695 réponses à ce sujet

[emperoralku]

Lugaidster wrote...

Ok, I'm getting many arguments for many different sides with different and apparently valid points. Let's try to attack the situation at hand by parts, because this is getting overwhelming.

Can we agree that there's no circular logic in there? If not, can we attack that point first to see if we actually get a consensus there?

Cheers

I still feel his solution of creating reapers is circular because they would eventually rebel leading back to the original problem. 

The only way this would not be circular is if the original statement of created always rebelling was false and the catalyst knew it was false.

[Draconis6666]

He MUST include himself in his calculation or that in itself is a logical fallacy, if his logic concerns all synthetic life he must include himself or he has committed a logical fallacy of Hypocrisy, and while we are at it the entirety of premise ( itself can be seen as a logical fallacy of composition, unless there is proof that ( is true.

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

Even if you assume that the solution to the problem is arrived at logicaly the entire equation is still logicaly invalid because the premise cannot be logicaly proven true without resulting to fallacies. You're right that individual parts of the entire equation taken in vacum are logical, the logical failing occurs when the entire equation is put together and weighed logicaly the logic of the equation itself is what is in question not the logic of its individual parts. So yes his solution is logical, but the equation it is a part of is not.

I'm sorry for the wikibomb but:

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

An argument can be valid (ie the entire equation) without the premises having to be either verifiable or true. 

I guess that comes down to your idea of what is valid, to me its not valid unless its formaly valid when your talking about logical reasoning. Using an argument that is not formaly valid as a basis for action while I guess your correct is technicaly logical it would definatly fall under the realm of using a logical argument that is valid to come to an untrue or unprovable conclusion which if that is the case the catalyst is either doing so knowling, meaning that it knows its logic while valid is not true or provable or is in fact stupid and does not recognize that its logical reasoning is not formaly valid.

[Artoz96]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Artoz96 wrote...


Dude it is simple. You argue that Catalyst acts illogically. And one of your statements for why is that - is that because you don't see logical reason for it actions, or you mean smth else and just wanted to share with us your impossibily to understand why it do as it do? 

And to the seconf part...from "b" to "g"...  Catalyst didn't say that his solution ia about saving organics. It's solution to CHAOS. Catalyst foresaw not failure but another solution. Another solution, presumably, was connected with the fact that smb would be able to Create Crucible and connect it with Catalyst.  He says that the fact that Shepard stays here means that solution dont work anymore and that he find another solution.

So... ball on your side

You're cute, but wrong. When I said I didn't see a logical reason why the Catalyst wouldn't pick an alternative solution, I was making an observation. Not supporting an argument. You see the formal argument I gave you? Yeah, "I don't see a logical reason," is not one of its premises.

And no, his pretty clearly states that he is trying to stop the destruction of all organic life.

The fact that he "foresaw" any kind of alternative to his solution, especially one of the solutions enabled by the Catalyst, really does make him dumb for choosing the least efficient one.

Once again, there is nothing that is hard to understand about any of this. It's not that "I don't get it". It's that it's a convoluted narrative mess.

Cute, but wrong.

You thing my faceless avatar is cute? I also think so

Yep I see what you do, of course you didn't say "I see no reasos, that is why it's illogical" and formaly I can't state that it is false because u didn't finish your statement. But we both know that it was your argument about illigical actions of the Catalyst. This is exactly the same as "really does make him dumb for choosing the least efficient one". 

"pretty clearly states that he is trying to stop the destruction of all organic life" Yeah, pretty clear    

"Once again, there is nothing that is hard to understand about any of
this. It's not that "I don't get it". It's that it's a convoluted
narrative mess. "

You know law of gravity, and you can see what it does, but you don't understand what it is. That is why it is Law.   We don't know why they do this and what purpose they have but that don't mean that it is illogical.

Modifié par Artoz96, 26 mars 2012 - 11:51 .

[Lugaidster]

avatar0 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...


(a) Organic civilizations will eventually create synthetics
( The created will always rebel against their creators wiping *all* organic life in the process.

From then, he elaborates that this poses a problem, which becomes apparent because of the second premise, thus, he presents his solution:

© The reapers will come every so often to harvest and store advanced civilizations in reaper form leaving primitive organics alone.

I don't think you got validity and soundness right.
The argument can be understood as valid, but because premise ( is proven incorrect by the game itself, ultimately the argument must be unsound.

It's like your 1+1=3 example.
It is valid to say that 1+1+1 = 4 if 1+1 =3, but because 1+1 = 2, the entire argument ultimately is unsound and falls apart.

I never said it was sound...? 

Furthermore, the premise ( isn't proven incorrect by the game. The only remotely related evidence we have on that premise is the Geth and the Quarians, and a short term peace treaty doesn't deny the posibility that the Geth might rebel later.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 12:01 .

[Wittand25]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Ok, I'm getting many arguments for many different sides with different and apparently valid points. Let's try to attack the situation at hand by parts, because this is getting overwhelming.

Can we agree that there's no circular logic in there? If not, can we attack that point first to see if we actually get a consensus there?

Cheers

There is no circular logic in your OP's formal argument, but that doesn't mean the Catalyst doesn't use circular reasoning.

Like I said before, the only clear supporting argument it provides is, "The Created will always rebel against their Creators."

And the only way to support that as an absolute is through circular reasoning.

No.
The statement is an axiom (disregarding wheter it is true or false in reality) and therefore does not need to be proven because it is always true in the context of the logic used by the starchild. 

Modifié par Wittand25, 26 mars 2012 - 11:58 .

[Lugaidster]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Ok, I'm getting many arguments for many different sides with different and apparently valid points. Let's try to attack the situation at hand by parts, because this is getting overwhelming.

Can we agree that there's no circular logic in there? If not, can we attack that point first to see if we actually get a consensus there?

Cheers

There is no circular logic in your OP's formal argument, but that doesn't mean the Catalyst doesn't use circular reasoning.

Like I said before, the only clear supporting argument it provides is, "The Created will always rebel against their Creators."

And the only way to support that as an absolute is through circular reasoning.

That isn't the only way to prove it, it's just the only way you can think of, which isn't actually proving it. Circular reasoning requires that the Catalyst try to prove one of the premises with the conclusion. He isn't trying to prove his premises with his conclusion and his conclusion doesn't affect the truthness of the premises.

[Dougremer]

What I don't understand is why the reapers comes back every 50.000 years?! How can it be that it goes exactly 50,000 years before a civilization creates synthetics? Doesn't make sense to me.
The dark energy/matter plot makes more sense and actually fits into the whole story than what we have now.

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

Even if you assume that the solution to the problem is arrived at logicaly the entire equation is still logicaly invalid because the premise cannot be logicaly proven true without resulting to fallacies. You're right that individual parts of the entire equation taken in vacum are logical, the logical failing occurs when the entire equation is put together and weighed logicaly the logic of the equation itself is what is in question not the logic of its individual parts. So yes his solution is logical, but the equation it is a part of is not.

I'm sorry for the wikibomb but:

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

An argument can be valid (ie the entire equation) without the premises having to be either verifiable or true. 

I guess that comes down to your idea of what is valid, to me its not valid unless its formaly valid when your talking about logical reasoning. Using an argument that is not formaly valid as a basis for action while I guess your correct is technicaly logical it would definatly fall under the realm of using a logical argument that is valid to come to an untrue or unprovable conclusion which if that is the case the catalyst is either doing so knowling, meaning that it knows its logic while valid is not true or provable or is in fact stupid and does not recognize that its logical reasoning is not formaly valid.

It's not my idea of valid. It's the accepted definition of a valid arguement. You can deny it by saying that it's wiki, but if you go around and read some more trustworthy sources, you'll see that the validity of an argument isn't dependant on the value of the premise, as for a validity analysis the premises are basically axioms. The argument is questionably sound, because the premises are questionable, but that's about it.

[Lugaidster]

Dougremer wrote...

What I don't understand is why the reapers comes back every 50.000 years?! How can it be that it goes exactly 50,000 years before a civilization creates synthetics? Doesn't make sense to me.

That's because there's information missing. Most likely due to lack of imagination, but in any case it's pretty hard to imagine a super intelligent being when you, yourself (the writter, not you), aren't a super intelligent being.

Dougremer wrote... 

The dark energy/matter plot makes more sense and actually fits into the whole story than what we have now.

I couldn't disagree more. This plot isn't perfect, but that one is crappy as hell as well. I'd rather they just fix this one. Anyway, that's a topic for another discussion.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 12:07 .

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

Even if you assume that the solution to the problem is arrived at logicaly the entire equation is still logicaly invalid because the premise cannot be logicaly proven true without resulting to fallacies. You're right that individual parts of the entire equation taken in vacum are logical, the logical failing occurs when the entire equation is put together and weighed logicaly the logic of the equation itself is what is in question not the logic of its individual parts. So yes his solution is logical, but the equation it is a part of is not.

I'm sorry for the wikibomb but:

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

An argument can be valid (ie the entire equation) without the premises having to be either verifiable or true. 

I guess that comes down to your idea of what is valid, to me its not valid unless its formaly valid when your talking about logical reasoning. Using an argument that is not formaly valid as a basis for action while I guess your correct is technicaly logical it would definatly fall under the realm of using a logical argument that is valid to come to an untrue or unprovable conclusion which if that is the case the catalyst is either doing so knowling, meaning that it knows its logic while valid is not true or provable or is in fact stupid and does not recognize that its logical reasoning is not formaly valid.

It's not my idea of valid. It's the accepted definition of a valid arguement. You can deny it by saying that it's wiki, but if you go around and read some more trustworthy sources, you'll see that the validity of an argument isn't dependant on the value of the premise, as for a validity analysis the premises are basically axioms. The argument is questionably sound, because the premises are questionable, but that's about it.

Your right but there are different forms of Validity of an argument, you do not enact something on the scale of the Catalyst's solution based on an argument that is not formaly valid, yet it has. In doing so it is either willfuly ignoring the fact that its argument is only technicaly valid and not formaly valid, or it is stupid and does not recognize the difference.

for clarification if you dont know what im taking about, (I would assume you do since the wiki talks about it) an argument is valid if its conclusion can be logicaly infered from its premises even if they are not all true. But an argument is only formaly valid if all are true.

[babies8mydingo]

Artoz96 wrote...
Catalyst talked about chaos. Solution to chaos.

Chaos is subjective, Star Child's definition of chaos can only be speculated on. He seems to be bent on preventing evolution once it reaches a certain arbitary level: organically and technologically. The fact he sets the reset to a fifty thousand year clock, indicates that that is a period of time he can reliably predict (although this itself is absurd).

Because of this fear of "chaos" he by definition cannot predict what the long term result of not interfering with the natural development of the galaxy would be - it could be subjectively positive or negative; he doesn't care about this, his goal is apparently predictability. Why he allows the three choices at all I can only speculate.

But this is getting away from analyzing his (flawed) logic.

----

On the argument that his actions may be based on previous activity in another galaxy, there is no reason to believe this is the case whatsover. All evidence points to his influence being limited to the Milky Way: the scope of the relay network, the location of the Reapers between harvests, his apparent location in the Citadel. For him to be able to say something was the ALLWAYS the case/outcome would require far more knowledge/observation than he reasonably can of had (and for there to be no counter-examples) - the universe is unbelivably vast and his solution only effects one galaxy; on a simple level if synthetics always kill organics, why haven't more advanced extra-galatic synthetics shown up to do this?

[GodChildInTheMachine]

I still argue that even if the given argument isn't formally invalid, it is fallacious.

If you want to take it as a formal, logical argument (which Artoz96 is intent on NOT doing), it is at the least guilty of Begging the Question.

"Unchecked artificial life will destroy all biological life, so I have to stop the advancement of technology in order to prevent artificial life from growing unchecked."

This argument should not be granted the assumption that artificial life will destroy all biological life, but it should be made to support this claim.

[CDHarrisUSF]

My complaint is with the entire premise and the number of huge assumptions being made, not the tree pruning logic necessarily. The most fundamental assumption is that life ceasing to exist would be a bad thing for the universe. Why? By definition, no people will be around to lament its loss. The universe certainly doesn't care whether we are here or not. Even if it did do something objectively "bad" to the universe, we wouldn't exist to care about it. So, right out of the gate, his logic is on shaky ground.

Next, you have to assume that synthetics are going to want to kill 100% of all organic life (plants, insects, bacteria, etc) for some reason. If they let even one tiny ecosystem slip through, the premise is flawed because then we're just arguing about scale (Reapers killed advanced races, hypothetical synthetics just go a bit further). Managing this feat in this galaxy alone would be a near-impossible task (we haven't even explored 1% of it according to the lore). Trying to do this across the entire universe is a laughable concept. Even if the synthetics "live" long enough to cross the entire universe (assuming there is an end), new life will keep popping up in different places in an eternal game of whack-a-mole. This point is strong enough that I could stop here... but I won't.

Okay, assuming it's possible and it's bad, we then have to make another arbitrary value judgment. We have to decide if the lack of synthetic sentient beings is better than the lack of organic sentient beings. Both are essentially computers... one just happens to be made of neurons, glia, neurotransmitters, etc. If you can't decide that organic life is more important, the premise is flawed. Personally, I think both should be considered equal and innocent until proven guilty. Based on my view, getting rid of synthetics is as bad as getting rid of organics.

Let's pretend it's possible, bad, and that organics are more important. This would be where proposed solutions to the problem come in. Is the problem big enough that it can't be solved by having the Reapers store DNA in a "seed bank" in their dark space hideout and returning to clone life back into existence (terraforming planets if necessary) after it is wiped out? This would only be a problem if the synthetics became more powerful than the Reapers. I'll grant that as a possibility. Let's think about their proposed system instead.

To prevent the creation and take-over of a super-powerful and genocidal synthetic race, they plan to kill all of the advanced organic races every 50k years or so before they get the chance. This prompts another value judgment in which we have to determine which is the lesser of two evils. Which is worse, the guaranteed mass murder of almost all intelligent life every 50k years... or letting them live for an unknown amount of extra time until synthetics decide to wipe out all life (maybe 51k years, maybe a million, maybe never)? Is the medicine worse than the disease (especially when we don't even know if we have it)?

That's still only scratching the surface of the problems with the premise (plenty of other philosophical problems involving free will, self-determination, etc)... but I'm tired.

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...



That's because there's information missing. Most likely due to lack of imagination, but in any case it's pretty hard to imagine a super intelligent being when you, yourself (the writter, not you), aren't a super intelligent being.

In reality the best ending would to have never tried to explain the reapers, when Mac was quoted as saying "there are some things you dont need to know" this was one of them. We didn't need to know why the reapers did what they did, we only needed to know that we had to stop them or they would reap all advanced life. Giving them motivation at all undermines the buildup created by the previous games, your right though thats a completely different topic.

[CaptainZaysh]

AnttiV wrote...

Let me burst in for a second. If we assume
a) The Catalyst is truly a true AI, not some VI construct.
that AI was created by organics and tasked with the problem
c) problem "organics WILL ALWAYS create synthetics that will then ALWAYS turn against their creator and destroy all life"

If those were the "rules" and it truly uses "computer logic" and not filtered with morality/ethics/what have you. Then the only logical outcome really is to apply "skynet-logic".

* synthetics will ALWAYS destroy their creators (and escalating, the whole universe) thus the logical conclusion is to prevent synthetics from being created. #1

* organics will ALWAYS eventually create synthetics #2

#2 -> #1 will create a single logical solution: destroy all organic life. Thus synthetics will never be created. If "preserve organic life" was never a mission parameter, then this is really the best logical solution.
 

Ah-ha!  What if "preserve advanced organic civilisation" was in fact a mission parameter.  And then its creator military worked out a way to preserve organic life in Reaper form?  All of a sudden, the Catalyst has a new solution open to it.

Its creators should have paid more attention to its sudden interest in the precise definition of the word "preserve".

[Draconis6666]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

I still argue that even if the given argument isn't formally invalid, it is fallacious.

If you want to take it as a formal, logical argument (which Artoz96 is intent on NOT doing), it is at the least guilty of Begging the Question.

"Unchecked artificial life will destroy all biological life, so I have to stop the advancement of technology in order to prevent artificial life from growing unchecked."

This argument should not be granted the assumption that artificial life will destroy all biological life, but it should be made to support this claim.

The argument IS formaly invalid its only technicaly valid, its formaly invalid because the conclusion and premises are not all true unless resorting to fallacies.

There are multiple fallacies commited in the argument but they do not actualy impact its technical validity.

premise ( that all synthetic life will one day kill all organic life is a fallacy of composition, the Catalys ignoring that it itself is a synthetic life and therefore part of ( is a fallcy of hypocricy, the list goes on. But they are right that the solution itself is technicaly logicaly valid in terms of the equation, but it does not pass the test of being formaly valid

Modifié par Draconis6666, 26 mars 2012 - 12:14 .

[Sidney]

Dougremer wrote...

What I don't understand is why the reapers comes back every 50.000 years?! How can it be that it goes exactly 50,000 years before a civilization creates synthetics? Doesn't make sense to me.
The dark energy/matter plot makes more sense and actually fits into the whole story than what we have now.

Dark Matter makes as little sense as the synthetics on the 50k years. 50k might at least be "roughly" a timeframe where a species goes from scratching around caves like our ancestors to building an AI. It is an imperfect measure but something vaguely possible. Based on what we know of the Prothean and current cycle they are a bit too late each time because the man/machine wars have begun.

It makes zero sense in the dark matter endings to putz around every 50k years OR to only harvest advanced organics. The dark matter ending doesn't explain why you have to wipe out all life and not just harvest up the one species.

[Draconis6666]

Sidney wrote...

Dougremer wrote...

What I don't understand is why the reapers comes back every 50.000 years?! How can it be that it goes exactly 50,000 years before a civilization creates synthetics? Doesn't make sense to me.
The dark energy/matter plot makes more sense and actually fits into the whole story than what we have now.

Dark Matter makes as little sense as the synthetics on the 50k years. 50k might at least be "roughly" a timeframe where a species goes from scratching around caves like our ancestors to building an AI. It is an imperfect measure but something vaguely possible. Based on what we know of the Prothean and current cycle they are a bit too late each time because the man/machine wars have begun.

It makes zero sense in the dark matter endings to putz around every 50k years OR to only harvest advanced organics. The dark matter ending doesn't explain why you have to wipe out all life and not just harvest up the one species.

Nope but its at least tied to the series and not a new plot thats introduced at the last minute with only brief exploration through a few sub plots at the total expense of all other plots. It would have still been a terrible ending from the standpoints of things like the 50.000 year cycle making sense, but been a much better ending fundamentaly because it went with the story we had been given and was properly foreshadowed by the series.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Lugaidster wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Ok, I'm getting many arguments for many different sides with different and apparently valid points. Let's try to attack the situation at hand by parts, because this is getting overwhelming.

Can we agree that there's no circular logic in there? If not, can we attack that point first to see if we actually get a consensus there?

Cheers

There is no circular logic in your OP's formal argument, but that doesn't mean the Catalyst doesn't use circular reasoning.

Like I said before, the only clear supporting argument it provides is, "The Created will always rebel against their Creators."

And the only way to support that as an absolute is through circular reasoning.

That isn't the only way to prove it, it's just the only way you can think of, which isn't actually proving it. Circular reasoning requires that the Catalyst try to prove one of the premises with the conclusion. He isn't trying to prove his premises with his conclusion and his conclusion doesn't affect the truthness of the premises.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm arguing that he presents,

"The Created will always rebel against their creators,"

as a separate argument. And I may have said "prove" before, but I specifically chose the words "support as an absolute" here. I am trying to isolate this premise because it is the hingepoint of his entire thesis. When taken on its own merits any attempt to support this absolute with an argument will be guilty of circular reasoning.

i.e. "The created will always rebel against their creators; the fact that things that are created rebel against their creators is proof of this."

[Sidney]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Nope but its at least tied to the series and not a new plot thats introduced at the last minute with only brief exploration through a few sub plots at the total expense of all other plots. It would have still been a terrible ending from the standpoints of things like the 50.000 year cycle making sense, but been a much better ending fundamentaly because it went with the story we had been given and was properly foreshadowed by the series.

I agree it doesn't leave that huge plot thread from Haestrom hanging out there but I diagree it makes things any better. You drop that ending out there insead of the machines are gonna kill you so machines need to kill you and we have the same head exploding hatred we have now.

[Draconis6666]

Sidney wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

Nope but its at least tied to the series and not a new plot thats introduced at the last minute with only brief exploration through a few sub plots at the total expense of all other plots. It would have still been a terrible ending from the standpoints of things like the 50.000 year cycle making sense, but been a much better ending fundamentaly because it went with the story we had been given and was properly foreshadowed by the series.

I agree it doesn't leave that huge plot thread from Haestrom hanging out there but I diagree it makes things any better. You drop that ending out there insead of the machines are gonna kill you so machines need to kill you and we have the same head exploding hatred we have now.

Nah the problem most people have with the ending isnt that the plot of the ending is terrible its that the plot of the ending doesnt resolve anything, it creates a new plot and resolves that plot and ignores all the others. There would be ALOT less angry people if the ending gave proper resolution to the series even if the ending itself sucked and was stupid.

[Lugaidster]

emperoralku wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Ok, I'm getting many arguments for many different sides with different and apparently valid points. Let's try to attack the situation at hand by parts, because this is getting overwhelming.

Can we agree that there's no circular logic in there? If not, can we attack that point first to see if we actually get a consensus there?

Cheers

I still feel his solution of creating reapers is circular because they would eventually rebel leading back to the original problem. 

The only way this would not be circular is if the original statement of created always rebelling was false and the catalyst knew it was false.

Let's try to separate things a bit further here. A statement is valid irrespective of the truthfulness of the premises. For all extents in this discussion, the premises are assumed true as that's the only thing that matters to the Catalyst in his mind. He's not questioning the premises, you are. We are trying to see if he's stupid (by using incorrect logic) or just knows stuff we don't (by not revealing information to prove his premises), or is just crazy (by twisting reality in order to make his premises be true). The first part is what I'm trying to discuss, as the other two are outside of our reach. 

Since the truthfulness of the premises is irrelevant to the process and analysis here, because we're discussing if his motivations are stupid (ie, his conclusion is ilogical). What we must focus is in seeing if the conclusion itself is not a logical outcome if we assume the premises as true. 

If you go back to the premises being true or false because of the conclusion your just trying to prove that the argument is not sound. That's irrelevant, because we can't prove or disprove that the premises are false. At that point it's only a matter of opinion because the premises, without certifiable veracity are just going to depend on our own ideologies and paradigms. What's worse, if the goal was hardcoded to the catalyst (assuming he's an AI, which we don't know) then he's, by design, excluding himself of the picture. Perhaps making the argument even more unsound, but no less valid. 

What I'm trying to explain here is that, any analysis on the premises is irrelevant to the point at hand, because logical validity only requires that conclusions be valid. The premises are axioms. Try to remember in high school or college in logic classes when you were presented with certain premises that you assume are an axiom, and then were required to verify the validity of the conclusion. The premises were never up for discussion, any information not given that you assume to counter the conclusion is irrelevant and could make your analysis wrong. Because the premises are assumed axioms, that's the thing. 

Trying to oversimplifyit to make it sound circular is like trying to oversimplify the job of the police. "Yo dawg, I heard you liked to kill humans so I created the police to prevent humans from killing humans by killing humans" It's a grotesque oversimplification and damages the discussion. If you can't get past the premises, then you aren't really discussing the validity of the argument but the soundness of it, and again, there's no way we can discuss that, because we have no way of testing the premises. 

[chester013]

Ok so if greenfly are killing my rose bushes I'll take a clipping then burn the bush down. Or buy pesticide, both good options.

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

In reality the best ending would to have never tried to explain the reapers, when Mac was quoted as saying "there are some things you dont need to know" this was one of them. We didn't need to know why the reapers did what they did, we only needed to know that we had to stop them or they would reap all advanced life. Giving them motivation at all undermines the buildup created by the previous games, your right though thats a completely different topic.

I couldn't agree more.