33 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I'm sensing a lot of dislike for this Hackett character.

It's mainly due to him wanting the Crucible and not pulling victory through conventional military means out of his arse.

[Ruadh]

There is one ending where everyone is still alive . . .

[grey_wind]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I'm sensing a lot of dislike for this Hackett character.

It's more how he's wirtten than anything else.
Even granting the conceit that the Crucible is the only way to win within the narrative confines of ME3, Hackett's blind faith in it is nauseating. I find it baffling how enamoured he is by the idea of something whose functions nobody even understands. One can argue that there are no other ways to deal with the Reapers, but he didn't even put any effort into looking into alternative plans (even if they were as far fetched as the Crucible) in case his magic Reaper off-switch didn't work.
His reaction to the data from Sanctuary, data that could hold the key to being a game changer if the Crucible fails, is a dismissive "not worth it".
His grand strategy to recovering Vendetta from Cerberus was to launch an all out assault that announced the existence of the Crucible to the Reapers and would have forced the allied fleets to march on Earth no matter what the outcome at Cronos Station was. Exactly what was his plan if the Catalyst turned out to be another device that needed months to build?

And then he mind numbingly likens his magical superweapon to the nukes dropped on Japan.

I don't really hate the character. He's meant to be well-meaning, smart and a reasonable authority figure. But the way he's written, he comes across as a moron.

[noobcannon]

grey_wind wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I'm sensing a lot of dislike for this Hackett character.

It's more how he's wirtten than anything else.
Even granting the conceit that the Crucible is the only way to win within the narrative confines of ME3, Hackett's blind faith in it is nauseating. I find it baffling how enamoured he is by the idea of something whose functions nobody even understands. One can argue that there are no other ways to deal with the Reapers, but he didn't even put any effort into looking into alternative plans (even if they were as far fetched as the Crucible) in case his magic Reaper off-switch didn't work.
His reaction to the data from Sanctuary, data that could hold the key to being a game changer if the Crucible fails, is a dismissive "not worth it".
His grand strategy to recovering Vendetta from Cerberus was to launch an all out assault that announced the existence of the Crucible to the Reapers and would have forced the allied fleets to march on Earth no matter what the outcome at Cronos Station was. Exactly what was his plan if the Catalyst turned out to be another device that needed months to build?

And then he mind numbingly likens his magical superweapon to the nukes dropped on Japan.

I don't really hate the character. He's meant to be well-meaning, smart and a reasonable authority figure. But the way he's written, he comes across as a moron.

hackett and coates are the kind of characters i dont like. cliche and very boring. makes me think im playing halo or something.

[ImaginaryMatter]

grey_wind wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I'm sensing a lot of dislike for this Hackett character.

It's more how he's wirtten than anything else.
Even granting the conceit that the Crucible is the only way to win within the narrative confines of ME3, Hackett's blind faith in it is nauseating. I find it baffling how enamoured he is by the idea of something whose functions nobody even understands. One can argue that there are no other ways to deal with the Reapers, but he didn't even put any effort into looking into alternative plans (even if they were as far fetched as the Crucible) in case his magic Reaper off-switch didn't work.
His reaction to the data from Sanctuary, data that could hold the key to being a game changer if the Crucible fails, is a dismissive "not worth it".
His grand strategy to recovering Vendetta from Cerberus was to launch an all out assault that announced the existence of the Crucible to the Reapers and would have forced the allied fleets to march on Earth no matter what the outcome at Cronos Station was. Exactly what was his plan if the Catalyst turned out to be another device that needed months to build?

And then he mind numbingly likens his magical superweapon to the nukes dropped on Japan.

I don't really hate the character. He's meant to be well-meaning, smart and a reasonable authority figure. But the way he's written, he comes across as a moron.

I think the same could be same for every character. Throughout the trilogy everyone gets to hold the idiot ball for at least a few minutes, especially when it comes to the lack of story development made from ME2 to ME3 (this literally includes everybody, including Shepard and squadmates).

[grey_wind]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I'm sensing a lot of dislike for this Hackett character.

It's more how he's wirtten than anything else.
Even granting the conceit that the Crucible is the only way to win within the narrative confines of ME3, Hackett's blind faith in it is nauseating. I find it baffling how enamoured he is by the idea of something whose functions nobody even understands. One can argue that there are no other ways to deal with the Reapers, but he didn't even put any effort into looking into alternative plans (even if they were as far fetched as the Crucible) in case his magic Reaper off-switch didn't work.
His reaction to the data from Sanctuary, data that could hold the key to being a game changer if the Crucible fails, is a dismissive "not worth it".
His grand strategy to recovering Vendetta from Cerberus was to launch an all out assault that announced the existence of the Crucible to the Reapers and would have forced the allied fleets to march on Earth no matter what the outcome at Cronos Station was. Exactly what was his plan if the Catalyst turned out to be another device that needed months to build?

And then he mind numbingly likens his magical superweapon to the nukes dropped on Japan.

I don't really hate the character. He's meant to be well-meaning, smart and a reasonable authority figure. But the way he's written, he comes across as a moron.

I think the same could be same for every character. Throughout the trilogy everyone gets to hold the idiot ball for at least a few minutes, especially when it comes to the lack of story development made from ME2 to ME3 (this literally includes everybody, including Shepard and squadmates).

I agree. Hackett just stands out the most to me for some reason, probably because he's technically the one directing all of Shepard's missions and the whole Crucible strategy in the ME3.
I think I've just directed my hate of all the terrible writing surrounding the Crucible plotline on to him. 

[shodiswe]

ginner dave wrote...

There is one ending where everyone is still alive . . .

Either you're talking about Mehem, or Control where Shepard is kind of alive... Least the mental part(but I'm fine with it, it saved a lot of people), it might be possible to make a clone and transfer through that device Legion used in the server mission.

Modifié par shodiswe, 16 février 2014 - 01:17 .

[JonathonPR]

The Reaper meme survives all endings.

[fhs33721]

shodiswe wrote...

ginner dave wrote...

There is one ending where everyone is still alive . . .

Either you're talking about Mehem, or Control where Shepard is kind of alive... Least the mental part(but I'm fine with it, it saved a lot of people), it might be possible to make a clone and transfer through that device Legion used in the server mission.

It must be Control due to the bolded part. It is the only ending where every named character (that is still alive at this point) survives. Including Shepard (in a way) and even Harbinger.