177 réponses à ce sujet

[congokong]

I played a colonst/ruthless Shepard who was a "reasonable renegade." Basically she's a good person who doesn't take idealistic risks and gets the job done; kind of a Jack Bauer from 24 mentality. However it's clear Hackett does a lot to undermine this Shepard throughout the series; even more so than other backgrounds.

Right at the beginning in ME1 he speaks against Shepard joining the spectres because of Torfan. Situations like Torfan raise eyebrows instead of get praise because it involves ending lives (in order to save lives) unlike Elyssium where you simply save lives. Since you were forced to attack underground in close quarters which ensured high casualties you get labeled the "Butcher of Torfan." It's not like Shepard watched from the sidelines though like Hackett often does. She lead the assault, succeeded, and came out alive.

Hackett really comes across as manipulative and sees Shepard as a blood-thirsty killer when he sent Shepard to negotiate a treaty with the warlord Darius. The guy was very narcissitic and a little rude but my orders were clear; negotiate a treaty. Yet when I do it Hackett's surprised because he just assumed I'd kill Darius for being disrespectful. To me that's very insulting because Hackett not only lies to you about his intentions but clearly sees you as "the Butcher of Torfan." He defends himself by saying Shepard isn't the only one who breaks the law to keep people safe. Apparently he forgot I'm a spectre.

His feelings about Torfan come up again in ME2 when he orders no arrests be made for the vandalism of the Torfan torch. Hackett kind of gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar here because he assumed Shepard was dead and wouldn't know. Sadly you can't confront him with this.

Hackett again calls upon Shepard's help offering nothing in return (especially since she's not Alliance anymore) in the Arrival DLC. After it's over and you save the galaxy Hackett's primary concern is political ramifications and keeping his own hands clean. That's why he returns the data pad because he doesn't want any evidence that the Alliance orchestrated Shepard's actions. He's tells you to "be there with your dress blues on; ready to take the hit" in regards to sacrificing Shepard to appease the batarians as a thank you.

Hackett doesn't do anything downright sleazy in ME3. My largest criticism of him here is that he doesn't give Shepard much appreciation at all and never gets personal, but he never had. Even when Shepard is in pain after trying the activate the crucible he doesn't ask if she's alright (unlike Anderson). His only concern is that the crucible isn't firing. It was annoying after establishing the quarian/geth peace his first words are "Commander, something you need to talk about." It's insulting how he boards the Normandy before the final battle in London and steals Shepard's thunder by giving the speech; even though he likely never picked up a gun during the whole war.

It's strange because some people like Hackett; even Shepard does it seems. She's always saluting and doing him favors. He does do a little to help Shepard in the series. He holds off feeding Shepard to the wolves for the Arrival events and keeps the Alliance from attempting to bring Shepard in for interrogation after her resurrection. I suspect though that he simply wants to preserve her as a resource that he may call upon in the future. He also never openly insults Shepard. But it's clear that he's no friend of my Shepard.

[dreamgazer]

No. Literally everyone else loves Hackett.

[shodiswe]

Hackett does his job, Shepard and Hackett doesnt' hang out a lot, it's mostly job related.

Also, after Shepards meeting with TIM Hackett can't see how badly wounded Shepard or Anderson are, it's a voicelink. Secondly, millions or billions are dead and if nothing happens Trillions will die.
That's what it's all about, the chance of getting Shepard to the beam in the first place or land on Earth safely was astronomical to begin with. It was a suicide mission of desperation.

As long as they are alive they keep fighting and keep doing what they had to. Because there is no going back, there is no surrender, there is only more pain and death. It's just as surprising that Hackett is still alive up there.

Given the situation I'm not surprised that the main priority is to get the Crusible going and hope it solves the Reaper problem.

As for Hacket in the ME1 intro...
In ME1, the Alliance needed someone competent who doesn't give the Alliance and humans a bad reputation. Remember that was before the events on Edenprime and Sovereigns attack and Sarens betrayal of Nihlus.

The Galaxy was a peaceful place and Humanity needed a skilled operative who was also capable of showing the better sides of humanity when possible.

They needed a diplomatic smoothtalker, who was also a competent soldier/operative that would be able to render the services that the Council assigns to the Spectres.

Modifié par shodiswe, 23 janvier 2014 - 11:43 .

[shodiswe]

Also, putting the Blame on Shepard a Cerberus operative made more sense than putting it on the Alliance or Hacket. That would just have started an Alliance/Batarian war prior to the Reaper invasion making it even harder to defeat the Reapers.

The Citadel incident where the third fleet engaged Sovereign and the Heretics cost the Alliance third fleet dearly. Just imagine how costly a war would have been.

There were Batarians who wanted a war but it didn't happen because Shepard wasn't in active duty and the Alliance pretended to put out a warrant for his/her arrest.

Modifié par shodiswe, 23 janvier 2014 - 11:47 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Hackett is a politician. And you know, Hackett should have given that speech from his own ship. WTF did he give it from the Normandy? He's supposed to be the commander of the allied fleet. Give the speech from your flagship not some frigate. Was his com system down? Stealing Shepard's thunder? No, that's way above Shepard's paygrade.

I'm not a Hackett fan. His VA? Yeah. But not the character.

[Br3admax]

Who said that Hackett was a politician? As to the other things, he likely did it for the symbolic fact of humanity's greatest hero coming back from the dead in humanity's greatest ship which did the same. It's cheesy, but it's understandable. The Normandy is not "some Frigate." Many times, it has been the flagship of the entire galaxy, just saying.

[shodiswe]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Hackett is a politician. And you know, Hackett should have given that speech from his own ship. WTF did he give it from the Normandy? He's supposed to be the commander of the allied fleet. Give the speech from your flagship not some frigate. Was his com system down? Stealing Shepard's thunder? No, that's way above Shepard's paygrade.

I'm not a Hackett fan. His VA? Yeah. But not the character.

Shepard gave hacket soem intel and then Hacket adressed the fleet from what was intended to be Admiral Andersons command deck. It was refitted to serve as a fleet command platform to serve Anderson. So it was as good a place as any for Hackett to initiate the attack.

Also, it seemed that Hackets real flagship was with the shieldfleet that entered later during the battle. He likely took a shuttle to return to his flagship that jumped in later.

It's even possible that Hackett used several ships for C&C, it may also have made it harder for the Reapers to target the commandship if he keept moving his command.

First a cruiser, then the Normandy for his speach, then a Dreadnaught escorting the Crusible.
It was likely bad up there with lots of ships getting destroyed and people jumping ship.

The fact that he was at the frontline and managed to keep C&C of the fleets going for the duration of Priority earth is truly impressive.

[NeonFlux117]

You sir... You are a blight.

Hackett FTW!!!!

Actually ME1 Hackett is a bit Shady, as evident with the N7 missions he gives Shepard, lol.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

congokong wrote...

1- Since you were forced to attack underground in close quarters which ensured high casualties you get labeled the "Butcher of Torfan." It's not like Shepard watched from the sidelines though like Hackett often does. She lead the assault, succeeded, and came out alive.

2- Hackett really comes across as manipulative and sees Shepard as a blood-thirsty killer when he sent Shepard to negotiate a treaty with the warlord Darius. The guy was very narcissitic and a little rude but my orders were clear; negotiate a treaty. Yet when I do it Hackett's surprised because he just assumed I'd kill Darius for being disrespectful. To me that's very insulting because Hackett not only lies to you about his intentions but clearly sees you as "the Butcher of Torfan." He defends himself by saying Shepard isn't the only one who breaks the law to keep people safe. Apparently he forgot I'm a spectre.

3-His feelings about Torfan come up again in ME2 when he orders no arrests be made for the vandalism of the Torfan torch. Hackett kind of gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar here because he assumed Shepard was dead and wouldn't know. Sadly you can't confront him with this.

4-Hackett again calls upon Shepard's help offering nothing in return (especially since she's not Alliance anymore) in the Arrival DLC. After it's over and you save the galaxy Hackett's primary concern is political ramifications and keeping his own hands clean.

5-That's why he returns the data pad because he doesn't want any evidence that the Alliance orchestrated Shepard's actions. He's tells you to "be there with your dress blues on; ready to take the hit" in regards to sacrificing Shepard to appease the batarians as a thank you.

6-  Even when Shepard is in pain after trying the activate the crucible he doesn't ask if she's alright (unlike Anderson). His only concern is that the crucible isn't firing.

7-It was annoying after establishing the quarian/geth peace his first words are "Commander, something you need to talk about."

8-It's insulting how he boards the Normandy before the final battle in London and steals Shepard's thunder by giving the speech; even though he likely never picked up a gun during the whole war.

1- Nope, not actually. In-game, it's mentioned that YOU tried to exterminate every single Batarian, thus initiating the "Cat and mouse" thing and your troopers die 'cause of you, because it was your decision to attack a fleeing enemy

Also, the Butcher of Torfan (IIRC) is refered to Shepard killing Batarians, not giving "wrong" orders to his/her soldiers

2- You actually get that quest by having lots of Renegade Points (thus Hackett's comments on expecting you to deal with him in such a way)... Also, like TIM said in ME2 once: "Telling you could tip them in innumerous ways". Oh, and there is this... You're a Spectre, yes. You can break the law? Yes. He can break the law? Yes. Does he do it when *NEEDED*? YES! He is talking about keeping people safe, not stealing someone's credits and banging their mother.

3- What does that even mean? What would Shepard want with the Torfan people that could be and weren't arrested? Maybe Hackett just did that to avoid anymore political tensions between the Alliance and those riot people

4- He said "Do it as a favor to me". Also, Arrival is optional. Shepard can chose if he/she wants to do anything at all on that planet.

5- No, no, nope. He said "I don't want to read this to know you did the right thing" I'll be delaying the trial how I can. But when Earth Calls, blah, blah, blah". And also, he wasn't responsible for the trial. He couldn't cancell it. The Alliance couldn't cancell it, pretend that nothing happened. After all, it was a BATARIAN System. The Batarians, that have a feud with humans ever since they stepped in galactic politics.

6- To me, Hackett wasn't aware how Shepard was injured. The only one who could was Anderson, 'cause he was there, on the Citadel, with Shepard.

7- What did you expect here? A Congratulations? A party? An unicorn? It's said in-game that Hackett NEVER doubted Shepard's capabilites, so maybe Hackett didn't doubt that Shepard could succesfuly seal the peace.

8- He's an ADMIRAL. Sure he did something to be promoted and have a higher rank that LC Shepard, thus the Saluting, and all of those etc things

[MegaIllusiveMan]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Hackett is a politician. And you know, Hackett should have given that speech from his own ship. WTF did he give it from the Normandy? He's supposed to be the commander of the allied fleet. Give the speech from your flagship not some frigate. Was his com system down? Stealing Shepard's thunder? No, that's way above Shepard's paygrade.

I'm not a Hackett fan. His VA? Yeah. But not the character.

Maybe 'cause the Normandy was the responsible for gathering all of those people. It would give them a certain sense of confidence.

[RangerSG]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

You sir... You are a blight.

Hackett FTW!!!!

Actually ME1 Hackett is a bit Shady, as evident with the N7 missions he gives Shepard, lol.

Well, he gives it to a Renegade Shep. The Paragon mission is a straight up, "You're getting it because you're a hero" job. He also makes one of the iconic Shepard praises when he says, "I wish every soldier had your definition of 'Just doing their job.'"

Also, it's intimated that at Torfan Shep didn't just commit to a brutal, get-the-job-done no matter the cost engagement. It's said more than once Shepard gunned down prisoners there. So yeah, a by-the-book Admiral might very well have a jaundiced view to someone who essentially committed murder and got away with it because of the court of public opinion.

As for Arrival, Hackett is clear with a Paragon, or even neutral Shepard, that he believes the PC's claim of necessity. It's only a Renegade (who refused to attempt to warn warn the colony as well, IIRC), that gets a raised eyebrow.

Even then, it's pretty clear that he and Anderson are the ones keeping the appeasers and Reaper-deniers off your back. And if you read the LotSB messages from Hackett, it's clear that he and Anderson are keeping Alliance investigators off you as well.  So it's not like he's selling Shepard out, even on the Renegade path. It's just that with a record of wanton destruction, protestations of innocence are a tad harder to believe.

But I doubt the OP is the 'only' person who hates Hackett. My renegades typically aren't fans of being sent into Batarian space on a solo-op by him. But in the end, all of them at least respect the chain of command...when they're part of it.

[Wulfram]

I find it pretty disturbing how almost all characters seem to be totally not bothered by Torfan.

[Sion1138]

I think he's a useless bastard.

[congokong]

[quote]MegaIllusiveMan wrote...

[quote]congokong wrote...

1- Since you were forced to attack underground in close quarters which ensured high casualties you get labeled the "Butcher of Torfan." It's not like Shepard watched from the sidelines though like Hackett often does. She lead the assault, succeeded, and came out alive.

2- Hackett really comes across as manipulative and sees Shepard as a blood-thirsty killer when he sent Shepard to negotiate a treaty with the warlord Darius. The guy was very narcissitic and a little rude but my orders were clear; negotiate a treaty. Yet when I do it Hackett's surprised because he just assumed I'd kill Darius for being disrespectful. To me that's very insulting because Hackett not only lies to you about his intentions but clearly sees you as "the Butcher of Torfan." He defends himself by saying Shepard isn't the only one who breaks the law to keep people safe. Apparently he forgot I'm a spectre.

3-His feelings about Torfan come up again in ME2 when he orders no arrests be made for the vandalism of the Torfan torch. Hackett kind of gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar here because he assumed Shepard was dead and wouldn't know. Sadly you can't confront him with this.

4-Hackett again calls upon Shepard's help offering nothing in return (especially since she's not Alliance anymore) in the Arrival DLC. After it's over and you save the galaxy Hackett's primary concern is political ramifications and keeping his own hands clean.

5-That's why he returns the data pad because he doesn't want any evidence that the Alliance orchestrated Shepard's actions. He's tells you to "be there with your dress blues on; ready to take the hit" in regards to sacrificing Shepard to appease the batarians as a thank you.

6-  Even when Shepard is in pain after trying the activate the crucible he doesn't ask if she's alright (unlike Anderson). His only concern is that the crucible isn't firing.

7-It was annoying after establishing the quarian/geth peace his first words are "Commander, something you need to talk about."

8-It's insulting how he boards the Normandy before the final battle in London and steals Shepard's thunder by giving the speech; even though he likely never picked up a gun during the whole war.

[/quote]

[quote]

1- Nope, not actually. In-game, it's mentioned that YOU tried to exterminate every single Batarian, thus initiating the "Cat and mouse" thing and your troopers die 'cause of you, because it was your decision to attack a fleeing enemy

Also, the Butcher of Torfan (IIRC) is refered to Shepard killing Batarians, not giving "wrong" orders to his/her soldiers
[/quote]

The title is meant as an insult partially because of all the Alliance casualties so she could kill those slavers. Torfan was the last battle in a long conflict that started with Elyssium. It was necessary to end the threat; at least that's what is said in-game. We don't know the whole story. Shepard obviously was given sanction for the operation and wasn't going rogue, but was forced to take responsibility for how it turned out.

[quote]
2- You actually get that quest by having lots of Renegade Points (thus Hackett's comments on expecting you to deal with him in such a way)... Also, like TIM said in ME2 once: "Telling you could tip them in innumerous ways". Oh, and there is this... You're a Spectre, yes. You can break the law? Yes. He can break the law? Yes. Does he do it when *NEEDED*? YES! He is talking about keeping people safe, not stealing someone's credits and banging their mother.
[quote]

Shepard can break the law "legally." Hackett can't. That's the point of spectres.

If Hackett wanted Shepard to kill Darius he should have said so off the record. His belief that Shepard would do it when given orders to do something else is insulting. As I said in my OP, my Shepard is a "reasonable renegade." Not someone who shoots anyone who looks at her wrong. Renegades don't have to be evil.

[quote]
3- What does that even mean? What would Shepard want with the Torfan people that could be and weren't arrested? Maybe Hackett just did that to avoid anymore political tensions between the Alliance and those riot people
[/quote]

The fact that Hackett got involved in something that didn't involve him at all like arresting vandals shows how strongly he disapproves of Shepard's actions.


[quote]
4- He said "Do it as a favor to me". Also, Arrival is optional. Shepard can chose if he/she wants to do anything at all on that planet.
[/quote]

No ****. Shepard is always doing favors for Hackett even though it's clear Hackett is no friend. And he returns the favor by slipping it to the batarians that Shepard was "solely" responsible just to keep the batarians' eyes off the Alliance.

[quote]
5- No, no, nope. He said "I don't want to read this to know you did the right thing" I'll be delaying the trial how I can. But when Earth Calls, blah, blah, blah". And also, he wasn't responsible for the trial. He couldn't cancell it. The Alliance couldn't cancell it, pretend that nothing happened. After all, it was a BATARIAN System. The Batarians, that have a feud with humans ever since they stepped in galactic politics.
[/quote]

No, no, nope. Hackett may believe Shepard but not even taking the report is because he wants to keep his hands clean. Otherwise, don't you think he'd want to read up on something that involved 300,000 batarians dying?

[quote]
6- To me, Hackett wasn't aware how Shepard was injured. The only one who could was Anderson, 'cause he was there, on the Citadel, with Shepard.
[/quote]

He heard Shepard in pain the same way Anderson did when Shepard first arrived on the Citadel. Neither were with Shepard at the time.


[quote]
7- What did you expect here? A Congratulations? A party? An unicorn? It's said in-game that Hackett NEVER doubted Shepard's capabilites, so maybe Hackett didn't doubt that Shepard could succesfuly seal the peace.
[/quote]

A unicorn? I'm starting to think you're trolling here. How about some goddamn appreciation for Shepard?

[quote]
8- He's an ADMIRAL. Sure he did something to be promoted and have a higher rank that LC Shepard, thus the Saluting, and all of those etc things
[/quote]

But Shepard should be giving that speech. I doubt Hackett has done anything in his career that compares to what Shepard has.

Modifié par congokong, 24 janvier 2014 - 12:27 .

[RangerSG]

Wulfram wrote...

I find it pretty disturbing how almost all characters seem to be totally not bothered by Torfan.

Agreed. If shooting prisoners had clearly been part of the 'ruthless' background, I wouldn't have taken it. That's over any line. But you're not told about it until well after the fact, and never by an actual witness. So I can rationalize it as Batarian propaganda. 

Still, you'd think the squad would be constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop with a Ruthless Shepard, seeing as he's been willing to let his own die to do a job before. Not the ideal path to unit cohesion. 

[MattFini]

God no.

Lance Henriksen.

/thread

[AlexMBrennan]

kind of a Jack Bauer from 24 mentality

So, Shepard is a war criminal? Just because US media is saturated with "torture is good if it's Americans doing the torturing" propaganda bovine excrement doesn't make it so.

Yet when I do it Hackett's surprised because he just assumed I'd kill Darius for being disrespectful

Dunno, Shepard killed all those Baterians for, presumably, being Baterians so now that Shepard has a reason, no matter how slight, the outcome doesn't seem that unlikely. Read your codex btw:

Shepard pursued the batarians and wiped them out, even those who surrendered

(Yep, war criminal. )

Apparently he forgot I'm a spectre.

Shepard being a psychopathic mass murderer spectre is what gives him plausible deniability - he gave Shepard clear orders to negotiate, so he can't be blamed if Shepard ends up murdering a admittedly troublesome warlord without trial and such.

His feelings about Torfan come up again in ME2 when he orders no arrests be made for the vandalism of the Torfan torch.

Ever heard of PR? Any high profile actions against those people who don't like Alliance war crimes would just result in those war crimes getting more frontage coverage in the news (do you see NASA shouting about **** scientists working for them?)

because he assumed Shepard was dead and wouldn't know

You know this how? Are you able to divine the thoughts of other people? Better start a religion then.

Hackett again calls upon Shepard's help offering nothing in return (especially since she's not Alliance anymore) in the Arrival DLC

Other than Shepard's continued survival, you know. Plus, the chance to kill a few more Baterians should be enough to motivate your Shepard.

He's tells you to "be there with your dress blues on; ready to take the hit" in regards to sacrificing Shepard to appease the batarians as a thank you.

Fair enough, the "trial" is contrived bovine excrement.

[congokong]

RangerSG wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I find it pretty disturbing how almost all characters seem to be totally not bothered by Torfan.

Agreed. If shooting prisoners had clearly been part of the 'ruthless' background, I wouldn't have taken it. That's over any line. But you're not told about it until well after the fact, and never by an actual witness. So I can rationalize it as Batarian propaganda. 

Still, you'd think the squad would be constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop with a Ruthless Shepard, seeing as he's been willing to let his own die to do a job before. Not the ideal path to unit cohesion. 

I'm not sure if they were prisoners but they were trying to surrender. The thing is that it was a little late for that as Torfan was the last stage in a long conflict with batarian slavers. Shepard probably just had enough at this point and they were hardly innocent.

What I like about the ruthless background is how it puts Shepard in such a gray light. Going miles underground to end slavers in close quarters and coming out alive is damn impressive, but the average citizen will only know of the massacre that ensued to stop those slavers from hurting anyone.

It goes well with my Shepard's decision to focus on Sovereign which led to the council's death. Shepard is again seen in a gray light by the other species because the council covers up the reaper threat which makes it simply look like Shepard just didn't want to sacrifice human lives to save the destiny ascension when the truth is that if Sovereign succeeded then the whole galaxy would have been doomed. Throwing resources to save the ascension would be kind of stupid. It makes ruthless Shepard with renegade choices look like an under-appreciated hero.

[NeonFlux117]

RangerSG wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

You sir... You are a blight.

Hackett FTW!!!!

Actually ME1 Hackett is a bit Shady, as evident with the N7 missions he gives Shepard, lol.

Well, he gives it to a Renegade Shep. The Paragon mission is a straight up, "You're getting it because you're a hero" job. He also makes one of the iconic Shepard praises when he says, "I wish every soldier had your definition of 'Just doing their job.'"

Also, it's intimated that at Torfan Shep didn't just commit to a brutal, get-the-job-done no matter the cost engagement. It's said more than once Shepard gunned down prisoners there. So yeah, a by-the-book Admiral might very well have a jaundiced view to someone who essentially committed murder and got away with it because of the court of public opinion.

As for Arrival, Hackett is clear with a Paragon, or even neutral Shepard, that he believes the PC's claim of necessity. It's only a Renegade (who refused to attempt to warn warn the colony as well, IIRC), that gets a raised eyebrow.

Even then, it's pretty clear that he and Anderson are the ones keeping the appeasers and Reaper-deniers off your back. And if you read the LotSB messages from Hackett, it's clear that he and Anderson are keeping Alliance investigators off you as well.  So it's not like he's selling Shepard out, even on the Renegade path. It's just that with a record of wanton destruction, protestations of innocence are a tad harder to believe.

But I doubt the OP is the 'only' person who hates Hackett. My renegades typically aren't fans of being sent into Batarian space on a solo-op by him. But in the end, all of them at least respect the chain of command...when they're part of it.

Yeah, I totally agree. Hacketts a good guy. In fact, he and Anderson are the only dudes in the alliance with their heads not up their **** after ME1. Hacketts legit.

[NeroonWilliams]

Meh.

My major objection to Hackett's role in ME3 is the fact that he is giving orders in any form to a Council SpecTRe. Shepard is supposed to be outside of Alliance command structure. Technically, he/she should be issuing orders to Hackett.

[RangerSG]

congokong wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I find it pretty disturbing how almost all characters seem to be totally not bothered by Torfan.

Agreed. If shooting prisoners had clearly been part of the 'ruthless' background, I wouldn't have taken it. That's over any line. But you're not told about it until well after the fact, and never by an actual witness. So I can rationalize it as Batarian propaganda. 

Still, you'd think the squad would be constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop with a Ruthless Shepard, seeing as he's been willing to let his own die to do a job before. Not the ideal path to unit cohesion. 

I'm not sure if they were prisoners but they were trying to surrender. The thing is that it was a little late for that as Torfan was the last stage in a long conflict with batarian slavers. Shepard probably just had enough at this point and they were hardly innocent.

What I like about the ruthless background is how it puts Shepard in such a gray light. Going miles underground to end slavers in close quarters and coming out alive is damn impressive, but the average citizen will only know of the massacre that ensued to stop those slavers from hurting anyone.

It goes well with my Shepard's decision to focus on Sovereign which led to the council's death. Shepard is again seen in a gray light by the other species because the council covers up the reaper threat which makes it simply look like Shepard just didn't want to sacrifice human lives to save the destiny ascension when the truth is that if Sovereign succeeded then the whole galaxy would have been doomed. Throwing resources to save the ascension would be kind of stupid. It makes ruthless Shepard with renegade choices look like an under-appreciated hero.

Codex says they had surrendered. Unless you can headcanon something that they played dirty tricks after surrendering. *shrug* It's a fluff line, so anything's possible. But ruthless Shepard has pretty much committed murder and gotten away with it on multiple occasions. That would not endear that origin to the military brass...even when they need the PC.

[eyezonlyii]

StreetMagic wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...

Meh.

My major objection to Hackett's role in ME3 is the fact that he is giving orders in any form to a Council SpecTRe. Shepard is supposed to be outside of Alliance command structure. Technically, he/she should be issuing orders to Hackett.

Yeah, I was always hoping that the third game would bypass Alliance or Cerberus and have us in a more official relationship with the Council (ME1 was a bit Alliance centric in tone already.  Except for Virmire). Or if not that, some kind of Terminus/Omega alliance that builds up into a larger galactic alliance... but that's a far fetched dream. Nobody is cool enough to make a space pirate game, even though everyone keeps saying they want one. lol

New players couldn' relate