82210 réponses à ce sujet

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
May I remind you that you STILL haven't attempted to explain your interpretation of the betrayal line?

All in good time. I don't have the leisure to make a detailed post at the moment, but I will later.

[jtav]

Can I derail this conversation for a sec? What do you guys normally do in the Miranda/Jack confrontation? What I'd like to do is tell Jack off for threatening my XO and back Miranda publicly while giving her a stern chewing out in private. But that's not an option, and I'm not sure what would be closest to that. Complicating matters is that I'd very much like Jack to live, and Garrus and Grunt are marked for death.

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
There's no point in getting angry about it either way, unless the engineered trait is undesirable in any objective sense or if the engineer could have foreseen you would resent it. Imagine a world where genetic engineering is common and reasonably cheap. You might as well resent your parents for NOT having put certain modifications in that you might find desirable. What about cases like this: "Why did you make me like this? I do not want to care about other humans as much as I do. It's painful."

From what you wrote, you seem to believe that I believe that it would be acceptable to input certain methods of thinking into an engineered human. To clarify, I don't. Human intelligence and free will is one of the greatest "miracles" in all creation. I don't support anything that tries to limit it or control it.
It does not matter to me if Mr. Lawson tried to make Miranda selfish or selfless through genetic engineering. I don't agree with it. Period
Genetic tailoring an individual to make him stronger or smarter is acceptable. It will carry it's owns stigmas and self doubts but those can be dealt with eventually. Imparting methods of thinking directly into the genetic code, is what I simply can't accept.

Admittedly behavioural modifications present a special problem from a moral point of view, and have a potential of impinging on your feeling of individuality more than physical modifications.

I agree.

And doesn't bring this home the possibility that our beliefs may not be ours in the first place, if you follow that reasoning to its end? How much is there to our vaunted freedom in the first place? We do not know. Do we want to know that we are not free? I think we are approaching this from a philosophical viewpoint that will become outdated in a rather short time in the real world.

Much of what you believe derivates from your contact with the outside world, obviously, but those beliefs are not mandatory. It might even be that being of a certain mind is written in our genes. Those are harder/impossible to escape from but, even then, it's still you.
It's the difference between Shepard joining Cerberus out of need or belief in their ideals and Shepard joining Cerberus because Miranda put a control chip in his brains that twists his ideals.
His news ideals will seem as valid to him as the old ones but they still not his ideals, they are Miranda's.

Also, I'm surprised you didn't jump on the problems presented by Miranda's controlled upbringing. Or is that because everyone who has children feels they have the right to indoctrinate their children with their beliefs? Isn't that kind of programming even worse than genetic engineering, because you might twist them against built-in preferences, overriding what they would want if their genetic preferences were allowed to express themselves?

I didn't feel that it was pertinent. I definitively agree that parents should not do that to their children and that it can damage people for the rest of their lives. However, I do not believe it is worse than genetic engineering beliefs into a person because I know from personal experience that you can go against what your parents try to teach you. I mean, I love my family but damn it if they aren't a buch of close minded, intolerant, religious fanatics.

If someone puts beliefs into your genetic code, those beliefs become you. After you learn about this, you can try to go against them but you'll only be hurting yourself. 

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@CrutchCricket:
The important thing is that you do not know what you will find if you examine the base. Miranda's line cannot be results-oriented because Reaper technology is so far beyond the conventional that nobody could ever say what "anything from this base" could be used for.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, how *we* understand the "betrayal" line is not as important as how it was intended by the writers. We may be able to find an interpretation that suits our particular preferences, but what's important, at least for me, is how it will influence Miranda's portrayal in ME3. Miranda has one or two other lines I really hate, but since none of them has the potential to ruin her for ME3 it's not important. I just choose my way through the conversations so that I won't get them.

So I'd ask: what's the most obvious meaning, what could have been recognized by most players without having to interpret things to the moon and back? And then I get to a meaning I find totally non-Miranda-like which I would never want to influence her character in ME3.

Yes but where's the evidence of hidden technology? The Collector ship and base is extremely sparse. Giant empty corridors, even more giant empty rooms. The interior of Collector vessels look more like caves than starships. Other than pods and chest high walls what's actually in the base? The whole control center for the entire Collector ship is ONE holo terminal on a floating platform. Note: The Collector General chamber doesn't count because none of the characters ever see it although even that is bare except for the comm terminal with Harbinger. And even if it was packed with wonderful gadgetry we know about it. But Miranda wouldn't. Thus only seeing the minimalist design of 99% of the structure, it's perfectly valid to assume that's all there is.

Also I just realized you said Reaper technology. As we've seen time and time again the problems never end with studying or using Reaper tech (hell they begin with it). Using Reaper tech is a guaranteed betrayal due to indoctrination. Hence she can be excused for not bothering with future tense "use this and you will betray"

I don't think I've made any quantum leaps in logic here (quantum in the sense of highly advanced to the point of mistifying, not in the literal sense of discrete units). My point about Collector tech and the base, and my latest use in that last point literally just came to me. I didn't spend ages cooking it up. Without this discussion I might not have thought of it sure. But that's only because the dialogue line didn't bother me so much in the first place.

Finally it is entirely possible for a writer to mean to convey something, think it's perfectly clear (or at least there's no major issues) and yet have it completely misinterpreted. Example: Darth Bane- Dynasty of Evil by Drew Karpyshyn. He thought his ending was perfectly clear. Yet fans drew the completely opposite conclusion. He had to step in and officially declare the ending. The difference here is that it's only one piece of dialoge as opposed to an entire climax and it's largely ignored/ not fussed over by the majority.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Can I derail this conversation for a sec? What do you guys normally do in the Miranda/Jack confrontation? What I'd like to do is tell Jack off for threatening my XO and back Miranda publicly while giving her a stern chewing out in private. But that's not an option, and I'm not sure what would be closest to that. Complicating matters is that I'd very much like Jack to live, and Garrus and Grunt are marked for death.

I usually side with Miranda. The Paragon persuade makes Shepard ignore Jack's threat to kill Miranda later, the Renegade persuade makes Shepard a jerk with "My opinion is the one that matters", and I can't side with Jack. Keeping Jack alive with your other constraints may be difficult but if your Paragon score is high enough you can regain her loyalty. I recall not liking the conversation but I don't remember how it goes.

I welcome the distraction, BTW. I'm fed up with discussing a topic that annoys me. I'd like to see flemm's explanation, but I've said more than enough on the subject.

[MisterJB]

CrutchCricket wrote...
Sure but what Spectre would go up to the council with some human teenager and claim she's the best thing since sliced bread genetic modifications or not?

I'm sure Miranda also had to prove her worth before Cerberus agreed to protect her. This is no different.

Besides this is before Shepard, likely around the time Anderson a proven qualified candidate got sabotaged by Saren. Remember him? He who hates all humans?

I do not deny it would be harder. I just argue that, in the short run, it would be a lot safer.

Uhm... the Alliance is pretty much human government in space. I'm sure they'd "stand" just fine. On the other hand they can get infiltrated quite easily and again the age issue comes up.

The government doesn't even stand to the magnates nowadays. When the sixteen years old daugther of the richest man in the Galaxy asks protection from her father, you really think that the Alliance would care about the fairness of her claim? They'd send her home. 

Indeed. Impressive as it may be, it also means she didn't have a lot of options to begin with.

Someone that intelligent should be able to find options. Mr. Lawson did not want her to be an idiot, he would not recluse her to the point where she wouldn't know about the governments of the Galaxy.

She probably didn't run right into TIM's lap. She probably joined a cell in disguise and rose through the ranks. By the time daddy-o figured out what was happening Cerberus probably wouldn't let her go.

Possible but Cerberus has a very strict recruitment plan, says so on the SB dossiers. I doubt she would be able to go incognito for long.

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
 but if your Paragon score is high enough you can regain her loyalty. I recall not liking the conversation but I don't remember how it goes.

Shepard says he was paying lip service to Miranda.

[CrutchCricket]

jtav wrote...

Can I derail this conversation for a sec? What do you guys normally do in the Miranda/Jack confrontation? What I'd like to do is tell Jack off for threatening my XO and back Miranda publicly while giving her a stern chewing out in private. But that's not an option, and I'm not sure what would be closest to that. Complicating matters is that I'd very much like Jack to live, and Garrus and Grunt are marked for death.

First time around? I didn't have the paragon/renegade resolve options so I told Miranda to back down. Because really she was being needlessly confrontational in that scene. Jack had been through hell due to Cerberus and Miranda admits the operation was a mistake (in private to Shepard). But she didn't really have reason to say "you were a mistake" and goad Jack on farther. I see that as anger getting the best of her (surprise, surprise) and a poor decision as an XO.

Unfortunately I didn't realize how much that screwed up my relation with her so I had to reload and side with her, at least until I could get enough paragon to resolve it for both- which I hated anyway since apparently resolution= we'll kill each other later.

[jtav]

Basically, it's "I have to make nice with Cerberus and Miranda." Renegade is "You'd hate it if I kissed your ass."

And here are my constraints:

My ideal survivor group is Miranda, Jacob, Mordin Legion, Tali, and Kasumi. Tali and Kasumi are being picked up post SM. Zaeed is being killed off post-SM.

[CrutchCricket]

MisterJB wrote...


I'm sure Miranda also had to prove her worth before Cerberus agreed to protect her. This is no different.

Running security on a lab or whatever starting position she first got with Cerberus vs a license to kill/be above the law? Quite different I'd say.

I do not deny it would be harder. I just argue that, in the short run, it would be a lot safer.

Safer? Yes. Daddy-o couldn't touch a Spectre. Harder? Try pretty much impossible.

The government doesn't even stand to the magnates nowadays. When the sixteen years old daugther of the richest man in the Galaxy asks protection from her father, you really think that the Alliance would care about the fairness of her claim? They'd send her home.

We agree the Alliance would suck for helping her. We're arguing small details.

Someone that intelligent should be able to find options. Mr. Lawson did not want her to be an idiot, he would not recluse her to the point where she wouldn't know about the governments of the Galaxy.

Again- teenager. This isn't finding your way around some hick towns down South (no offense to anyone from there). This is a whole freakin galaxy. Would she survive? Obviously. Would she have as many options as an adult? No.

Possible but Cerberus has a very strict recruitment plan, says so on the SB dossiers. I doubt she would be able to go incognito for long.

Agreed. Just enough to prove her worth.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 19 octobre 2011 - 04:22 .

[Ieldra]

CrutchCricket wrote...
Yes but where's the evidence of hidden technology? The Collector ship and base is extremely sparse. Giant empty corridors, even more giant empty rooms. The interior of Collector vessels look more like caves than starships. Other than pods and chest high walls what's actually in the base? The whole control center for the entire Collector ship is ONE holo terminal on a floating platform. Note: The Collector General chamber doesn't count because none of the characters ever see it although even that is bare except for the comm terminal with Harbinger. And even if it was packed with wonderful gadgetry we know about it. But Miranda wouldn't. Thus only seeing the minimalist design of 99% of the structure, it's perfectly valid to assume that's all there is.

It's not. A space station isn't just empty space and the walls, no matter that the game shows us nothing else than that, and the pods. Thats a limitation of the medium. Recall the hologram EDI projected at the start of the SM? That's more like it. You have life support, the materials used for the superstructure, propulsion systems, maybe weaponry, etc. etc. Very likely biolabs, too - remember the Collectors used to, well, collect genetic samples. They must have done something with them. This is alien technology, I mean, *really* alien. Every single thing on the base must be assumed to be interesting unless proven otherwise.

Also I just realized you said Reaper technology. As we've seen time and time again the problems never end with studying or using Reaper tech (hell they begin with it). Using Reaper tech is a guaranteed betrayal due to indoctrination. Hence she can be excused for not bothering with future tense "use this and you will betray"

I don't know why this baseless assumption has gained so much prominence. Reaper technology has been successfully used, even with the plot of ME2 - in the Thanix Cannon, EDI, possibly even in Shepard. Yes, it's dangerous, but the Cerberus scientists were careless. Use remote-controlled labs, robot probes and suchlike, making sure that scientists don't have direct contact with the stuff they examine, let them be examined by psychologists regularly who never go on-site. That all Reaper technology indoctrinates is a dogma, and one that's already been proven false.

[MisterJB]

CrutchCricket wrote...
Running security on a lab or whatever starting position she first got with Cerberus vs a license to kill/be above the law? Quite different I'd say.

C'mon, security lab? Cerberus is not going to give up funds from the richest human in the Galaxy for a security lab. Even her first assignments had to be dangerous and thecnically demanding.

Safer? Yes. Daddy-o couldn't touch a Spectre. Harder? Try pretty much impossible.

If even Garrus could have become a Spectre, how hard can it be?
Ok, yes. Turians are a military race with a seat on the Council, no less.
But it's still true.

Agreed. Just enough to prove her worth.

You speak as if proving her worth to Cerberus would be easy. I'm surprised TIM didn't lock her up to try to recreate her father's research.

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It's not. A space station isn't just empty space and the walls, no matter that the game shows us nothing else than that, and the pods. Thats a limitation of the medium. Recall the hologram EDI projected at the start of the SM? That's more like it. You have life support, the materials used for the superstructure, propulsion systems, maybe weaponry, etc. etc. Very likely biolabs, too - remember the Collectors used to, well, collect genetic samples. They must have done something with them. This is alien technology, I mean, *really* alien. Every single thing on the base must be assumed to be interesting unless proven otherwise.

Ah yes a hologram that basically shows the equivalent of the thermal exhaust port (read architectural design). And where did EDI get that lovely hologram? Certainly the Collectors didn't send it by email. Probably got it by scanning the base. Already that tells you they have very few countermeasures both against electronic espionage and against whatever scanners human ships have. At no point does the base attack the Normandy directly, which means they don't even have one dinky little turret on the outer hull to study. How does it survive near the galactic core? Mass effect fields. And they don't need a giant wave motion gun because if something big enough comes through that relay and survives the occuli, debris field AND Collector ship, chances are the base is toast anyway. Which leads me to my next point:
Collectors are Protheans redesigned by Reapers to, well collect genetic material. As such they're perfectly suitable for the task what with the seeker swarms and all. They descend upon unsuspecting victims and paralyze them before they know what hit'em. So why would they need next generation weapons or life support that runs on one double A battery? Answer: They don't and they have nothing of the sort. Collector tech is more organic looking (perhaps due to Prothean influence) but is no more advanced than any other ship. And before you cry "stealth penetration!" keep in mind that was the Collector ship (which is in itty bitty pieces), not the base and it's probably just a bigger version of the seeker programs anyway.

I don't know why this baseless assumption has gained so much prominence. Reaper technology has been successfully used, even with the plot of ME2 - in the Thanix Cannon, EDI, possibly even in Shepard. Yes, it's dangerous, but the Cerberus scientists were careless. Use remote-controlled labs, robot probes and suchlike, making sure that scientists don't have direct contact with the stuff they examine, let them be examined by psychologists regularly who never go on-site. That all Reaper technology indoctrinates is a dogma, and one that's already been proven false.

The Thannix cannon was developed by the turians and we have no idea how many of those that worked on it were forcefully "retired" due to health problems. Who knows how much Reaper tech is in EDI and/or Shepard and besides I said direct Reaper tech. The fact that no one who goes through a mass relay or on the Citadel suddenly starts hailing the Reapers is proof that not everything indoctrinates.

[CrutchCricket]

MisterJB wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...
Running security on a lab or whatever starting position she first got with Cerberus vs a license to kill/be above the law? Quite different I'd say.

C'mon, security lab? Cerberus is not going to give up funds from the richest human in the Galaxy for a security lab. Even her first assignments had to be dangerous and thecnically demanding.

Safer? Yes. Daddy-o couldn't touch a Spectre. Harder? Try pretty much impossible.

If even Garrus could have become a Spectre, how hard can it be?
Ok, yes. Turians are a military race with a seat on the Council, no less.
But it's still true.

Agreed. Just enough to prove her worth.

You speak as if proving her worth to Cerberus would be easy. I'm surprised TIM didn't lock her up to try to recreate her father's research.

Who says he didn't? Not every proceedure is invasive and I'm sure Cerberus would like their test subjects to be cooperative. They might've just decided that she was more valuable as an operative later.

Look I think we agree on most of this. Cerberus was the first and most logical choice for a teenage Miranda in that position. She had other options.  Good?

[Ieldra]

MisterJB wrote...
From what you wrote, you seem to believe that I believe that it would be acceptable to input certain methods of thinking into an engineered human. To clarify, I don't. Human intelligence and free will is one of the greatest "miracles" in all creation. I don't support anything that tries to limit it or control it.

No, I didn't think you believe that. I wanted to (a) express my serious doubt of the concept of free will in the first place, and ( to relativize the whole problem. If our genes determine our thinking, they do so regardless of whether there is intention behind it or not. Have your beliefs because of random chance, or by engineering, it doesn't matter. Either way you are not free. On the other hand, if our genes determine our thinking less, then genetic engineering can also affect your beliefs less and it's possible for you to escape your programming as easily - or as hard - as it is to escape learned behaviours.

And doesn't bring this home the possibility that our beliefs may not be ours in the first place, if you follow that reasoning to its end? How much is there to our vaunted freedom in the first place? We do not know. Do we want to know that we are not free? I think we are approaching this from a philosophical viewpoint that will become outdated in a rather short time in the real world.

Much of what you believe derivates from your contact with the outside world, obviously, but those beliefs are not mandatory. It might even be that being of a certain mind is written in our genes. Those are harder/impossible to escape from but, even then, it's still you.

Ask a psychologist how hard it can be to escape learned behaviours. Chemical conditioning - which is the way you'd use to program behavioural preferences into the genome if it can be done at all - can be learned by the brain. Ask any specialist for addictions. 

It's the difference between Shepard joining Cerberus out of need or belief in their ideals and Shepard joining Cerberus because Miranda put a control chip in his brains that twists his ideals.
His news ideals will seem as valid to him as the old ones but they still not his ideals, they are Miranda's.

That's your interpretation of how a control chip would work. It has never been specified that the control chip would subvert your will.
Also, you appear to be under the mistaken impression that the "you" is some transcendent entity independent from the chemistry of your body. It is not. Whatever is encoded in your genome, whatever the processes in your brain do, they *are* you. They comprise you. If you use a control chip, that's an obvious intervention, but engineering just results in a different you. It may be morally problematic from a social viewpoint, but it doesn't change you because another you never existed. 

I didn't feel that it was pertinent. I definitively agree that parents should not do that to their children and that it can damage people for the rest of their lives. However, I do not believe it is worse than genetic engineering beliefs into a person because I know from personal experience that you can go against what your parents try to teach you. I mean, I love my family but damn it if they aren't a buch of close minded, intolerant, religious fanatics.

If someone puts beliefs into your genetic code, those beliefs become you. After you learn about this, you can try to go against them but you'll only be hurting yourself. 

You do not know that. In fact, I think you overestimate the influence of genes on those mental traits that engender beliefs. Likely, you'll never be able to program something like a preference for a specific belief system. What you could possibly do is influence the need for belonging, and thus the likelihood the target person will sacrifice their individual needs in order to belong to a group. Still you wouldn't be able to predict where that person will end up, and you wouldn't be able to predict if that person will really submit to the will of a group. It'sall about tendencies and probabilities, which sort of defeats the purpose unless you use genetic engineering to change a whole society. And yeah, that's a scary thought.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, btw. I just think it's not as easy as saying "free will is threatened, it's evil". As for Elyvern's story and the possible very slight behavioural modification of Miranda's genome, I propose you wait and see how she deals with it. That this has triggered a debate like this was one reason it was put in.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 octobre 2011 - 05:27 .

[Ieldra]

@CrutchCricket:
Assumptions, assumptions.
(1) You assume the Collectors have no weapons on the base because they don't attack you. Hey, guess what, you have the Reaper IFF, the base sensors count you as an ally and haven't been reprogrammed yet. Well yeah, also an assumption, but just as likely as yours.
(2) You assume they don't need life support. Well, everything that lives needs life support. It may not be exactly atmosphere, proteins or suchlike, but no living creature lives from nothing. That's physically impossible.
(3) You assume they don't have electronic countermeasures. Well, the Reapers are their masters, and hey, here is EDI with its Reaper tech components, who can interface with Reaper electronics AND who has the Reaper IFF connected. Is is any surprise that EDI can connect with the base and scan it? Yeah, another assumption but just as likely as yours. Possibly more so.
(4) You assume the base doesn't have the Collector's stealth technology built in. Well no, probably is hasn't but somehow the Collectors must've built that ship, and the blueprints are floating around somewhere in the virtual space of the base's systems.
(5) You assume that knowing about the processes that make up a Reaper without actually using them has no value. The opposite is true. The base is a Reaper factory damn it. Saying that there isn't any useful knowledge there is akin to saying you can't find anything useful about the structure of cars in a car factory. Likely, the base is even more useful for understanding a Reaper than an actual Reaper.
(6) You use "possible indoctrination problems experienced by the turians" to disqualify the fact (!!!!!!) that Reaper technology has successfully been integrated into the Normandy's systems and has already contributed to the success of the mission. Well, as I said elsewhere "there is no guarantee that X did not happen" has zero weight as an argument. You have to demonstrate that X actually did happen to make a point. Which you can't. And you forgot EDI, without whom the mission would have failed. There is no escaping the conclusion that without Reaper technology, Shepard would have failed in his mission.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 octobre 2011 - 06:14 .

[alxboss78]

@ieldra2 and MisterJB, guys sorry to take you back some pages, but i was away. Ok i agree to disagree but before i do that please answer me the following so that i know how you view this:

You are Miranda, and Commander Shepard comes in and starts chatting up at you and eventually point blank asks you "Why did you join cerberus?".

So the Miranda you have in your head... how would she really answe that? And after you think that tell me one good reason why the in game Miranda fails to even remotely mention in that reply, any political, ideological or moral connection to Cerberus.

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@CrutchCricket:
Assumptions, assumptions.
(1) You assume the Collectors have no weapons on the base because they don't attack you. Hey, guess what, you have the Reaper IFF, the base sensors count you as an ally and haven't been reprogrammed yet. Well yeah, also an assumption, but just as likely as yours.
(2) You assume they don't need life support. Well, everything that lives needs life support. It may not be exactly atmosphere, proteins or suchlike, but no living creature lives from nothing. That's physically impossible.
(3) You assume they don't have electronic countermeasures. Well, the Reapers are their masters, and hey, here is EDI with its Reaper tech components, who can interface with Reaper electronics AND who has the Reaper IFF connected. Is is any surprise that EDI can connect with the base and scan it? Yeah, another assumption but just as likely as yours. Possibly more so.
(4) You assume the base doesn't have the Collector's stealth technology built in. Well no, probably is hasn't but somehow the Collectors must've built that ship, and the blueprints are floating around somewhere in the virtual space of the base's systems.
(5) You assume that knowing about the processes that make up a Reaper without actually using them has no value. The opposite is true. The base is a Reaper factory damn it. Saying that there isn't any useful knowledge there is akin to saying you can't find anything useful about the structure of cars in a car factory. Likely, the base is even more useful for understanding a Reaper than an actual Reaper.
(6) You use "possible indoctrination problems experienced by the turians" to disqualify the fact (!!!!!!) that Reaper technology has successfully been integrated into the Normandy's systems and has already contributed to the success of the mission. Well, as I said elsewhere "there is no guarantee that X did not happen" has zero weight as an argument. You have to demonstrate that X actually did happen to make a point. Which you can't. And you forgot EDI, without whom the mission would have failed. There is no escaping the conclusion that without Reaper technology, Shepard would have failed in his mission.

So please, just stop selling the lie of the uselessness of Reaper technology and the lie of guaranteed indoctrination for anyone who uses it. Reaper technology is not some unholy evil mojo as its presentation may somehow suggest, it's a toolset, it's things. Things that can be understood and sometimes turned into a useful purpose. That's not an assumption but a fact the game places conveniently in your face during the main plot.

1)Indeed the base sensors count me as an ally. That's why the very first occulus that sees me says something along the lines of "WTF??" in binary and proceeds to *pew pew* all over my parade right? Also the Collector ship was just coming out to offer me some cake and punch for winning their scavenger hunt.
2)No they probably don't need life support seeing as how most of their insides have been "replaced by tech" to quote Mordin. The fact that there is life support is unexplained, possibly a plot hole and no reason to "assume" their life support is any better than the Qwib-Qwib's.
3)For all we know the "reaper tech" inside EDI could be the equivalent of Microsoft Word in a Mac. It's still a Mac, it's still lacking the ability to right click it's still incompatible with our systems, kill it with fire.
4)Ok I thought you had me for a second there, until I realized you said the Collectors built the ship. Why would the Collectors build anything? They were made by the Reapers for collecting. They're just tools, literally. You don't program your toaster to know how to start your car do you? For all we know the entire structure could be run by Harbinger or a lower AI in his absence.
5)A car factory with no power will tell you what cars will look like. It won't tell you how engines or its computers work unless you fire it up and see how it puts it together. Great. Except in this case firing it up means liquifying a few thousand humans. We know what Reapers look like.
6)No I don't need to disqualify anything because I'm arguing for possibilities. The Thannix was developed by studying Sovereign, an actual physical Reaper. We know dead Reapers can indoctrinate so whoever worked on that project was indoctrinated, at least partially. Its succesful use is irrelevant. Direct Reaper tech is too dangerous. and the base is direct Reaper tech.

I find it funny that you fault me for using assumptions when at this point assumptions are all we have. I'm not selling anything, my points just follow logically from the source. As for Reaper tech use... remember that bit Sovereign says and Legion echoes.

Your society is based on the technology of the mass relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along paths we desire

Whether Reapers were built this way or whether they made themselves this way I think it's pretty clear they can't just be reversed engineered by any old chumps without consequences. The Thannix cannon is a poor example in this case as it was never planned that a Reaper would be defeated and leave enough pieces of itself for organics to study. EDI and Shepard remain unknowns in terms of how much tech they incorporate so using them as an example is a bad assumption.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 19 octobre 2011 - 06:27 .

[Ieldra]

CrutchCricket wrote...
I find it funny that you fault me for using assumptions when at this point assumptions are all we have.

I'm using assumptions, too. What I wanted to stress is that we do not know how useful the base may be. Neither do you know its useless nor do I know it's useful. Which means that it is desirable that we examine the base so that we will know. Of course we may disagree about whether the price justifies the knowledge, but IMO there's no escaping the conclusion that gaining the knowledge we do not have is more desirable than to remain ignorant. Even should we find that the Reapers don't have anything to use against us except indoctrination, that would be incredibly useful to know. 

As for Reaper tech use... remember that bit Sovereign says and Legion echoes.

Your society is based on the technology of the mass relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along paths we desire

Whether Reapers were built this way or whether they made themselves this way I think it's pretty clear they can't just be reversed engineered by any old chumps without consequences. The Thannix cannon is a poor example in this case as it was never planned that a Reaper would be defeated and leave enough pieces of itself for organics to study. EDI and Shepard remain unknowns in terms of how much tech they incorporate so using them as an example is a bad assumption.

Any action has consequences. Gaining the knowledge of how Reaper technology works has consequences. But what did Sovereign actually mean? I find it quite likely that the problem lies exactly in using their technology without understanding it, which is what Citadel Civilization has done so far. If you don't understand a technology, you don't control it. The Reapers gave the galaxy an incredibly easy means to travel between the stars, so easy that the civilizations never looked for alternatives or tried to understand it, because there was no need. Everything was already there. That's the desired path of development: keep in the vicinity of the mass relays, don't try to unravel their secrets (because doing that would give you control, its not desirable from the Reapers' point of view).

As for the Thanix, it's actually a very fitting example. We did what the Reapers didn't plan for. So we already deviated from the path. Who says we can't it do it again? This dreaded "along the paths we desire" is baseless fear-mongering. Possibly even the very fear engendered by the statement is intended to keep us from understanding the Reapers' technology. But at this point, understanding can only improve our chances. It can't make us any more vulnerable than we already are. And if we control the technology, it's our path of development. Using it may have repercussions for our societies - all technology has - but why should the consequences be undesirable? It's just as likely it will boost our societies to unprecedented heights after the Reapers are defeated.
 

[Ieldra]

I believe this thread could use a picture.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 octobre 2011 - 07:16 .

[Xilizhra]

Hey, guess what, you have the Reaper IFF, the base sensors count you as an ally and haven't been reprogrammed yet. Well yeah, also an assumption, but just as likely as yours.

Then why do the Oculi attack?

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
Then why do the Oculi attack?

There's a Collector inside of them. I'm totally serious, it's on the unused files that didn't end in the game.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Then why do the Oculi attack?

There's a Collector inside of them. I'm totally serious, it's on the unused files that didn't end in the game.

What? The Reapers use manned fighters? That's utterly idiotic unless the ones actually carried by Reapers are drones and the base didn't have a computer powerful enough to run the, er, three Oculi there, and so they had to be modified to be manned.

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...
I find it funny that you fault me for using assumptions when at this point assumptions are all we have.

I'm using assumptions, too. What I wanted to stress is that we do not know how useful the base may be. Neither do you know its useless nor do I know it's useful. Which means that it is desirable that we examine the base so that we will know. Of course we may disagree about whether the price justifies the knowledge, but IMO there's no escaping the conclusion that gaining the knowledge we do not have is more desirable than to remain ignorant. Even should we find that the Reapers don't have anything to use against us except indoctrination, that would be incredibly useful to know. 

As for Reaper tech use... remember that bit Sovereign says and Legion echoes.

Your society is based on the technology of the mass relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along paths we desire

Whether Reapers were built this way or whether they made themselves this way I think it's pretty clear they can't just be reversed engineered by any old chumps without consequences. The Thannix cannon is a poor example in this case as it was never planned that a Reaper would be defeated and leave enough pieces of itself for organics to study. EDI and Shepard remain unknowns in terms of how much tech they incorporate so using them as an example is a bad assumption.

Any action has consequences. Gaining the knowledge of how Reaper technology works has consequences. But what did Sovereign actually mean? I find it quite likely that the problem lies exactly in using their technology without understanding it, which is what Citadel Civilization has done so far. If you don't understand a technology, you don't control it. The Reapers gave the galaxy an incredibly easy means to travel between the stars, so easy that the civilizations never looked for alternatives or tried to understand it, because there was no need. Everything was already there. That's the desired path of development: keep in the vicinity of the mass relays, don't try to unravel their secrets (because doing that would give you control, its not desirable from the Reapers' point of view).

As for the Thanix, it's actually a very fitting example. We did what the Reapers didn't plan for. So we already deviated from the path. Who says we can't it do it again? This dreaded "along the paths we desire" is baseless fear-mongering. Possibly even the very fear engendered by the statement is intended to keep us from understanding the Reapers' technology. But at this point, understanding can only improve our chances. It can't make us any more vulnerable than we already are. And if we control the technology, it's our path of development. Using it may have repercussions for our societies - all technology has - but why should the consequences be undesirable? It's just as likely it will boost our societies to unprecedented heights after the Reapers are defeated.
 

All your points about technology are valid. However I maintain there is likely nothing useful in the Collector base apart from creating a Reaper, due to the Collectors being nothing more than specialized tools and no evidence that there is, given what we see. The point of this assertion isn't to make that so but merely to introduce the possibility that Miranda may have arrived at this conclusion and when the Illusive Man demanded the base she only saw him wanting it for its main purpose- which she considers a betrayal. Also note the line begins with "I'm not so sure. Seeing it first hand..." She's just going by what she saw. Like I said before if a possibility exists that she could plausibly say what she did by following a logical train of thought as opposed to just going "it's too scary make it go away" then there is also the possibility this is what the writers intended and the possibility that it does fit her character. A defense of this line has but to introduce this possibility. It's like court really. I'm introducing reasonable doubt. Burden of proof is on the accuser. Although I really don't want to draw such rigid lines. However it has been shown you fell more strongly about this than others.

While I've enjoyed the intellectual sparring I feel we're getting away from the point of this thread. It's been an awesome discussion but if it were up to me, we'd go back lovestruck admiration of Miranda for a while:wub:.

*Edit- Just saw your picture. Glad we feel the same way about that!:happy:

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 19 octobre 2011 - 07:31 .

[CrutchCricket]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Then why do the Oculi attack?

There's a Collector inside of them. I'm totally serious, it's on the unused files that didn't end in the game.

That probably means the concept was cut from the final product but they didn't get around to removing the files.