate sources. This is all intentional. Take Shepard's "debriefing" by Hackett. Hackett interviews Shepard in person, on the Normandy, a ship that is not commissioned by Cerberus with no remaining affiliation to the Alliance, does not follow military regulation. You could argue Hackett did this to keep the mission "off the books. Which is
exactly what he did, but the key point is that he kept it away from the eyes of the Alliance. He could have conducted a discrete debriefing following Alliance protocol and classified it, redacting sensitive information.
Hackett merely reviews Shepard's report, even his questions are testing Shepard's indoctrination, "You believe the Reaper invasion really was a threat?" gauging Shepard's response. "I'm sure all the details are in your report."This vital report that Hackett casually dismisses and returns to Shepard with "I don't need to see your report to know you did the right thing." This plays to Shepard's ego and keeps the report out of Alliance hands.
This information is vital! As we can see from ME3 the Alliance was caught completely unaware that the Reapers are coming. They never received this information and could not prepare. That information cannot be discarded. If Hackett was not indoctrinated he would have taken that report, filed it classified, redacted certain parts and presented it on a need to know basis, providing the galaxy with advanced nowledge of an invasion. No Admiral in their right mind would turn down that report.
As for the mention of Hackett commandeering the Normandy, as far as I can recall Joker or someone else makes an offhand remark how they had to "steal" the Normandy from dry dock, where Admiral Hackett was having it outfitted to act as his flagship.
I'm going to reread your paragraph about the Crucible. Is it my understanding you asked a question "what's the
alternative?" then answered it yourself? If so I'll read your answer and see what I think. There may be more points I missed, but this is a long winded re-post so I'm going to put it up as is and edit it if necessary.
Edit: This is my second reply to Namorax on another thread regarding MT. I do not have Namorax's permission to post his arguments here, but I will ask for permission so you may all weigh both sides of the discussion equally.
It is late for me as well, but I am compelled by a great discussion
I do not claim Hackett's actions only make sense if you assume he is indoctrinated. I believe his actions hint towards his indoctrination, and MT is designed to point out and examine evidence to that theory. Remember Bioware has stated nothing overtly, we are left to speculate and deal in conjecture. You and I both do this in our arguments. It's all we can do, so speculate away haha
.You know as well as I do that you can not use the chronology of a DLC release as canon for in game content. Of course most everyone had beaten ME2 by the time it was released, well after the game release. However The Arrival can be accessed before finishing the main storyline of the game. If you do so, then you see the Collector General instead of Harbinger on the landing deck at the end. Therefore your argument about the surveillance equipment being removed does not work.
In regards to Kenneth being a spy, that is possible. Yet again I state with the DLC being accessible in game before embarking on the suicide mission the point that ties between Shepard and TIM have been severed does not hold up.
In ME2 Shepard dies and when he returns to life (miraculously) he/she is not reinstated into the Alliance. This is a minor theme running through ME2, Shepard joining Cerberus instead of returning to the Alliance, a bone of contention for some former allies. Arguments are raised about this between Shepard and Anderson, Shepard and VS on Horizon and it is discussed further throughout the game. In ME2 Shepard is not beholden to the chain of command because he/she is no longer an active member of the Alliance Navy. There is even an iconic scene at the beginning of ME3 with Anderson tossing Shepard dog tags and saying, "Consider yourself reinstated, Commander." After Shepard had coyly stated "I don't work for you anymore, remember?"
In ME2 Shepard is a rogue asset, part of a terrorist organization, Cerberus. Shepard may still choose to follow orders, but Hackett absolutely breaks Alliance protocol by seeking out a rogue asset to complete a mission. This could be attributed to his desire for information blackout, but it is highly irregular for an Admiral to basically seek the assistance of a mercenary.
The point I'm raising in regards to the connection between Hackett and Kenson is this: Hackett is anomalous, we do not know of his actions outside of direct interactions with Shepard. Yet the one instance we are given insight into his past it is in direct association with an indoctrinated entity, Dr. Amanda Kenson. Kenson's op may have been sanctioned, we'll never know, but the fact remains she interacted only with Admiral Hackett, we can assume she was indoctrinated before she was arrested, therefore we can assume she was indoctrinated when she had dealings with Hackett, and or sent him her message.
In regards to other Alliance Admirals of the Alliance Navy shirking their duties in regards to the Reapers and dumping it on Admiral Hackett, I would dare say this is a bold claim. If we are to attribute admirable qualities to Hackett, then it should be assumed anyone obtaining the rank of Admiral in a galactic fleet has similar if not equal clout, ethics and quality of character. I agree that it would not be odd for two old friends to have ways of getting in contact. I'm just trying to say, follow the dots on this. Kenson, an already indoctrinated Reaper asset, is a means to reach and influence Admiral Hackett, who is a means to reach and influence Commander Shepard, perhaps the most iconic figure in all of this cycle. Why I ask, would the Reapers not take advantage of this? To assume they did not is almost doing them a disservice as competent villains. If anything MT gives the Reapers the benefit of the doubt as being, vast, unknowable and beyond comprehension, so such an opportunity would not be wasted on
them.
You argue Hackett would have done what he did to save Kenson anyway. Perhaps, and with subtle suggestion he could be persuaded to also request Shepard verify Kenson's discovery, instead of just resuing her and delivering her to safety. Remember we both agreed indoctrination as subtle suggestions goes much farther than assuming direct control. Allowing Hackett to act on his own instinct and desire to save his friend, with just a minor guidance on behalf of the Reapers, fits that perfectly.
I disagree that Hackett has no means of officially stepping in to save Dr. Kenson without starting a war. There is a reason militaries have special forces TEAMS, mind you. They are for this exact purpose, among others. They are highly trained to enter and exit volatile zones, securing hostages and returning them to safety.Hackett does this if Shepard refuses. This is the core of black ops squads. And at the time Hackett requests a favor of Shepard, he/she has no direct ties to the Alliance and is not governed by them. That makes Shepard a rogue asset and is in fact far more dangerous than a special forces squad, and statistically likely to cause greater turmoil on a mission than a special forces team that will follow orders. i.e. Blow up a Mass Relay anyone? That is a fairly dire diplomatic incident.
I love that you see Hackett's behavior as exactly how he would act indoctrinated or not. That fits exactly into MT and the idea of indoctrination as suggestion. The Reapers are not assuming direct control of Hackett, much as I do not believe they need to assume control of Shepard to reach their goals. They merely steer these individuals' desires along a certain path. This puts them above reproach. Hackett is not acting out of line, but he is fitting Shepard directly into a Reaper trap for indoctrination.
Ah wait...I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I think there is the assumption by perhaps you and others that I believe an indoctrinated Hackett, would know he is indoctrinated. I do not believe that to be the case. In fact I believe it would cause him to act out of his normal character. If you take a moment to sit back and watch Hackett's actions, Hackett specifically, and observe his behavior you will see certain abnormalities, not in Hackett himself, but in what he does and where he leads Shepard and how. These issues are what raised the idea of MT in the first place. I hope that cleared up some misunderstandings. Whether knowingly or unwittingly Hackett delivers a vulnerable, isolated, Shepard into the hands of indoctrinated forces, and that is only his actions in the beginning of Arrival. If Shepard refuses to assist Hackett then because his intentions were honorable, just misguided he would certainly attempt to still save Kenson. Hackett does not exhibit Mens Rea(guilty mind, for those who do not know). Attempting to save Kenson would not be a waste to him.
Frankly I do not attribute as much worth to either Kaidan or Ashley as you seem to. As far as I am concerned they could be any random Major or Lieutenant Commander in the Alliance. Their only outstanding quality is their association with Shepard. I do not feel the Reapers would view them to have much, if any tactical use, and they would be the only associates of Shepard's that would assist Hackett. You yourself pointed out the...finer...qualities
of Shepards other associates lol.
The less people there are the less chance you have of being discovered. That is not always true, especially when dealing with the case of several highly skilled and trained stealth operatives, namely Thane and Kasumi. Neither of these individuals would have inhibited Shepard in any way, and in fact would likely have been better candidates for the job. Both are masters of their stealth related craft and both always achieve results. This fits the criteria you placed for Shepard to be Hackett's choice. I again argue that it is a request without precedent. I will not argue
Hackett's desire for secrecy however, as I have already stated I do not believe he possesses Mens Rea, though I believe he is being manipulated by the Reapers and therefore he is acting out of good conscience.
Hackett's actions at the end of Arrival may be in good conscience, but his faith in Shepard fits perfectly into the Reapers' desires to keep Shepard isolated and their arrival relatively unknown. This is not a stretch. This is a consideration based on the acknowledgement of both Bioware's statements about the infinite knowledge of the Reapers and even the in game acknowledgement of the Reapers' intellect by other sentient species, one of note being Legion, and the Geth. I do not put such simple suggestive manipulation past them. If all they do is paint in broad strokes (crash down on worlds and stomp around like Godzilla) as their only means of subverting the galaxy then they do not meet the standard set for them both in game and out of game.
You ask how far gone do you have to be to accept the suggestion of indoctrinating your own soldiers. I do not believe that is the Reapers' suggestion at all, it is to direct, to obvious. We both agreed the Reapers would likely use, subtle suggestion. I believe dependent they do this by playing to the individuals ideals, beliefs, hopes, dreams, goals and ego. I believe the suggestion is more akin to "send Shepard to save Kenson he/she is best for the job." This is a thought you agreed Hackett could have by himself. He does not need to know he is indoctrinated or manipulated, that would defeat the purpose. Even Saren believed he was maintaining his own sovereignty from Sovereign...(weird) and Sovereign for a time allowed him to believe so.
Your points regarding Hackett's inability to contact Alliance forces on or around Earth makes the assumption that in a galaxy with advanced technology, Arcturus Station and multiple fleets with space faring technology and capability could not relay to Earth one warning signal that Arcturus station had been attacked. That is quite a stretch. For such an abysmal failure in communication to occur, it would have to be intentional. Thus why it puzzles Admiral Anderson because it is so glaringly abnormal. You state Hackett did not report in because he was busy saving his fleets. I'm sorry, but the purpose of the Alliance fleet is to protect Earth and humanity. Hackett would not make this oversight unintentionally.
Some articles and videos of critics of game oversights have pointed directly to Hackett's assertion that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally as game developer oversight. The Alliance had actionable intel from the defeat of Sovereign. They had Reaper tech to study (though most of sovereign was purchased by a private investor... :ermm: ) They created weapons systems to fight the Reapers, Thanix cannons. Yet when the Reapers arrive Alliance Admirals on earth are left asking a subordinate "what do we do?" The Alliance is caught completely off guard and unprepared, after having 3 years to prepare. Such glaring incompetence almost certainly has to be intentional. I'm not directly attributing this to Hackett, just discussing your argument.
These items you point to about building as a metaphor for the Crucible, I would argue that they actually do come with instructions, and they do come with safety warnings because very few people who are not savants could construct or use a firearm or abomb safely or effectively on the first try. Hackett repeatedly states they cannot defeat the Reapers by conventional means. They did beat a Reaper by conventional means. Repeatedly throughout ME3 they defeat Reapers by conventional means. Alliance Destroyers and Turian flagships are able to destroy Sovereign class ships in full on engagements. Yet Hackett always states, the Crucible is our only hope, we cannot beat them conventionally. The evidence he is wrong is there. It is an extremely difficult task, but it is not an insurmountable one. You need to actively ignore evidence to claim the Crucible is the only way. I do believe it could be "a way", but when the collective genius of the greatest minds of this cycle construct, study and theorize over the Crucible and they cannot tell you what it will do, that is by no means "the only way". It is not even a guaranteed "way". The probability of failure on either a cataclysmic or minute scale is just as prevalent as success.
In regards to the Normandy. I won't even argue this, at the current time I cannot remember which Admiral is stated was going to use the Normandy as a flagship, so there is no pointin arguing it. Admirals abound, it could be anyone. It is very late, I hope I answered your questions.
Edit 9 I believe:
LadyWench wrote...
Do you remember the codex on Cerberus from ME2?
"Immediately following the First Contact War, an anonymous extranet manifesto warned that an alien attempt at human genocide was inevitable. The manifesto called for an army - a Cerberus to guard against invasion through the Charon relay.
Derided
as "survivalist rhetoric written by an illusive man", the manifesto and
its anonymous author soon fell off the media radar. But in 2165,
terrorists stole antimatter from the SSV Geneva, the sole figure
arrested named his sponsor "Cerberus". Throughout the 2160s and 2170s,
alleged Cerberus agents assassinated politicians, sabotaged starships
bearing eezo, and conducted nightmarish experiments on aliens and
humans. Denounced as human-supremacist, Cerberus calls itself
human-survivalist.
Counterterror experts speculate Cerberus may
have changed leadership with its recent shift to stockpiling ships,
agents, and weapons. Whether "he", "she", or "they", the Illusive Man hides his finances behind shell companies. Few doubt he will kill anyone attempting to expose him."
They
have never, ever proven that the 'Illusive Man' was a single person or,
at the very least, worked alone. We ASSUMED that because Jack Harper
has been his face through the games and, as far as Shepard and crew
knew, was calling the shots. EDI and Miranda make it clear that Cerberus
is specifically set up to have three different divisions, with
operating cells unique to each that are designed to be unaware of the
other cells' activities or members.
[Edited for formatting.]
MT revolves around the fact that Shepard, indoctrinated or not, is being manipulated by Hackett. The purpose specifically does not have to be the goals of the Reapers, so I feel that arguments raised for the theory of a 3 branched Cerberus being speared by 3 chairman still deserves attention for its merit. Remember people they want us to speculate...and purchase DLC...but let's stick to speculating at the moment...
Edit 10: Issues with accepting errors in logic...
JustinElenbaas wrote...
Namorax wrote...
They didn’t sound prepared. They WEREN'T prepared.
If they were, why would they put Shepard in a Room with a Console linked to the Security Mechs next Door?
That’s like trapping him in a room and hiding the key for the door under a mat. INSIDE the room with your prisoner...
If that can’t be called screw-up, then I don’t know... Stupidity maybe? Indoctrination taking its toll?[/color]
The indoctrinated servants in Arrival were prepared for Shepard. They were just not expectant.
You
ask, if they were why would they put Shepard in a room with a console linked to the security mech next door? Very simple, subtle suggestion by Harbinger and or Object Rho. Now bear with me while I explain.
I have difficulty understanding how proprietors of MT criticism just accept blatant ignorance or incompetence on the part of enemies/characters without questioning it. I agree, placing Shepard in that room could be folly, but that's not the true blunder. The true blunder is allowing a previously comatose prisoner to awaken just before the arrival of said indoctrinated agents' intergalactic overlords. This is a gross example of incompetence on the part of highly trained, brilliant Alliance scientists that is seemingly in direct opposition of their Reaper masters' plans. Why would they not put Shepard into an induced coma and leave him/her in that state while the Reapers decimate
the galaxy? Because time and again Sovereign sees Shepard's usefulness, Harbinger comments on Shepard’s usefulness. Over and over again the Reapers show they have every intention of using Shepard.
Yet you and others just accepted this abnormal logic as stupidity on the part of indoctrinated servants. I propose that it is not in opposition, but in correlation with the plans of the Reapers. Shepard is their tool, once they have their hooks in Shepard all the remaining servants on Project Base become obsolete and irrelevant, having been successful in their purpose. Shepard however needs to continue to believe he/she is working in opposition of the Reapers, so this grand scheme is not relayed to the indoctrinated servants, so that their reactions towards
Shepard will be genuine and convincing.
How convenient for Shepard that he/she awoke with just enough time to stop the immediate Arrival of the Reapers, which in ME3 we are shown is a meaningless and pointless victory as it did not impede the Reapers one iota. They steam roll the Alliance, as you've so poignantly pointed out, regardless of Shepard's hollow victory on Project Base. This is because they are plotting further and beyond what organics can comprehend. Harbinger
repeatedly downplays Shepard’s victories, including the defeat of the human Reaper and the Collectors as insignificant in the long run. This is not mere hubris, this is Harbinger giving insight into Reaper intellect. Their plans are beyond one avenue, i.e. the Collectors or the Human Reaper. In the grand scheme such losses do not affect their final goal. However these victories are very important to Shepard and other, "lesser" life forms. They are all together meaningless. Yet many people as players take everything you are presented at face value.
Mike Gamble and other BSN mods have cautioned against taking everything we as players are presented at face value. Face the facts for once. Instead of blindly accepting resounding failures in logic and behavior of villains, understand that Shepard is being played. Bioware spells it out over and over that the Reapers are
beyond even the understanding of the Geth consensus. Their plots and schemes and logic therefore is beyond the understanding of our limited minds, our mortal understanding.
I cannot understand this general acceptance of ignorance and incompetence on the part of highly skilled and intelligent characters, such as Kenson or Hackett. These vagrancies in behavior that raise immediate questions because they go against our understanding of logic and our belief that characters in such vaulted positions should not make such errors in logic.
An example of this failure in logic is the Reaper on Rannoch. After defeating it Shepard literally stands in point blank range of its death beam laser eye...the weapon it was repeatedly firing at Shepard merely moments before, yet the Reaper does not attempt to fire on Shepard again, instead choosing to take its final moments to speak to Shepard. Many people have raised this point in passing with offhanded comments like, "oh yeah that's smart, talk to the death beam eye Shepard." In half joking tones. Yet this is a major failure in the logic of an antagonist, directly opposed to the protagonist who has repeatedly been the most successful opponent to their plans/goals. This cannot be explained logically...unless you take a moment to consider that the antagonist does not wish to truly impede the protagonist. There is no reason to believe the laser eye has been disabled, and it would have to be argued by either citing cliché villain tactics, gloating about the futility in protagonist's victories, or in acceptance of nonsensical logic of Reaper stupidity...
The Reaper Destroyer that fires on the two escaping shuttles during the Normandy's escape from Earth displays two very alarming disparities with the actions of the Rannoch Reaper Destroyer: the laser beam eye is capable of quick charge, high powered and devastatingly accurate quick fired laser blasts. The Rannoch Reaper has to utilize slow charging, continuous beams that are fired in a straight, unwavering line, instead of just hammering Shepard to death with a constant barrage of high powered, devastating blasts. Both the Tuchanka Destroyer and the Earth Destroyer display this characteristic in firing pattern...yet the Rannoch Reaper is incapable of firing on Shepard this way. I propose that this is INTENTIONAL. It is all for show, to placate Shepard.
In opposition to the argument that it may have been indoctrination deterioration I raise the points that A) it has only been two days. Neither Kenson or any of her subservients are showing the telltale physical or mental signs of long term indoctrination effects.Kenson is likely by far deepest in the indoctrination and her sentience is still intact. Even to the point that her service to the Reapers still seems to her to be driven by personal desire, and not abject servitude, as evidenced by her remorse for not being able to witness the arrival of the Reapers.
I admit MT is still just a theory, but I challenge anyone to actually apply logic to some of these decisions instead of
passing them off as villain stupidity, and see that the way these behaviors are explained is because they actually do not intend/want to stop Shepard.
Smudboy's bookend of destruction 4
Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 27 avril 2012 - 12:32 .
Retour en haut
