803 réponses à ce sujet

[jeweledleah]

I love you guys. so sure of your superiority, so sure that you know best. my SO reminded me of something today. Matrix. and Neo. you know the guy who was supposed to save the humanity from machines? the guy who was faced with a choice, much like the one Zulu is forcing down our throats - the seeming non-choice. save the woman you love, and doom the rest of humanity, or let her die and allow humans to live. neo refused to accept that there was no other way. that's why he won, that's why he changed the cycle of "the one"

if you chose to save collector base because you think there is no other way to win? you already lost. if you chose to save it or destroy it, because you weight the pro's and cons, make risk assessment and make a decision based on that analysis - regardless of which choice you make, you will win. from RP perspective, your Shepard needs to make that choice not based on any real life parameters (and by the way - if shepard were real and military, guess what - collector base would be destroyed every single time, because that's the protocol) they need to make that choice based on the information they have IN game and their own moral code.

if you bring it down to meta gaming - then both choices are valid because we know how computer games work. if you bring it down to role playing - both choices are STILL equally valid. Because Shepard always finds another way, because Shepard is a hero and that's' what heroes do.

as much as you'd like to claim that your choice is the only smart choice, the only logical choice - its not. its only one POSSIBLE choice. and trying to demean people who disagree with you is not helping your case, not one bit.

[Almostfaceman]

"What?
Where did I say that I was thinking I could have shot Kirrahe in the face and still save the Galaxy?

Also, to make a proper quotation you just have to type [quоte] before the body of the text you're willing to quote and [/quоte] in the end."

I can make quotes how I wish but thanks for the suggestion. I guess if you don't understand the concept of quotation marks it can be confusing.

Well then you ignored my point about Shepards multitasking in the previous game and didn't address it, which means you failed to rebut me and I was right. ;-)

[Ieldra]

Badpanzer wrote...
This is my first post here... this is an interesting and devisive question and its drawn me out of my lurking.

I always blow the base with no regrets...basically I feel that reaper tech is just to dangerous and to advanced to research with any degree of safety..particularly in large amounts.
The fact that many died there and  that saving the base means giving it to cerberus actually dont influence my choice at all.
In the end Im just far to wary of reaper tech especially as I know its a trap set by the reapers.

Basically Im with Legion..we need to make our future ourselves without contamination from the reapers.

There is a fundamental flaw in Legion's reasoning. Reaper technology may be dangerous, but it is just technology, not some magic that influences our minds. How we react to its acquisition is our own choice. What we do with it is our own choice. There is no contamination. Technology exchange and technology acquisition between civilizations is normal. That this technology happens to be a little more advanced than the usual should only make us more determined to study it - and quite a bit more careful.

Reaper technology does not carry a taint. It is just machines and knowledge. The flaw the Council made when using the mass relay network is that they made no attempt to understand it, or at least not determined enough an attempt. So with time, Citadel civilization grew complacent about it. But now we *know* why the Reapers left the mass relays. Knowledge is power. Understanding gives control.

Destroying what you don't understand, on the other hand, may be safe. Until the next civilization who was more determined and more successful in understanding it comes along and walks all over you, in expansion, economics or military, or all of them. In all of human history, there have never been significant advancements made by playing it safe. And there is no reason to assume that that will change.

Also, the fear of change brought on by imagining how Reaper technology may change human society (in the same way like, say, cars have changed it) may be understandable - the human mind is inherently afraid of change - but it does hold us back. At all times, there have been prophets of doom telling us the newest technology - cars, tv, the internet, video games - were dangerous, since time immemorial people have said the newest developments would corrupt the youth, and yet, human civilization still exists and has mostly prospered. I have always viewed such views with suspicion, as I do here. We should be more careful than ever when studying the stuff, but still, it should be studied. We would betray everything that brought us where we are now if we didn't. In a way, it is the human thing to do.

[Almostfaceman]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
Now you can talk all you want about the merits of discussing immersing yourself totally and not taking into consideration any of the gamer aspects of what you're doing - but that's not very realistic.  Most people playing will know in the back of their mind they can pretty much safely play either Paragon or Renegade and still overall succeed at the game.  It HAS to be designed that way or they'll ****** off everyone who played Renegade or ****** off everyone who played Paragon - and Bioware isn't in the business of pissing people off.

So you can't totally separate the two aspects imho.

Otherwise you get in these pointless debates that no one can ever prove they're right on - because the Mass Effect future doesn't really exist.  And that's all this thread has been is a dogmatic back and forth with no end ever.  And no one will win, no matter what happens in Mass Effect 3, because one side or the other will say "yeah but in REALITY... This would happen."  And then the pointless debate would start all over again.

So, I say that blowing up the base in the game universe helps more than hinders Shepard in fighting the Reapers.  When Mass Effect 3 comes out, that claim can be put to the test and debated citing actual game data.  What a concept.

I say you can - and should - separate the two aspects. It's called roleplaying. You project yourself into the situation. I don't say keeping the base should be designed to be the better decision. It won't be for all the reasons you mention. But I do say that from what you know of the situation at the end of ME2, arguments for destroying the base and intentionally relinquishing any possible help it can give seem to be a very long shot. And yes, I also say that decisions shouldn't be driven mostly by the fact you're horrified by what happened there but by strategic reasoning. 

So, if it looks that way from this side of ME3, they'll have to pull a pretty convincing setup out of their hat to make the decisions balanced. I hoipe they'll be able to do it. Most of all, they must not let the Paragons have their cake and eat it and getting off without bad consequences along with being successful in their gamble, and they must not leave the Renegades with the brunt of bad consequences along with having taken the hard choices. If a pragmatic decision isn't actually pragmatic, it becomes unbelievable.

I understand what you're going for but I don't believe the distinction truly exists.  People are people and in the end you know you're playing a video game.  You know your options are limited, and you learn the rules of the game and how it rewards and punishes in the story.  You don't spend days of your life playing the game just to suck at it, so in some sense the game limitations push in and you consider those limitations as you make your next choice.  Say for example you're given a chance to say something rude to - er, the guards at Noveria.  You don't hesitate, not because you're role-playing, but because you know the guards can't really kill you.  They can attack you and you'll probably win or if you had walked away from the console for a moment you can just re-load.  This is all in your mind as you play the game.  And this is just one example of what I mean.

[Labrev]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

If you KNOW what the outcome will be, then it's not even a choice. Even I would save the base in that scenario.

Good.

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Saving the base doesn't ensure that you'll beat the Reapers or even have a better chance than if you don't.

Nothing so far ensures that. So you have to take your chances with the Base, even if you know for sure that it'll lead to Cerberus' dictatorship in the aftermath.

Even an assured Cerberus' dictatorship is a matter of no concern next to the assured Galaxy-wide extinction.

I see your point, but you don't HAVE to take your chances with it. Cerberus domination is just one possible consequence. This could go bad without any evil intentions from Cerberus. See: Rachni assignment from ME1. They tried to experiment on them, failed miserably, and had to dispose of Rachni on two different planets (where Alliance marines had to clean up the mess). See also: Overlord.

It's arguably safer not to take your chances with it and try to deal with the Reapers head-on. It's not like we're completely helpless as it stands. Sovereign was defeated with our own weapons. Just one, I know, but nonetheless. And unlike the Protheans, we are not completely unexpecting of them and their return either.

It's obvious I won't dissuade anyone on this. In truth, I respect the thinking of the base proponents now that I've gotten to discuss it with people who've thought it out. Just don't agree with it.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Smeelia wrote...

You're able to blow it up without bringing any explosives, what's stopping them from destroying it (while still holding the control centre no less)? That could be a plot hole, an oddity/oversight in design or it could be deliberate if the Reapers have other ideas or simply feel that leaving the base to you is safe enough (in fairness, they are a little arrogant at times).[/quote]Blocking their means to triggering destruction is sort of a truism. We killed the things they were controlling (the Collectors through the General), while EDI was in a position to stop them from being able to control their systems as desired in the first place.



[quote]
The Derelict Reaper wasn't "just" left behind either and it didn't exactly prove to be entirely safe.[/quote]It was also an actual Reaper, which certainly was always intended to do great harm directly.
[quote]
It's a little unreasonable to expect Shepard to just assume that everything else they did worked out perfectly and that they did infact have a lot of success producing excellent results.[/quote]As an enduring, virtually invisible cabal for decades, assuming that Cerberus doesn't have routine disasters of strategic consequence when, in fact, it hasn't is exactly what should be assumed.

Not only wouldn't Cerberus continue to exist and procure funds from donors if it didn't show returns of some sort, it wouldn't be as invisible as it is if most projects were as huge catastrophes as cast.


[quote]
Shepard stopping the Collectors wasn't exactly a research project, bringing Shepard back was the only research part of the Lazarus Project and it ended with Shepard having to personally fight their way out of a dangerous situation.[/quote]And EDI and the IFF and all the tech upgrades that get put together and the numerous DLC weapons/armors from Cerberus development and the SR-2...
[quote]
The IFF was pure luck (they didn't know about it before they'd been been turned to Husks),
[/quote]All we can really say is that Cerberus wasn't sure the relay was as necessary for the Omega 4 relay as it turned out to be. You can actually challenge TIM on the matter, and he'll imply the IFF wasn't exactly a surprise.

[quote]
as was Jack's re-emergence and contribution to the team. The Teltin project killed numerous Biotics that could have been useful in fighting later and the research upgrade was only found when Shepard visited the site (probably there more for gameplay purposes but if you assume it's genuinely there in story terms then it shows Cerberus missed worthwhile results of a project for years after it's conclusion). [/quote]But the point of Teltin was always to produce a super biotic who would be useful: that it didn't occur in the original intent doesn't mean the original goal wasn't achieved. Numerous biotics were killed, but that was an abuse of the rogue cell, not an invalidation of concept or worth in boosting biotic strength even at the cost of lives. If the gains of one biotic dying gives a 20% boost of biotic output, then just five other biotics will have the strength of all six, while every additional biotic will be a net gain.

That ratio likely didn't happen, but that, again, was the excesses of a rogue cell. Simply be numbers of X are lost in advance doesn't mean that X overall loses.

There's outright canonical lore that Teltin successfully produced various biotic results, in the Shadow Broker files. (Work within Operation Trapdoor.) and Jack herself, as well as the actual data representative of such..


[quote]
A project failing shouldn't automatically result in the death of most/all of the staff working on it but this seems to be the case in most Cerberus projects, they just don't seem to take enough safety precautions (even if you set aside their dangerous and unethical practices in the first place).[/quote]We know of eight projects over all of Cerberus's history: how are we in a place to deem how and how often they totally fail?

Moreover, various projects have failed for differing reasons. Overlord, for example, would have been closed bloodlessly had Dr. Archer not made his gambit, and could have avoided others had he given more of a headsup. The super-soldier project all died because, well, the player went out of their way to kill them. The Derilect Reaper crew was on a still-functioning Reaper with a known penchant for keeping its people on.

[quote]
Fair enough if you think the Collector Base project would go similarly to other projects but, as you say, nothing there has produced galaxy saving results so why should the Collector Base be any different? If they use their usual reckless research techniques they'll likely get as far as scratching the surface of what could be found in the Collector Base before Shepard has to come along and blow things up. If the Collector Base is capable of producing more beneficial results with successful research then what is to say it's not also capable of producing more disastrous results if things go wrong?[/quote]What do Jack, Shepard, EDI, the IFF, and potentially Overlord (if you didn't keep Legion) count as if not projects that produced toolsof galactic importance, and salvation?

[quote]
The best results we've had from studying Reaper technology have come from "slow" and careful research (EDI, the Thanix Cannon), reckless techniques have given minimal results and usually end up with losing the potential technology or major setbacks in research anyway. The reckless techniques used by Cerberus are by no means guaranteed to give better results, nor are they guaranteed to give faster results.[/quote]What basis do you have to say that EDI or the Thannix were 'slow and safe' research projects?

Moreover, why wouldn't the IFF count as one of the best results we've gotten from studying Reaper Technology? The Thannix wasn't necessary in stopping the Collector genocide, and the Reapers plans. The IFF was.

[quote]

If the Reapers manage to take control of the Collector Base or otherwise use it to derail our plans then it could also contribute to their victory. [/quote]How does this make sense in execution?

There are two ways the Reapers can do something with the Collector base: with direct control tools or by the phantasm of indoctrination. We killed their collectors and beat their computer security skills on this side of the void. Indoctrination, however, would decrease the capabilities of the effected, and wouldn't enable them to resume collecting because they pretty much lack the infrastructure, and lack of opposition, to do so. If a Cerberus team gets indoctrinated, they aren't a galactic threat: another Cerberus team from outside can blow up their tiny ship, blow up the husks, and then blow up the revealed trap.

Moreover, what plans would they derail? The Collector Base isn't integral to Council/Alliance preparations. The Alliance doesn't even start a dedicated Reaper preparation project until Anderson caused and cleaned up a Cerberus project mess based on Collector Technology... a mess which wasn't even noticed by the galaxy, let alone derailed it's preparations.



[quote]
We know the Reapers can be destroyed in conventional warfare, [/quote]When they kindly stay in place, and are outnumbered dozens to one, and take risky gambits that threaten their shields, and don't run away like the FTL spaceships they are.

We don't have the conventional edge.

[quote]
we have other sources of technology that don't rely on a group that has proven to be dangerous and reckless [/quote]Who offers technology a decade ahead of the galactic community (the Collector standard), let alone hundreds of years ahead?

[quote]
and we have options other than the Collector Base (which isn't guaranteed to give anything beneficial either way).[/quote]Which?
[quote]
You're looking at the choice as "win" or "lose" and frankly, both options could give either outcome based on what we know (or more likely will only be part of the equation).[/quote]Correction: I see this choice as 'more likely win' and 'more likely lose', and frankly you aren't exactly disproving it.

[Dean_the_Young]

jeweledleah wrote...

I love you guys. so sure of your superiority, so sure that you know best.

"Pot, this is Kettle again. You're still black."

[Ieldra]

jeweledleah wrote...
if you chose to save collector base because you think there is no other way to win? you already lost. if you chose to save it or destroy it, because you weight the pro's and cons, make risk assessment and make a decision based on that analysis - regardless of which choice you make, you will win.

I can't speak for Zulu, but I have made and posted that risk assessment...let's see if I can find it....yes:

I think we can't afford destroying the base.

That conclusion rests on these claims:
(1) Citadel civilizations (i.e. the conglomerate of species and cultures that depend on the mass relay network) are technologically behind the Reapers.
(2) At the moment, an all-out war against the Reapers could not be won. A technological upgrade is necessary.
(3) The Collector base in an enemy HQ where a Reaper was to be built. If there's anywhere in the galaxy where the way to such a technological upgrade could be found (after the derelict Reaper has beend destroyed), it's the Collector base.

As for the base in the hands of Cerberus, it's the lesser evil, as the following risk calculation shows:

We have two "states" of the base to consider and and a two-pronged decision:

(1) The base contains knowledge that is needed (not only useful, but needed) to win against the Reapers
(2) The base does not contain knowledge that is needed to win against the Reapers.

(A) Shepard destroys the base
( Shepard keeps the base.

The combination yields four scenarios:

(1A) --> Total extinction of the existing Citadel civilization. Cerberus
will not gain power, but that doesn't matter anymore.
(1B) --> Citadel civilization will be preserved, Cerberus will gain power
(2A) --> Citadel civilization will be preserved, Cerberus will not gain power.
(2B) --> Citadel civilization will be preserved, Cerberus will gain power.

Now I submit that at the point where we're standing, avoiding scenario (1A) is the highest priority. Assuming that it can be avoided at all, it can only be avoided with certainty if you keep the base. This risk calculation should show that whatever happens, risking Cerberus gaining power is *ALWAYS* the lesser evil. Those who destroy the base gamble with the life of all Citadel civilization to make a moral point which is based on a false dichotomy: the alternative to "Cerberus gains power" that needs to be considered for the morality of the decision is not only "we win the war and Cerberus doesn't gain power", but the worst-case scenario of total extinction. Even a small chance of total extinction outweighs a greater chance of some "Cerberus Evil Empire" emerging victorious from the conflict.

The only way out of this is to claim that there is a significant chance that Cerberus' having the base would make the Reapers win, where without Cerberus having the base, they wouldn't, i.e.

(3) "The Reapers need the base in the hands of Cerberus to win against Citadel Civilization".

While this may be enough to *excuse* destroying the base if you're absolutely determined to make a Paragon decision, I do not consider it in any way likely.

BTW: The Thanix cannon and EDI are based on Reaper technology. Which proves my point. All this debate would also be pointless, and I would destroy the base in a heartbeat, if the derelict Reaper were still intact to be studied.

Now you can come to a different assessment of the risks, but I think my reasoning there is sound.

BTW, I do not think a military operation would destroy a captured enemy HQ without milking it for every scrap of information they can get out of it. Likely, if some general took it on himself to destroy it beforehand, he'd be suspected of being an enemy spy destroying valuable intelligence.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 mars 2011 - 06:57 .

[Zulu_DFA]

jeweledleah wrote...

(and by the way - if shepard were real and military, guess what - collector base would be destroyed every single time, because that's the protocol)

The military protocol, when you capture an enemy HQ, is to (1) call up the engineers ASAP (if they are available; if not - skip to Step 2), (2) sweep it for booby traps, and (3) go straight for the maps, code-tables and other documents. Enemy HQs usually are well suited to install your own HQ, if you're on the offensive. If it's just a raid and you have to abandon in, you have to of course blow it up, but not before you mine it for all the intel you can, and until then you have to defend it, even if it means loosing some of your own troopers. Intel >> men, sorry soldier guys, you knew the risks when you enlisted.

And the military protocol is also to follow orders of your superiors, which, guess what, TIM happens to be in this operation. You don't have to like it.

[Zulu_DFA]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I can't speak for Zulu, but I have made and posted that risk assessment...let's see if I can find it....yes:

Knowing you, I can agree with pretty much everything you say, if it's not Miranda-related [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie].

[jeweledleah]

Ieldra, you reasoning IS sound and its a similar reasoning I use on some of my shepards, you know the ones that keep the base. however, it doesn't work the same way for every Shepard, because the risk weights are different to them

collector base is not an equivalent of military HQ - its an equivalent of contaminated zone that is uncontrollable through normal means- and there for must be destroyed.

the rest of you - good day, nice reading your trolling.

[Almostfaceman]

Cerberus cannot be risk-assessed. Nobody knows enough about TiM to make an assessment. If you want to "role-play" the moment Shepard certainly doesn't. Safer to study available Reaper technology (Citadel) than hand over Collector Base to an unknown.

[Zulu_DFA]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

This could go bad without any evil intentions from Cerberus. See: Rachni assignment from ME1.

Actually, Cerberus' record of failed experiments speaks more in favor of keeping the Base, than not, and giving it to them, and not anyone else. You see, if it was their first attempt to tinker with the Reaper tech, it would have been bound to go awry. But now with all the negative experience they've had, it's pretty much a given that they have learnt what to beware.

[Rekkampum]

Doctor Solus wrote...

I'm sorry, but you are
ignoring facts here!



A) Cerberus aren't even close to have the resources to build the largest
dreadnought in the known galaxy, with experimental new technology, much more
compact design (I believe the reapers are much less hollow and fragile than
standard ships = more resources) and huge energy-usage.

Actually, Cerberus gets billions of credits a year. I'm pretty sure they have the resources, or the means to them, at least.

[Wulfram]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

This could go bad without any evil intentions from Cerberus. See: Rachni assignment from ME1.

Actually, Cerberus' record of failed experiments speaks more in favor of keeping the Base, than not, and giving it to them, and not anyone else. You see, if it was their first attempt to tinker with the Reaper tech, it would have been bound to go awry. But now with all the negative experience they've had, it's pretty much a given that they have learnt what to beware.

It's like how your car insurance gets cheaper if you've had lots of accidents.

[Rekkampum]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Reaper technology does not carry a taint. It is just machines and knowledge. The flaw the Council made when using the mass relay network is that they made no attempt to understand it, or at least not determined enough an attempt. So with time, Citadel civilization grew complacent about it. But now we *know* why the Reapers left the mass relays. Knowledge is power. Understanding gives control.

Tell that to Paul Grayson or any other person who's been indoctrinated. Also, Legion can't think irrationally, since it's walking supercomputer with over one thousand programs operating at once. I think it would be far safer to trust Legion's logic than a human's. Whether one does or doesn't is, of course, their personal choice.

[Dean_the_Young]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Cerberus cannot be risk-assessed. Nobody knows enough about TiM to make an assessment. If you want to "role-play" the moment Shepard certainly doesn't. Safer to study available Reaper technology (Citadel) than hand over Collector Base to an unknown.

Of course it can be risk-assessed. It can't be idealily risk-assessed, but then few life-or-death decisions can. There are times you can't risk-asses, but this isn't one of those times.

Not only can it be risk-assessed, it can be risk-mitigated, even on Shepard's end.

Going home and turning over your copy of the IFF to the Alliance/STG/Council. Keeping an eye on the base and blowing it up at a certain point later, to mitigate the gains/risks. Cleaning up any Cerberus **** up. Even trying to raid Cerberus and share it's tech gains more freely. Opposing Cerberus in its undersirable galactic ambitions.

[Dean_the_Young]

jeweledleah wrote...

Ieldra, you reasoning IS sound and its a similar reasoning I use on some of my shepards, you know the ones that keep the base. however, it doesn't work the same way for every Shepard, because the risk weights are different to them

Any Shepard who weighs a Cerberus-dominated galaxy as worse than the Reapers can darn well be called illogical and foolish.

collector base is not an equivalent of military HQ - its an equivalent of contaminated zone that is uncontrollable through normal means- and there for must be destroyed.

Of course it's controllable through normal means. Technology isn't abnormal: you can make IFFs, and you can make conventional weapons to beat the dangers there.

the rest of you - good day, nice reading your trolling.

The true mark of maturity: trying to get the last word, making an insult, and then announcing your intention to leave, all with false politeness.

[Dean_the_Young]

Rekkampum wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Reaper technology does not carry a taint. It is just machines and knowledge. The flaw the Council made when using the mass relay network is that they made no attempt to understand it, or at least not determined enough an attempt. So with time, Citadel civilization grew complacent about it. But now we *know* why the Reapers left the mass relays. Knowledge is power. Understanding gives control.

Tell that to Paul Grayson or any other person who's been indoctrinated.

That they're being affected by technology being misused by bad people?

I'm pretty sure they already know it.

Also, Legion can't think irrationally, since it's walking supercomputer with over one thousand programs operating at once. I think it would be far safer to trust Legion's logic than a human's. Whether one does or doesn't is, of course, their personal choice.

A thousand programs that are wrong is simply a thousand wrong voices. Computers are not inherently correct.

You can poke a lot of holes in Legion's argument, starting from his argument against using technology developed by others even as it and all Geth are technology developed by others (the Quarians) and use technology based on the developments of others (mass effect technology) and is happy enough to utilize other races technologies (co-development for his Widow, re-utilization of the Heretic Virus).

[Zulu_DFA]

Wulfram wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

This could go bad without any evil intentions from Cerberus. See: Rachni assignment from ME1.

Actually, Cerberus' record of failed experiments speaks more in favor of keeping the Base, than not, and giving it to them, and not anyone else. You see, if it was their first attempt to tinker with the Reaper tech, it would have been bound to go awry. But now with all the negative experience they've had, it's pretty much a given that they have learnt what to beware.

It's like how your car insurance gets cheaper if you've had lots of accidents.

Yeah, but still your driving gets better. Especially since it's off-road driving we talk about.

[Zulu_DFA]

Rekkampum wrote...

Legion can't think irrationally,

I suppose, that's why he suggests to keep the Base, if you're about to blow it, and says that it may save lives in the long run.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 07:53 .

[Ieldra]

Rekkampum wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Reaper technology does not carry a taint. It is just machines and knowledge. The flaw the Council made when using the mass relay network is that they made no attempt to understand it, or at least not determined enough an attempt. So with time, Citadel civilization grew complacent about it. But now we *know* why the Reapers left the mass relays. Knowledge is power. Understanding gives control.

Tell that to Paul Grayson or any other person who's been indoctrinated. Also, Legion can't think irrationally, since it's walking supercomputer with over one thousand programs operating at once. I think it would be far safer to trust Legion's logic than a human's. Whether one does or doesn't is, of course, their personal choice.

Any logic is flawed if it rests on false assumptions. In this case Legion's logic may or may not be sound, but the conditions are unequal: the heretics accepted to work with the Reapers without understanding what they were, so they were open to manipulation. I would study Reaper technology in order to understand it and control it instead of letting it control me. That quite a bit different from working with the Reapers or to use Reaper technology without understanding it.   

Paul Grayson only proves the point. The technology did not put into itself into his head by its own will. TIM put it there.

[Wulfram]

Rekkampum wrote...

Tell that to Paul Grayson or any other person who's been indoctrinated. Also, Legion can't think irrationally, since it's walking supercomputer with over one thousand programs operating at once. I think it would be far safer to trust Legion's logic than a human's. Whether one does or doesn't is, of course, their personal choice.

A chunk of the Geth came to the logical conclusion that they should help wipe out all organic life in the galaxy.

[Zulu_DFA]

Wulfram wrote...

Rekkampum wrote...

Tell that to Paul Grayson or any other person who's been indoctrinated. Also, Legion can't think irrationally, since it's walking supercomputer with over one thousand programs operating at once. I think it would be far safer to trust Legion's logic than a human's. Whether one does or doesn't is, of course, their personal choice.

A chunk of the Geth came to the logical conclusion that they should help wipe out all organic life in the galaxy.

That chunk of Geth were religious zealots = had false premises. Their conclusion was probably logical though.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 08:09 .