Talk:Illusive Man

I don't know what that example in the article is about, but I know EXACTLY who inspired the illusive man!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_Smoking_Man

http://x-files.wikia.com/wiki/Cigarette_Smoking_Man

Not only does he stay in the shadows, and SMOKE, but he actually looks THE SAME! (little younger, though) 65.27.139.162 03:04, November 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Gotta say, as a big X-Files fan myself, I totally see it. SpartHawg948 06:17, November 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Illusive Man turns out to be Shepard's real father, I'll be out for blood. --Vaile 21:58, December 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * As awesome as that prospect sounds, I'd have to say it's unlikely based on the whole choosing of backgrounds thing. SpartHawg948 23:36, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless it turns out, again like X-Files, that the man we thought was Shepard's father is not.--Vaile 01:18, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Martin Sheen?
Really? There were so many cool actors they could've gone with to voice the Illusive Man... William B Davis, Robert Davi, basically any of the ususal suspects for voicing dark mysterious characters, and instead they go with... Martin Sheen. Oh well... I'll just have to grit my teeth and play through it... SpartHawg948 20:40, November 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * HAHA!! I know what you mean! Everytime I hear his voice, my mind flashes back to those Eyewitness videos they used to play in my elementary school's Science Class. What were they thinking!? Effectofthemassvariety 04:23, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

I really like Martin Sheen, but they should've casted either Alan Rickman or Willem DaFoe. --LBCCCP 19:25, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Willem DaFoe I could kind of see, but Alan Rickman would have made him sound all whiny and nasally. That wouldn't do at all! You need dark and mysterious or dark and menacing, hence my suggestion of William B. Davis or Robert Davi. Now he's just going to sound like a smug old know-it-all, which I guess I can see, although I'd prefer to lose the old part. Or, since they appear to be getting a few people from BSG, why not James Callis or Edward James Olmos? Or Callum Keith Rennie? Oh well, what's done is done. At least we also get Michael Hogan and Michael Dorn! Now there's some good voice acting! :) SpartHawg948 21:07, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Callum Keith Rennie would've been a good choice. Even though Olmos and Callis are awesome, and did great in BSG, I can't see them in the role. I don't know, maybe it's me. :/ Effectofthemassvariety 21:16, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

All good ideas; I can especially see Robert Davi. By the way, when I say Alan Rickman, I'm mostly picturing his Hans Grüber from Die Hard. Well I guess I'm a little biased since I just watched that movie today and it's fresh in my mind. And a couple days ago I watched Platoon so that might be where Willem DaFoe came from. --LBCCCP 03:39, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * I dunno, I'm going to wait until I actually play through it to pass judgment. Think of David Carradine in Kill Bill Vol. 2. His mannerisms aren't what you'd attribute to the way his character was introduced - somewhat mysterious, puller of strings, in charge of deadly people - but once you see the movie and the way that he's characterized in it, it totally fits. I'm giving BioWare the benefit of them doubt until I play the game. Boter 00:55, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Never saw it, so no clue as to what you are talking about. All I know is that A) Martin Sheen doesn't seem at all right for the role, unlike the other actors I named and; B) The performances we've seen from him so far (from the videos and trailers and whatnot where Illusive Man talks) have totally lived down to my expectations of him. We'll see when it releases, but from what I've seen thus far I am definitely not holding my breath. SpartHawg948 01:01, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured from the trailers, but after having played... three hours longer than I should have last night, I'd say that he really did a good job with it. I enjoyed his performance :) Boter 17:50, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh, I liked Martin Sheen in this. Sure, there a number of actors who could've made a better job but I think it fits. --Fiskn 03:40, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Steely blues
http://masseffect.bioware.com/resources/assets/universe/characters/screenshots/illusive_man-02-p.jpg

Whats wrong with his eyes?

--- I assumed that he had implanted Cybernetics on to himself for various reasons and purposes --Fiskn 03:37, February 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * It could just be me and my crappy crt tv, but Saren appears to have had some ocular restructuring done to him as well. His eyes seem to be drastically different in the Virmire and Citadel encounters as compared to his Eden Prime appearance. They don't just appear to glow blue, but also seem to have physical demarcations. I might'nt have brought it up, except that he clearly has them on Virmire, before his supposed upgrades. A possible connection??Baron Von Awesome 18:17, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see Saren's eyes being odd. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but they looked normal to me. TheArcticVanguard 03:56, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * At first they're typical turian eyes, definitely. But from Virmire onwards, there is a significant luminosity and slight patterning to them.Baron Von Awesome 18:17, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Due to the obvious similarity to a Renegade Shepard's eyes (other than color, the only difference is that they're flipped), I think it's simply Bioware alluding to the mix of Renegade (the dots/Cerberus' anti alien practices) and the Paragon (the blue/Cerberus' long term goal of advancing humanity as a whole). CAW4 01:51, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

I just assumed that he had implants. Maybe he was blind at one point? It would be interesting. The blind man that sees all. TheArcticVanguard 03:56, April 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly a possibility. Also, given some speculation that the next novel may be a prequel to ME2, we may see that the eyes were developed from Reaper tech gained through the Grayson experiments. Bit of a leap, but time will tell, yes?Baron Von Awesome 18:17, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * If Shepard's eyes are a consequence of the Lazarus Project, wouldn't the simplest explanation be that the Illusive Man's eyes have the same cause?75.84.184.44 09:53, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, because remember, the Lazarus Project was still a work in progress. It didn't actually achieve any results right up until... well, until the start of ME2. If the technology had already been perfected prior to that, it wouldn't have taken Cerberus so long, or so much money and effort, to bring Shepard back, would it? SpartHawg948 09:57, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the pattern of his eyes look a lot like sharingan?98.209.42.180 07:20, April 12, 2010 (UTC)Someone


 * I can kinda see it, although I wouldn't say it's very pronounced. If Mass Effect 3 is anything like naruto, they won't be getting my money. TheArcticVanguard 07:44, April 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * In Mass Effect: Evolution Jack Harper gets a secondhand effect from the artifact mainly in his eyes I speculate that Jack Harper is the Illusive Man and thats how he got his eyes.

took me long enough to figure it out - had a theory about 2 weeks ago about this. then i confirmed at NYCC on Friday, 10/14/11 - Cerberus is indoctrinated. my guess is that it comes from salvaging Sovereign from the Citadel. so... yes, his eyes would look like Saren's from Mass Effect.
 * Please take this to a more appropriate place, like a forum or blog post. Lancer1289 01:22, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

NOT HUMAN?
SPOILER ALERT: I cannot remember if it was after Jacob's mission or the one where you are ambushed on the "damaged" Collector ship, but The Illusive Man refers to humanity as being apart from himself. I wish I had wrote down what he says EXACTLY, so if anyone is approaching either part, give a heads up. Its subtle, but its definatly there.--174.103.224.13 05:19, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * If Renegade:


 * Illusive Man: "That humanity has a more fragile role in our galixy than we think


 * Player: "And where do you fit into this exactly."


 * Illusive Man: *chuckles* I'll always have a place.


 * That's a piece of supposition that is A) Not supported by the above dialogue (if this is indeed the correct dialogue) and B) Completely contradicted by the biographical information BioWare has provided. If the above dialogue is indeed what is being referred to, all the Illusive Man is saying is that humanity isn't as strong as it seems to think it is and that there will therefor always be a need for people like him (ie human ultra-nationalists willing to use whatever means necessary to defend humanity and advance the human agenda on the galactic front). SpartHawg948 05:40, February 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, after the Collector Cruiser mission, he says this: "Without that information, you and every other human would be dead." (In regards to why he withheld information that the Cruiser was a trap). It seems pretty odd to me that he seems to directly remove himself from this blanket label of human. It would be more plausible (if he was human), to say "Us and every other human..." Thoughts? --174.103.224.13 06:30, February 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * So, every other human must automatically not include him? You state that it seems odd to you that "he seems to directly remove himself from this blanket label of human." yet I see no evidence in his quote that he does any such thing. If anything, he didn't feel the need to include himself as it's pretty obvious that every other human would include another human, such as himself. As for why he wouldn't sat "Us and every other human", meybe because I doubt the Illusive Man would be caught using mangled grammar like that. There really is no good way for him to interject himself into that statement, nor would there be any need to if he's human, as it goes without saying that a human like him would be included in "every other human". SpartHawg948 06:33, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Conversation nuances aside, about halfway through the game it occurred to me that the Illusive Man could be a representative of an extra-galactic AI or cyborg rival group to the Reapers. Perhaps (like the divided geth) the Illusive Man's group recognizes the value of organic life in contrast to the Reapers, and they, for whatever reason, decided humanity stood the best chance to galvanize the galaxy's defenses against the Reapers. What really struck me was the emphasis on his apparently synthetic eyes - I'd be surprised if this weren't foreshadowing to some future plot twist.
 * Thankfully, it looks like the newest novel has pretty well dispelled these rumors. Pretty much the only way the Illusive Man is not human is if he doesn't know he's not human. Or unless he deliberately lies to himself while remembering the events of his youth. SpartHawg948 00:53, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

A strange place for an old friend to turn up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ioslNR0WiI

Watch the upper left area of the ceiling between times 1:40 and 1:50.

What??

Whachu talkin bout willis.. the cut scene is normal, nothing special there.

You aren't looking hard enough. It comes later within the timeframe. Just keep watching the upper left hand area

.

It is no on another video from the ending so its probably just a glitch with the video or was edited by the poster.

Not a glitch and not an edit. Just finished my hardcore run and I saw it as well.

Dude, you are smoking crack. There is nothing of out of the ordinary.75.92.47.248 12:00, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Umm, no. There is definitely a small window showing TIM. Maybe you need eye implants?

Hmm it seems it's on another video too. Odd.


 * There's definitely more to the Illusive Man than what's revealed. If he was able to watch Shepard destroy the Human Reaper, then something's up. Somehow he's connected, we just don't know how or why. Tecni 18:35, February 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously a graphical bug. It doesn't look like a window nor does it look like it is supposed to be one. --81.191.1.103 15:53, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

And what makes it an "obvious graphical bug" Mr. professional videogame developer?

Just noticed this, and decided to check it out, it took like 10 minutes to figure out what was being talked about, going nearly frame-by-frame you can see what happens, at 1:47 the human-reaper has fallen, and it switches pov to looking up from below, before Miranda looks over the edge is where it starts, at about 1:48 we see the tip of an orange-flesh like color through the crack on the upper right side, going further it *sort of* starts to look like the shape of the Illusive Man's head, however to me, it looks like it could be a sort of mirror glitch in the video (even though Shepard has a helmet on), because it also looks like a male Shepard to me, since you don't really see hair, and Shepard has short hair compared to Illusive Man's high hair, also Shepard had the same sort of movement as he was moving to look over the edge as well, also we kinda see eyes in that crack, but they aren't blue like Illusive Man's at all, I would think if it was meant to show us that it was him, the eyes would be noticed.. Also it's.. extremely high above, consider that there was a huge amount of space to fit the Human-Reaper, and there's plenty of shots of just how large that room is.. If the small part of Illusive Man's face is larger than Shepard's body, at that viewpoint, that means the Illusive Man would be just as large as the Human-Reaper itself, which is doubtful, since we saw him earlier in the same room as Miranda at the very start of the game. Also if it's not a glitch of Shepard, and really is the Illusive Man, it again, would likely be a glitch, because notice how similar it looks to the holographic of the Illusive Man, that pops up at 2:19/2:20, even the angle his head pops into view is kinda similar to how you see the glitch earlier, and it's the same video, with Illusive Man's eyes not obviously blue in the holographic, so heightens the chances of it being a simple video glitch.. sorry for the length of this, but just would seem silly to me, to call that a valid sighting of Illusive Man. Jaline 01:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, Someone should take a few snap-shots at high resolution so we can see it more clearly, because some grainy youtube video is not good source material to speculate over.75.92.47.248 20:12, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

found something. from 4chan. courtesy of 4chan 24.84.174.92 04:43, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Has to be a bug, he was clearly on his station talking to Shepard a few seconds/minutes later. Besides that, why would he (physically) be on a station that is just about to explode or be cleansed of all organic life? If he is meant to be there, it's an Easter egg surely. Bronzey 05:36, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

4chan really is grasping for straws aren't they now? That's a pretty lame saying there, bit long for it too I'd think. Anyways, it is a much better shot (though I'm not convinced it's entirely un-edited to be honest), but still... too much of a chance for it to simply be a bug. (Also, Illusive Man is *always* watching you, wouldn't be surprised if he simply had feeds from your suit, or your cybernetics, however some physical form of himself in the ceiling is just silly.) Jaline 05:45, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

It's not an edit I just replayed that part and I saw him too. It's clearly the illusive man. I'm thinking it might be a graphical bug caused by the fact that you talk to him through the hologram on that level. Maybe that's where they move the "object" of the hologram when it's not used.188.27.199.89 09:40, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Friendly Anon here, Ceiling TIM does not seem to appear in the XBOX360 version of the game as seen at 8:42 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JowP7nx3pM8

Interesting that this doesn't show up in the Xbox 360 version. A better video of the Illusive Man in the PC version can be found in the following link. Make sure to change the video options up to 720p HD for clearest viewing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmMot8ZnM_A -Sidedish 23:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Illusive Man in Ceiling
Just finished it myself on PC; and saw him clear as day. Rather shocking, actually, after dealing with a giant human-form Reaper. Here's a crazy, off-beat, left-field thought: the Illusive Man is actually a completed human-form Reaper. How about that? (Taking it a step further...) And he's actually physically watching through the ceiling as Shepherd deals the death blows to the partial Reaper. (Yes, I know he talks to Miranda face to face earlier, but what's with the sun changing color after the explosion? Where is he actually located/transmitting from? Hmm?) Incidentally, this is all random speculation; it's probably a glitch, I've had one similar on the Citadel, with frozen close-up dialogue characters showing through clipping in the background, so it's probably just that.

71.147.51.61 21:05, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * He's watching you masturbate. 80.57.69.29 12:42, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a face but it isnt Mooser 02:55, March 1, 2010 (UTC).

It is very clearly The Illusive Man in those frames, no doubt about it. However, I firmly believe this is a bug. Why? For one, PC users, like myself, experience similar bugs from time to time--for example, on Garrus' loyalty mission, after you confront Harkin, you and Garrus take a car to the Citadel to confront Sidonis. During the transition between the scene of Hark and the car scene, every single time my version glitches and distorts the background--to describe it more accurately, everything in the foreground and everything in motion moves as normal, however the background and textures all act transparent, creating a blur effect, while at the same time smearing the previous image of the Harkin confrontation, despite the fact that that scene is over. It's difficult to explain, but if someone would like I can go take a video of it and post it on YouTube--you'll find that it's very similar to this one. Note that, in the video, not only do you see TIM, but you also see the background area of where he's sitting (although it's all just black). Let me know if you want that video. EDIT: Watch this video. Right at the beginning you can see the graphical glitch--it's exactly like the one on the C-Base with Illusive Man, there's simply more room in the background for the scene to bleed through. Ramikadyc 01:16, March 20, 2010 (UTC)



Illusive Man or Elusive?
Illusive means, illusionary. are we meant to take this to mean the Illusive Man does not really exist? perhaps so, perhaps he is a projection from a machine, he certainly looks like he's computer generated.

Or is he just elusive? if you run a clandestine operation like Cerberus, you'd want to be elusive (and not just from telemarketers). he certainly is elusive even if he is also illusive, since Shepherd never actually gets to meet him and, in fact, the only person seen to meet him is Miranda. was she really also in the same room even?


 * Well, his name is indisputably the Illusive Man, not Elusive, and as for the meaning, you have to look at the source. The term 'illusive man' was coined by the Alliance to describe the purported author of an email circulated around the internet, the author of which the Alliance knew nothing about, nor could they learn anything about. Seeing as how this would imply that they weren't even sure it was a man who authored the email, illusive would seem to fit, wouldn't it? As for elusive, we don't know that some person named Shepherd wasn't able to meet him, but Commander Shepard definitely wasn't in-game. And actually, there are two people confirmed to "meet" him face-to-face. Miranda, who was indeed in the room with him, and an unnamed Cerberus member who is also seen in the room with him during a cutscene, taking a datapad from him. SpartHawg948 01:10, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're correct, of course. but there's a subtle word play here, you usually talk about something being elusive, because you cant find it. that's the concept you think about (at least it do). what im really saying here, is that the "illusive" bit is that he doesnt really exist and im wondering if this will play out in ME3 - this being a clue? Mooser 01:16, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Three people, if you count Paul Grayson. And that's one meeting we know of where he wasn't in his swank paragon-or-renegade-star sunroom. -- Delphinus 01:03, March 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * But how can he not exist if we've already seen him to physically exist? SpartHawg948 01:16, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * im fishing for plot lines here and the illusive man's elusive history could be, for example, he's Shepherd's father or, he's a machine - or something not what he appears to be. i hope we see some good plot in ME3 and this doesnt turn out to be another "administrator" who's existence is never explained. Mooser 01:22, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Illusive can also mean deceptive, misleading, or hard to grasp. --silverstrike 01:25, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the varied nature of Shepard's background, I find the father bit unlikely in the extreme. His being a machine is (in my opinion) similarly unlikely, given what we know about his back-story. It'd have to be a machine that had already infiltrated into humanity well before first contact with the turians. At this time, I don't really see any big "twists" relating to the Illusive Man, I think the big plot thing will have more to do with Shepard choosing his loyalties- does he side with the Alliance and the Citadel, or does he side with the Illusive Man? SpartHawg948 01:26, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he does physically exist and that the person who began this thread was over-simplifying things by using the term "illusionary." I think the context of "illusive" in this case was stating that he creates illusions, which is certainly true of a black-ops organization that uses several lucrative front businesses to mask its operations. "Illusive" in this case, I think, just means "he's hiding something," and we've seen him live up to that time and again in the course of the game. You never see all his cards. I'd have to go with the opinion of him being human, too. Power hungry, but human. And personally, just me, I'm not sure you really will be able to side with the Illusive Man in ME3. A paragon certainly wouldn't, and a renegade likely will come into more of a power struggle against the Illusive Man. I think he goes from being "your" boss in ME2 to "a" major boss in ME3. JakeARoonie 02:53, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Illusive Man's age
The galaxy's first sighting of the Illusive Man, as we know, came from his paper that showed up on the extranet "immediately following the First Contact War." Looking it up, the First Contact War took place in 2157, lasting three months. Mass Effect 2 takes place in 2185, approximately 26 years later. Unless the Illusive Man was a child prodigy, he must have been at LEAST a teenager to have written his extranet paper. Assuming he had to be at LEAST 16 at the time of that paper, his minimum age at the time of Mass Effect 2 would be 42 years old. I know that's far too speculative to include in the article proper, but thought it deserved mentioning somewhere. So, here you go. JakeARoonie 02:53, March 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * If the Illusive Man is really 42, my first thought would be about how that'd be a cool Hitchhiker's reference. Then again, I think anything sci-fi related to 42 is a Hitchhiker's reference. TheArcticVanguard 07:18, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

He acts like a 8 year old if you piss him off at the end. Illusive Manchild if you ask me

Is this taking into account the longer human life span
 * This topic belongs in the forums or a blog poast as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 10:28, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Use of the Collector Base
Anyone speculate as to what he'll use the collector base for (if you saved it)? I highly doubt it'll end up being used for the good of humanity so much as his own good. It's clear that he seeks a human dominated galaxy. Maybe a galactic conquest ending for ME3 if you save it? The expression on his face is far from friendly, in my opinion. He's definitely up to something. TheArcticVanguard 00:41, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are a few possibilities. Leaving the base intact obviously means that the Collectors weapons caches will be intact as well. By reverse engineering collector weaponry, or even just using the weapons themselves, the Illusive man would gain a huge advantage over the Alliance and Citadel Council. In addition, the recovered tech could also be used to upgrade the Normandy, or possibly create a new ship altogether; heck, maybe even a small fleet of ships. (A fleet of Collector Cruisers... I'd be willing to bet even Shepard would simply say to hell with it all and quit.) While this would be handy in a battle with the Reapers, there would be nothing to stop the Illusive man from then turning on the Alliance and Citadel. All speculation of course, but sensible speculation at least.Tantalus91 15:03, April 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * All very good points. And don't forget the ship graveyard in the space outside the base.  Who knows what technology could be on their hulls?  TheUnknown285 04:01, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

No reason to get hyper
i was thinking, maybe his weird eyes are maybe just prosthetic after all. due to the fact that hes always goin on about how information is his weapon and he has a f-load of contacts... maybe his eyes are just like connected to some some of information feeder... an ocular info lense of some sort??

I THINK CONTACT LENS LOL

Or something cybernetic. Maybe it's a graybox like Kasumi has. Or perhaps he's just as riddled with machine parts as Shepard.
 * Comments like this belong in the forums or a blog post. Lancer1289 01:14, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Quote change!
How about a quote change to: "Diplomacy is great when it works, but difficult when everyone already perceives you as a threat." ?

This quote stuck with me after the game and I think it deserves to be on here. Yay/Nay?


 * I think a change is good. The Illusive Man has many things to say, and I think that we should show several of them. This is just one of many of his memorable quotes, so I vote to change it. Dammej 07:26, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Awww... I was all set to vote in favor of changing the quote... then I realized which person was making what change. Personally, I think that the 'salvation comes at a cost...' quote is a much better character descriptor for TIM than is the diplomacy quote. After all, TIM really isn't diplomatic at all, at least not that we see, so fully 1/2 of the quote listed in the first post here really doesn't apply to him. I'm afraid I'll have to vote no. I'm sticking with salvation coming at a cost. SpartHawg948 07:41, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. It isn't necessary and I vote against the change. --The Illusive Man 07:54, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also going to have to disagree with the change becuase to me TIM seems very Machavellian in his style of handling things and pushing human interests. For someone who follows that style of thinking, the ends justify the means, they often don't negotiate on matters, they act. The current one, to me, seems to describe that style of thinking, and to be honest, as Spart already stated, he really isn't diplomatic at all. Lancer1289 07:56, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a no as well, I thought personally his "Salvation comes at a cost..." quote was excellent in summing up his character and motivations. As already stated, the alternative is a negative quote, not expressing TIM so much as expressing what he is not (diplomatic). Bronzey 09:34, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's what makes the quote so good at representing TIM. He knows he and Cerberus are already seen as a threat, hence why he avoids diplomatic moves. It comes in response to the commander saying something along the lines of "sometimes it pays to have friends." You that argued it is poor because he is not diplomatic are entirely missing the point of the quote and the context in which he says it.
 * But that's what makes the quote so good at representing TIM. He knows he and Cerberus are already seen as a threat, hence why he avoids diplomatic moves. It comes in response to the commander saying something along the lines of "sometimes it pays to have friends." You that argued it is poor because he is not diplomatic are entirely missing the point of the quote and the context in which he says it.

No, it implies that he thinks there is a time and a place for diplomacy, which would be odd for him to say, as he never seems to have used diplomacy himself. And since he pretty much started out by launching terrorist attacks, he started out as a perceived threat. On the other hand, the 'Salvation comes at a price' quote is him stating that the ends justify the means. And if I had to sum up TIM's mindset in one sentence, that would be it. And what can better represent someone than a quote that depicts their core beliefs and ideals? TIM doesn't believe in diplomacy, he believes in furthering/protecting humanity by any means necessary. SpartHawg948 19:20, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

It is a quote by TIM so you are simply wrong. "which would be odd for him to say." Well, he says it.

Also, he does not imply that he uses diplomacy. In fact, he pretty blatently implies that he believes diplomacy can be a great tool, but not for those that are already percieved as a threat. Hence, why he does not use it.
 * I didn't say he never said the quote. I said that he doesn't believe the underlying message. And again, the quote, as you say, implies that he feels diplomacy can be a great tool. So great that he never uses it, huh? On the other hand, once again, TIM is all about the ends justifying the means. It's his entire method of operating. And it's what is suggested by the current quote. Next time, before calling other users 'simply wrong', please make sure you grasp what they are saying, as you pretty well misinterpreted my post. SpartHawg948 04:00, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia / Inspired By?
Why is that bit of 'trivia' there? Has anyone from bioware said anything to support this? Has Martin Sheen, as unofficial as that would be, stated his portrayal was influenced by any of those characters? There are similarities of course, but similarities do not mean the same thing as being [i]inspired by[/i]. That in mind, TIM is similar in some ways to every "shadowy guy behind the scenes pulling strings" in every bit of fiction, ever, and dissimilar in many ways as well. For example, the Half-Life G-Man works for someone else (he often mentions his employers) and he never explains his reasons, both very different from TIM.

Personally I think that bit of "trivia" should be either genericized, perhaps with a link to an appropriate non-ME2-specific resource on "illuminati" type characters, or better yet, just removed entirely -- at least until it can be confirmed.

About this edit
 Have you looked at them? Renegade Shepard's eyes only differences are that they're red and upside down in comparison to the Illusive Man's. CAW4 15:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get drawn into an argument over this, so I'm just going to list why I reverted you re-adding that piece of trivia here and then be done with it.
 * The pattern is not the same. Renegade shep has solid red pupils with 3 small dots in the iris. The illusive man has a circle that goes around the pupil, 3 much larger circles in the iris, plus arcs between each of these circles.
 * The color is, obviously, not the same.
 * The remaining possible similarity we might say they have is "They're both artificial." However, we don't know if the Illusive Man's eyes are cybernetic. It seems plausible, given that we don't see anyone else with these eyes, but it's still speculation to assume so. Speculation is a naughty word around here, so that's right out.
 * Barring those points, all we have left is "The Illusive Man and a renegade Shepard both have strange eyes" Anyone with eyes of their own can see that, so I'd say that doesn't deserve a mention in the trivia. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me, obviously, but there's why I reverted it back to the state it was: sans trivia about eyes. Dammej 05:11, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed which is why I removed it in the first place. Lancer1289 06:19, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the first one, I noted the second one in the trivia, and I never said that they're both cybernetic (speculation is also an overused word). But, as least make note of the similarities. Most people who play the game see renegade Shepard's eyes and the Illusive Man's eyes and consider them near identical. Since you're pointing out the differences, and don't want it to say they're similar, put the differences in the trivia, but at least note it on the page. Lacking that information may make the page look incomplete to people who have noted the similarities. At the very least it will stop you from having to undo more edits of that. CAW4 15:16, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this information shouldn't be there.
 * Something like: "There are glowing features in the Illusive Man's eyes that resemble the ones in a renegade Commander Shepard's, albeit blue. This suggests The Illusive Man has received cybernetic enhancements similar to the ones Shepard received as part of Project Lazarus."
 * Can't see what's wrong with that, it's a perfectly valid piece of information.
 * JakePT 15:29, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's speculation, especially if you say "

suggests The Illusive Man has received cybernetic enhancements similar to the ones Shepard received as part of Project Lazarus". That's pure speculation, we have no idea about what kind of cybernetic eyes he has. I really don't think we should put speculations anywhere in the main article Setimir92 15:41, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * But nothing at all like that is in there the closest you can get is "The Illusive Man's eyes bear heavy resemblance to a Renegade Shepard's cybernetic implants," which does not say that the Illusive Man has cybernetic implants. Nothing at all like what you're saying is or has recently been in there. CAW4 15:48, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * That still isn't trivia as visual comparisions aren't enough to justify trivia, as many people have said on multiple occasions. That is also implying that the Illusive Man's eyes are cybernetic, which is speculation and not allowed. Dammej has pointed above why it isn't trivia, and I complely agree. Putting anything there without enough backup, and a visual comparison isn't enough, isn't trivia. Finally, again, putitng resemblance to Shepard's cybernetic implants implies that the Illusive Man has cybernetic implants, which is of course speuclation. Lancer1289 17:33, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * And now you're just making shit up. I have said NOTHING about the Illusive Man's eyes being cybernetic or robotic or whatever the hell else. When the majority of the game's players see a resemblance, it deserves a mention, one way or another. As I've said before, I don't give whether you say they're similar or point out the differences, but leaving it out entirely is essentially leaving the article incomplete. And don't start up with the 'unnecessary' bull, this entire wiki's unnecessary, all the info is in the game, this is so people can quickly go in and see some info, and this would be one of the things people look at, whether or no they edit or go on the talk page or not. CAW4 21:09, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it with you and using improper language. I am not making stuff up and putting that the Illusive Man's eyes appear similar to Shepard's cybernetic implants, implies that because they look similar then the Illusive Man's eyes are also cybernetic, which is speculation. It doesn't deserve a mention because it isn't trivia and you arguing that it is won't make it trivia. Lancer1289 21:24, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Either this trivia counts as "Coincidental similarities" or it is speculating that there is some significant reason for the alleged visual similitarity between the Illusive Man's eyes and Shepard's implants. Neither of which are allowed as trivia. Bastian964 18:10, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The same shape being used for both of them WITHIN THE SAME GAME is not at all coincidental. As I've said before, I am not saying the the Illusive Man is in any way shape or form Robotic, cybernetic or whatever the hell else pops into your heads. CAW4 21:09, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way it isn't trivia, a coincidence isn't enough to justify trivia. Visual similarities, which is what this is, are also not enough to justify trivia, unless you want to say that "Reapers look like cuttlefish" and call that trivia. Visual or coincidence, it isn't enough to justify trivia. Lancer1289 21:18, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, visual similarities aren't enough to justify trivia...when they aren't from THE SAME DAMN GAME. The structure is almost exactly alike, and the devs noted that eyes were a huge part of development. This fits in well with trivia, and there's nothing within the Manual of Style to say that this shouldn't be here, unless you're saying that it should be part of the article proper. CAW4 21:26, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong anywhere beuause it isn't trivia and doens't belong in the article proper. We don't know what the devs ment when they said that the eyes played a huge part in development, it could be they were proviing a hint for ME3. Either way it is inserting speuclation into the article and it just doens't belong there, mainly becuase with this, we don't know what the devs ment. Lancer1289 21:31, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop saying 'it isn't trivia,' that just seems to be your cop out excuse when you don't want to have to think and come up with actual reasons. It fits in according to the Style Guide's section on trivia, like I have both said before. And the devs explained what they meant pretty throughly, as they're the main part of showing expression. They noted that they were a main focus of the game's development, and with them being such a main focus they wouldn't just overlook such glaring similarities. And if I may ask a simple question; WHERE THE BLOODY HELL AM I SPECULATING?!?! I have said many times before that I am in no way shape or form saying the Illusive Man is cybernetic or whatever the hell else you're trying to lie about. If your saying that I'm trying to force a connection, "I don't give whether you say they're similar or point out the differences." If you don't want to treat me with any form of respect, at least respect that other wiki users aren't complete idiots by not trying to fool them with transparent lies. CAW4 23:27, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

That;s rich. Talking about respecting other users while accusing another user of deliberately lying. Please knock it off with the quickness. If you want respect to be shown to wiki users, try (big shocker here) showing some respect to fellow wiki users! Practice what you preach, CAW4. SpartHawg948 23:33, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * He has accused me multiple times of speculation for the Illusive Man's eyes being cybernetic or whatever. The only times I have mentioned that were after he said it to say that I have not said it, nor do I intend to. I don't like having people lie about me, and I was asking him to respect other wiki users intelligence levels when he's saying that I'm trying to say the Illusive man is cybernetic or robotic or whatever when the only time I've mentioned that is to say that that isn't what I'm putting in, and yet he keeps repeating through his personal little buzzword of 'speculation.' CAW4 23:38, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I ask you to respect the integrity and honesty of other users. You do realize, don't you, that it is possible for people to have honest differences of opinion without either one of them lying? Lying is the deliberate telling of untruths. It's possible to disagree with you, and feel something to be speculation, without deliberately and knowingly telling falsehoods. SpartHawg948 23:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * He says I'm speculating about the Illusive Man being cybernetic. I say I'm not. He again claims that I'm trying to get speculation in about that, and I repeat that I'm not trying to imply he's cybernetic. He repeats himself after being told twice, by me, that I'm not trying to say that, and I call him a liar. It's not him saying it once and me immediately calling him a liar, it's him saying it three times, each time being told that I'm not, before I accuse him of lying, because it's either that or he simply doesn't read my posts, because I've clearly stated that I'm not at all trying to say the the Illusive Man is cybernetic or whatever else. CAW4 23:48, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again though, you are supporting an edit saying that TIM's eyes look very similar to Renegade Shep's cybernetic eyes. It's easy to see how one could get the impression that you are at least supportive of the notion that TIM is cybernetic through support of this edit. My point is, if you want someone to show respect to other users, maybe it's best to not include in the same sentence accusations of making 'transparent lies', and it's a good idea to avoid phrases like "And now you're just making shit up." regardless of your point. SpartHawg948 23:54, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have gotten off-topic, toward something I had intended to steer it away from with my comment. I'll apologize for that. When I responded to CAW4's comment, the 3 things I listed were intended to narrow down the reasons for the piece of trivia to be there. By eliminating those reasons, I had intended to focus the piece of trivia down to what is true about it: Renegade Shepard and the Illusive Man both have very unique looking eyes. In the last part of the comment, I stated that I reverted it to the state where it did not have that piece of trivia, becasue I felt this was, frankly, too trivial to mention. I think that's where CAW4 had intended to steer the discussion as well, but we've gotten hung up on cybernetics and speculation and the like.

I don't intend to put words into CAW4's mouth by saying this, so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting. I believe his intention is to add a piece of trivia that merely points out the admittedly similar looking eyes between the Illusive Man and a renegade Shepard, and nothing else. If that's what he wants, discussion should center around the merit of that particular piece of trivia, not around whether it violates any rules (I think it could be worded in such a way that it does not.) Again, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting. I have been known to do that on many occasions :P Dammej 23:56, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, you're right, and this did get a bit off topic. I didn't even know there was previous speculation about the Illusive Man being cybernetic or whatever. CAW4 00:12, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I agree with CAW that the eyes deserve a mention in trivia. The fact that the eyes bear quite a great resemblance to each other is something which many people who play the game pick up on, and they can make their own speculations based upon this. I'm not saying we should write about ANY implications that the similiar eyes might entail, hell, I always thought TIM was an AI, but I believe the similiarity itself deserves a place as trivia. Trivia is defined generally as snippets of information which are of small or no importance, and I'd say this fits the bill quite well. Suicidal Skydiver 18:58, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I agree with CAW that the eyes deserve a mention in trivia. The fact that the eyes bear quite a great resemblance to each other is something which many people who play the game pick up on, and they can make their own speculations based upon this. I'm not saying we should write about ANY implications that the similiar eyes might entail, hell, I always thought TIM was an AI, but I believe the similiarity itself deserves a place as trivia. Trivia is defined generally as snippets of information which are of small or no importance, and I'd say this fits the bill quite well. Suicidal Skydiver 18:58, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I agree with CAW that the eyes deserve a mention in trivia. The fact that the eyes bear quite a great resemblance to each other is something which many people who play the game pick up on, and they can make their own speculations based upon this. I'm not saying we should write about ANY implications that the similiar eyes might entail, hell, I always thought TIM was an AI, but I believe the similiarity itself deserves a place as trivia. Trivia is defined generally as snippets of information which are of small or no importance, and I'd say this fits the bill quite well. Suicidal Skydiver 18:58, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

3 Dots?
What's with the three dots on the Illusive Man's suit? I've seen them in other places in the game (such as the Volus' exosuits in MassEffect 2), and the fact that I am seeing it in more than one place makes me suspect that there is a meaning behind it.
 * Seems to be nothing more than a simple decorative pattern. SpartHawg948 23:55, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) And what meaning could that be? It's not worth noting because we don't know the meaning and putting trivia for this, just seems unnecessary. Lancer1289 23:57, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Military Service
This was deleted, and I've often found it too much effort to argue with people who strangle pertinent information out of an article -- especially those who just delete it without replicating the unprecedented information in the manner or location they deemed more appropriate. In any case, here is the info I found, may it find a suitable home:

"In the book Mass Effect: Retribution, it reads that "it had been over thirty years since [the Illusive Man] had seen any active military service." (Pg. 135, para. 6) This suggests the Illusive Man had served in a military at one point in his lifetime, Alliance or otherwise." MerrellJ 18:25, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because of the comic Mass Effect: Evolution and there is no need for the attitude, especially if you would have checked the history of the page and looked at my edit summary. The information seems to conflict with information that we already have. Information about Evolution will be added when it is released early next year. So the information is covered in a more appropaite place and is also redundant with what we have learned about Evolution. And again the attitude is completely unnecessary. Lancer1289 18:38, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

My attitude is objective, and derivative of an ignored attempt to present new information. The fact that I may have presented it in the wrong section, context or manner is fine with me -- you've put good effort into cultivating this wiki, and I respect that. Seeing it deleted entirely, with no effort to share it in a more appropriate context, seems counter-productive to what we're all trying to do: learn credible information about Mass Effect. Here you have a page number and paragraph citing information not previously presented in this article, or in any other article. Let's utilize some team spirit and see it added.MerrellJ 19:05, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is all we know and frankly where should we add it as no matter what we say, it can be speculation as we know very little about it. We have the comic coming out in less than three months which will shed a lot more light onto the background of the Illusive Man. Right now I really can't see anywhere to add it given that he could have served in the Alliance Military, a Merc Squad, Private Military Company, received private training for security forces, militia, or a few other possibilities. There isn't enough information right now to add, IMO, and I'd rather err on the side of caution and wait until we have much more accurate information. Right now all we have is a brief blurb that isn't much, whereas in just under three months we will have a wealth of information. Lancer1289 19:18, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I have to say, I can't see any evidence of "pertinent information" being strangled out. After all, in order for this to happen, the information would have to be pertinent. And I can't see the "fact" that the Illusive Man may or may not have served in some form of military organization at some time within his life as pertinent. How is it pertinent? What relevance does it bear to anything in the article as it now stands? And, assuming that "team spirit" is truly what is called for here, where else in the article would it go? That question alone brings the issue of relevance to bear, as there really is no good place to insert that he may have served in some sort of military capacity at some point over thirty years ago. Team spirit is called for here, and right now, the team seems to be saying "let's leave this 'fact' out of the article until we actually have some real information to run with". SpartHawg948 20:15, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure people would find it interesting that the Illusive Man served on active duty. Being a veteran, myself, I know I did -- that little bit of information helped me understand and connect a lot more with the character. Service says a lot about a person. Not pertinent? I disagree. Want to wait three months for confirmation on a small piece of the puzzle we already have? Well, that's your prerogative. You both seem like seasoned contributors to the wiki, so do with it as you see fit. I'm not here to step on feet. People click on this article to answer the question: Who is the Illusive Man? I simply thought that the cited fact (with page number and paragraph) of active military service can be included at this point. Be well, gentlemen. MerrellJ 11:59, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * But did he serve on active duty? Being a veteran myself, I can tell you it's possible for someone to do "active military service" (which is what the book says) without being active duty. Service does say a bit about a person, but not as much as some would think. Some of history's greatest monsters served in the military, not just its heroes. And yes, I do argue that it isn't pertinent. I also asked what makes it pertinent. Were a suitable answer provided for how half a piece of information is pertinent, I'd happily cease my objections and move on. We need more than half a fact on this one, not that "he may have served in the military at one point in his life". As for Lancer and I, yes, I suppose you could say we are "seasoned contributors". He is an Administrator and I'm the Bureaucrat for this site. So yeah, it could be said we know a thing or two about a thing or two... :) SpartHawg948 17:12, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

"You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that, for bureaucrats, procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing." I kid, just being facetious. I understand, guys. I'll just have to look forward to Evolution to confirm this speculation. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to locate some scissors to find my way out of here. MerrellJ 12:31, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Shepard agrees to use Collector Base
It says that Shepard can either tell the Illusive Man to use the Collector Base only fight the Reapers or Shepard will agree to use the technology against the other races. Is that true? I've tried to get him to agree with the Illusive Man (my renegade Shepard is Earth-First), but I've only ever heard him talk about fighting the Reapers. Ninsegtari 18:57, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I can find the Codex picture of TIM?
I think that picture should be the main pic on his wiki page because it looks so cool. But I also like how the pic on his page is the same thing you would see in the game. I've looked through 100's of pages of pics to find it, and sadly I do not own a caption card so I can't get it straight from the game. I want it so I can use is as my wallpaper on my iPhone. Thanks a lot.--Nat Wetli 01:12, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * A good place to start would be our Codex article. Specifically, the section of the Codex dealing with Cerberus and the Illusive Man (namely, Codex/Organizations). There, you can find the image that's used in the Codex. Linked here for simplicity: Codex_Illusive_Man.png. Hope that helps. -- Dammej ( talk ) 01:19, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you were a great help! I did not even knew that existed on this wiki, you have to excuse me from being a complete noob--Nat Wetli 01:29, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Jack Harper?
Some preview pages of ME: Evolution are up, and if I read them right, this is the name TIM is using. He's working with Ben Hislop, who Cord-Hislop Aerospace is named for.--Darth Something 17:41, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

My money's on Eva's last name being Cord, for obvious reasons. Somewhat of a shame that TIM's illusiveness seems to be fading away, though. 82.156.214.20 18:31, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that Jack Harper can't be the Illusive Man. In the last panel, the Merc on the truck asks which on is Jack Harper, and that "the Man" wants to see him at HQ. Quote: "Which one of you is Jack Harper? The Man wants to see you at HQ now!" I doubt the Illusive Man would be asking to see himself. Lancer1289 21:20, December 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * that's not correct. The soldier who said that takes them to HQ and they see the "man" in charge there- General Williams. Harper is most certainly the Illusive Man.


 * One thing to note is that in the Cerberus codex entry it mentions a possible change in leadership within the organization, how recent that is isn't specified, and even then is in-universe speculation. But it is hard to surmise the nature of the Jack Harper name as well as the identity of "The Man" from a 7-page preview of a four-issue story. --The Illusive Man 22:25, December 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, we'll just wait for this Martin Sheen look a like to die and to reveal where the REAL illusive man is. --173.215.245.40 21:08, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Image switch
I do believe that File:illusiveman_eyes.png looks much better then the current File:ME2-Illusive_Man-Headshot.jpg. Why was the edit reverted? --silverstrike 18:04, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it switched one picture with one that is mostly the same thing. It is just like wording issues. Replacing one word for something that is also acceptable, and says the exact same thing would also be reverted.
 * I on the other hand think that the current one is much better given the fact that it isn't at the end of the game, the big red star in the background indicative of the renegade ending, and it is larger and shows more detail. Going with the ending thing, the current image is from somewhere during the game, providing a much more neutral experience. I also believe the current image has better lighting. Pictures are a very personal thing and subject to more opinions than anything else. Lancer1289 18:11, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't know about the renegade thing... I understand that things like images are mostly based on personal taste and a certain point of view, but the current image have the Illusive Man head in a weird angle (esthetically not pleasing - still an opinion, but something to consider). If we reject images based on lighting or any other aspect that can be fixed in an image editing software, then it should be mentioned in the edit summary (knowing what was wrong in a certain image could help contributors upload better images). --silverstrike 18:20, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been going around and cleaning up old images with newer, more appeasing ones that define the characters in better light and resolution. In terms with the two Illusive Man images, the older one didn't have the upmost detail in what was being referenced to the eyes. The one I put up, though from the Renegade ending, is a nice close up shot of him with his eye details sharp. Not much of the star in the background is shown and one probably couldn't make it out either way when it was taken. For future reference I'll add to the Summary as to why the image was updated from old to new. WNxSajuukCor

Jack Harper?
It could be that Jack killed or deposed the prevouis illusive man and then took the mantle in order to redirect attention from his former life.--Paladin cross 16:16, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe who knows. We'll just have to wait and see. Lancer1289 16:47, February 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I mean really, we'll wait, despite the fact that this comic is called the "origins of the illusive man" and Jack Harper looks pretty much looks like Martin Sheen in California Kid, but hey you're right. We'll wait, we don't want members here making fake alien races again, your wisdom is truly great lancer. --173.215.172.177 00:50, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need for comments like that. Petty jabs like that just don't have a place here as they are unnecessary and so was your entire comment. Veiled insults are also unnecessary. Lancer1289 01:23, February 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * What? I was being serious! --173.215.172.177 01:30, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

GAH! meant for this to go under the topic of the same name^. How do you do that?--Paladin cross 18:22, February 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think at this point it's pretty safe to assume that Harper is TIM. We're two issues into a four issue comic series that was billed as the origin story of the Illusive Man and Jack is obviously the main character. He seems to be the only character who could feasibly become TIM. The "Man" someone mentioned earlier turned out to be General Williams (Ashley's dad I assume) and not TIM. In the second issue Jack has the same eyes as TIM too.--Darth Oblivion 01:14, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * No it is not "pretty safe to assume" anything at this point. Currently all we have is speculation, and while it may be leading in that direction, we have no solid proof yet. It probably will be in issue four in April, but until then, it is speculation. Therefore the recent edit and redirect are inappropriate, which have been reverted and put up for deletion respectively. Also Oblivion, please do look at time stamps at the end and take that into account when making comments based on outdated information in the future please. Lancer1289 02:02, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Anyway, I'm just saying that it wouldn't make sense if he wasn't TIM. You don't say a comic series is focused on a certain character then spend half the series following someone else. That's just bad writing.--Darth Oblivion 02:22, February 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't Lancer truly wise beyond his years?--173.215.230.169 13:19, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am merely upholding the standards of the site, and there is no need for petty jabs like that. Lancer1289 14:48, March 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure thing pal, I mean even a neutral trivia add gets deleted because it's "common knowledge", I mean just trying to put something considering the official description and the fact that there is no mention of the comic in this page. I'm not trying to put "Jack Harper is Tim lololol", I'm just merely pointing that the comic will explore TIM's beginning according to an official game developer. And if the info changes later, well it gets put in later by the editors and the appropriate edits are made, but no one is assuming anything here. But I guess common knowledge to the series doesn't belong in a wiki dedicated to the series despite the fact that it pretends to be a database to series. AMIRITE? --173.215.207.8 00:50, March 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, guys, let's give Lancer a break! He is probably a fan of the idea that TIM's real name should be Armistan Banes, or, better yet, Parcifal McMurdock or something, and it hurts him that his world is being shattered in such a decisive manner.83.149.3.130 11:57, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * And so I continue to get insulted and be the target of petty jabs for upholding site standards. People on the internet shouldn't surprise me anymore, and yet it still happens. There was absolutely no need for the comments above. Lancer1289 17:30, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * You probably wouldn't get insulted if you weren't such a dickwad. --136.145.88.191 19:38, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet I don't break the language policy and enforce standards. Something you don't seem to agree with apparently. Lancer1289 19:40, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright big boy, when it turns out that Jack Harper is indeed the illusive man, we're going to be spamming these places and telling you "IN YOUR FACE". But this isn''t about the illusive man or the speculation on Jack Harper, this is about you being a tight ass on this sight, almost as much as SpartHawg. But hey keep playing the troll victim, that's what you wiki admins see everywhere anyways. --136.145.88.191 19:45, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment apart from what I said above. Lancer1289 19:53, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * I LOL at this ^ Saying no comment, in a comment = Fail
 * Another interesting fact that points to Harper eventually becoming the Illusive Man is the name of one of Cerberus's shell companies, Cord-Hislop Aerospace and Hislop being the surname of Harper's friend Ben. Unlikely to be a coincidence.--Anomoly-64 February 22, 2011
 * And Eva's surname is given as Core, which might be a typo'd version of Cord. Then again, Mac Walters could have just gotten lazy and forgotten that someone already used those surnames. Or maybe ME writing team is just ****ing with our heads for kicks. Can't assume anything. -- Gnostic 15:57, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

I just want to put this out there but Gameinformer said: "For those unfamiliar with Mass Effect: Evolution, the four-part series takes during the tail end of the First Contact War (before the original Mass Effect game) and follows the exploits of Jack Harper, who later becomes the Illusive Man." I'm pretty sure that it's safe to assume that Harper is TIM. Plus you can tell by using common sense people; they both have extremely similar features and they both have the same strange eyes. Can we finally just list him as Jack Harper and get it over with or do you need Jack Harper to wear a shirt saying he is TIM with signatures from 40 other people saying he is TIM?Aleksandr the Great 03:19, April 12, 2011 (UTC) ''
 * Ok problem, that is stated by a source that isn't BioWare, or isn't quoted by the devs, and because of that, it isn't acceptable. So it isn't "safe to assume" anything and using "common sense" has led to problems in the past. Right now it is still speculation and will be until the final issue is released in less than two weeks. At that point it will be confirmed and this entire issue can die, but until then, either get a dev to say that it is, or just wait and don't argue for breaking site policy. Lancer1289 03:38, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Jack Harper is the Illusive Man, and hence the idea of putting it down in his Trivia section, is completely legal by Site policy;

Speculation is permitted in articles under the following circumstances:

* It is clearly marked as being speculation, either under a “speculation” heading or with the sentence “some speculate that—” at the beginning of the paragraph. * There is evidence for this speculation.

And yet mine and other's edits have been deleted. If you don't wanna get jabbed at man, don't leave the door open. ;)

This is because the speculation is too general at this point. Until the upcoming issue arrives, (roughly 3 days from now), there is no confirmation to this point that Jack Harper becomes TIM. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:00, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

True, no "Confirmation." That's why it would be posted as "Speculative." But honestly, is there truly a logical way to dispute if he will or not? The whole concept of Evolution was to showcase the creation of the Illusive Man, and Jack Harper possesses FAR too many similarities to TIM to NOT be him. It's not a leap of logic, quite the contrary, it's perfectly logical. Which is why I brought this matter up; speculation, with adequate evidence, is completely legal here.

Yet people continue to randomly delete/modify certain LEGAL entries based on their own perception of what is right, or what is allowed. That isn't fair, it's just silly. 50.53.96.99 22:08, April 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it is also protocol. I can clearly see JH becomes TIM, but without source material, it's just speculation, no matter how close.Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:29, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, that was my point; that this speculation is still legal for posting, even according to your "Protocol." The evidence is not "general," it's quite blatant. This is just another case of people hating to be corrected. Take Lancer, who, on this very page, incorrectly "corrected" someone when he said the "The Man" was referring to the "Illusive Man." it wasn't, it was Admiral Williams. See what I mean?
 * First get your facts straight when making a comment. The comment in question was made when we only had a preview, i.e. the first seven pages, of issue #1. At the time it didn't make sense, so when pulling up comments, please make sure you check the time stamp of it and put it in context with the information that was available at the time. That is all we had at the time, so while now the comment is clearly incorrect, in context it made sense. Quoting comments without putting them in context with the information that was available at the time is rude and can also be insulting. Some people could look at the comment, and if they also don't put it in context either because you didn't, then there will be problems stemming from that. Also it was General Williams, not Admiral, and no they aren't the same thing.
 * Second it would still be removed a it is speculation. This falls outside of what is allowed by the policy as, and I'm questioning why I'm saying it, "some speculate that" is a highly subjective statement. If we allowed that, then there would be speculation all over as people posted their "theories" and others supported them. If you would also look through the articles, nowhere will you find speculation section, and the only one was removed a long time ago, apart from a few selected things, and even that is strictly controlled. The evidence is not entirely sound yet, and seriously can't we wait just about 18 hours until it is? Or is that too hard to ask?
 * Third don't make accusations that you can't support and that are demonstratably false. I.e. "[t]his is just another case of people hating to be corrected" is so blatantly false that I can't even describe it. This isn't even on the same planet, let alone in the same galaxy as that statement. This is not a case where people don't want to be correct, and shooting down everyone that has a different theory than them, but merely a case where we need all the ducks in a row, so to speak, before saying anything with certainty. It is still speculation to say that Jack Harper is the Illusive Man, and until issue #4 is released in a few hours, it will continue to be. Putting "speculation" or "some speculate" is immediate grounds for removal as that needs sources and additional information to be backed up to it to be allowed. This is again one case where everything needs to fit exactly in the correct sockets for it to go in. Not a case of someone wanting to be correct. Lancer1289 23:43, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

General, you're correct. I have the comic, but rushed through it to make sure that it was in fact Williams in the first place, evidently I rushed too fast. ;) Minor point regardless, but I do apologize. However, regarding the time stamp, I'm not blind, I used it as a reference to merely demonstrate the fact that you are capable of force feeding people false information, then not even retracting the offending statement. This is a problem only because when someone DOES give accurate information, it gets swept under the rug or modified to fit the Admins personal taste. That isn't community driven, it's obvious bias. Not saying it happens ALL the time, nor am I suggesting that it happens severely OFTEN, but it's there none the less, and it IS a problem.

Secondly; I didn't make that policy up, it's write there, clear as crystal in your own wiki. Speculation with adequate weight (Which this has, and HAS had by the way.) is allowed by your own standards. Wanna pull it that policy down? Fine. But while it's still up, you have no justification for pulling justified speculative theories. Again, according to your own site. I agree that with this particular case, we can simply wait another day to find out for sure. But this theory (All most associated evidence.) Has been around for months. That's why I brought it up.

And your obvious hostile tone (Including the presumption that I didn't know the difference between an Admiral and a General.) is quite unnecessary, not to mention childish, I'd expect this from the Fable Wikia, a site dominated by emotional sixteen year olds, but not here.

Unless you are an emotional sixteen year old. In which case I apologize. :)
 * To start with, you don't need to know my age, however what I will say is I can legally drink inside the United States.
 * With regards to the comment, what you did was pull a comment out of context and then, and still are using to prove a false point. Yes the information is incorrect, however at the time it was a reasonable assumption, which since the section has gone unedited and nothing as done about it, there was no reason to do anything with it. I can point to numerous examples of this all over the place where comments are left on talk pages no matter what as new information develops and renders the old comment irrelevant. I can again point to comments where information is demonstrated incorrect, yet nothing is done about the original comment.
 * As to information getting swept under the rug, point to one example where this has happened. However, this issue is not a valid case it does, still, fall clearly in the realm of speculation until tomorrow when it will be confirmed. If information is valid and correct, then you will find that it stays in articles because it was missed or whatever reason. But pulling a comment from a long dead conversation to prove a point does nothing, in fact it does the opposite. It points out that based on the information that was available at the time, it was a valid conclusion, however it was also proven later to be incorrect. If we went around and retracted every single incorrect statement, then talk pages would be six times as long because there is a lot of information that was previously brought up, and then proven to be incorrect. Comments stay in a talk page and usually if some information develops that prove it wrong, then a new section opens and the previous one isn’t even referenced as everyone can clearly tell the information there was based off of inaccurate/incorrect/incomplete information. Pointing it out doesn’t prove a point unless it can be demonstrated at the time that it was false, and that wasn’t the case. Again I can find plenty of examples of this.
 * As to modification of information, here's a question, if the addition has extremely poor grammar, spelling, or is worded confusing, then should it say in the article? Here's the answer you will get from everyone, absolutely not. The information will get modified, usually by admins because they are on more often than other users, for various reasons. You will often find that additions are left as is if they are of good quality, otherwise it will be modified to fit site standards. You state that it is a problem that admins modify information to fit their personal tastes, and I can tell you that is false. Information is modified to bring it up to site standards and for proper spelling and grammar. Sometimes it is even reword to make the information clearer or to add additional information. I really fail to see how that is a problem unless you are suggesting that admins sit by and do absolutely nothing when poor spelling and grammar, medications against site policy, or information gets added that could be cleaned up. I’m sorry that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Moreover, who knows more about site standards than admins? Answer that please.
 * Theories are like germs, everyone has them. If we allowed someone’s theories on this site, then we would have “theory” sections longer than the information that is in the article. Of course everyone thinks their theory is valid and justified, I’m pretty sure that’s very biased information, however we don’t allow theories on the site unless there is a lot of information to back them up. This one has more than most, but even then it is still speculation and isn’t allowed into the article. This is one of those cases where it needs to be confirmed before it gets added because there are a few other issues with the information that have to be sorted out anyway.
 * My tone isn’t hostile nor is my attitude childish as I’m merely stating how this site is run and what is and isn’t allowed. Whether or not you know it but you insulted me by calling me immature, and that is just unnecessary as that kind of comment is just uncalled for. Either keep your comments mature, or don’t say anything as comments like that are just flat out unnecessary. Putting “:)” doesn’t make it any less insulting or frankly flat out rude to even say in the first place. We don’t need that here as we can keep conversations mature and don’t need to go down to the level of petty insults. Whether they are correct or not.
 * Finally, Speculation needs support and even putting a mention in the article about the connection, will lead to theories and other information being added without confirmation. Then that leads to more problems. This is one of those cases where, again, everything needs to be confirmed before it goes into the article. I have even flat out admitted that I to believe that Jack is the Illusive Man, but even then it can’t go into the article because it is speculation. This will be confirmed one way or the other tomorrow so I do fail to see why this is being brought up now as the information will, and has been removed as speculation, and will continue to be until absolute conformation on the matter because that is what is needed in this case. Lancer1289 01:06, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

So... The Speculative policy is... Wrong? Wiki's own policy is... Wrong? Huh...

Oh! Forgot something, don't know if you've snatched this up yet.... http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/7125830/1
 * (edit conflict) No it isn't, and I can point to more than a few examples where it works. However there are cases where it needs confirmation before it can be added, and this is one of those cases. And yes we are aware of that and frankly there I can recognize as people who proposed theories as facts and that is against site policy. Some of the evidence that was presented was shaky at best. And one who was untimely banned for his behavior. There are plenty of people who come here and make positive edits, but with an undo, you have made an enemy who thinks they are right, and yet, often, they can be proven wrong. Lancer1289 01:43, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

I've been pretty quiet on this issue so far, but here's what I think: Thus far, Jack Harper does indeed appear to be TIM's name. It's certainly a possibility that he's using an alias, but I don't see any real evidence to support this. That said, I can also see the logic in waiting till the last issue comes out just to be on the safe side. There could be some last-minute switcharoo or something. There have been some interesting comments in recent publications (such as the recent Game Informer article) which could hint at something, but if nothing of the sort appears in the last issue, I think it'll be safe to list Jack Harper as TIM's name. We'll probably want to keep the article titled "The Illusive Man" though, for spoiler reasons, and because that's the name he most commonly uses, and the name we first hear him referred to as and whatnot. SpartHawg948 07:17, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

So then if and when Jack Harper's confirmed to be the Illusive Man, a redirect will be added to refer JH to TIM, though the page would have to be overhauled to explain the back story.Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 11:32, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lancer on this subject. Has anyone been able to get a hold of a copy yet to confirm or deny? Tivis014 20:32, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it is confirmed, as I've already written the summary for issue #4, and I'm working on trying to integrate the information here, but it gets hard when people ignore article formatting and attempt to put spoilers above a spoiler tag. Lancer1289 20:35, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, finally, but I still have three more articles to work on at least. Lancer1289 20:52, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, I put Jack Harper and TIM appears, hurray.... Overall though Lancer, you still handled this horribly. --User:Fatherbrain300 20:56, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) So I enforce site policies gain, and I get bitten. You know this is a regular habit and it really doesn't affect me anymore. People don't like something, then they just rant on about it because they don't like it, considering what I've read on the forum. I'm actually surprised that BioWare hasn't shut it down yet considering all of the personal attacks there and Zulu posting information what was inaccurate, and I admitted it, but was based on information that was available at the time, not later. There was no other way to handle this and if that makes you all angry, then all I can say is that you just like to complain about things that you don't like. This is how we do things here, and I don't see that changing. just because you all complain about it. Still there was no reason for the comment above as it was just plain unnecessary. Lancer1289 21:03, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

If it's a regular "habit," Lancer, maybe you're doing something wrong, and should take steps to correct it like a rational adult. Just saying, it's not asking the world. 50.53.96.99 21:46, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * And maybe you should take a closer look at the issue. It's site policy in general that I, and everyone else, gets harped on. Everything from enforcing the language policy, to speculation, to just about anything that can crop up. People don’t like to follow rules and when they get reminded of it, they either tend to say, “ok” or go off the deep end. If people would be mature about situations, then a lot of this wouldn’t happen. Lancer1289 22:13, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Very mature, Fatherbrain300. That's some mighty fine constructive criticism. Minus the constructive part. I note that no one who felt Lancer was doing such a horrible job handling this decided to take action (productive action) and bring any of the supposed horrible behavior to my attention. Just saying people... be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. And if you are part of the problem, don't complain about it. SpartHawg948 23:26, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer, if you didn't seem treat every difference of opinion as a personal attack, and offered room for debate rather than screaming "Site policy" and a "My way or the high way" wall of text that totally rebuffs all who read it, you wouldn't find people, like myself, fatherbrain here, and others, commenting on how you handle certain situations. As for how Spart is concerned, I find he's just as adamant about site policy as you, yet see FAR less people bitching about him. EDIT in light of SpartHawg's post; I agree that evidently most people who do complain about Lancer (Perhaps myself included.) DON'T go through proper procedure, however it still stands that he has an overwhelming amount (At least in comparison to the other Admins here.) of backlash and complaints. Not all who complain are just trolling idiots, just concerned. 50.53.96.99 23:36, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick comment - taking care of site policy business: Please mind the language, as this site does have a language policy. "Complaining" is an acceptable synonym here. Now, on to the meat and potatoes. I can't speak for Lancer here, but I would like to take this opportunity to remind people - if you have an issue with admins or anything, bring it up to me. This means on my talk page. I'm pretty busy lately, so I've been a bit absent, and tend to leave things in the hands of the admins. And as for the "overwhelming amount" of complaints Lancer allegedly has in comparison to the other admins, in all fairness, we need to remember that Lancer has also been an admin a lot longer. Both the other admins only became admins in the last few weeks. SpartHawg948 23:43, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't treat every difference of opinion as a personal attack, yet there are several personal attacks on this very thread. This was one of those cases where it is speculation and needed confirmation before it could go into the article. The debate here was whether it should be included before confirmation, and to put it in beforehand would violate the speculation policy. It isn't my way or the highway, despite what you seem to believe, however when something will go against site policy, then it needs to be stated that it will. I explained quite clearly what was going on, and you pointed out several things, which could be demonstrated as false, and you failed to answer several questions I brought up. Some of the things you proposed would not be the best interests of the wiki. Sometimes there is a need to leave a long response as some of the things you brought up had their own issues and I felt that I needed to comment about them. I can handle situations that come up, but when people start restoring to personal attacks and insults, it becomes hard. It also becomes hard when people argue for going against site policy. I am perfectly open to debate, but when the result of said debate could violate site policy, then it needs to be stated that it might. I welcome debates as some do turn out to be interesting, but it again becomes hard when something could violate a policy that exists here. There are plenty of situations that I’ve handled calmly and others that have resulted in personal attacks, insults, and a number of other things. No one is perfect, and yet some people fail to realize that, however at the same time, it doesn’t hurt to be mature about the situation instead of blasting your opponents because they disagree with you.
 * Also I’m sure Spart has a lot more complaints about him than I do. Lancer1289 23:58, April 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * HURR DURR I'm still not sure that Jack Harper is TIM. 178.222.166.88 18:58, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Unneeded and inflammatory... Although, considering we have pages like "http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Kasumi:_Stealing_Memory" that have thing like the Ogre statue listed as "likely a reference," I can understand the sentiment. 50.53.96.99 01:24, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Evolution
The Evolution section seems to be a bit too long and could use some cleaning up. I'd do it, but I'd rather leave that to someone who has actually read the series. RS89 02:43, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to mention that as well, it looks horrendous. It literally seems like they simply retyped the entire story verbatim. I haven't read it, so I'm no help, but whoever has I would recommend deleting the section entirely and starting from scratch. --132.3.49.68 21:40, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're free to attempt a rewrite or overhaul if you so choose. It is preferred though that, if people offer criticism, they do so constructively (i.e not "just delete it all and try again"). SpartHawg948 05:50, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

We named the monkey Jack!
Ok wait how can jack be TIM i mean General Williams is ash's grandpa so jack should be dead by now under normal means or atleast older right? second i know i've heard the name jack harper before but cant remeber where. Lastly does anyone else find it weird that the only person we've seen him with is Miranda someone who is made to be a perfect human TIM'a goal and she could be controlled by him then there's also the fact that his grestest biotic soldier is named what else but jack!
 * This is something that is more appropriate in the Forums or in a blog post as this is not what a talk page is for. Lancer1289 02:54, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

sorry started to ramble on there but like i said shouldn't he be dead or can humans live that long know? and i've heard the name jack harper in a work of fiction somewhere so if anyone can confirm it shouldnt that be trivia?
 * And what would connect them, just a name? You would need a lot more support to justify that as straight name trivia isn't trivia without some support. As to his age, we don't know how old he is or what the average human life span is in 2185 but we know humans are lucky if they hit 150. Lancer1289 03:03, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah captain Jack Harper of Doctor Who so unless TIM can't die your right there's nothing connecting them unless tim is bi or captain jack is the face of bo ... just another odd similarity between these two series.

And as for the illusive man's age the First Contact War only took place 26 years before ME. And given human lifespans have increased due to medical advances it is not hard to imagine Jack Harper aging appropriatly to be the Illusive Man we know now, who looks to be in his forties or early fifty's but may be slightly older.--Ironreaper 06:11, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

--

This article is amazing. Flowing sections and reads like a book with perfect perspective. Good job, editors! --L B C C C P 02:01, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Illusive Man's Eyes
i had a theory about this two weeks ago, as i was re-playing ME2 yet again - the Illusive Man is being indoctrinated. bear with me on this - and at this point, it can no longer be considered a spoiler. i'll explain below.

one of the workers aboard the derelict reaper is recorded as saying "even a dead god dreams" and "it doesn't have to think about it, it just is." a reaper does not need to be aware/alive/conscious to indoctrinate victims. the derelict reaper is proof of that.

now we have Cerberus, who runs headlong to the Citadel to start salvaging Sovereign to build the SR2 (aka, Normandy). who knows what they took out of there, and where it went. i have a theory on indoctrination: the eezo cores in the reapers resonate. they can adjust the resonance (to create husks), they are aware of the process, they can control the process. now, let's assume that in his greed and absolute dedication to human ascension he installs Sovereign's core in his station. what do we get? indoctrinated Illusive Man.

in addition, this helps explain why the Illusive Man is trying to kill Shepard in ME3 (not a spoiler - confirmed in NUMEROUS sources).

why is this no longer a spoiler? thank the gameplay demo at E3, and the playable demo at New York Comic Con. "They can't help it. All of Cerberus is indoctrinated." i asked one of the devs there - he confirmed it.

now... none of this explains why the Illusive Man is helping Shepard in ME2. my guess? the Reapers were expecting one of two things to happen - the first is that Shepard would die on the suicide mission. the second is that if Shepard didn't die, the Illusive Man would convince you not to blow the base. "Use their own technology against them" is what the Illusive Man says if you refuse to use the timed radiation pulse. i seem to remember Sovereign making a very pointed statement about the use of Mass Effect technology - it is theirs already. using their own technology seems to be how the reapers have been able to repeat this cycle for at least 37 million years.

kind of annoyed you couldn't recall that conversation when dealing with him at the end of the game though. Shepard doesn't forget details like that, and the reasoning you give to the Illusive Man seems to leave that out of the equation, which is a little disappointing, given all of the other little details that are remembered.
 * This is not the appropriate place for something like this. Take it to the forums or a blog post as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 01:47, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

TIM's ME3 role.
A recent issue of Game Informer, written by one of their writers who got to play the demo, gave some insight into the Illusive Man's role in ME3, would that be appropriate to add to the ME3 section?--Nintendogeek01 05:16, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he gets turned into a husk... I think http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/masseffect/images/thumb/a/a8/Tim1.png/348px-Tim1.png Can't really tell what is written because it's such a bad quality scan, but the creature and the portraits are very telling


 * The text actually says that the idea of having the Illusive Man transform into a Reaper creature for a boss battle was dropped. Instead, we're going to have a more conventional confrontation with him, which might not be a "fight" at all. -- Commdor (Talk) 06:17, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

Becoming the Illusive Man
I find the end of Evolution a bit confusing. Jack seems to go from being a grunt to being the leader of Cerberus without any real explanation. Maybe I missed something.--Darth Oblivion 07:23, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * This topic belongs in the forums or in a blog as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 13:15, February 14, 2012 (UTC)