177 réponses à ce sujet

[Daemul]

congokong wrote...

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.

Shepard is still part of the alliance regardless, he is still beholden to them like Ashley and Kaidan are, as they damn well should be. 

[Khavos]

congokong wrote...

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

Pretty strange that Anderson gave him his dogtags back and reinstated him in the Alliance navy - which Hackett later confirmed via e-mail - in the intro to ME3, then.  

Come to think of it, if Shepard answers only to the Council, what's the Alliance doing holding him for six months pending possible court martial?

It's pretty clear Shepard's still subject to the Alliance chain of command.  Whether that makes any sense or not is irrelevant; none of the military aspects of Mass Effect make any sense.  You've got Marine infantry officers referring to themselves as soldiers, introducing themselves as "of the Alliance Navy," and eventually getting command of frigates.  

[congokong]

Khavos wrote...

congokong wrote...

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

Pretty strange that Anderson gave him his dogtags back and reinstated him in the Alliance navy - which Hackett later confirmed via e-mail - in the intro to ME3, then.  

Come to think of it, if Shepard answers only to the Council, what's the Alliance doing holding him for six months pending possible court martial?

It's pretty clear Shepard's still subject to the Alliance chain of command.  Whether that makes any sense or not is irrelevant; none of the military aspects of Mass Effect make any sense.  You've got Marine infantry officers referring to themselves as soldiers, introducing themselves as "of the Alliance Navy," and eventually getting command of frigates.  

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense. After ME1 the spectre status became largely symbolic; almost forgotten. All it really gets you is access to a terminal at the embassies.

I assumed the Alliance was holding Shepard to a) sacrifice him to the batarians if the reapers don't show up or preserve Shepard as a resource for when the reapers do show up. The game is very vague on just what was going on there. Hell, you're still in detention even without doing Arrival just for working with Cerberus to save the galaxy.

[Khavos]

StreetMagic wrote...
I think it's just for outside reasons. Bioware trying to appeal to military shooter crowd. Alliance is more familiar. Being a subservient boyscout is a comfort zone for these folks.

You might want to rethink that.  

[jamesp81]

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.

JMO, but I never got that about Anderson.  Thought he was an awesome character, one of the better ones of the series.

[AlanC9]

congokong wrote...

I assumed the Alliance was holding Shepard to a) sacrifice him to the batarians if the reapers don't show up or preserve Shepard as a resource for when the reapers do show up. The game is very vague on just what was going on there. Hell, you're still in detention even without doing Arrival just for working with Cerberus to save the galaxy.

Yep. That's the problem with making Arrival optional.

[wright1978]

StreetMagic wrote...

Khavos wrote...

congokong wrote...

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

Pretty strange that Anderson gave him his dogtags back and reinstated him in the Alliance navy - which Hackett later confirmed via e-mail - in the intro to ME3, then.  

Come to think of it, if Shepard answers only to the Council, what's the Alliance doing holding him for six months pending possible court martial?

It's pretty clear Shepard's still subject to the Alliance chain of command.  Whether that makes any sense or not is irrelevant; none of the military aspects of Mass Effect make any sense.  You've got Marine infantry officers referring to themselves as soldiers, introducing themselves as "of the Alliance Navy," and eventually getting command of frigates.  

I think it's just for outside reasons. Bioware trying to appeal to military shooter crowd. Alliance is more familiar. Being a subservient boyscout is a comfort zone for these folks.

That said, I almost don't mind it myself. I hate the council too. And in my opinion, Spectres really do have too much power.

I was very annoyed at being forced back into being their dogsbody after having expressed negative opinions about them and no desire to return to my former role in ME2. Then in ME3 Shep has been brainwashed into constantly saluting anything wearing blue and having zero problem with being locked up for 6 months. Leading the fight against reapers as a spectre would have mademore sense imo as well but sadly marketing decreed galaxy could burn as long as Alliance saved earth.

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...
They didn't have to create the premise of ME3 with Arrival or detention on Earth in mind though. ME2 doesn't end on that type of note. You get this impression that you finally have a solid team of your own, giving you nods and such, and you've become an expert on the Reapers. Same goes with the Speech to TIM at the end. There are different variations, but one of them is Shepard crowning himself the leader of humanity.. someone who will look out for them more than TIM (if you destroyed the base that is. I think it'd make sense to keep working with Cerberus otherwise).

edit: Basically, ME2 never needed a "bridging DLC". Hell, Shadow Broker could have sufficed there, as far massive resources and Crucible plot goes.

You're right. It's like they wrote around Arrival and then realized that the vast majority of ME3 players wouldn't have played Arrival.

[SwobyJ]

Arrival is awesome.

But it's nothing we don't learn from the Collector story, in itself. It just emphasizes certain information and themes.

[wright1978]

AlanC9 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...
They didn't have to create the premise of ME3 with Arrival or detention on Earth in mind though. ME2 doesn't end on that type of note. You get this impression that you finally have a solid team of your own, giving you nods and such, and you've become an expert on the Reapers. Same goes with the Speech to TIM at the end. There are different variations, but one of them is Shepard crowning himself the leader of humanity.. someone who will look out for them more than TIM (if you destroyed the base that is. I think it'd make sense to keep working with Cerberus otherwise).

edit: Basically, ME2 never needed a "bridging DLC". Hell, Shadow Broker could have sufficed there, as far massive resources and Crucible plot goes.

You're right. It's like they wrote around Arrival and then realized that the vast majority of ME3 players wouldn't have played Arrival.

I hated Arrival with a passion but swallowed it because i thought its awful linearness was to act as a briding DLC to set up ME3. Then ME3 swung round and its a bizarre side note.

[RangerSG]

SwobyJ wrote...

Arrival is awesome.

But it's nothing we don't learn from the Collector story, in itself. It just emphasizes certain information and themes.

I agree. Arrival and LotSB are both great DLC. That said, neither is 'necessary' to me. I choose one or the other typically based on what that Shepard would value.

The 'impounding' of Shepard makes sense only so far as:

1) supposedly, it's voluntary. Shep turns Normandy in. It really needed a dialogue to explain why your character WOULD do that (though I could see it as an attempt to remind the Alliance what matters).

2) The PC's Spectre status is in doubt. Indeed, if it was Udina in ME2, it's in outright denial. Now I doubt Udina really had that authority. But propriety never matters to him, unless he's being imposed on. So another chance to throw Shep under the bus? Sure, I believe Udina would take that. Again, however, this ought to have been clarified. 

So from a plot standpoint, there are legitimate reasons for the Alliance to be unsure what to do with Shepard when the PC turns in the Normandy. Now whether this was the best place to start ME3 from is another question. I think it could've worked just as well by reversing Mars and Earth. Find Prothean data wih Liara (Cerberus could have seemingly rogue members attack even), recognize you need Alliance resources to build it. And then appear before the committee just as Earth gets assaulted. Main plot works the same, but I think as a bridge from ME2, it would've been smoother. 

[SwobyJ]

I was thinkin about other stuff, like Shepard on his knees in front of a Reaper artifact claiming it'll have his mind.

Nothing we can't glean from Harby's ranting after the Collector Base gets taken/destroyed.

~~~

Anyway, I think there's reasons for both things you listed. Not telling though. This isn't the thread for that

[congokong]

Arrival was nothing special. You only get about an hour worth of gameplay for $7. There are no real choices either. Is shooting Kenson optional? I always shoot her. And you have to kill those 300,000 batarians. It worked as a good epilogue though. It was the one thing I did AFTER the suicide mission. Hackett's mission comes last because I don't like him (OP as reference).

LotSB was fantastic especially as a Liaramancer which makes it necessary for me. But it came with the game anyway. The Normandy tour scene is the best in the series IMO.

I didn't understand why Shepard surrendered herself to the Alliance either; especially my renegade Shepard. She knows the reapers are coming but she's willing to surrender to backroom politics and just wait it out?!

[Khavos]

congokong wrote...

I didn't understand why Shepard surrendered herself to the Alliance either; especially my renegade Shepard. She knows the reapers are coming but she's willing to surrender to backroom politics and just wait it out?!

Because, as stated, he's still subject to Alliance authority.  

And because the Alliance would be very necessary to fighting the Reapers.  

[AlexMBrennan]

She knows the reapers are coming but she's willing to surrender to backroom politics and just wait it out?!

Ok, please tell me what you were going to do because all Shepard has ever done was killing disposable pawns of the enemy (introduced, of course, to give a TPS protagonist something to shoot at and feel heroic).
Shepard is one infantryman, and the enemy is a massive armada of superdreadnoughts.

[wright1978]

Khavos wrote...

congokong wrote...

I didn't understand why Shepard surrendered herself to the Alliance either; especially my renegade Shepard. She knows the reapers are coming but she's willing to surrender to backroom politics and just wait it out?!

Because, as stated, he's still subject to Alliance authority.  

And because the Alliance would be very necessary to fighting the Reapers.  

The first really isn't true though due to his/her SPECTRE status and the fact that he/she is no even a member of the Alliance military at that point.

The second reason was what i thought they were running with in terms Shep deciding to come in.
However apparently the real reason was that Shep wanted a nice soft bed and wasn't bothered that the Alliance had him/her caged up while they did nothing.

[Khavos]

wright1978 wrote...

The first really isn't true though due to his/her SPECTRE status and the fact that he/she is no even a member of the Alliance military at that point.

It's very clear from the intro cutscene to ME3 that Shepard is in fact a member of the Alliance military and subject to Alliance authority.  Shepard is being held by the Alliance.  Shepard is reinstated by Anderson, right after saying, "I don't take orders from you anymore, remember?"  Anderson then throws Shepard dogtags, and says, "Consider yourself reinstated, Commander."  

There's no arguing this.  Shepard is a member of the Alliance military and subject to the Alliance chain of command.

The second reason was what i thought they were running with in terms Shep deciding to come in.
However apparently the real reason was that Shep wanted a nice soft bed and wasn't bothered that the Alliance had him/her caged up while they did nothing.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Shepard can't fight the Reapers on his own.  The Alliance needed to be involved in the fight.  As did the turians and asari and salarians and krogan and everybody else. 

[shodiswe]

StreetMagic wrote...

There is no Alliance chain of command. There are only writers and their arbitrary reasons for doing anything. There are dozens of ways to make a galactic war story move forward. This was just one of them.

One was clearly to eradicate the Alliance Parliament.

In a way, it strenghtened Admiral Hackett's position as Leader of the Alliance forces. The Death Of Udina strengthened it even more.
In the end Hackett had authority and could command the Alliance fleets and resources the way he needed them just like the Turian Primarch.

The Reapers and Cerberus might just have strengthened the Alliance and made the spear even sharper.

Maybe Bioware thought this was needed for the story.

Modifié par shodiswe, 31 janvier 2014 - 11:50 .

[von uber]

The other thing to consider is that if Shepard is still a Spectre and doesn't surrender to the Alliance, then she would be hauled up in front of the Council to explain why she killed 300,000 batarians. Ah yes, "reapers".

[congokong]

Khavos wrote...

congokong wrote...

I didn't understand why Shepard surrendered herself to the Alliance either; especially my renegade Shepard. She knows the reapers are coming but she's willing to surrender to backroom politics and just wait it out?!

Because, as stated, he's still subject to Alliance authority.  

And because the Alliance would be very necessary to fighting the Reapers.  

She doesn't have to obey. If she just followed Alliance authority she would never have worked for Cerberus. What? Is the Alliance going to skip the war if Shepard didn't turn herself in? Or do you mean the batarians will just wage war if Shepard isn't in a cell? The batarians cannot blame the Alliance for Shepard being a fugitive any more than the Alliance keeping Shepard protected in a cell on earth.


I was surprised how amiable Liara was to Hackett after ME2 to the beginning of ME3 considering what she went through to get Shepard back. If the reapers didn't kill Shepard then Hackett's backroom politics would.

Modifié par congokong, 31 janvier 2014 - 04:54 .