278 réponses à ce sujet

[Vorodill]

About Steve. If he gets killed, maybe the Normandy crashes and nobody comes out of it? He would be the one who get everyone on the Normandy before getting the hell out of there. We should verify.

[The Edge]

This is a neat theory!

All I can do is *facepalm* if the ending isn't as deep as this or the Indoc. Theory...

[LordRaptor]

Vorodill wrote...

About Steve. If he gets killed, maybe the Normandy crashes and nobody comes out of it? He would be the one who get everyone on the Normandy before getting the hell out of there. We should verify.

Interesting.  Is the Normandy door opening and then the cut away tied to the low EMS or is it tied to Steve's death.  agreed on the verificaiton.  I will begin a playthrough to see, if no one can already.

[LordRaptor]

The Edge wrote...

This is a neat theory!

All I can do is *facepalm* if the ending isn't as deep as this or the Indoc. Theory...

Thank you.

Let's still try to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt.  Remember these theories would not exist if they had not laid the groundwork...albeit shoddy groundwork.

Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 11 avril 2012 - 03:55 .

[huntsman2310]

I'm pretty sure Hackett hasn't been using any Reaper tech or even been near a Reaper.

Apart from the fleet battles he's been in, but that's stretching indoctrination a bit right?

[Vorodill]

We don't know anything about Hackett. You say you're pretty sure that he hasn't been around any Reaper tech. How can you know? You don't, and that's where the speculation starts.

Modifié par Vorodill, 11 avril 2012 - 04:34 .

[Hepzi3]

The only conclusion this thread brings me to is there really is no stopping the Reapers in any of the endings. So my false sense of bridge closure I got after reading some fanfiction (That kept the original ending but added dialogue) is now basically gone and in short i feel like a bad guy for picking Destroy.

[LordRaptor]

I will address the recent comments tomorrow and hopefully see lots more constructive debates/discussions. Keep the hope alive and believe what you must.

[LordRaptor]

Hepzi3 wrote...

The only conclusion this thread brings me to is there really is no stopping the Reapers in any of the endings. So my false sense of bridge closure I got after reading some fanfiction (That kept the original ending but added dialogue) is now basically gone and in short i feel like a bad guy for picking Destroy.

I've seen this as a common response to MT and I believe a very rational one. I do believe MT is bleak, but I believe BW provided hope in the "golden" high EMS Destroy ending.  The Reapers are required to accept some level of risk to achieve their final goal, High EMS Contol. And with the golden ending BW left it open that perhaps the Reapers' plans did not pan out as they fully intended. I am at work. I hope to address this more later. 

[ZajoE38]

Indoctrinated Hackett - less drugs please, because you are loosing bond with reality. You start to believe in your own illusions. You will aways find some weak justification for your assumptions. You would likely start to believe everything. Even that everyone in the game was indoctrinated. Or that Space hamster was indoctrinated spy. Do you know that Mark Meer voiced vorcha? So the Shepard is vorcha! This is ridiculous.

[LordRaptor]

ZajoE38 wrote...

Indoctrinated Hackett - less drugs please, because you are loosing bond with reality. You start to believe in your own illusions. You will aways find some weak justification for your assumptions. You would likely start to believe everything. Even that everyone in the game was indoctrinated. Or that Space hamster was indoctrinated spy. Do you know that Mark Meer voiced vorcha? So the Shepard is vorcha! This is ridiculous.

Thank you for your criticism. Could you please elaborate on what points in MT are ridiculous? Help debunk it if you can. Let's work at this. I'm excited to see your reply. 

[Vorodill]

Depending if you saved or destroyed the Collector's base in ME2, and if have low EMS in ME3, then only one choice is offered to you : Control option (if you kept the base) and Destroy option (if you destroyed the base). That's how it is supposed to be anyway.

Why is that?

Modifié par Vorodill, 11 avril 2012 - 04:26 .

[KrazyKiko]

Interesting theory - most definitely. As much as I want to think BioW_EA_r has a trick up their sleeve, I doubt their writers had anything like the IT or your MT in their outline when writing the series. Color me happy if I were wrong!

It sure sounds like these "Theory" authors need a job....@ BioW_EA_r ... fixing the incoherent ending.

[AHadley23]

KrazyKiko wrote...

Interesting theory - most definitely. As much as I want to think BioW_EA_r has a trick up their sleeve, I doubt their writers had anything like the IT or your MT in their outline when writing the series. Color me happy if I were wrong!

It sure sounds like these "Theory" authors need a job....@ BioW_EA_r ... fixing the incoherent ending.

Most sources we have state that indoctrination was, at the very least, on the cards at various points during development.

[AnuzaGray]

While an interesting theory this is really stretching it and lacks the in game support that IT has...

[C-Sec Officer]

is it just me or does Hackett and the Star Brat look alike?...

[LordRaptor]

AnuzaGray wrote...

While an interesting theory this is really stretching it and lacks the in game support that IT has...

It's actually supported just AT LEAST as much as IT.  My only draw back is I do not have a flashy video to spell it out.  I have to rely on text based points.

[LordRaptor]

Vorodill wrote...

Depending if you saved or destroyed the Collector's base in ME2, and if have low EMS in ME3, then only one choice is offered to you : Control option (if you kept the base) and Destroy option (if you destroyed the base). That's how it is supposed to be anyway.

Why is that?

I really need to edit the layout of my original post.  I did address this point in it, though it's at the very bottom.

The low EMS effect only allowing for Destroy can be attributed to several things:

1) The Crucible is not nearly as complete with low EMS allowing for either less energy output or less command functions for the Catalyst.  This would only allow for a "flawed" explosion. 

2) As the high EMS control option shows the Reapers still controlling and closing the Citadel arms and numerous unharmed Reaper ships flying away from Earth while the unified fleet floats stagnant in space this is likely the "Reapers win" option.  This is only reachable by high EMS and a fully functional and controllable Crucible.

3) The Destroy option is always more catostrophic than either synthesis or control.  This can be attributed to the fact it is the only ending where Shepard actually damages a part of the Citadel, effectively hampering the controls or perhaps regulators of the explosion.

4) With low EMS, therefore an incomplete Crucible and only being able to activate the explosion by destroying a part of the Crucible that could regulate the blast you end up with a fully powered explosion that is untempered and destroys everything.  The Catalyst cannot control it and must accept the necessary losses that come with it, in order to, as Mike Gamble said, "disable" the Relays.

A high EMS basically brings about the full brunt of the Reapers' gamble.  They need a fully constructed Crucible to regain control of the Citadel and thus the Relays, but in doing so they need to allow for the unified galactic fleet to amass against them, and TIM to keep scheming and trying to control them.  This is a precarious gamble on the part of the Reapers, but the benefit outweighs the risks.  The Catalyst acknowledges that Shepards actions however have created new alternatives to the cycles.  The Catalyst clarifies "I can't and I won't" in referencing to chaning the current cycles.  The "I can't and I won't" refers to its inability to control the Citadel.  But Shepard has invariably created options that were not expected or intended, i.e. Synthesis, an alternative not previously planned for by the Catalyst.

Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 12 avril 2012 - 12:27 .

[LordRaptor]

C-Sec Officer wrote...

is it just me or does Hackett and the Star Brat look alike?...

Days of our lives soap opera side story here?!  Lol umm...I...don't...know...if they do...

Post comparison photos?

[Fail_Inc]

GBGriffin wrote...

With some clever speculation, you get the following:

Mac Walters = Mac "Hack" Walters

Admiral Steven "Hack"ett.

"Hack" = "Hack"

You also can't spell "Steven Hackett" without the 's', 'a', 'c', 'e', and the one 't' from Mac Walters (possibly other letters too!)

*edit* AND THE MOST OBVIOUS PIECE OF EVIDENCE! THE "L"!!!

Color me convinced!

*grabs his tinfoil hat*

Teach me master!

[LordRaptor]

KrazyKiko wrote...

Interesting theory - most definitely. As much as I want to think BioW_EA_r has a trick up their sleeve, I doubt their writers had anything like the IT or your MT in their outline when writing the series. Color me happy if I were wrong!

It sure sounds like these "Theory" authors need a job....@ BioW_EA_r ... fixing the incoherent ending.

Thank you.

[LordRaptor]

Fail_Inc wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

With some clever speculation, you get the following:

Mac Walters = Mac "Hack" Walters

Admiral Steven "Hack"ett.

"Hack" = "Hack"

You also can't spell "Steven Hackett" without the 's', 'a', 'c', 'e', and the one 't' from Mac Walters (possibly other letters too!)

*edit* AND THE MOST OBVIOUS PIECE OF EVIDENCE! THE "L"!!!

Color me convinced!

*grabs his tinfoil hat*

Teach me master!

You two were an extremely easy sell.

[LordRaptor]

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 knowledge 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.

Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 12 avril 2012 - 01:27 .

[LadyWench]

First of all, it just occurs to me...we never find out who the ME3 indoc snitch on the STG base is. I'm not saying Hackett was secretly there, LOL, but it seems like someone with inside Alliance info must have known that Shepard was heading there and that the secret infiltration that Javik and the various VIs kept mentioning is more widespread than Shepard knows. I know the implication is that, because Cerberus shows up, it must a Cerberus plant, but if that was the case they could have secured Eve well before Shep even knew about the female Krogan, nevermind showed up to mess with their plans. Maybe that Cerberus soldier Shep tries to interrogate was going to say something about indoctrinated Alliance allies?

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."

Agreed. I'm not 100% sure of his potential for being fully indoctrinated as far back as ME1, but then again, Kenson and TIM were both in denial of their undergoing indoctrination, as well as being able to function normally and respond to Shep as allies, more or less, so as to avoid suspicion for certain lengths of time. Saren was already a lost cause by the time Shep entered the picture, but Kenson in particular was a pretty convincing little backstabber!

jumpingkaede wrote...
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.

Though the pretense under having Shepard grounded initially seems legit (although less so if you didn't do Arrival), it does seem to (needlessly?) lag on for quite some time. Delayed, in fact, until the Reapers are literally on Earth's doorstep, with no forewarning from Hackett or his Arcturus fleets even though he obviously was not critically injured or lost too much communication ability, since he holovids you the rest of the game!

Jamie9 wrote...
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?

Yeah, Hackett does seem to send you off on an awful lot of ally-gathering errands for something he insists cannot be won conventionally. If not then why advocate for every species' military forces to gather at Earth to defend it when so many other homeworlds are also in desperate conditions? Despite the fact that humans are NOT the first hit (hello--err, I mean, good-bye, Batarians) nor the worst hit (sorry, Thessia), they keep insisting throughout the game that the fate-deciding, be-all end-all battle for the galaxy will take place on Earth well before the Citadel is magically moved there. Psychic much?
And Hackett was suddenly super chummy with Liara at the beginning of ME3, wasn't he? LOL Almost sent her--and then Shepard--right into Cerberus hands. Hmm...

JustinElenbaas wrote...
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.

Another great catch! Something I also found odd, but you have found a way to break it down better than I could, LOL.

nitefyre410 wrote...
The right hand of Bioware does not know left hand is doing while its own foot kicks it in its own ass.

Nothing to add here. This just made me laugh. Funny 'cause it's true!!!

Anyway, I'm still enjoying this thread and some of the other ideas/examples people come up with. For the first time since I finished the game, I AM actually enjoying the speculations, so thanks for that. Even if Bioware never confirms this, it makes for great headcannon fodder.

Modifié par LadyWench, 12 avril 2012 - 04:25 .

[balance5050]

JustinElenbaas wrote...

AnuzaGray wrote...

While an interesting theory this is really stretching it and lacks the in game support that IT has...

It's actually supported just AT LEAST as much as IT.  My only draw back is I do not have a flashy video to spell it out.  I have to rely on text based points.

No, this is interesting but I.T. holds more water.