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
Modifié par lookingglassmind, 11 avril 2012 - 01:29 .
jumpingkaede wrote...
JustinElenbaas wrote...
jumpingkaede wrote...
This makes a lot of sense.
Including why Hackett sent Shepard on all those meaningless quests in ME1 when Shepard needed to be stopping Saren.
"Shepard... can you fly to this remote moon and talk to this minor criminal warlord for us? We don't think our ALLIANCE NEGOTIATORS can handle it."
Huh, very good point. That actually makes a good deal of sense. I hadn't thought back that far. Delaying/stalling tactics on Hackett's part.
It may make sense, but it still has points that can be refuted. I would have to do a complete run through of Me1-3 to fully formulate this theory, which I do not have the time to do. I encourage people to add to it, or detract from it as they see fit. If people can find holes in it, or ways to debunk it, I would love to hear it and would actively debate and acknowledge sound arguments. Remember this is all speculation. Bioware are the only ones who know.
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.
JustinElenbaas wrote...
jumpingkaede wrote...
JustinElenbaas wrote...
jumpingkaede wrote...
This makes a lot of sense.
Including why Hackett sent Shepard on all those meaningless quests in ME1 when Shepard needed to be stopping Saren.
"Shepard... can you fly to this remote moon and talk to this minor criminal warlord for us? We don't think our ALLIANCE NEGOTIATORS can handle it."
Huh, very good point. That actually makes a good deal of sense. I hadn't thought back that far. Delaying/stalling tactics on Hackett's part.
It may make sense, but it still has points that can be refuted. I would have to do a complete run through of Me1-3 to fully formulate this theory, which I do not have the time to do. I encourage people to add to it, or detract from it as they see fit. If people can find holes in it, or ways to debunk it, I would love to hear it and would actively debate and acknowledge sound arguments. Remember this is all speculation. Bioware are the only ones who know.
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.
More fuel to the fire and all very valid points. Mind if I toss them up into the theory?
JesseLee202 wrote...
I respectfully disagree with this theory. Pretty interesting idea though...
The last sentence is kinda confusing... But it would kind of be the smartest decision to do. Divide the races and have them fight each other, (Batarian/Humans, restart the Krogan/Salarian, maybe start a Turian/Asari war (totally possible, and can see tension rising between the two)) Afterwards, the Reapers can just clean up the mess and start all over again. If even one war started between two main species, there is no way anyone could win regardless.JustinElenbaas wrote...
King Gigglez wrote...
JustinElenbaas wrote...
King Gigglez wrote...
True, True... but then again, why not have the rest of the galaxy know? Set up a scapegoat and all of the little unusual things will go unnoticed. But, anyway back to the point.... Hackett being Indoctronated would... be... smart, it won't fix all of my anger with the ending (Haestrom and so much more left unresolved) but, at least you can make sense of the endings with it ... I do want to replay ME3 though with this in mind...
Because MT assumes Hackett is indoctrinated and that the Reapers can be defeated conventionally. The Reapers do set up scapegoats, Collectors in ME2 and Cerberus in ME3 as their goals shift and change. Hackett is the biggest proprietor that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally, though their battle tactics from previous cycles stresses this is not the case. Hackett repeatedly stresses that they cannot be defeated conventionally, then directs you to gather all the forces to lead an assault on a small contingent of Reapers in the grand scheme of the galaxy. Just look at the galaxy map just before the finaly push. They are literally in every system.
Btw when you do please feel free to inform me of anything that; refutes or supports this theory. I am curious to see.
By Scapegoats I mean as someone in charge of the military who does something purposely bad to draw attention, imagine if a 'rogue' general initiated a war on another species... or accidentely sabatoged a mission or something... An internal scapegoat inside of the military outside of the actual enemies. While the majority of the military is focused on the one, another can seemingly get away with any small deeds... (if useful at all) and I won't be able to start another play through if I can get myself to play it until Thursday... whenever I want to start a playthrough... flashes of the ending pop in my head
Ah I get that now. That would be a sound strategy, it would lean on the notion the Reapers' goal is to cripple the unified fleet, which they do in some ways, the cloned rachni queen being the easiest to note. But if the bigger picture is dividing/isolating the systems while crippling the largest force ever assembled against them it might be lacking is scale.
JustinElenbaas wrote...
Ytook wrote...
Snip.
By no means am I disputing the IT. I actually think IT and MT work well together, and I wholeheartedly feel people should speculate for themselves and decide what does or does not make sense. Remember these are theories. Some of them are sound and some are not.
jumpingkaede wrote...
JustinElenbaas wrote...
jumpingkaede wrote...
JustinElenbaas wrote...
jumpingkaede wrote...
This makes a lot of sense.
Including why Hackett sent Shepard on all those meaningless quests in ME1 when Shepard needed to be stopping Saren.
"Shepard... can you fly to this remote moon and talk to this minor criminal warlord for us? We don't think our ALLIANCE NEGOTIATORS can handle it."
Huh, very good point. That actually makes a good deal of sense. I hadn't thought back that far. Delaying/stalling tactics on Hackett's part.
It may make sense, but it still has points that can be refuted. I would have to do a complete run through of Me1-3 to fully formulate this theory, which I do not have the time to do. I encourage people to add to it, or detract from it as they see fit. If people can find holes in it, or ways to debunk it, I would love to hear it and would actively debate and acknowledge sound arguments. Remember this is all speculation. Bioware are the only ones who know.
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.
More fuel to the fire and all very valid points. Mind if I toss them up into the theory?
Sure! I wrote them stream of consciousness though so if you want to editorialize them a bit, I would not be offended.
Peer review is critical to the effective communication of a written idea.
King Gigglez wrote...
The last sentence is kinda confusing... But it would kind of be the smartest decision to do. Divide the races and have them fight each other, (Batarian/Humans, restart the Krogan/Salarian, maybe start a Turian/Asari war (totally possible, and can see tension rising between the two)) Afterwards, the Reapers can just clean up the mess and start all over again. If even one war started between two main species, there is no way anyone could win regardless.
Ytook wrote...
JustinElenbaas wrote...
Ytook wrote...
Snip.
By no means am I disputing the IT. I actually think IT and MT work well together, and I wholeheartedly feel people should speculate for themselves and decide what does or does not make sense. Remember these are theories. Some of them are sound and some are not.
I was trying to say that they both work together well, sorry if that didn't come across =).
The only problem I have with the OP is the idea that the lower the EMS the better. They wouldn't make system which rewards you for doing less in second playthroughs and makes purchasing DLC and playing multiplayer a bad idea if you want to defeat the reapers.
(Though giving the ending they did put on the game it would seem Bioware are fans of shooting themselves in the foot again and again...)
N7Infernox wrote...
Revision: I agree with the theory right up until the part where you say that Hackett in indoctrinated in ME1. That wouldn't make much sense to me.
lookingglassmind wrote...
Hello, everyone!
I represent a website created by the original contributors of the Indoctrination Theory (Byne, lookingglassmind, BlackDragonBane) on the BSN. Called Theorycrafting HUB, it is a site purely dedicated to theory and philosophy in gaming and other story-telling mediums. As such, I feel as though this thread, focusing on the potential for indcotrination in Hackett, perfectly expemplifies the focus of our site.
http://w11.zetaboard.../forum/3225589/
We created the website in order to act as a more intellectual, leisurely, slow-paced mirror to the BSN -- we saw that many quality posts and threads were being buried due to the heavy traffic load of the BSN.
We are looking for intelligent, controversial opinions -- that are willing to explore concepts and theory -- to contribute to our growing community. Many of the posters that have responded to this thread and to the OP himself/herself exactly represent the type of individuals we are hoping to include in our celebration of gaming theory!
From the team at Theorycrafting HUB: we sincerely hope that you will consider our invitation to join our community, and add all of your excellent thoughts to the information already gathered there. Bring your brilliance to help Theorycrafting HUB grow and become established in the gaming community!
Sincerely,
lookingglassmind
N7Infernox wrote...
Revision: I agree with the theory right up until the part where you say that Hackett in indoctrinated in ME1. That wouldn't make much sense to me.
JustinElenbaas wrote...
N7Infernox wrote...
Revision:
I agree with the theory right up until the part where you say that
Hackett in indoctrinated in ME1. That wouldn't make much sense to
me.
Did I state that? I apologize if I did. I agreed
with some points that some of Hackett's choices might be questionable in
ME1, however it has been so long since I've played ME1 that I could by
no means state for certain that Hackett is indoctrinated in it. In fact
him leading the Alliance Fleet against Sovereign would directly dispute
that ascertion.
Modifié par jumpingkaede, 11 avril 2012 - 01:43 .
JustinElenbaas wrote...
King Gigglez wrote...
The last sentence is kinda confusing... But it would kind of be the smartest decision to do. Divide the races and have them fight each other, (Batarian/Humans, restart the Krogan/Salarian, maybe start a Turian/Asari war (totally possible, and can see tension rising between the two)) Afterwards, the Reapers can just clean up the mess and start all over again. If even one war started between two main species, there is no way anyone could win regardless.
That is a very sound strategy. I cannot disagree lol.
The Anti-Saint wrote...
Would have been a very nice twist if Hackett was indeed indoc'd; Harbingers #1 puppet. They could have done a lot with that...with enough time to flesh it out. The way the current ending turned out, it might have made things worse if they mucked up the attempt.
JustinElenbaas wrote...
which no Reapers attempted to attack even after it was attached to the Citadel.
Jamie9 wrote...
Hackett:
"Shepard... sustained heavy losses... forces overwhelming... there's no way we can defeat them conventionally... been researching the Prothean archives with... Dr. T'Soni... found a way to stop the Reapers... only way to stop them... contact soon, Hackett out."
Message just after escaping Earth. If we look at this from the point of view of Indoctrinated Hackett: He very clearly states, twice, that the Reapers can only be beaten with the Crucible, not conventionally.
Also, Liara was the Shadow Broker. Until Cerberus attacked her base. Then Liara joined with the Alliance, and went to Mars to uncover the Crucible plans. Isn't it interesting that Cerberus causes Liara to uncover the Crucible?
pistolols wrote...
JustinElenbaas wrote...
which no Reapers attempted to attack even after it was attached to the Citadel.
As someone already pointed out, major problem with the theory: the reapers destroy the crucible if you take to long to choose at the end and you get a critical mission failure screen.
The theory mentions 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.D.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.
Modifié par N7Infernox, 11 avril 2012 - 01:55 .
Retour en haut