177 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

congokong wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

I don't hate Hackett. In fact, I really like him.

However, I do find a few elements of him to be a bit shady. Every one of those elements has good reasoning behind it though.

Works well enough for ME1-3.

But yes, Shepard is probably more of a tool to him than anything else. Funny enough, I think TIM is being more bluntly honest (in ME3, once the charade is dropped) about that than Hackett/Anderson

For the record, I don't think Hackett is a bad character for the series. I just really don't like him.

And that's just it. Hackett simply sees Shepard as a tool and yet Shepard is always doing him favors. What does Hackett give in return? He holds off tipping off the batarians that Shepard "acted alone" in Arrival? As I said, he backstabs my Shepard several times in small and big ways.

About TIM; he sees Shepard as a tool just as much as Hackett but at least gives Shepard some appreciation. Maybe it's because I'm not in the military but I feel people need appreciation. It's an emotional need. Hackett is the opposite of someone like Liara or Chakwas.

That's just the whole Red/Blue deal (Hackett and Anderson and even 'core' Shepard are Red; Liara and Chakwas and Illusive Man are more Blue (even if TIM might have been more Red as a full human)).

It is imo core to the writing of the entire series, and I expect it to expand more in the next game, just more weighted towards the Blue compared to the Red next time.

~~

I went to Target for one of the first times last night. Was talking with my boyfriend about the new security scanners that don't just beep, but now outright ask you something like "You may have mistakenly brought an unauthorized (or whatever) item with you. Please.." blah blah.


Anyway, the discussion was along the lines of... is it better that they use artificial words that presume that you brought something by mistake, or should they just stay more to the truths of their business, which would be having a big beep and an employee assume you're stealing something. Because, you know, that's what the business owners think anyway, and its why they actually HAVE the scanners..so....

~~~

Hurtful but continuous base truth? Or the empowering lie that can become truth, or enable greater truths?

That's what I think when it comes to TIM and Hackett and/or Anderson.

If it was just up to H&A, Shepard wouldn't even be running around uniting galactic forces and powerful individuals. At the same time, their core goal of fighting the Reapers is something important, and it started with them two.

However, it it was just up to TIM, Shepard would have either been disposed of by some point in ME3, or even turned to join up with Reaper Tech, instead of sticking to the goal of fighting and defeating the Reapers. At the same time, its TIM's struggle against the Reapers and his aspirations for advancement of humanity that even let the core fight continue.

It may be subtle at points, but the chaos vs order theme IS there, and I think will only be more noticable as the games continue.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 24 janvier 2014 - 07:50 .

[RatThing]

congokong wrote...


Right at the beginning in ME1 he speaks against Shepard joining the spectres because of Torfan. 

It's been ages since I played the first game, so maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. I remember when I picked that background Udina asked in the beginning dialogue "do we really want this kind to protect the galaxy?" to which someone replied "It's the only kind that can protect the galaxy". Isn't this someone actually Hackett or have I mixed up something? 
Also what comes to mind is the battle with Sovereign at the end, when some Alliance captain says they need to fall back because Sovereign is too strong. Hackett replies to this "Negative. Take this monster down, no matter the cost." This is a little "Torfan style" for me. I've always seen Hackett as slightly renegade in contrast to paragon Andersson, so for my renegade'ish Shepard he was a little like a mentor. 

[SwobyJ]

For the record, I don't consider the Alliance as a whole to be 'Red'. I do find it interesting that in ME3 they changed the colors from red to blue though.. (who else noticed that?)

I consider the Alliance to currently lean more on the red side of things, but as they advance and grow and gain political power, they're more blue.

The only thing really outright red in the MEU might be Omega. Maybe Terminus systems overall. And even that has traces of otherwise (Aria's grip of control and organization over the place instead of outright full survival-of-fittest).


Hackett straddles the line a bit. He's going to do what he views as benefiting humanity the most, by his views. It's just that he sees co-operation with other species and organizations as necessary to help humanity advance. Heck, he doesn't even toss away the idea of working with Cerberus, and only does so once they go 100% hostile against the Alliance in ME3.

I even have ideas in my head of Hackett doing QUITE shady tech and black ops stuff behind our backs, but that never came into the narrative (except for the Crucible deal I guess) in ME3.

One small thing I'd like in a potential IT-ish sequel to ME3, would be a revelation that Hackett's been kinda playing Shepard all along (even while honest about everything he does state to Shep, and what he thinks about him), and that the Alliance has some other very interesting top secret projects that still exist on Earth. In particular, the N7 HQ in South America...

Modifié par SwobyJ, 24 janvier 2014 - 07:58 .

[eyezonlyii]

SwobyJ wrote...

For the record, I don't consider the Alliance as a whole to be 'Red'. I do find it interesting that in ME3 they changed the colors from red to blue though.. (who else noticed that?)

I consider the Alliance to currently lean more on the red side of things, but as they advance and grow and gain political power, they're more blue.

The only thing really outright red in the MEU might be Omega. Maybe Terminus systems overall. And even that has traces of otherwise (Aria's grip of control and organization over the place instead of outright full survival-of-fittest).


Hackett straddles the line a bit. He's going to do what he views as benefiting humanity the most, by his views. It's just that he sees co-operation with other species and organizations as necessary to help humanity advance. Heck, he doesn't even toss away the idea of working with Cerberus, and only does so once they go 100% hostile against the Alliance in ME3.

I even have ideas in my head of Hackett doing QUITE shady tech and black ops stuff behind our backs, but that never came into the narrative (except for the Crucible deal I guess) in ME3.

One small thing I'd like in a potential IT-ish sequel to ME3, would be a revelation that Hackett's been kinda playing Shepard all along (even while honest about everything he does state to Shep, and what he thinks about him), and that the Alliance has some other very interesting top secret projects that still exist on Earth. In particular, the N7 HQ in South America...

Or that Kohoku is correct and that Cerberus IS an Alliance black-ops, instead of was and went rogue, or is headed soley by TIM. I mean think about, Cerberus, the three headed dog...Alliance, TIM and...?

[SwobyJ]

RatThing wrote...

congokong wrote...


Right at the beginning in ME1 he speaks against Shepard joining the spectres because of Torfan. 

It's been ages since I played the first game, so maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. I remember when I picked that background Udina asked in the beginning dialogue "do we really want this kind to protect the galaxy?" to which someone replied "It's the only kind that can protect the galaxy". Isn't this someone actually Hackett or have I mixed up something? 
Also what comes to mind is the battle with Sovereign at the end, when some Alliance captain says they need to fall back because Sovereign is too strong. Hackett replies to this "Negative. Take this monster down, no matter the cost." This is a little "Torfan style" for me. I've always seen Hackett as slightly renegade in contrast to paragon Andersson, so for my renegade'ish Shepard he was a little like a mentor. 

It's Anderson who says that quote, I believe.


However, I think Hackett and Anderson are mostly equal in whatever 'spectum' we're discussing.

Hackett's aim is to destroy Reapers. However, he may take up other tech and resources in order to do so, if it works. He's more about the resources thing than the uniting people thing.

Anderson's aim is to unite the galaxy to try to destroy Reapers. He's less about taking other forms of tech and resources to do so, and more about the right.

It really is the difference between someone with a ground-soldier mentality (Anderson, regardless of his stations throughout the series), and one with a general/strategist's mentality (Hackett).

I mean really, Petrosky is basically Hackett's evil clone. TIM is Anderson's. Kai Leng is Shepard's. At least until Citadel DLC haha.

~~~

I consider Anderson and Hackett to be pretty equal here, BUT I do think there's an invisible difference between how one treats allies, and how one treats enemies.

I think Anderson is more direct about how he treats enemies (kill em). However, I think he has enough control to try to make friends (which makes him different from say, Saren, etc).

I think Hackett is more direct about how he treats allies ("we need ___", without the flowery language about co-operation). However, I think he has enough dedication to keep trying to defeat the enemy.

~~~

I'll also put it this way; Hackett had to sacrifice fleets to the Reapers at Arcturus Station. He did so in order to take the bulk of his forces that he could take with him, with him.

If Anderson was in charge of the Alliance, I think he'd instead focus all resources to fighting the Reapers at Arcturus Station, instead of a few ships tops to send the word elsewhere to send reenforcements/allies/etc.

Both have their own ways of dealing with problems and solutions, but they still sit on the generally same place on the scale "Use whatever you can, morality kept in mind, to fight and destroy the enemy."

That whole direct war thing.

[SwobyJ]

eyezonlyii wrote...

Or that Kohoku is correct and that Cerberus IS an Alliance black-ops, instead of was and went rogue, or is headed soley by TIM. I mean think about, Cerberus, the three headed dog...Alliance, TIM and...?

I find that interesting, but it is hard for me to personally believe.

I more think that the Alliance/Hackett, up til' ME3 (and kind of ME2), knew about Cerberus, didn't support them, but understood that the advancements and improvements that Cerberus comes up with for humanity could be still used for greater and wider use.

I mean, Cerberus has front corporations EVERYWHERE. Frankly, they 'own' a good chunk of 'humanity'.

I can't imagine that to bypass Hackett.

I consider Cerberus to be the dark offshoot that grows from humanity (led by their 'Lucifer' Man, heh ), as humanity expands across the stars and aspires for its own greater good. That whisper in its ear...
"Cerberus is an idea" indeed..

-Started off as Alliance black op. So yes, Alliance likely has its secrets...
-Jack Harper gets in, changes it, makes it go rogue.
-Buys out all the things, gets all super spy about things (I'm astonished Mac Walters has held back on telling this chapter of their story). Secretly no longer in line with Alliance.
-As Jack develops into his husk-ness, so does Cerberus. It goes outright rogue, invests everywhere in human business, expands its 'territory', we even learn it 'inspired' the creation of the first Normandy itself (right?)
-In ME2 it is in opposition to the Alliance, but it in a soft opposition. The Alliance makes its stance known, but doesn't really take the full action to shut down Cerberus.
-After ME3, TIM steps up his plan significantly (and likely compromised by Reaper tech influence by this point), and outright fights Alliance forces whenever he needs to.

So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Hackett is involved with stuff, but I'd bet it's more to do with the original Cerberus black-op, than anything like still being a part of them.

When you look at Hackett's bio, he advanced VERY quickly through the ranks and is actually most knowledgeable about science than he appears at first glance. That doesn't mean much in itself, but I think it could fit into a story where he WAS involved with the starting stages of Cerberus, and might even know Jack Harper...


Quick source: "Hackett was born in Buenos Aires
in 2134. When his mother died in 2146, he was placed in the Advanced
Training Academy for Juveniles, where his affinity for science and
leadership quickly became evident. Hackett enlisted in 2152,
volunteering for high-risk missions to colonize space beyond the Sol
Relay. He was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 2156 and
participated in the First Contact War the following year. His rare ascent from enlisted man to admiral remains an Alliance legend."

Modifié par SwobyJ, 24 janvier 2014 - 08:21 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

RatThing wrote...
Also what comes to mind is the battle with Sovereign at the end, when some Alliance captain says they need to fall back because Sovereign is too strong. Hackett replies to this "Negative. Take this monster down, no matter the cost." This is a little "Torfan style" for me. I've always seen Hackett as slightly renegade in contrast to paragon Andersson, so for my renegade'ish Shepard he was a little like a mentor. 

I'd argue that the typical Paragon/Renegade divisions don't apply in quite the same way in that situation, where we're led to believe that Sovereign establishing full control of the Citadel will mean the immediate beginning of an invasion for which the galaxy clearly isn't ready. If you pick "Concentrate on Sovereign," for example, you get +8 Paragon and +9 Renegade, which is about right IMO - it's not as if Shepard is saying the Council is worthless, just that the tactical priority should be on stopping Sovereign. Obviously, we know as players that it is in fact possible to save the Ascension *and* stop Sovereign, but in terms of Shepard's in-character perspective, a Paragon could still plausibly think that trying to do both is too risky.

So Hackett may simply think that if they were to retreat or wait for more reinforcements, Sovereign will have already started the invasion in the meantime. For that matter, Anderson orders Hammer into a rush for the beam in ME3 that he openly acknowledges is going to get many of them killed. I expect he'd have given the same order as Hackett in the battle against Sovereign.

Torfan was apparently a raid on batarian slavers who, while they may be thoroughly loathsome, did not pose the same level of immediate existential threat to the entire galaxy. So I'd say Shepard pressing ahead with the attack in that situation even after losing a huge portion of the squad is a little more uniquely callous and single-minded, and more typical of the Renegade choices presented throughout the series.

[RatThing]

We know little about Torfan so it's hard to evaluate the situation. However, the Batarians were definitely a threat to humanity (Mindoir, Elysium) and it was the victory on Torfan that ended or at least reduced the threat. So Shepards actions there can be seen as justified and not just typically renegade/evil (depending on how much his/her actions actually contributed to that victory).

Modifié par RatThing, 24 janvier 2014 - 08:44 .

[RatThing]

For me the Butcher of Torfan fits perfectly with the colonist background. And not just because Shepard seeks revenge for the death of her family (my Butcher of Torfan is female). We learn that on Mindoir Alliance Marines were present but didn't / couldn't intervene. In her view it could look like the Alliance sacrifised the civilians to save the soldiers.
So on Torfan she basically did what the Marines on Mindoir didn't do, sacrifice soldiers' lives for the sake of victory (and security for the colonists). This background combination shaped my whole renegade character (also with a little inspiration from the character Nascimento from Tropa de Elite). She wasn't some thug or villain, in fact she hated that kind of people. She was a security fanatic and someone who is willing to do sacrifices and terrible things if they serve the right purpose.

[SwobyJ]

Hackett isn't even a dick. He just has a ton on his plate in ME2-3.

Even an Admiral and/or Councillor gets relax time. Rear Admirals in the MEU? Probably on-duty, more or less, all day.


EDIT: Missed the 'ME1' part. Yeah, he's just impersonal. It's in ME2-3 that he has so much going on, that really any personal relationship with Shepard is an effort on his part to maintain.

I don't think he's manipulating Shepard like TIM does though. I think it's different than that. Consider TIM to be more 'wildly fluctuating' (charming and actively helping, but then turning on you) while Hackett is more strong and stable (cool with you and at some distance, but would never turn his back on you as long as its possible).

Modifié par SwobyJ, 24 janvier 2014 - 10:10 .

[TheMyron]

Hackett's Normandy speech:

Another grand example of Shepard being dumbed down/reduced to nothing... Its not even Shepard's auto-dialogue...

In ME1, MY Shepard makes a speech to the whole crew at the start of his career as a spectre.

In ME2, MY Shepard makes a speech to his full squad during the Suicide mission.

In ME3, My Shepard who is obviously no longer mine lets the Grand Admiral take his spot on his ship...

[dreamgazer]

In ME3, YOUR Shepard gave a speech to your entire crew on the ground at London, before the final push.

[TheMyron]

But by the time we land on London, the damage is done, not only does Shepard no longer feel like mine, this last speech is done with much auto-dialogue, with the dialogue wheel only appearing once (maybe twice or not at all), with no more than two choices.

Having three or four choices like in ME1 and ME2 is preferable.

[Massa FX]

I don't like Hackett.

I've never liked him. In fact, all his gruff posturing aside, there's little to respect there... especially after Arrival. Shepard asked him... why me? why ask me to help with this operative that got caught? A personal favor? And I can't bring my team along to help?

Hackett set Shepard up. He should have gone and saved his friend himself. Ball-less bauble head leader that he is, he sent the one woman thats known for getting the job done and then stood back and grumbles about batarian casualties?! Informing Shepard to be ready to take the hit?!

What an arse.

How in the world does a Spectre answer to the the Alliance?

... but the council is no better. So... meh.

Shepard always gets the low end of the totum pole. Everyone doubts her, even after she's proven herself time and time again. For this reason, I really dislike everything Alliance AND the Council.

[dreamgazer]

The dialogue wheel appears three times during the speech.

[TheMyron]

Even So, Lack of choices and auto-dialogue still stand. Plus, its far too late in the game.

P.S. Is it just me, or are we unable to Quote and Edit?

[SwobyJ]

@Street: TIM *IS* a Shepard fanboy in ME2. It's in ME3 that he gets more rapidly turned towards his selfishness and the promise of Reaper technology. It's an ongoing transition

@TheMyron: There are THREE uses of the dialogue wheel. THREE choices.

[Massa FX]

I'm really hoping ME4 allows different career paths. I don't want to report to the council or the alliance. Anything would be better.

Pirate! Merc! Disenfranchised accountant! Unhappy housewife! Whatever.

[SwobyJ]

And yes Edit is broken. I would have edited my last post if I could.

[Massa FX]

I cannot edit. So... the forum is broken.

[SwobyJ]

"Pirate! Merc! Disenfranchised accountant! Unhappy housewife! Whatever. "

Any of those would also be talked down to by certain people.

Maybe you want to be a demigod or leader of a nation.

[dreamgazer]

Can't quote either. MASS HYSTERIA.

[TheMyron]

Three choices PER use of the dialogue wheel? Or just the overly vague two choices?