278 réponses à ce sujet

[LordRaptor]

miraclemight wrote...

Not sure if this has been discussed, but the thing that caught my attention a lot in the opening cinematic was Anderson's "Why haven't we heard from Admiral Hackett?"

Why indeed?

It is brought up in the theory.  Many critics of MT state that Hackett's entire fleet and the Arcturus station all had their comms blocked by the Reaper fleet at the outset of the invasion.  I find it difficult to believe that the Reapers could instantaneously block all communications to Earth without inside help.  During Priority: Earth the unified fleets are able to maintain communication with each other.  If the Reapers were capable of mass scale comm blocking it would stand to reason that during Priority: Earth they would have.

The Milky Waver wrote...

I find this theory extremly
interesting, but it kind of pisses me off because, if Bioware decides to
go with this theory, all of my hard work gathering thousands of EMS
throughout the game was all for nothing, and I just doomed everyone. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/pouty.png[/smilie]

Do not despair entirely.  It stands to reason that the Reapers had to accept some chance in their gamble, and that the High EMS destroy choice shows that they were not completely successful in their actions, evident by Shepard's survival.

Nyila wrote...

Interesting topic! I never saw Admiral Hackett this way..

I
have wondered before how Admiral Hackett got his hands on Shepard's dog
tags in ME2, in the Shadow Broker DLC, Liara says he gave them to her,
but shouldn't they have been on Shepard's body?

Hmm I do not recall this, that is an interesting point.  Hackett does seem awful friendly with Liara, an illicit information broker as well.  Curious how a prestigious Alliance Admiral would accept such company.

davishepard wrote...

Hackett is not indocrinated.

The
name Cerberus relates to the Charon relay, and the need to have a
"Cerberus" to guard humanity from the aliens beyond it, not to three
persons ruling the organization.

Shepard is not being manipulated. He is doing what he think is right (ME2) and following his duty (ME3).

I understand the Greek reference in both titles, but I  do not see how they relate.  Could you enlighten me further on this?  MT points to how Shepard is guided by others (manipulated) along doing excatly what he/she feels is right, and how that fits into the scheme of the Reapers.  Shepard is the most influential individual in 50k years.  Shepard is the perfect Reaper tool, especially if serving them unwittingly by doing what he/she believes is right.

Humakt83 wrote...

Have you considered that this theory and IT are not necessarily opposite or exclude each other?

Absolutely.  MT and IT are not mutually exclusive and MT can work on the belief that Shepard is indoctrinated.  It is also able to function without Shepard's indoctrination as well.

ProtoProthean wrote...

This is very interesting and
plausible. Especially regarding the Crucible. It's just so nonsensical
to believe the Prothean VI who says its blueprints have been passed
along millions of years and repeatedly improved upon, while the Reapers
never did anything to prevent this from happening. It's clear to me that
the Crucible must be a Reaper "Plan-B" device.

One thing
though... I apologise if it's been already covered, since I only read
the first post, but I've got a problem with the three-headed Cerberus
theory mentioned in the last part of the original post.

If that
was likely to be the case, why does the Shadow Broker (pre-Liara) did
not have any information about it? Is the organisation so secret that it
has managed to hide this huge fact for years?

The segment regarding the 3 factions of Cerberus is the opinion of another, that seemed plausible and was edited into the post to provide for more insightful speculation.  It stated that all three sections of Cerberus operate exclusive from one another. The other two may work without title or claim to Cerberus.  The reason this segment was included is because it lends more to the opinion that Hackett may not be operating as on the level as previously assumed.

[phantomdasilva]

ok this whole indoctrination/manipulation theory reminds me of this comic
http://kuroseishin.d...t.com/#/d4v8glt

Harbinger is one big troll pulling the strings of everyone

By the way nice read.and I enjoy it even if I don't really accept it from bioware intention (I'm not that cynical to believe that bioware would deliberately make a game that supposed to be the resolution of the series incomplete with the real ending released months later).

However the way I see it, the game ending is broken and has plot holes (which by definition is gaps in narrative). All these theories are great in filling out the gaps in narrative and doing the job that the writers of the game should have done in the first place. It just shows that the fans care and put more professional pride in the narrative cohesion of the game then the real writers do.

I actually find this more cohesive than the indoctrination theory because it partly explained about the strange idea of putting resources on the crucible and not just focus on the ending.

[Ultra Prism]

standing around in decision place gets the Crucible destroyed ... lol so the theory fails to this point that you mentioned

[LordRaptor]

phantomdasilva wrote...

ok this whole indoctrination/manipulation theory reminds me of this comic
http://kuroseishin.d...t.com/#/d4v8glt

Harbinger is one big troll pulling the strings of everyone

By the way nice read.and I enjoy it even if I don't really accept it from bioware intention (I'm not that cynical to believe that bioware would deliberately make a game that supposed to be the resolution of the series incomplete with the real ending released months later).

However the way I see it, the game ending is broken and has plot holes (which by definition is gaps in narrative). All these theories are great in filling out the gaps in narrative and doing the job that the writers of the game should have done in the first place. It just shows that the fans care and put more professional pride in the narrative cohesion of the game then the real writers do.

I actually find this more cohesive than the indoctrination theory because it partly explained about the strange idea of putting resources on the crucible and not just focus on the ending.

I quite enjoy that strip as well, it lends humor to the dismal experience of the ending.  I appreciate the accolades and I fully support you in your belief that what we got is what we get, complete...and appreciate your understanding that for some (myself) that just isn't enough.  So as always we theorize and speculate and fall into the dirge that Bioware has created and Mac Walters desired.  I'm glad you found MT cohesive and tolerable lol.  I would not have proposed it as a theory if I thought it did not raise valid questions about what we "are not" shown.  
Though I love IT and would be fine if that were the case I always find it peculiar that to believe IT you would then have to assume the main plot of the game is based entirely around indoctrinating Shepard, as the reveal of IT would be to show that was the Reapers' plan the whole time.  However I try to attribute a grander scheme to the Reapers, imbue them with the sense of awe and majesty that we are constantly reminded of both in and out of game.  Their scope is eternal and infinite.  I do not believe their final goal is to indoctrinate Shepard, MT merely proposes IT as a means to an end.

Ultra Prism wrote...

standing around in decision place
gets the Crucible destroyed ... lol so the theory fails to this point
that you mentioned

Actually this has been addressed in the original post.  It's in there, you just have to look.

[Nimrodell]

OK, now I've seen everything on BSN... I just... I'm amazed lol.

[LordRaptor]

Nimrodell wrote...

OK, now I've seen everything on BSN... I just... I'm amazed lol.

I'm not certain if this is a bad thing or a good thing...

Amazement can be perplexing.

[LordRaptor]

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.

Will edit for formatting later.

[Wabajakka]

This theory does make some good points but... If I'm not mistaken Cerberus was founded by three people that were named in a ME book if I remember correctly, TIM being one of them. So Hackett being at the head is not possible I don't think.

Although, that does not disregard Hackett being apart of Cerberus, because Cerberus is split up into 3 different cells. I don't think it's specified what these cells are, but I'd assume they'd have to do with the military (Hackett), politics (Udina) and science (Miranda? or her dad?)... Just a thought.

I do have to disagree with some of the Crucible theories though. You can see why in my version of the IT, which I think is much more plausible than the IT itself, although it could still happen both ways.

Some of your theories still also coincide with my version of the IDT though. (it was no dream, but still indoctrination) Check it out. Tell me what you think. Maybe I could incorporate some of what you're saying in my theory, I think the community as a whole is really on to something here, we just need to collaborate with our ideas a bit. Feed back on my thread would be great. I think we could really figure this whole thing out.

Modifié par Orange Tee, 26 avril 2012 - 07:13 .

[LordRaptor]

Orange Tee wrote...

This theory does make some good points but... If I'm not mistaken Cerberus was founded by three people that were named in a ME book if I remember correctly, TIM being one of them. So Hackett being at the head is not possible I don't think.

Although, that does not disregard Hackett being apart of Cerberus, because Cerberus is split up into 3 different cells. I don't think it's specified what these cells are, but I'd assume they'd have to do with the military (Hackett), politics (Udina) and science (Miranda? or her dad?)... Just a thought.

I do have to disagree with some of the Crucible theories though. You can see why in my version of the IT, which I think is much more plausible than the IT itself, although it could still happen both ways.

Some of your theories still also coincide with my version of the IDT though. (it was no dream, but still indoctrination) Check it out. Tell me what you think. Maybe I could incorporate some of what you're saying in my theory, I think the community as a whole is really on to something here, we just need to collaborate with our ideas a bit. Feed back on my thread would be great. I think we could really figure this whole thing out.

I will certainly check it out and provide feedback.  :happy:

[Wabajakka]

Hey, just letting you know I've linked to your thread directly in my own thread in a new section to help support it. It's for explaining Hacketts role within my theory. Hope it's cool with you.

[LordRaptor]

Orange Tee wrote...

Hey, just letting you know I've linked to your thread directly in my own thread in a new section to help support it. It's for explaining Hacketts role within my theory. Hope it's cool with you.

Not a problem. I've been extremely busy, but I have read your thread and similar to your critique of MT, though I may not agree with everything I see some valid points you raise. 

[LordRaptor]

Bump

[Sabre120]

This is a very interesting and incredibly creative theory. However, while I will not rule out any possibilities at the moment (This comes second to my personal belief of indoctrination theory), I do believe this theory seems too creative. The indoctrination theory can be carefully picked out with a bit of analysis, especially with the lack of lore consistency in the final moments of the game, and because of its more obvious, yet still hidden role, it seems more plausible (In my opinion), whereas this feels like it is reading far too much into details which have not been actively detailed in the storyline, if you get what I mean? Nethertheless I look forward to the DLC in the Summer to see what theory, if any, is true.

[LadyWench]

Included this article link in my thread as well, thought maybe you'd like a copy here, too. The article was written in support of IT, but I see even more potential for MT, as it explains ways in which Coats was complicit in many of the activities you argue Hackett manipulated Shep towards, as well. I'm curious to see what you and other followers of this theory think!

Major Coats, like Hackett, is largely unknown outside his direct interactions with Shepard, though in this case it may well be better implied that he could have been exposed to Reaper indoc while fighting on Earth. He is also a suspect in many of the same ending quirks as Hackett, appearing to try and sway Shepard's fate while also influencing others, with perhaps similar goals in mind.

Some interesting observations from the link:
"...if the Reapers indoctrinate Shepard, they gain a huge weapon purely by having the spearhead of the Allied forces defeated and working for the enemy. Shepard is a symbol more than anything to the rest of the galaxy, and that is what the Reapers want."

"The whole point of ME3 is gathering an army to defend Earth because on its own it can't possibly survive--but it does. How could Earth possibly have lasted this long unless the Reapers never intended on fully taking it over until they got Shepard?"

"Coates [sic] gets on the radio and starts announcing that the troops have been "decimated" and that everyone is dead...that the assault has failed...it's only because of his info that they do make the retreat."

Modifié par LadyWench, 09 mai 2012 - 05:30 .

[C-Sec Officer]

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Hepatitis P wrote...

I Always thought he will point a Weapon at me with his Indoctrinated Soldiers as soon as he enters the Normandy

Would have been a good twist tho...i should get a Job as a Writer somewhere

Haha I was curious why he brought an entourage with him onto the ship of his most trusted subordinate.

Why did they have their weapons drawn? Were they expecting trouble aboard the ship?

[ames4u]

One thing I have to point out is the fact that the Crucible was definately something the Reapers or the damn Starchild cooked up and buried somewhere for later generations of organics to find. It's obvious from the way the prothean VI said that it was found by previous cycles and improved upon with each generation in the hopes of finally wiping out the Reapers though no one knows as to which cycle it orginated from.

I think it's more of a test to see if the organics could actually achieve a weapon capable of destroying the Reapers. Though really, I believe it was just a red herring or Bioware's lame attempts to justify their stupid as hell ending. And before anyone tries to get up in my face about my expressed opinion, let me make myself clear; in my eyes it was a slap-dash attempt at philosophical BS that came off extremely badly. End of.

As for the lack of other indoctrinated forces on the allies side-maybe, just maybe, it was another one of Bioware's screw up's? Ever think of that? I mean, they've made a multitude of them already, it's not a far stretch of the imagination that they just thought, 'aw screw it, just ignore that possibility, we got multiplayer to concentrate on. It's a need to know basis and the players dont need to know about that.' 


I will add however, that everything you've compiled here is both to the point and coherent. Most of it plausible, some of it I just can't bring myself to believe. Though the Hacket 3rd Cerberus head seems to fit damn well as during the DLC my first initial response was why the hell are you sending me to do this alone? Get your own people to do it. That or let me bring Kasumi and Thane. But it needs to be said that if something like this needs such a large amount of 'speculation' just to come to the conclusion of Ad-Hack being indoctrinated, then something is seriously wrong here. Can't wait to see the fans reaction to the extended ended DLC whenever it's available though. Wherever it may lead. 

Modifié par ames4u, 09 mai 2012 - 12:22 .

[dorktainian]

everyones indoctrinated....... even us.... curse you Bioware!!!!

[ames4u]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Say this was the case.

I figure Steve figured out what was going on, and grabbed a shuttle and picked up who he could and took them back to the Normandy. Anyway Joker disobeyed orders in the end. Remember the Normandy's drive core is way overpowered for the ship: it's the fastest ship in the Alliance. He must have floored it. If EDI appears, Steve found EDI's avatar. If EDI doesn't appear, EDI is still the Normandy's computer until emergency power runs out.

One thing that is ironic is that the galactic fleets all seem to be in better shape if you did less to recruit all those smaller fleets. The volus bomber fleet is hiding out. The elcor fleet is hiding out. The Hanar and Drell fleet is hiding out. The remnants of the Batarians are still hiding out. Then there's the merc fleets. And the Salarians are okay if you screw them over. The Asari still have part of their fleet left in another system without a relay.

The Turians, Quarians/Geth, and Alliance are f***ed anyway.

And how many of you get calls from Rachel @ cardholder services?

I like your theory as an explanation of the Runaway tactic-although, for some bewildering reason, I wound up with what looked to be a BL end with Kaidan (who was with my femshep at the final push) and Javik standing side by side with Joker. 
 
I got the Normal Destruction end by the way seeing as getting the +end without multiplayer is impossible. Needless to say, I cried with laughter for a minute or two-then lamanted all the wasted hours of effort.

[LadyWench]

ames4u wrote...

One thing I have to point out is the fact that the Crucible was definately something the Reapers or the damn Starchild cooked up and buried somewhere for later generations of organics to find. It's obvious from the way the prothean VI said that it was found by previous cycles and improved upon with each generation in the hopes of finally wiping out the Reapers though no one knows as to which cycle it orginated from.

I think it's more of a test to see if the organics could actually achieve a weapon capable of destroying the Reapers.

I approve this message! :happy: I was also wondering at different points throughout the game when (not if, at that point) this was going to go horribly wrong or the big twist was going to be revealed. You're right--if taken at face value, it seems ludicris that 1.) everyone in the galaxy would just say, sure, we don't know what it is or does, but let's build it anyway and 2.) at no point was anyone like "Just to be clear...we're SURE these AREN'T Reaper blueprints, right? Right!?"

Where our opinions seem to diverge is your test suggestion, though it's pretty interesting, too. IF the ending choices had been different, I would have said that that's what the writers were aiming for. But, alas, Catalyst was not all, "Congrats, we thought all organic life were wads, but you are the smartestest and we therefore see there is no longer any need for us to hang around genocidin' it up, here's our self-destruct button. You win!" (oversimplified, but you get the gist).

Anyway, I digress. Long story short, I agree that the Crucible has Reaper-origins written all over it and that I really, really, REALLY hope the DLC will show that a lot of things in the conclusion are NOT to be taken literally or as the honest truth.

[LordRaptor]

Sabre120 wrote...

This is a very interesting and incredibly creative theory. However, while I will not rule out any possibilities at the moment (This comes second to my personal belief of indoctrination theory), I do believe this theory seems too creative. The indoctrination theory can be carefully picked out with a bit of analysis, especially with the lack of lore consistency in the final moments of the game, and because of its more obvious, yet still hidden role, it seems more plausible (In my opinion), whereas this feels like it is reading far too much into details which have not been actively detailed in the storyline, if you get what I mean? Nethertheless I look forward to the DLC in the Summer to see what theory, if any, is true.

Yes I get what you mean.  However I challenge that to some, myself included obviously, the hints dropped for Hackett's indoctrination are as glaringly obvious as those that are believed by IT fans.  I'm not discrediting the obvious hints of IT.  MT merely points out that there are blatant cues that something might not be right.  They are capable of being inclusive with eachother.  I encourage you to continue to speculate and try and unveil the truth behind all this ending nonsense.  I find it harder every day...

[LordRaptor]

LadyWench wrote...

Included this article link in my thread as well, thought maybe you'd like a copy here, too. The article was written in support of IT, but I see even more potential for MT, as it explains ways in which Coats was complicit in many of the activities you argue Hackett manipulated Shep towards, as well. I'm curious to see what you and other followers of this theory think!

Major Coats, like Hackett, is largely unknown outside his direct interactions with Shepard, though in this case it may well be better implied that he could have been exposed to Reaper indoc while fighting on Earth. He is also a suspect in many of the same ending quirks as Hackett, appearing to try and sway Shepard's fate while also influencing others, with perhaps similar goals in mind.

Some interesting observations from the link:
"...if the Reapers indoctrinate Shepard, they gain a huge weapon purely by having the spearhead of the Allied forces defeated and working for the enemy. Shepard is a symbol more than anything to the rest of the galaxy, and that is what the Reapers want."

"The whole point of ME3 is gathering an army to defend Earth because on its own it can't possibly survive--but it does. How could Earth possibly have lasted this long unless the Reapers never intended on fully taking it over until they got Shepard?"

"Coates [sic] gets on the radio and starts announcing that the troops have been "decimated" and that everyone is dead...that the assault has failed...it's only because of his info that they do make the retreat."

I read the article and in honesty never paid much attention to Coates' dialogue in the game...  I have a save just before Priority: Earth for my renshep male...but I am finding it difficult, if not impossible to motivate myself to play atm...  I suppose this will provide me with at least some motivation to put the disc back in.  I will do the end run and pay more attention to Coates' dialogue and tone.  This is interesting.  I have always felt the lack of indoctrinated key political and military figures to be curious, this might shed some more light.  I will update after I play.

[TheLostGenius]

lots of speculation here. Very impressed at your ability to make up stories that aren't really in the game. Fan fiction winner of the day!!!

[LordRaptor]

TheLostGenius wrote...

lots of speculation here. Very impressed at your ability to make up stories that aren't really in the game. Fan fiction winner of the day!!!

Lots of sarcasm here, which I can appreciate.  It's easy to pass something off at face value, that's a defense mechanism.  However referring to this as a fan fiction is incorrect.  MT does not provide a narrative or plot separate from evidence provided in game and it does not introduce new characters or scenes.  MT does not even introduce a new theme.  Indoctrination has been present since day one and is even detailed in the Codex.  I appreciate the levity you have provided, but productive feedback/critiques/criticisms are viewed as having actual value, the rest is just a quaint distraction.

Much obliged, you are appreciated.

Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 10 mai 2012 - 01:56 .

[TheLostGenius]

Quaint distraction? Your entire thread is a red herring. You did a good job of thinking real hard about what the codex entries COULD mean. Also Saren and Nihilus were both military and thats what the codex was referring too.

[LordRaptor]

TheLostGenius wrote...

Quaint distraction? Your entire thread is a red herring. You did a good job of thinking real hard about what the codex entries COULD mean. Also Saren and Nihilus were both military and thats what the codex was referring too.

The Crucible is a red herring yes.  Well thank you, I did do a good job weeding through hints in the game and attributing them to a theory.  Yes, Spectres are military, but that does not mean they are the ONLY military focus of the Reapers.  An Alliance Admiral who's ascent to Admiralty is legendary would be a highly suitable candidate, especially if that individual is the CO for the most influential figure in the entire galaxy for the past 50k years.

Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 10 mai 2012 - 06:35 .