177 réponses à ce sujet

[Fixers0]

StreetMagic wrote...
I figured Torfan makes most sense if Shepard let personal feelings get in the way (i.e. Colonist). I view them the same way Zaeed sees Vido or Jack views Cerberus. This version of Shepard could've seen his best friend or mom killed or raped by some Batarians at Mindoir. If someone experienced this, they'd have to be a saint to not want to kill every Batarian they see and ****** on their corpses afterwards. I think the only thing that might cure this Shepard is the events of Arrival - they finally get their fill of killing Batarians and it's too much even for them.

That's why i like the spacer/ruthless, as it comes the closest to being consciously ruthless character. The most well educated and unmblemished of the backgrounds committing the most Brutal of backgrounds. In my eyes these character have the potentional to be the darkest and coldest of Shepards.

[jamesp81]

congokong wrote...

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.

Hackett's job is to defeat the Reapers by any means necessary.  If that means ordering Shepard to his death, not only would Hackett do it, he SHOULD do it.  That's something that a renegade Shepard would understand perfectly.  Anderson has lost so much blood by that point that he's not really all there anymore.

The point is, the Sword and Shield fleets are getting their asses handed to them and if the Crucible doesn't fire, everyone's dead.  Hackett doesn't have the luxury of politeness here.

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

I think maybe you have to ask him about it specifically.  I don't remember for sure from my last playthrough though.

congokong wrote...
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.

Shepard is the leader of a single ship and crew.  He got to give a speech to them later.  Hackett is leading the entire fleet; giving the speech from the Normandy is largely symbolic.  I didn't have a problem with it personally.

[Fixers0]

StreetMagic wrote...
I could see that. Like maybe similar to Admiral Cain in Battlestar. Consciously ruthless and draconian.

edit: Saren is pretty much like this too.

Yeah, I generally prefer the conflicting backgrounds (spacer/ruthless, earthborn/war hero) over the ones that go smoothly together. they tend to lead to more compelling playthroughs.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I never got the Hackett hate, outside of people who insist we could have pew pew'd the reapers to death.

[Karlone123]

I think due to formal relationship between Hackett and Shepard, Shepard letting Hackett onto the Normandy to make the speech to the galaxy fleet that Shepard assembled and followed is what irked me. Shepard should be the one to make the speech instead of being on the sidelines.

[Display Name Owner]

I don't mind someone not approving of everything Shep does. Hell, I actually kind of like that Mikhailovich guy who gives you all the attitude in ME1. Hackett still kind of annoys me though. In ME3 anyway. Partly the military sounding mumbo jumbo that comes out of his mouth, where he says a lot of jargon without actually saying anything clever at all. Also he spends too much time talking up Shepard, and it always irks me when characters go over the top with that.

I didn't mind him in ME1, but then he was just a disembodied voice that told you to do the odd thing here and there.

Hate's a strong word, I just don't find him that cool.

[congokong]

jamesp81 wrote...

congokong wrote...

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.

1. Hackett's job is to defeat the Reapers by any means necessary.  If that means ordering Shepard to his death, not only would Hackett do it, he SHOULD do it.  That's something that a renegade Shepard would understand perfectly.  Anderson has lost so much blood by that point that he's not really all there anymore.

The point is, the Sword and Shield fleets are getting their asses handed to them and if the Crucible doesn't fire, everyone's dead.  Hackett doesn't have the luxury of politeness here.

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

2. I think maybe you have to ask him about it specifically.  I don't remember for sure from my last playthrough though.

congokong wrote...
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.

3. Shepard is the leader of a single ship and crew.  He got to give a speech to them later.  Hackett is leading the entire fleet; giving the speech from the Normandy is largely symbolic.  I didn't have a problem with it personally.

1. Hackett could have said "are you okay" just as easily as "Commander Shepard!" which is what he does say. I'm not suggesting he doesn't send Shepard into a do or die situation but he could at least express some concern.

2. No, Hackett shows zero appreciation for the geth/quarian peace. He just mentions that bringing both in has been a big help in the war effort. Even Tevos the Asari councilor shows some gratitude even though she's been a real pain since ME1.

3. Shepard never gives a speech to her ship's crew. Hackett does. Shepard gives a speech to her squadmates before the final assault. And considering that Shepard is the "sole hope" as Tevos puts it she should be giving the speech; not Hackett. Hackett has never done anything that could compare to what Shepard has. Even if rank allows Hackett to steal the thunder (which I'm unsure of since Shepard is a spectre) he should step aside and let Shepard address everyone as it shows some real appreciation which again Hackett lacks.

Modifié par congokong, 27 janvier 2014 - 09:15 .

[RangerSG]

Karlone123 wrote...

I think due to formal relationship between Hackett and Shepard, Shepard letting Hackett onto the Normandy to make the speech to the galaxy fleet that Shepard assembled and followed is what irked me. Shepard should be the one to make the speech instead of being on the sidelines.

Why? Normandy is an Alliance ship, and Hackett is the Alliance's Commanding Officer. Shepard commands the Normandy by Hackett's leave.

I neither love nor loathe Hackett. But looking at it from the perspective of someone who served, what Hackett does is actually an honor to Shepard. It's not 'stealing his thunder' or 'sending him to the sidelines.' It's a tacit acknowledgement by Hackett that they are only in that place because of what Normandy (and by extension Shepard) has done. Also that Normandy, with it's multi-racial crew, is symbolic of the war against the Reapers in total. 

When an Admiral comes aboard your ship, it's an honor. Not an insult. And it's a symbol done with a purpose. Not simply 'because.' Especially since Hackett asks Shepard if they're ready to bring the fight to the Reapers, and then lets HIM give the firing orders (even though Shepard has zero established fleet command--and almost as little ship-to-ship combat experience at the time). That's far from 'stealing Shepard's thunder.' 

[RangerSG]

congokong wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

congokong wrote...

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.

1. Hackett's job is to defeat the Reapers by any means necessary.  If that means ordering Shepard to his death, not only would Hackett do it, he SHOULD do it.  That's something that a renegade Shepard would understand perfectly.  Anderson has lost so much blood by that point that he's not really all there anymore.

The point is, the Sword and Shield fleets are getting their asses handed to them and if the Crucible doesn't fire, everyone's dead.  Hackett doesn't have the luxury of politeness here.

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

2. I think maybe you have to ask him about it specifically.  I don't remember for sure from my last playthrough though.

congokong wrote...
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.

3. Shepard is the leader of a single ship and crew.  He got to give a speech to them later.  Hackett is leading the entire fleet; giving the speech from the Normandy is largely symbolic.  I didn't have a problem with it personally.

1. Hackett could have said "are you okay" just as easily as "Commander Shepard!" which is what he does say. I'm not suggesting he doesn't send Shepard into a do or die situation but he could at least express some concern.

2. No, Hackett shows zero appreciation for the geth/quarian peace. He just mentions that bringing both in has been a big help in the war effort. Even Tevos the Asari councilor shows some gratitude even though she's been a real pain since ME1.

3. Shepard never gives a speech to her ship's crew. Hackett does. Shepard gives a speech to her squadmates before the final assault. And considering that Shepard is the "sole hope" as Tevos puts it she should be giving the speech; not Hackett. Hackett has never done anything that could compare to what Shepard has. Even if rank allows Hackett to steal the thunder (which I'm unsure of since Shepard is a spectre) he should step aside and let Shepard address everyone as it shows some real appreciation which again Hackett lacks.

The Geth/Quarian 'review' is mucked because it kicks to the Asari Councilor first. You have to link to Hackett there. So whatever gratitude Hackett has for accomplishing the mission is buried by scene design. He gives Shepard plenty of credit for successful missions elsewhere. So I'm inclined to write that off as clunky design, not Hackett's personality. Not to mention that this is the segment where Shepard can ask, "Why me?" and get Hackett to flat out say, "No one else can."

[thehomeworld]

No, I love him especially his voice its very sexy but I hate how BW let the whole Hackett reaper agent potential go so much could've been done with that angle.

[Nightwriter]

congokong wrote...

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.

If he had, people would've started screeching YOU'RE NOT MY BUDDY!! yet again.

Srsly, a lot of people don't like Anderson just because he is so supportive of Shepard. They say Anderson is thus being forced on them as mentor. A few also feel that Anderson's unconditional support of Shepard makes him look like an all-accepting Shep worshiper with no sense of independence.

[Nightwriter]

StreetMagic wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

congokong wrote...

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.

If he had, people would've started screeching YOU'RE NOT MY BUDDY!! yet again.

Srsly, a lot of people don't like Anderson just because he is so supportive of Shepard. They say Anderson is thus being forced on them as mentor. A few also feel that Anderson's unconditional support of Shepard makes him look like an all-accepting Shep worshiper with no sense of independence.

I would say that more about Garrus. He at least sees many of your actions and then expresses his approval, no matter what it is. He seems explicitly written now to not rock the boat at all. As if every gamer is a sensitive outcast teen who needs to be coddled with a Yes Man best buddy. He was cool before though. Just stood around and calibrated.

Anderson, at least in ME1, wasn't so approving. You can challenge him on different things, and he'd be adamant at times in waving off your responses.

Yeah I do recall that you could get Anderson's dander up in ME1 at least, which always undermined the "Anderson is Shepard's Yes Man" argument somewhat imo. 

But they'd also point to things like Anderson immediately accepting the Reaper threat on Shepard's word alone, without any proof. Something about this making him a blindly trusting dolt.

I never had a problem with Garrus. I think people are often overly sensitive about agreeable companions. My perspective is probably skewed though. I never play a douche so I never see these characters letting a douche walk all over them.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Fixers0 wrote...
That's why i like the spacer/ruthless, as it comes the closest to being consciously ruthless character. The most well educated and unmblemished of the backgrounds committing the most Brutal of backgrounds. In my eyes these character have the potentional to be the darkest and coldest of Shepards.

Is the conversation with Shepard's mother in ME1 any different if you're a Ruthless Spacer as opposed to War Hero or Sole Survivor?

[Karlone123]

RangerSG wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

I think due to formal relationship between Hackett and Shepard, Shepard letting Hackett onto the Normandy to make the speech to the galaxy fleet that Shepard assembled and followed is what irked me. Shepard should be the one to make the speech instead of being on the sidelines.

Why? Normandy is an Alliance ship, and Hackett is the Alliance's Commanding Officer. Shepard commands the Normandy by Hackett's leave.

I neither love nor loathe Hackett. But looking at it from the perspective of someone who served, what Hackett does is actually an honor to Shepard. It's not 'stealing his thunder' or 'sending him to the sidelines.' It's a tacit acknowledgement by Hackett that they are only in that place because of what Normandy (and by extension Shepard) has done. Also that Normandy, with it's multi-racial crew, is symbolic of the war against the Reapers in total. 

When an Admiral comes aboard your ship, it's an honor. Not an insult. And it's a symbol done with a purpose. Not simply 'because.' Especially since Hackett asks Shepard if they're ready to bring the fight to the Reapers, and then lets HIM give the firing orders (even though Shepard has zero established fleet command--and almost as little ship-to-ship combat experience at the time). That's far from 'stealing Shepard's thunder.' 

I don't know anything about honours, it wasn't that much of an honour when Rear Admiral mikhailovich did an inspection on the Normandy SR1, and Shepard had the option to refuse his inspection for being a Spectre. The fleet that followed Shepard would have more respect for Shepard as he is the fist human Spectre the one who made a truce between the Krogan and Turians, recovered Ranoch for the Quarians/Geth, saved the Citadel from Sovereign and later Ceberus.

So who would be more suitable to making a speech for symbolic reasons? Shepard, a soldier who has done most of the fighting? Or Hackett, an Admiral who precided over the most devastating defeat in human history?

Modifié par Karlone123, 28 janvier 2014 - 10:58 .

[congokong]

Karlone123 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

I think due to formal relationship between Hackett and Shepard, Shepard letting Hackett onto the Normandy to make the speech to the galaxy fleet that Shepard assembled and followed is what irked me. Shepard should be the one to make the speech instead of being on the sidelines.

Why? Normandy is an Alliance ship, and Hackett is the Alliance's Commanding Officer. Shepard commands the Normandy by Hackett's leave.

I neither love nor loathe Hackett. But looking at it from the perspective of someone who served, what Hackett does is actually an honor to Shepard. It's not 'stealing his thunder' or 'sending him to the sidelines.' It's a tacit acknowledgement by Hackett that they are only in that place because of what Normandy (and by extension Shepard) has done. Also that Normandy, with it's multi-racial crew, is symbolic of the war against the Reapers in total. 

When an Admiral comes aboard your ship, it's an honor. Not an insult. And it's a symbol done with a purpose. Not simply 'because.' Especially since Hackett asks Shepard if they're ready to bring the fight to the Reapers, and then lets HIM give the firing orders (even though Shepard has zero established fleet command--and almost as little ship-to-ship combat experience at the time). That's far from 'stealing Shepard's thunder.' 

I don't know anything about honours, it wasn't that much of an honour when Rear Admiral mikhailovich did an inspection on the Normandy SR1, and Shepard had the option to refuse his inspection for being a Spectre. The fleet that followed Shepard would have more respect for Shepard as he is the fist human Spectre the one who made a truce between the Krogan and Turians, recovered Ranoch for the Quarians/Geth, saved the Citadel from Sovereign and later Ceberus.

So who would be more suitable to making a speech for symbolic reasons? Shepard, a soldier who has done most of the fighting? Or Hackett, an Admiral who precided over the most devastating defeat in human history?

This.

I just don't get Shepard's relationship with Hackett at all. She clearly sees herself as an inferior officer by the way she does whatever he wants and never the other way around even when he undermines her as I mentioned in my OP. She's not his friend. She's a tool to him.

It's annoying how Hackett has the nerve to judge Shepard for Torfan while he, as you said, precided over the most devastating defeat in human history. And yet Shepard stands by the galaxy map as Hackett addresses the galaxy's fleets?!

[Daemul]

People can't seem to Hack It. 

Modifié par Daemul, 29 janvier 2014 - 11:53 .

[Khavos]

congokong wrote...

This.

I just don't get Shepard's relationship with Hackett at all. She clearly sees herself as an inferior officer by the way she does whatever he wants and never the other way around even when he undermines her as I mentioned in my OP. She's not his friend. She's a tool to him.

It's annoying how Hackett has the nerve to judge Shepard for Torfan while he, as you said, precided over the most devastating defeat in human history. And yet Shepard stands by the galaxy map as Hackett addresses the galaxy's fleets?!

Well, Shepard IS an inferior officer.  Hacket's an admiral.  Shepard's either a Lieutenant Commander  or a Staff Commander (don't think it's ever made clear which).  Which, interestingly, also means that Kaidan outranks Shepard.  

[congokong]

Khavos wrote...

congokong wrote...

This.

I just don't get Shepard's relationship with Hackett at all. She clearly sees herself as an inferior officer by the way she does whatever he wants and never the other way around even when he undermines her as I mentioned in my OP. She's not his friend. She's a tool to him.

It's annoying how Hackett has the nerve to judge Shepard for Torfan while he, as you said, precided over the most devastating defeat in human history. And yet Shepard stands by the galaxy map as Hackett addresses the galaxy's fleets?!

Well, Shepard IS an inferior officer.  Hacket's an admiral.  Shepard's either a Lieutenant Commander  or a Staff Commander (don't think it's ever made clear which).  Which, interestingly, also means that Kaidan outranks Shepard.  

Have you played the games? Shepard is a spectre. Spectres answer only to the council.

[ImaginaryMatter]

congokong wrote...

Khavos wrote...

Well, Shepard IS an inferior officer.  Hacket's an admiral.  Shepard's either a Lieutenant Commander  or a Staff Commander (don't think it's ever made clear which).  Which, interestingly, also means that Kaidan outranks Shepard.  

Have you played the games? Shepard is a spectre. Spectres answer only to the council.

Yes, but Shepard still continues to see himself as part of the Alliance and thus part of its command structure.