278 réponses à ce sujet

[C-Sec Officer]

What a twist!

[liggy002]

JustinElenbaas wrote...


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.

The only thing I take issue with here is that the destroy ending effectively destroys the Reapers.  In the ending cutscene, we see the red shockwave from the crucible destroy the Reapers.  If the Reapers allow themselves to be destroyed, that isn't playing into their hands.  Shepard's indoctrination will always make more sense to me than the ending itself because the Red choice doesn't allow Shepard to destroy the Reaper's outright.  It only allows him to finish the fight.


I do agree with you, however, that Hackett's indoctrination was a possibility.  I had thought about this even before I read your post.  The statement "why haven't we heard from Hackett" and the fact that they made it point to suggest that it was always Hackett who suggested the crucible as a solution struck me as odd.

You're theory is interesting but if anything it doesn't discredit the indoctrination theory, it only reinforces it.

Modifié par liggy002, 10 avril 2012 - 10:42 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

I never considered this as a possibility. This would have been a convincing twist in the game- a good one, too. This is why I enjoy coming to BSN.

Yea same here, some great theories and video postings here that I would never have found

Well thank you.  I wish I could make a video like the Indoctrination Theory about this lol.  I believe it is just as plausible, if not moreso, but unfortunately I do not have the correct programs or tech savvy know how to do so lol.

I think you'd need a program like Sony Vegas or Presonus Studio One (I'm not sure if Artist version can handle video) and some ominous music to play in the background. I don't have the tech saavy to record game video since you'd need to show clips and then do commentary. A good mic and some vocal effects to give it that professional documentary quality for the tinfoil hat crowd would be perfect. I could do it if I could record the video from my 360 directly to PC.

[LordRaptor]

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?

Agreed on the part of the fleets being less decimated.  If you amass enormous EMS then the crucible explosion and the Mass Relay beam do not need to be as powerful to decimate the outlying fleets.  Remember the only ship we see get damaged by the Mass Relay beam is the Normandy.  And before that we see the Reapers flying away in the Control ending.

If there are less ships in the Sol System, meaning lower EMS, the Mass Relay Beam and Crucible explosion need to be strong, thus the destruction of Earth, and the obliteration of the Reapers even in the Sol System.  We however never see the outcome of the Mass Relay beam, we are left to assume.  The beam needed to be stronger so it caused more damage to the Citadel, the Relays and to the Reapers in the Sol system, acceptable losses to a Reaper Armada.  And why did Harbinger fly away?  Perhaps he left the Sol system...

[LordRaptor]

liggy002 wrote...

The only thing I take issue with here is that the destroy ending effectively destroys the Reapers.  In the ending cutscene, we see the red shockwave from the crucible destroy the Reapers.  If the Reapers allow themselves to be destroyed, that isn't playing into their hands.  Shepard's indoctrination will always make more sense to me than the ending itself because the Red choice doesn't allow Shepard to destroy the Reaper's outright.  It only allows him to finish the fight.


I do agree with you, however, that Hackett's indoctrination was a possibility.  I had thought about this even before I read your post.  The statement "why haven't we heard from Hackett" and the fact that they made it point to suggest that it was always Hackett who suggested the crucible as a solution struck me as odd.

You're theory is interesting but if anything it doesn't discredit the indoctrination theory, it only reinforces it.

There is an explanation to this.  Take into account how the Crucible is set off in the Destroy ending.  Shepard destroys part of the Citadel, likely a very important part in dissipating the effective strength of the Crucible explosion and Mass Relay beam.  This causes the explosion to be beyond the control of the Reapers, thus why the Catalyst downplays it so negatively, even though it still fulfills the Reapers purpose it would cause Reaper losses on Earth.  They are acceptable losses in the grand scheme, but the Catalyst would still attempt to avoid them, especially if Harbinger is still in the Sol system.

In neither Control or Synthesis does Shepard actually damage the Citadel controls, granting the Catalyst greater control of the resulting explosions.  Remember the Crucible explosion in Destroy and Synthesis ending are contained in the Sol System.  It is the Citadel beam that fires through the relays, a separate explosion.  I believe at low EMS the Catalyst has to accept necessary losses to charge a beam strong enough to damage ships in other systems effectively.  With the control ending the Crucible explosion is the only explosion, meaning the Catalyst has full control of the energy utilized in it.

Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 10 avril 2012 - 11:00 .

[kleindropper]

So the only way to win is by not finishing the game, which is what I'm doing until summer.

[Velocithon]

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

This is just further proof the ending sucks.

This theory is a stretch. but totally plausible because the ending is so incredibly vague and explains nothing. It's all 100% speculation. "We're going to do things that make no sense so you can come up with your own end"

I don't believe it's more of a stretch than the indoctrination theory.  I just don't have a nice video to summarize it.  I agree it is speculation, but I believe it also ties up the loose ends better than the indoctrination theory.  It would explain the apparent apathy the Reapers exhibit towards Shepard.  They absolutely need their new Saren.

No it isn't, but both are a stretch. It requires a lot of reading into small details to reach this conclusion.

I'm not saying I don't like this theory, it's actually not bad. It just further upsets me that the current ending is so bad and full of plotholes and etc etc, that this theory could actually work.

[LordRaptor]

kleindropper wrote...

So the only way to win is by not finishing the game, which is what I'm doing until summer.

Lol I would say no.  I still believe the high EMS Destroy option is the "golden" ending.  I think it leaves it open that Shepard can still fight.  I do believe Shepard is being indoctrinated at the end, but I do not believe it is the main purpose of the Reapers.  They merely want to guide him, by nurturing his own ideals.  It is a brilliant strategy.  Everything Shepard does is done with the best of intentions.  Basically everything leading up to the end is the Reapers setting up the Crucible explosion for you.  Either with Hackett's guidance or by placing a conveniently positioned Citadel on Earth with an access beam attached to it.  How very thoughtful of them.

[LordRaptor]

Velocithon wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

This is just further proof the ending sucks.

This theory is a stretch. but totally plausible because the ending is so incredibly vague and explains nothing. It's all 100% speculation. "We're going to do things that make no sense so you can come up with your own end"

I don't believe it's more of a stretch than the indoctrination theory.  I just don't have a nice video to summarize it.  I agree it is speculation, but I believe it also ties up the loose ends better than the indoctrination theory.  It would explain the apparent apathy the Reapers exhibit towards Shepard.  They absolutely need their new Saren.

No it isn't, but both are a stretch. It requires a lot of reading into small details to reach this conclusion.

I'm not saying I don't like this theory, it's actually not bad. It just further upsets me that the current ending is so bad and full of plotholes and etc etc, that this theory could actually work.

No argument from me on this.  I fully agree that Bioware should have wrapped up any speculation with a fulfilling ending.  I do not agree with leaving it open to interpretation.  However I think many of us feel an intrinsic need to make sense of this debacle. 

[Velocithon]

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

This is just further proof the ending sucks.

This theory is a stretch. but totally plausible because the ending is so incredibly vague and explains nothing. It's all 100% speculation. "We're going to do things that make no sense so you can come up with your own end"

I don't believe it's more of a stretch than the indoctrination theory.  I just don't have a nice video to summarize it.  I agree it is speculation, but I believe it also ties up the loose ends better than the indoctrination theory.  It would explain the apparent apathy the Reapers exhibit towards Shepard.  They absolutely need their new Saren.

No it isn't, but both are a stretch. It requires a lot of reading into small details to reach this conclusion.

I'm not saying I don't like this theory, it's actually not bad. It just further upsets me that the current ending is so bad and full of plotholes and etc etc, that this theory could actually work.

No argument from me on this.  I fully agree that Bioware should have wrapped up any speculation with a fulfilling ending.  I do not agree with leaving it open to interpretation.  However I think many of us feel an intrinsic need to make sense of this debacle. 

Of course. And you did a fine job as well! 

[LordRaptor]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

I never considered this as a possibility. This would have been a convincing twist in the game- a good one, too. This is why I enjoy coming to BSN.

Yea same here, some great theories and video postings here that I would never have found

Well thank you.  I wish I could make a video like the Indoctrination Theory about this lol.  I believe it is just as plausible, if not moreso, but unfortunately I do not have the correct programs or tech savvy know how to do so lol.

I think you'd need a program like Sony Vegas or Presonus Studio One (I'm not sure if Artist version can handle video) and some ominous music to play in the background. I don't have the tech saavy to record game video since you'd need to show clips and then do commentary. A good mic and some vocal effects to give it that professional documentary quality for the tinfoil hat crowd would be perfect. I could do it if I could record the video from my 360 directly to PC.

None of which I have...sigh...lol.  Perhaps I can commission Acayvos (sp?) to do another video on my theory lol.

[LadyWench]

Well, it's an interesting viewpoint, I will give you that. There WERE some corresponding points in ME2 and 3 that I wondered about, though it never occurred to me that Hackett being indoctrinated explained them (which it kinda does)!

If he were being dishonest about the Arrival situation or knew more about the situation than he let on, all the more reason to request that Shepard go alone under the pretense of a "favor." ME3 Hackett sends Shepard on that additional side quest to pick up some Reaper artifacts from Cerberus...presumably after the Reapers caught on to the experiments TIM and Lawson were conducting and tried to sabotage, which I feel lends even more credence to this idea. That might also explain why Hackett knows (indoc hive mind?) Shep made it to the Citadel even though the entire ground unit was believed to have been wiped out.

If Bioware was after speculation, they got it, and at least you have a refreshing new theory. Good observations!

[jmacrosoft]

Pretty awesome theory if you ask me. I really like to see everyone, even though it's through grasping at anything that MAKES sense, formulating theories. I like it. Then again, Twilight has a better ending then ME3 so....yeah.

[liggy002]

JustinElenbaas wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

The only thing I take issue with here is that the destroy ending effectively destroys the Reapers.  In the ending cutscene, we see the red shockwave from the crucible destroy the Reapers.  If the Reapers allow themselves to be destroyed, that isn't playing into their hands.  Shepard's indoctrination will always make more sense to me than the ending itself because the Red choice doesn't allow Shepard to destroy the Reaper's outright.  It only allows him to finish the fight.


I do agree with you, however, that Hackett's indoctrination was a possibility.  I had thought about this even before I read your post.  The statement "why haven't we heard from Hackett" and the fact that they made it point to suggest that it was always Hackett who suggested the crucible as a solution struck me as odd.

You're theory is interesting but if anything it doesn't discredit the indoctrination theory, it only reinforces it.

There is an explanation to this.  Take into account how the Crucible is set off in the Destroy ending.  Shepard destroys part of the Citadel, likely a very important part in dissipating the effective strength of the Crucible explosion and Mass Relay beam.  This causes the explosion to be beyond the control of the Reapers, thus why the Catalyst downplays it so negatively, even though it still fulfills the Reapers purpose it would cause Reaper losses on Earth.  They are acceptable losses in the grand scheme, but the Catalyst would still attempt to avoid them, especially if Harbinger is still in the Sol system.

In neither Control or Synthesis does Shepard actually damage the Citadel controls, granting the Catalyst greater control of the resulting explosions.  Remember the Crucible explosion in Destroy and Synthesis ending are contained in the Sol System.  It is the Citadel beam that fires through the relays, a separate explosion.  I believe at low EMS the Catalyst has to accept necessary losses to charge a beam strong enough to damage ships in other systems effectively.  With the control ending the Crucible explosion is the only explosion, meaning the Catalyst has full control of the energy utilized in it.

I suppose that could be an explanation but I would hate it if they got rid of Harbinger without a more concrete showdown.  It's also highly unlikely that Shepard would survive that explosion on the citadel unless he was on Earth to begin with.  Nothing beats the indoctrination theory when it comes to closing the plot holes; that's just my opinion on the matter.

I'm a proponent of the "Hackett was indoctrinated" theory combined with the indoctrination theory.  I also don't like the idea that the Reapers win in every scenario.  I suppose they could do that but I don't agree with it.  Other than that, those are some interesting points OP.

Modifié par liggy002, 10 avril 2012 - 11:16 .

[LordRaptor]

LadyWench wrote...

Well, it's an interesting viewpoint, I will give you that. There WERE some corresponding points in ME2 and 3 that I wondered about, though it never occurred to me that Hackett being indoctrinated explained them (which it kinda does)!

If he were being dishonest about the Arrival situation or knew more about the situation than he let on, all the more reason to request that Shepard go alone under the pretense of a "favor." ME3 Hackett sends Shepard on that additional side quest to pick up some Reaper artifacts from Cerberus...presumably after the Reapers caught on to the experiments TIM and Lawson were conducting and tried to sabotage, which I feel lends even more credence to this idea. That might also explain why Hackett knows (indoc hive mind?) Shep made it to the Citadel even though the entire ground unit was believed to have been wiped out.

If Bioware was after speculation, they got it, and at least you have a refreshing new theory. Good observations!

Absolutely!  And thus why he prompts Shepard to conveniently that the
Crucible isn't firing.  Something not a single Reaper opposes!  Not one!  Never once is the Crucible fired upon, attacked or even Shepard dissuaded by the Catalyst.  These seem to be coinciding goals to me.  And again you bring up other excellent points with the Reaper artifact missions.  Hackett is the absolute perfect pawn for the Reapers.  He is beyond questioning, he is revered even by the hero of the galaxy (Shepard).  Never once is he doubted.  

Edit: Format

Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 10 avril 2012 - 11:13 .

[LordRaptor]

liggy002 wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

The only thing I take issue with here is that the destroy ending effectively destroys the Reapers.  In the ending cutscene, we see the red shockwave from the crucible destroy the Reapers.  If the Reapers allow themselves to be destroyed, that isn't playing into their hands.  Shepard's indoctrination will always make more sense to me than the ending itself because the Red choice doesn't allow Shepard to destroy the Reaper's outright.  It only allows him to finish the fight.


I do agree with you, however, that Hackett's indoctrination was a possibility.  I had thought about this even before I read your post.  The statement "why haven't we heard from Hackett" and the fact that they made it point to suggest that it was always Hackett who suggested the crucible as a solution struck me as odd.

You're theory is interesting but if anything it doesn't discredit the indoctrination theory, it only reinforces it.

There is an explanation to this.  Take into account how the Crucible is set off in the Destroy ending.  Shepard destroys part of the Citadel, likely a very important part in dissipating the effective strength of the Crucible explosion and Mass Relay beam.  This causes the explosion to be beyond the control of the Reapers, thus why the Catalyst downplays it so negatively, even though it still fulfills the Reapers purpose it would cause Reaper losses on Earth.  They are acceptable losses in the grand scheme, but the Catalyst would still attempt to avoid them, especially if Harbinger is still in the Sol system.

In neither Control or Synthesis does Shepard actually damage the Citadel controls, granting the Catalyst greater control of the resulting explosions.  Remember the Crucible explosion in Destroy and Synthesis ending are contained in the Sol System.  It is the Citadel beam that fires through the relays, a separate explosion.  I believe at low EMS the Catalyst has to accept necessary losses to charge a beam strong enough to damage ships in other systems effectively.  With the control ending the Crucible explosion is the only explosion, meaning the Catalyst has full control of the energy utilized in it.

I suppose that could be an explanation but I would hate it if they got rid of Harbinger without a more concrete showdown.  It's also highly unlikely that Shepard would survive that explosion on the citadel unless he was on Earth to begin with.  Nothing beats the indoctrination theory when it comes to closing the plot holes; that's just my opinion on the matter.

This is why I speculate Sovereign actually flew away after decimating Hammer squad.  Wanting Shepard to reach the Citadel, but not wanting to chance the Destroy option deactivating it, Harbinger flees.  We never see it again.  The Destroy option is ALWAYS available, so Harbinger would always know there is a possibility if not inevitability.  As far as Shepard surviving the explosion, I agree that Shepard appears to be still in London, this is the only thing I think the Indoctrination Theory proves extremely well, but taking into account Bioware's own statements that "You should assume everyone important on the Citadel survived".  It could still be explained.

Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 10 avril 2012 - 11:20 .

[liggy002]

I'm not sure if you've noticed this either Justin, but there are some text entries in Liara's terminal- they point out in a roundabout way that even though the crucible is very complex to build that it seems to have been made somewhat easy for the technicians to build. I don't have any examples of this and the wording is very subtle, but it is in the game.

I'm probably reading too much into but I thought I saw some text that indicated that.  Review the codex entries on the Broker's terminal and see if you find any text like that.  I'll see if I can look it over myself and point out the text in question.

Modifié par liggy002, 10 avril 2012 - 11:23 .

[eddieoctane]

If Hackett was indoctrinated, does that mean the Reapers could have been defeated by conventional means?

[Cold_Breaker12]

Wow i think this theory is brilliant!!!!!

[LordRaptor]

liggy002 wrote...

I'm not sure if you've noticed this either Justin, but there are some text entries in Liara's terminal- they point out in a roundabout way that even though the crucible is very complex to build that it seems to have been made somewhat easy for the technicians to build. I don't have any examples of this and the wording is very subtle, but it is in the game.

Hmm, I have not checked that, but I certainly will.  I believe the hints are all supposed to be subtle and subversive.  I think we're supposed to question "hmm that's odd," but never delve further into that thought.  It's all just very convenient.  Thank you for the information.

[LadyWench]

liggy002 wrote...

I'm not sure if you've noticed this either Justin, but there are some text entries in Liara's terminal- they point out in a roundabout way that even though the crucible is very complex to build that it seems to have been made somewhat easy for the technicians to build. I don't have any examples of this and the wording is very subtle, but it is in the game.

Yes, I remember this, another good point!

We don't really know THAT much about Hackett's history, do we? Other non-game lore tends to follow TIM and Anderson, right? We never even see Hackett until Arrival, and in ME3 it's all through video chat, not too unlike most of Shep's communication with TIM...

EDIT: Afterthought. Also, if you have a Spacer Shep, the only info you get about Shep's mother surviving is thru Hackett. She talks to you in ME1, sends an email in ME2, but in ME3 she relays a vague, cliche "proud of you" message through Hackett only? Maybe she isn't really helping with the crucible, he was only telling Shep what he/she wants to hear for motivation...? Okay, maybe now I'M reaching, but I think you're right, so much of this theory is about "huh, weird" moments that all add up.

Modifié par LadyWench, 10 avril 2012 - 11:32 .

[LordRaptor]

eddieoctane wrote...

If Hackett was indoctrinated, does that mean the Reapers could have been defeated by conventional means?

Possibly.  I was actually just contemplating this.  Because the entire game Hackett states over and over without a doubt they cannot defeat the Reapers conventionally, yet charges you with organizing the strongest fleet in history to do just that.  I believe Hackett intended to draw the vast majority of the fleet into the Sol System and deactivate it and/or strand it, leaving the rest of the galaxy relatively unprotected.  It's brilliant.  With Shepard's leadership they would only need guide him and his desire to save Earth, completely lacking in strategic value, blinded the leaders of other species, whether Shepard was indoctrinated or not.  I absolutely believe Hackett is.

So yes I believe the Reapers can be beaten conventionally.  That is why their regular tactic is to cut off all the systems by controlling the Citadel and Mass Relays.  They need to divide and isolate the galactic fleets otherwise they are vulnerable.

[LordRaptor]

LadyWench wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

I'm not sure if you've noticed this either Justin, but there are some text entries in Liara's terminal- they point out in a roundabout way that even though the crucible is very complex to build that it seems to have been made somewhat easy for the technicians to build. I don't have any examples of this and the wording is very subtle, but it is in the game.

Yes, I remember this, another good point!

We don't really know THAT much about Hackett's history, do we? Other non-game lore tends to follow TIM and Anderson, right? We never even see Hackett until Arrival, and in ME3 it's all through video chat, not too unlike most of Shep's communication with TIM...

Agreed.  We are just lead to assume Hackett is trustworthy.  He is an anomoly.  His history is unknown.  I actually want to replay ME1 now to listen to him in that game and see if I get hints of him being indoctrinated that far back.  Regardless I have thought since I played Arrival that it was fishy and questioned if I was set up, but I quickly dismissed it because Hackett is presented to us without doubt.  All I can say is remember Bioshock.

[LordRaptor]

Cold_Breaker12 wrote...

Wow i think this theory is brilliant!!!!!

Spread the word then.  Give others hope through speculation, heh.  For the first time since I beat ME3 I actually feel somewhat alright about the ending.

[LordRaptor]

An English Gamer wrote...

In terms of how much I would enjoy this view of it... I would just go with the normal interpretation as this is even more depressing.

Perhaps, but allow me to present this perspective to you.  Bioware has stated time and again that ME3 is Shepard's end, but if this theory is correct an ME4 could be designed around discovering the plot of Hackett being a Reaper Mole and or stopping Shepard's foolish crusade.  This would leave it open to extra content set in or before ME3 as Bioware has alluded to and also allow us to affect what happens.  It's not concrete, but it is possible.  Perhaps the greatest hero the galaxy has ever known needs saving.  I would be up for that challenge.  Of course this is all speculation.