Dean_the_Young wrote...
A temporary solution is not an actual solution to the Crucible's long-term problem.
Destroy is a valid solution for the Catalyst's problem between the date of AI destruction and the date of AI "rebellion"
Technological singularity is the concept that the entire synthetic menace (and Geth) ties to and revolves around: that as technology grows more advanced, it will advance in ways we can't predict, to the point where it will advance faster than we can match.
This is pretty much the backbone of the synthetic threat theme.
Is this game fact, or is this conjecture? Are you saying singularity is the cause of Geth / Quarian conflict? I thought it was petty racism and Quarian politics. There is no need to be threatened by singularity, at infant stage, the Geth is already capable of wiping out many Quarians and drove their creators away
Synthesis isn't combining organic and synthetics from two species into one: it's giving organics synthetic-level abilities of the physical and synthetics organic-like abilities on the mental.
So the inheritance of organic greed and jealousy solves conflicts? The whole thing is a double edged sword
Do synthetics like EDI and Legion that understood the concept of loyalty and love really need synthesis?
Only of the conflicts born from the innate differences between synthetics and organics: organic inability to match synthetic growth, and synthetic limitations on understanding the organics.
So what? Isn't it still a conflict? A conflict that is so severe that warrants the genocide of one of the interested parties?
I do not agree that the problem stems from synthetic misunderstanding of organics, I think it is quite the opposite, the problem lies with organics' misunderstanding of their own creation, I mean, weren't you curious about Legion and EDI? Didn't you ask them heaps of questions?
On the most fundamental level, a technological singularity is a point at which a technological advancement makes a paradigm shift such that what occurs afterwards can not be predicted beforehand. The advancement of writting to the illiterate, which enabled organized civilizations, or the creation of the internet and microprocessor.
So? Are you saying singularity is happening right now? What of it? Look I don't need you to explain what singularity is, frankly I don't think anyone knows exactly what it is, it is all SPECULATION
A technological singularity could lead to synthesis... maybe, eventually, possibly. But the Reaper's views on inevitably don't actually have to happen.
Oh? I would expect a smart AI coming up with contingent theories of inevitability, yet it doesn't... wouldn't a reasonable being say "There is a strong posibility, but you can reverse it"? Instead it gives you a flat "no". Didn't the Catalyst monitored COUNTLESS cycles? What went wrong?
Bad people don't stop being bad people when they do bad things for agreeable goals. That should have been apparent enough with Cerberus.
What aggreeable goals? Humanity above all? To the best of my ability, I interpret that as the TIM'S most prioritized goal. Now you might retort "No, no no, he wants humanity to survive", but that is just a no-brainer, everyone wants to survive, the agreeability of this goal is redundant
The Reapers are trying to preserve life as they see it by a standard they accept, but no one else has to agree with it. You don't have to agree that the thought-processes in a Reaper are 'alive', and you don't have to agree with that and concede that it justifies killing off everyone else in the galaxy. You don't have to agree that the Cycle is an acceptable solution for the problem of Synthetic Menace, and you don't even have to agree that the Synthetic Menace IS a problem.
Being amoral, or even an anti-hero, doesn't mean you aren't a Bad Person (Thing). We do not have to agree with the Catalyst's perspective of itself, or it's perspective of others.
So? What is the point in disagreeing? Are you not using reaper tech? are you not buying into what the Catalyst says about what Crucible's functions are? Disagreement with the reapers is inconsequential to decision making because all AIs are destroyed, the problem of alleged AI rebellion is solved. The role of reapers has been removed because the problem has been solved, or is it?
If I do not "agree" that synthetics cause menace, then why am I destroying all the AIs and the all the reapers (you know, who are partly synthetic)?
Lastly, this game is a RPG, what good is it to keep disagreeing with your own actions? If ME happens to be a movie, then of course I could disagree with NPC's choices and opinions all I want
In ME1, if you disagree with the council, you can let Destiny Ascension to be destroyed. In ME2, if you disagree with TIM, you can let the Collector base be destroyed. In ME3, if you disagree with the Catalyst, you only destroy the Catalyst and the reapers? No. Maybe refuse? you let the reapers have their way? No way, but what can we do?
Modifié par Vigilant111, 23 novembre 2012 - 06:39 .
Retour en haut
