1057 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Tuchanka does, and most things surrounding that segment. 

Not convinced by Rannoch though. 

Fine, just Tuchanka then since we both agree on that. The point is that Bioware have it in them.

I certainly was impressed by more than those two (even relatively small things like David on Grissom moved me) but Tuchanka and Rannoch are the two most often-cited sequences when people say what they liked about ME3, so I generally list them.

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Tuchanka does, and most things surrounding that segment. 

Not convinced by Rannoch though. 

Fine, just Tuchanka then since we both agree on that. The point is that Bioware have it in them.

That I do not doubt. The indiviudal best missions, segments, characters, and dialogue, are all found in ME3. 

I just think it's a shame that there's a lot of mediocrity between the gems, although Tuchanka is one massive diamond I have to say. 

I certainly was impressed by more than those two (even relatively small things like David on Grissom moved me) but Tuchanka and Rannoch are the two most often-cited sequences when people say what they liked about ME3, so I generally list them.

True, but I'm not convinced by Rannoch yet. A few too many bits I haven't worked out yet. 

[Cypher_CS]

Tuchanka was superb gameplay, but too damn short.

[The Night Mammoth]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Tuchanka was superb gameplay, but too damn short.

I dunno, I'd say it's about right for what I'd expect. 

Depends where you start and end it. 

I see the beginning of the Tuchanka arc being on Menae, and then ending with the Genophage cure mission, with every other mission in between. That includes Grunt's side-quest. 

I guess it's more of a Krogan/Turian alliance arc, than Tuchanka, from my perspective. 

[Cypher_CS]

I meant the main Tuchanka mission, when you suddenly get to explore all those catacombs and awake the mega maw.

Maybe it's the Tomb Raider fan in me

[The Night Mammoth]

That's true, I expected some sort of fighting in the dark mechanic, finding some wondrous ruin underground.

[Cypher_CS]

Exactly.

[PsyrenY]

I was disappointed there was no horror sequence in either of the dark levels (Tuchanka underground and Asari Monastery) complete with husks, rachni and cannibals coming out of nowhere Dead Space style. Opportunity missed...

[EricHVela]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Tuchanka was superb gameplay, but too damn short.

I dunno, I'd say it's about right for what I'd expect.

Depends where you start and end it.

I see the beginning of the Tuchanka arc being on Menae, and then ending with the Genophage cure mission, with every other mission in between. That includes Grunt's side-quest.

I guess it's more of a Krogan/Turian alliance arc, than Tuchanka, from my perspective.

Since one can complete the Tuchanka: Bomb and the Rachni missions after curing the Genophage (and Priority: Citadell II), I don't really consider them to be a part of the Krogan/Turian alliance arc since that hinges on the genophage cure more than anything. To me, they are just what they are: side quests (with one of them on a timer -- not unlike the Grissom Academy mission which is definitely a side-mission).

The Night Mammoth wrote...

That's true, I expected some sort of fighting in the dark mechanic, finding some wondrous ruin underground.

Cypher_CS wrote...

Exactly.

[Obadiah]

The Angry One wrote...
...
This has nothing to do with mercy. There is no logical reason to exterminate all organic life.
...

The Reapers don't consider their actions extermination. They consider it a form of preservation and ascension. Thus every argument about genocide, mass murder, and brainwashing is irrelevant with respect thier logic.

[llbountyhunter]

Cypher_CS wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

well in the past synthetics have never (in the me universe) laid the fist strike. they always attack in self defence. there ISNT a threat. 

this alone lets you throw out the "synhetics rebell against their creators" which we know from multiple events that this just isnt the case.

Again, that is NOT evidence against the eventuality, the invariability, the Catalyst speaks of.
Also, it doesn't matter who starts the war - you can be the rebel without being the first aggressor.
All that matters is that, according to the Catalyst, the Synthetics, invariably, in a gazzillion years, will be the ones to end it.

invariability? but you dont know! there hasnt been a chance for sythetics to rebel completly (...actually didnt the geth let the quarians go?) 

let me use this example a friend brought up:

thats like me destroying your tv because I said it will attract flesh eating zombies.
you dont know if its true, or if im lying,
but you cant prove me wrong either because the TV doesnt exist anymore. 

just because it cant be disproven doesnt mean its right.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 30 mai 2012 - 02:56 .

[JShepppp]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

well in the past synthetics have never (in the me universe) laid the fist strike. they always attack in self defence. there ISNT a threat. 

this alone lets you throw out the "synhetics rebell against their creators" which we know from multiple events that this just isnt the case.

Again, that is NOT evidence against the eventuality, the invariability, the Catalyst speaks of.
Also, it doesn't matter who starts the war - you can be the rebel without being the first aggressor.
All that matters is that, according to the Catalyst, the Synthetics, invariably, in a gazzillion years, will be the ones to end it.

invariability? but you dont know! there hasnt been a chance for sythetics to rebel completly (...actually didnt the geth let the quarians go?) 

let me use this example a friend brought up:

thats like me destroying your tv because I said it will attract flesh eating zombies.
you dont know if its true, or if im lying,
but you cant prove me wrong either because the TV doesnt exist anymore. 

just because it cant be disproven doesnt mean its right.

I always see alot of analogies that portray the Catalyst's methods to be overly extreme. Yes, they are extreme, but some analogies (I'd suggest like the above) sometimes put it too much over the edge. 

A TV is not self-evolving so it can't represent the synthetics, nor does it create the zombies so it can't represent organics. Synthetics can ONLY be created by organics, and the Catalyst believes organics will ALWAYS create them. That in an of itself isn't a problem. It does, however, believe organics will "trend towards technological singularity" where the synthetics will "outgrow them" and that the inevitable conflict will lead to extinction.

Again, creating synthetics is not the problem it's trying to solve. Stopping the singularity is. 

I'm not saying we need a perfect analogy - none may exist - but comparing TVs, cows, zombies, animals, sandwiches, etc. to the technological singularity slightly betrays the concept itself. All those things cannot self-evolve and render humanity forever inferior. 

An analogy would need something that could "evolve" repeatedly to the point where it can become an unstoppable threat.

An example came up earlier in the thread where it was like kill a certain animal because it will create a disease that will poison all humans. That example only becomes relevant if (a) you believe that you "save" the animal in such a form that it still exists fully and ( the disease will grow/change/evolve into a global pandemic and kill off all animals. The latter would be the singularity. The disease, like synthetics, exists pre-singularity (before it becomes an epidemic) and post-singularity (point of no return). The animal is the organic, who we assume to be important as a baseline assumption. Then we also assume that we're not killing them but we're "saving" them by whatever process that we do. Obviously, the animals don't like it, but they don't know that if we don't do it they'll all eventually die by this disease anyways. Some animals may fight back and we may have to kill them. But the rest we can "ascend" to whatever form we have deemed fully acceptable prior, that, from our point of view, preserves them fully. We view this as a win/win situation with regrettable losses for the pigs (just throwing out an animal) who disagree. The pigs will all die anyways, so if we kill them, we're just doing what would've happened later.

But the important part is that stopping the disease is so important that we will be prepared to kill ALL pigs to save all OTHER animals. Stopping the disease (singularity) is the primary goal. Saving the pigs (organics) is secondary but preferable. As TIM and EDI said, if they wanted to destroy us utterly, they could. Maybe there were more advanced cycles sometime back (e.g. some races that actually added to the Crucible and understood it) that the Reapers just killed off because they were too powerful and "costly" to try to subjugate. 

Obadiah above said it very nicely. 

Obadiah wrote...

The Reapers don't consider their actions extermination. They consider it a form of preservation and ascension. Thus every argument about genocide, mass murder, and brainwashing is irrelevant with respect thier logic.

This isn't saying the Reapers are right. They are morally abhorrent and grotesque. Nobody is jumping up and saying "hey let's all become Reapers". But it is important to note that the Catalyst does believe it is helping organics, does believe Reapers are preserving races in an acceptable way, and does believe that the inevitable singularity is such a huge problem.

Modifié par JShepppp, 30 mai 2012 - 03:28 .

[JShepppp]

Mouseraider wrote...

JShepppp :

I actually hadn't thought about it that way. While it does slightly alter my perception of the synthesis ending, I find the concept that an organic brain would be capable of evolving/advancing at the speed of technological singularity to be rather unrealistic.

Synthesis is a very open ending in terms of interpretation. Nobody's right or wrong, I was just presenting a possibility that I kind of have to cling to for the ending to make sense for me. As for the organic brain evolving so quickly, it'd be able to with the synthetic parts; it'd be like a "hybrid" brain or something.

For people (especially me) to stop complaining about the logical problems. BioWare will have to edit the game so that the solutions provided at the end match that which could be plausible in real life.

I can see and respect where you come from for this. Personally, I'd just like it to fit in with the scifi of ME even if it's impossible in real life. Synthesis is the most "magical" thing that is currently explained by the immense and awesome power of the Crucible, a technological device far beyond the Reapers' capability (I believe) and therefore far beyond anything we've seen in mass effect.

The Crucible is kind of like the plot shield that allows synthesis to blend into the ME technological framework, imo. It also allows synthesis to then become an ending purely judged on philosophical or idealological grounds. 

[llbountyhunter]

JShepppp wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

well in the past synthetics have never (in the me universe) laid the fist strike. they always attack in self defence. there ISNT a threat. 

this alone lets you throw out the "synhetics rebell against their creators" which we know from multiple events that this just isnt the case.

Again, that is NOT evidence against the eventuality, the invariability, the Catalyst speaks of.
Also, it doesn't matter who starts the war - you can be the rebel without being the first aggressor.
All that matters is that, according to the Catalyst, the Synthetics, invariably, in a gazzillion years, will be the ones to end it.

invariability? but you dont know! there hasnt been a chance for sythetics to rebel completly (...actually didnt the geth let the quarians go?) 

let me use this example a friend brought up:

thats like me destroying your tv because I said it will attract flesh eating zombies.
you dont know if its true, or if im lying,
but you cant prove me wrong either because the TV doesnt exist anymore. 

just because it cant be disproven doesnt mean its right.

I always see alot of analogies that portray the Catalyst's methods to be overly extreme. Yes, they are extreme, but some analogies (I'd suggest like the above) sometimes put it too much over the edge. 

A TV is not self-evolving so it can't represent the synthetics, nor does it create the zombies so it can't represent organics. Synthetics can ONLY be created by organics, and the Catalyst believes organics will ALWAYS create them. That in an of itself isn't a problem. It does, however, believe organics will "trend towards technological singularity" where the synthetics will "outgrow them" and that the inevitable conflict will lead to extinction.

Again, creating synthetics is not the problem it's trying to solve. Stopping the singularity is. 

I'm not saying we need a perfect analogy - none may exist - but comparing TVs, cows, zombies, animals, sandwiches, etc. to the technological singularity slightly betrays the concept itself. All those things cannot self-evolve and render humanity forever inferior. 

An analogy would need something that could "evolve" repeatedly to the point where it can become an unstoppable threat.

An example came up earlier in the thread where it was like kill a certain animal because it will create a disease that will poison all humans. That example only becomes relevant if (a) you believe that you "save" the animal in such a form that it still exists fully and ( the disease will grow/change/evolve into a global pandemic and kill off all animals. The latter would be the singularity. The disease, like synthetics, exists pre-singularity (before it becomes an epidemic) and post-singularity (point of no return). The animal is the organic, who we assume to be important as a baseline assumption. Then we also assume that we're not killing them but we're "saving" them by whatever process that we do. Obviously, the animals don't like it, but they don't know that if we don't do it they'll all eventually die by this disease anyways. Some animals may fight back and we may have to kill them. But the rest we can "ascend" to whatever form we have deemed fully acceptable prior, that, from our point of view, preserves them fully. We view this as a win/win situation with regrettable losses for the pigs (just throwing out an animal) who disagree. The pigs will all die anyways, so if we kill them, we're just doing what would've happened later.

But the important part is that stopping the disease is so important that we will be prepared to kill ALL pigs to save all OTHER animals. Stopping the disease (singularity) is the primary goal. Saving the pigs (organics) is secondary but preferable. As TIM and EDI said, if they wanted to destroy us utterly, they could. Maybe there were more advanced cycles sometime back (e.g. some races that actually added to the Crucible and understood it) that the Reapers just killed off because they were too powerful and "costly" to try to subjugate. 

Obadiah above said it very nicely. 

Obadiah wrote...

The Reapers don't consider their actions extermination. They consider it a form of preservation and ascension. Thus every argument about genocide, mass murder, and brainwashing is irrelevant with respect thier logic.

This isn't saying the Reapers are right. They are morally abhorrent and grotesque. Nobody is jumping up and saying "hey let's all become Reapers". But it is important to note that the Catalyst does believe it is helping organics, does believe Reapers are preserving races in an acceptable way, and does believe that the inevitable singularity is such a huge problem.

BUT YOU DONT KNOW!!!

you cant cant compare synthetics to a virus just because they evolve. a virus has shown in the past to be hostile. sythetics have not. the starchilds logic is rooted on a "maybe snthetics will revolt, even though they never have in the past"

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

[ReXspec]

In response to the TL;DR.

No.

Technological Singularity is not fact-- it is a theory because it relies on specific unknowns to fall perfectly into place in order for it to come to pass. In essence, it's like trying to predict the future by saying something will "eventually happen."

Any one event in the known universe will "eventually happen" if given enough time. In the end, however, the prevention of technological singularity comes down to individual choice, and how the AI evolves or adapts.  Those two variables are key, and are absolutely impossible to predict.

The star brat was riding on the assumption that all AI's developed in the Mass Effect universe would develop into Malevolent AI's, despite evidence to the contrary on the Geth's behavior and the specific laws and safegaurds developed in order to prevent such AI's from coming about, or posing a serious threat. The only Malevolent AI's present in this cycle are the Reapers, which is another reason why the star brat's logic is moronic and circular because he is USING malevolent synthetics, to accomplish the goal he is supposedly trying to prevent.

In my humble opinion, the Reapers are not out to maintain "order" they are not out to "save us." Their sole purpose is to wipe out all advanced civilizations in order to:

1. Eliminate the competition.

2. Gain strength in numbers and technology.

While leaving the younger civilizations to develop so they could come back and do it all over again. In an exceptionally evil way, it's absolutely brilliant.

If the Reapers do have a purpose, I'm willing to believe that it was once noble, but, somewhere along the line, in the endless Cycles of slaughter or at their initial development, the purpose of the Reapers was corrupted (possibly to prevent the spread of Dark Energy, but that is another debate for another time...)

In any case, BioWare has essentially written themselves into a literary corner by making the Reapers tragic protagonists and adopting this moronic, "circular logic" theory.

You can't murder people to prevent them from being murdered.  It makes absolutely no sense.  Nor can you murder someone by riding on the bet that something will turn out badly for that person.  That makes even less sense.

Modifié par ReXspec, 30 mai 2012 - 04:09 .

[StElmo]

The problem with the catalyst's logic is that he assumes each cycle will have the same end. No matter all the data over the past billions of years, there is no doubtless way he could know that synthetics will ALWAYS eclipse and wipe out organics. It's the key flaw of utilitarian principles and is the same reason we don't have people running around harvesting people organs.

[llbountyhunter]

StElmo wrote...

The problem with the catalyst's logic is that he assumes each cycle will have the same end. No matter all the data over the past billions of years, there is no doubtless way he could know that synthetics will ALWAYS eclipse and wipe out organics. It's the key flaw of utilitarian principles and is the same reason we don't have people running around harvesting people organs.

not only that but he has never LET the events play out by themselvs. he always intervenes just BEFORE the synthetics are supposedly going to "take over".

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 30 mai 2012 - 03:57 .

[JShepppp]

Some of the quotes have been cut for the sake of brevity.

[quote]llbountyhunter wrote...

[quote]JShepppp wrote...

let me use this example a friend brought up:

thats like me destroying your tv because I said it will attract flesh eating zombies.
you dont know if its true, or if im lying,
but you cant prove me wrong either because the TV doesnt exist anymore. 

just because it cant be disproven doesnt mean its right.
[/quote]

An analogy would need something that could "evolve" repeatedly to the point where it can become an unstoppable threat.

An example came up earlier in the thread where it was like kill a certain animal because it will create a disease that will poison all humans. That example only becomes relevant if (a) you believe that you "save" the animal in such a form that it still exists fully and ( the disease will grow/change/evolve into a global pandemic and kill off all animals. The latter would be the singularity. The disease, like synthetics, exists pre-singularity (before it becomes an epidemic) and post-singularity (point of no return). The animal is the organic, who we assume to be important as a baseline assumption. Then we also assume that we're not killing them but we're "saving" them by whatever process that we do. Obviously, the animals don't like it, but they don't know that if we don't do it they'll all eventually die by this disease anyways. Some animals may fight back and we may have to kill them. But the rest we can "ascend" to whatever form we have deemed fully acceptable prior, that, from our point of view, preserves them fully. We view this as a win/win situation with regrettable losses for the pigs (just throwing out an animal) who disagree. The pigs will all die anyways, so if we kill them, we're just doing what would've happened later.

But the important part is that stopping the disease is so important that we will be prepared to kill ALL pigs to save all OTHER animals. Stopping the disease (singularity) is the primary goal. Saving the pigs (organics) is secondary but preferable. As TIM and EDI said, if they wanted to destroy us utterly, they could. Maybe there were more advanced cycles sometime back (e.g. some races that actually added to the Crucible and understood it) that the Reapers just killed off because they were too powerful and "costly" to try to subjugate. [/quote]


BUT YOU DONT KNOW!!![/quote]

Would you be willing to take the chance, given the stakes? If you are, feel free to pick destroy. It's the manifestation of the ultimate disagreement with the Catalyst's arguments.

[quote]you cant cant compare synthetics to a virus just because they evolve. a virus has shown in the past to be hostile. sythetics have not. the starchilds logic is rooted on a "maybe snthetics will revolt, even though they never have in the past"[/quote]

It doesn't matter who starts the war. If organics start it (basically say "synthetics turn yourselves off of we'll do it for you") and synthetics say "no", it's technically a form of rebellion though they're really doing it in self-defense. 

In the past, the Geth and Quarians fought. We know that it's very possible for war to occur; synthetics need not be the aggressors, but they will not be passive to organics' demands if it threatens their survival (assuming they're advanced enough to have such a concept). 

The virus analogy was meant to show the out-of-control nature the problem can become if left unchecked and uncontrolled. It doesn't really represent the rebelling part. 

Rebellion will occur whenever there is conflict between synthetics and organics because the synthetics are disobeying their creators' orders, no matter how horrible they may be. The "initiation" of the rebellion is not attacking, it is defiance - which leads to the conflict and war. 

[quote]its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 
[/quote]

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

[XqctaX]

too long to read.

and basic point will still be incoherrant narrative.

of and if this big wall of text is needed to explain an ending or the logic behind it
it has allready failed..

[Grimwick]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I was disappointed there was no horror sequence in either of the dark levels (Tuchanka underground and Asari Monastery) complete with husks, rachni and cannibals coming out of nowhere Dead Space style. Opportunity missed...

I was expecting this completely in Tuchanka when you enter the cave (ugh, would have been awesome), the monastery (first time playthrough they could have made banshees pretty horrific) and the Rachni mission.

[JShepppp]

XqctaX wrote...

too long to read.

and basic point will still be incoherrant narrative.

of and if this big wall of text is needed to explain an ending or the logic behind it
it has allready failed..

Well thanks, but this isn't about whether the story is good/bad or the ending is good/bad.

[llbountyhunter]

JShepppp wrote...

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

the only "rouge AI" we really know about is EDI, and that was self defence as well.

and while yes there may be wars, sysntetics dont wipe out organics (geth let quarian live) like the starbrats makes it out to be.


also the starbrat has never LET the events play out comepletly by themselvs.he always intervenes just BEFORE the synthetics are supposedly going to "take over". 



I dont get your last point... cant things get downgraded? its like evolution (there very similar as you kindly pointed out) if a human doesnt use his mental prowess or strength he loses through lack of use. same with sytheitcs: they could get rid of stuff they dont need.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 30 mai 2012 - 04:41 .

[A0170]

llbountyhunter wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

the only "rouge AI" we really know about is EDI, and that was self defence as well.

and while yes there may be wars, sysntetics dont wipe out organics (geth let quarian live) like the starbrats makes it out to be.

Not true llbountyhunter. There were a few missions back in ME2 that involved a rogue AI. Project Overlord is one. The abandoned Research/Space Station is another.

Modifié par A0170, 30 mai 2012 - 04:49 .

[llbountyhunter]

A0170 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

the only "rouge AI" we really know about is EDI, and that was self defence as well.

and while yes there may be wars, sysntetics dont wipe out organics (geth let quarian live) like the starbrats makes it out to be.

Not true llbountyhunter. There were a few missions back in ME2 that involved a rogue AI. Project Overlord is one. The abandoned Research/Space Station is another.

overlord was not a AI, that was a VI that melded with a human.
http://masseffect.wi...roject_Overlord 

this one was a rouge "VI"
http://masseffect.wi...esearch_Station 

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 30 mai 2012 - 04:57 .

[frylock23]

llbountyhunter wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

the only "rouge AI" we really know about is EDI, and that was self defence as well.

and while yes there may be wars, sysntetics dont wipe out organics (geth let quarian live) like the starbrats makes it out to be.


also the starbrat has never LET the events play out comepletly by themselvs.he always intervenes just BEFORE the synthetics are supposedly going to "take over". 



I dont get your last point... cant things get downgraded? its like evolution (there very similar as you kindly pointed out) if a human doesnt use his mental prowess or strength he loses through lack of use. same with sytheitcs: they could get rid of stuff they dont need.

No cycle since the advent of Star Brat has ever evolved naturally because he and the Reapers make sure that all tecnology evolves with their guidance because they leave the relays scattered around. So, there actually hasn't ever been a truly "natural" cycle.

It's like the difficulty of observing the natural behavior of sharks. Most of what we know is observed after we've lured them in with food and watch them while hanging in a giant, unnatural steel cage. Is that actually natural behavior or not?

Well, this cycle has made use of the Citadel and strategically placed mass relays which were built by the Reapers to develop their technologies. They've made use of the data caches left around by Protheans who also used technologies developed off of the Citadel and mass relays and data caches left around by the Inusannon who developed technologies off the Citadel and the mass relays ... See the pattern? So, how much of the development of advanced civilization and technology in this cycle is natural? Oh, and let's not forget the discreet tampering being done by the Protheans ...