It is late for me as well, but I am compelled by a great discussion
I do not claim Hackett's actions only make sense if you assume he is indoctrinated. I believe his actions hint towards his indoctrination, and MT is designed to point out and examine evidence to that theory. Remember Bioware has stated nothing overtly, we are left to speculate and deal in conjecture. You and I both do this in our arguments. It's all we can do, so speculate away haha 
.You know as well as I do that you can not use the chronology of a DLC release as canon for in game content. Of course most everyone had beaten ME2 by the time it was released, well after the game release. However The Arrival can be accessed before finishing the main storyline of the game. If you do so, then you see the Collector General instead of Harbinger on the landing deck at the end. Therefore your argument about the surveillance equipment being removed does not work.
In regards to Kenneth being a spy, that is possible. Yet again I state with the DLC being accessible in game before embarking on the suicide mission the point that ties between Shepard and TIM have been severed does not hold up.
In ME2 Shepard dies and when he returns to life (miraculously) he/she is not reinstated into the Alliance. This is a minor theme running through ME2, Shepard joining Cerberus instead of returning to the Alliance, a bone of contention for some former allies. Arguments are raised about this between Shepard and Anderson, Shepard and VS on Horizon and it is discussed further throughout the game. In ME2 Shepard is not beholden to the chain of command because he/she is no longer an active member of the Alliance Navy. There is even an iconic scene at the beginning of ME3 with Anderson tossing Shepard dog tags and saying, "Consider yourself reinstated, Commander." After Shepard had coyly stated "I don't work for you anymore, remember?"
In ME2 Shepard is a rogue asset, part of a terrorist organization, Cerberus. Shepard may still choose to follow orders, but Hackett absolutely breaks Alliance protocol by seeking out a rogue asset to complete a mission. This could be attributed to his desire for information blackout, but it is highly irregular for an Admiral to basically seek the assistance of a mercenary.
The point I'm raising in regards to the connection between Hackett and Kenson is this: Hackett is anomalous, we do not know of his actions outside of direct interactions with Shepard. Yet the one instance we are given insight into his past it is in direct association with an indoctrinated entity, Dr. Amanda Kenson. Kenson's op may have been sanctioned, we'll never know, but the fact remains she interacted only with Admiral Hackett, we can assume she was indoctrinated before she was arrested, therefore we can assume she was indoctrinated when she had dealings with Hackett, and or sent him her message.
In regards to other Alliance Admirals of the Alliance Navy shirking their duties in regards to the Reapers and dumping it on Admiral Hackett, I would dare say this is a bold claim. If we are to attribute admirable qualities to Hackett, then it should be assumed anyone obtaining the rank of Admiral in a galactic fleet has similar if not equal clout, ethics and quality of character. I agree that it would not be odd for two old friends to have ways of getting in contact. I'm just trying to say, follow the dots on this. Kenson, an already indoctrinated Reaper asset, is a means to reach and influence Admiral Hackett, who is a means to reach and influence Commander Shepard, perhaps the most iconic figure in all of this cycle. Why I ask, would the Reapers not take advantage of this? To assume they did not is almost doing them a disservice as competent villains. If anything MT gives the Reapers the benefit of the doubt as being, vast, unknowable and beyond comprehension, so such an opportunity would not be wasted on them.
You argue Hackett would have done what he did to save Kenson anyway. Perhaps, and with subtle suggestion he could be persuaded to also request Shepard verify Kenson's discovery, instead of just resuing her and delivering her to safety. Remember we both agreed indoctrination as subtle suggestions goes much farther than assuming direct control. Allowing Hackett to act on his own instinct and desire to save his friend, with just a minor guidance on behalf of the Reapers, fits that perfectly.
I disagree that Hackett has no means of officially stepping in to save Dr. Kenson without starting a war. There is a reason militaries have special forces TEAMS, mind you. They are for this exact purpose, among others. They are highly trained to enter and exit volatile zones, securing hostages and returning them to safety. Hackett does this if Shepard refuses. This is the core of black ops squads. And at the time Hackett requests a favor of Shepard, he/she has no direct ties to the Alliance and is not governed by them. That makes Shepard a rogue asset and is in fact far more dangerous than a special forces squad, and statistically likely to cause greater turmoil on a mission than a special forces team that will follow orders. i.e. Blow up a Mass Relay anyone? That is a fairly dire diplomatic incident.
I love that you see Hackett's behavior as exactly how he would act indoctrinated or not. That fits exactly into MT and the idea of indoctrination as suggestion. The Reapers are not assuming direct control of Hackett, much as I do not believe they need to assume control of Shepard to reach their goals. They merely steer these individuals' desires along a certain path. This puts them above reproach. Hackett is not acting out of line, but he is fitting Shepard directly into a Reaper trap for indoctrination.
Ah wait...I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I think there is the assumption by perhaps you and others that I believe an indoctrinated Hackett, would know he is indoctrinated. I do not believe that to be the case. In fact I believe it would cause him to act out of his normal character. If you take a moment to sit back and watch Hackett's actions, Hackett specifically, and observe his behavior you will see certain abnormalities, not in Hackett himself, but in what he does and where he leads Shepard and how. These issues are what raised the idea of MT in the first place. I hope that cleared up some misunderstandings. Whether knowingly or unwittingly Hackett delivers a vulnerable, isolated Shepard into the hands of indoctrinated forces, and that is only his actions in the beginning of Arrival. If Shepard refuses to assist Hackett then because his intentions were honorable, just misguided he would certainly attempt to still save Kenson. Hackett does not exhibit Mens Rea(guilty mind, for those who do not know). Attempting to save Kenson would not be a waste to him.
Frankly I do not attribute as much worth to either Kaidan or Ashley as you seem to. As far as I am concerned they could be any random Major or Lieutenant Commander in the Alliance. Their only outstanding quality is their association with Shepard. I do not feel the Reapers would view them to have much, if any tactical use, and they would be the only associates of Shepard's that would assist Hackett. You yourself pointed out the...finer...qualities of Shepards other associates lol.
The less people there are the less chance you have of being discovered. That is not always true, especially when dealing with the case of several highly skilled and trained stealth operatives, namely Thane and Kasumi. Neither of these individuals would have inhibited Shepard in any way, and in fact would likely have been better candidates for the job. Both are masters of their stealth related craft and both always achieve results. This fits the criteria you placed for Shepard to be Hackett's choice. I again argue that it is a request without precedent. I will not argue Hackett's desire for secrecy however, as I have already stated I do not believe he possesses Mens Rea, though I believe he is being manipulated by the Reapers and therefore he is acting out of good conscience.
Hackett's actions at the end of Arrival may be in good conscience, but his faith in Shepard fits perfectly into the Reapers' desires to keep Shepard isolated and their arrival relatively unknown. This is not a stretch. This is a consideration based on the acknowledgement of both Bioware's statements about the infinite knowledge of the Reapers and even the in game acknowledgement of the Reapers' intellect by other sentient species, one of note being Legion, and the Geth. I do not put such simple suggestive manipulation past them. If all they do is paint in broad strokes (crash down on worlds and stomp around like Godzilla) as their only means of subverting the galaxy then they do not meet the standard set for them both in game and out of game.
You ask how far gone do you have to be to accept the suggestion of indoctrinating your own soldiers. I do not believe that is the Reapers' suggestion at all, it is to direct, to obvious. We both agreed the Reapers would likely use, subtle suggestion. I believe dependent they do this by playing to the individuals ideals, beliefs, hopes, dreams, goals and ego. I believe the suggestion is more akin to "send Shepard to save Kenson he/she is best for the job." This is a thought you agreed Hackett could have by himself. He does not need to know he is indoctrinated or manipulated, that would defeat the purpose. Even Saren believed he was maintaining his own sovereignty from Sovereign...(weird) and Sovereign for a time allowed him to believe so.
Your points regarding Hackett's inability to contact Alliance forces on or around Earth makes the assumption that in a galaxy with advanced technology, Arcturus Station and multiple fleets with space faring technology and capability could not relay to Earth one warning signal that Arcturus station had been attacked. That is quite a stretch. For such an abysmal failure in communication to occur, it would have to be intentional. Thus why it puzzles Admiral Anderson because it is so glaringly abnormal. You state Hackett did not report in because he was busy saving his fleets. I'm sorry, but the purpose of the Alliance fleet is to protect Earth and humanity. Hackett would not make this oversight unintentionally.
Some articles and videos of critics of game oversights have pointed directly to Hackett's assertion that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally as game developer oversight. The Alliance had actionable intel from the defeat of Sovereign. They had Reaper tech to study (though most of sovereign was purchased by a private investor... :ermm: ) They created weapons systems to fight the Reapers, Thanix cannons. Yet when the Reapers arrive Alliance Admirals on earth are left asking a subordinate "what do we do?" The Alliance is caught completely off guard and unprepared, after having 3 years to prepare. Such glaring incompetence almost certainly has to be intentional. I'm not directly attributing this to Hackett, just discussing your argument.
These items you point to about building as a metaphor for the Crucible, I would argue that they actually do come with instructions, and they do come with safety warnings because very few people who are not savants could construct or use a firearm or a bomb safely or effectively on the first try.
Hackett repeatedly states they cannot defeat the Reapers by conventional means. They did beat a Reaper by conventional means. Repeatedly throughout ME3 they defeat Reapers by conventional means. Alliance Destroyers and Turian flagships are able to destroy Sovereign class ships in full on engagements. Yet Hackett always states, the Crucible is our only hope, we cannot beat them conventionally. The evidence he is wrong is there. It is an extremely difficult task, but it is not an insurmountable one. You need to actively ignore evidence to claim the Crucible is the only way. I do believe it could be "a way", but when the collective genius of the greatest minds of this cycle construct, study and theorize over the Crucible and they cannot tell you what it will do, that is by no means "the only way". It is not even a guaranteed "way". The probability of failure on either a cataclysmic or minute scale is just as prevalent as success.
In regards to the Normandy. I won't even argue this, at the current time I cannot remember which Admiral is stated was going to use the Normandy as a flagship, so there is no point in arguing it. Admirals abound, it could be anyone.
It is very late, I hope I answered your questions.
Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 13 avril 2012 - 06:25 .
Retour en haut
