935 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Argolas wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Mine or not, whatever it takes for the greater good. And freeing the galaxy of the greatest terror it has ever seen is an obvious greater good.

Something that happens in every ending. And you sacrifice too much for it to be the greatest possible good.

Death before comprimising with the reapers is a principle that about everyone seems to stand for. Edi and the geth included.

Accepting the reapers as a galaxy-wide police fore or allowing them to alterate the very nature of life as they see fit- not so sure.

They made that bargain before knowing there were alternatives, as well as before knowing that it'd kill them all automatically. The geth were willing to wipe out the quarians to survive. I daresay they personally would have no issues at all with Control, and probably none that I can detect with Synthesis.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Mine or not, whatever it takes for the greater good. And freeing the galaxy of the greatest terror it has ever seen is an obvious greater good.

Something that happens in every ending. And you sacrifice too much for it to be the greatest possible good.

Death before comprimising with the reapers is a principle that about everyone seems to stand for. Edi and the geth included.

Accepting the reapers as a galaxy-wide police fore or allowing them to alterate the very nature of life as they see fit- not so sure.

They made that bargain before knowing there were alternatives, as well as before knowing that it'd kill them all automatically. The geth were willing to wipe out the quarians to survive. I daresay they personally would have no issues at all with Control, and probably none that I can detect with Synthesis.

Exactly what alternatives do they know of?  Everybody that signed on to build the Crucible looks at it as a weapon which, according to Liara, is capable of unquantifiable levels of destruction.  This is what they believe the Crucible does, but you submit they believe differently?  Can you show me something that states that before the ending slide shows?  Because after the fact should not be a basis for "but they know it does other things, and would have chosen X or Y instead of Z".    When does EDI say that the TIM is right, and we should control the Reapers instead of killing them?  Do the geth say it?  When does anyone look at husks or banshees and think that's a good idea, both of which are the Reaper's attempts at Synthesis.  Wait, I am ahead of myself, TIM thought it was a good idea.

[Xilizhra]

Exactly what alternatives do they know of? Everybody that signed on to build the Crucible looks at it as a weapon which, according to Liara, is capable of unquantifiable levels of destruction. This is what they believe the Crucible does, but you submit they believe differently? Can you show me something that states that before the ending slide shows? Because after the fact should not be a basis for "but they know it does other things, and would have chosen X or Y instead of Z". When does EDI say that the TIM is right, and we should control the Reapers instead of killing them? Do the geth say it? When does anyone look at husks or banshees and think that's a good idea, both of which are the Reaper's attempts at Synthesis. Wait, I am ahead of myself, TIM thought it was a good idea.

It's hard to find and I can understand why almost everyone might have missed it, but there's a final optional dialogue with Hackett before Cronos Station, where Shepard can tentatively wonder about whether TIM is right about the Reapers being controllable, which seems to genuinely anger Hackett. Also, James admires, in a backhanded way, Cerberus' progress toward understanding Reaper control. Either way, no one actually knows what the Crucible does; that's not the same thing as knowing that it'll kill all of you.

[Wayning_Star]

Xilizhra wrote...

Exactly what alternatives do they know of? Everybody that signed on to build the Crucible looks at it as a weapon which, according to Liara, is capable of unquantifiable levels of destruction. This is what they believe the Crucible does, but you submit they believe differently? Can you show me something that states that before the ending slide shows? Because after the fact should not be a basis for "but they know it does other things, and would have chosen X or Y instead of Z". When does EDI say that the TIM is right, and we should control the Reapers instead of killing them? Do the geth say it? When does anyone look at husks or banshees and think that's a good idea, both of which are the Reaper's attempts at Synthesis. Wait, I am ahead of myself, TIM thought it was a good idea.

It's hard to find and I can understand why almost everyone might have missed it, but there's a final optional dialogue with Hackett before Cronos Station, where Shepard can tentatively wonder about whether TIM is right about the Reapers being controllable, which seems to genuinely anger Hackett. Also, James admires, in a backhanded way, Cerberus' progress toward understanding Reaper control. Either way, no one actually knows what the Crucible does; that's not the same thing as knowing that it'll kill all of you.

most organics feels that controlling stuff is a good idea..until they look in the mirror..

note: that idea of synthesis is misguided, the reapers don't "look" at synthesis at all. The catalyst reminds shep that it's up to organics to synthesis, it's always been "up" to the organics, as they created technology. Living up to being apex has its risks... i.e. the catalyst program, formally and previously known as the intelligence.

I've often wondered why the Leviathan coined it with that identity? When does intelligence become catalytic?

[Xilizhra]

I've often wondered why the Leviathan coined it with that identity? When does intelligence become catalytic?

The Leviathans called it the Intelligence. I think "Catalyst" is a title it gained later.

[Wayning_Star]

Xilizhra wrote...

I've often wondered why the Leviathan coined it with that identity? When does intelligence become catalytic?

The Leviathans called it the Intelligence. I think "Catalyst" is a title it gained later.

yeah, that was the 'self aware' part of the intelligence. The Levi called it the intelligence prior to that, that's what I wondered why they did that, considering 'who' they were? It must of been quite the accomplishment for the Levi to 'go that far' with naming it..

[The Twilight God]

Xilizhra wrote...

I've often wondered why the Leviathan coined it with that identity? When does intelligence become catalytic?

The Leviathans called it the Intelligence. I think "Catalyst" is a title it gained later.

"Catalyst" is a prothean codeword for the Citadel. The Kid adopts the title on the spot to make Shepard think it's an important step in activating the Crucible. The catalyst is the Citadel. Nobody knew about any AI other than Shepard and not until the very moment he meet it. That is why it's dialog nameplate says "Kid" instead of "Catalyst".

The Intelligence, according to the Leviathans, came about BEFORE the Citadel was created.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

Exactly what alternatives do they know of? Everybody that signed on to build the Crucible looks at it as a weapon which, according to Liara, is capable of unquantifiable levels of destruction. This is what they believe the Crucible does, but you submit they believe differently? Can you show me something that states that before the ending slide shows? Because after the fact should not be a basis for "but they know it does other things, and would have chosen X or Y instead of Z". When does EDI say that the TIM is right, and we should control the Reapers instead of killing them? Do the geth say it? When does anyone look at husks or banshees and think that's a good idea, both of which are the Reaper's attempts at Synthesis. Wait, I am ahead of myself, TIM thought it was a good idea.

It's hard to find and I can understand why almost everyone might have missed it, but there's a final optional dialogue with Hackett before Cronos Station, where Shepard can tentatively wonder about whether TIM is right about the Reapers being controllable, which seems to genuinely anger Hackett. Also, James admires, in a backhanded way, Cerberus' progress toward understanding Reaper control. Either way, no one actually knows what the Crucible does; that's not the same thing as knowing that it'll kill all of you.

I think the dialog you are referencing happens after you go to the Citadel the first time.  Where the "He's wrong, dead Reapers is how we win this" dialog?  Then goes on to talk about TIM subverting science?  I think that may be the one you mean.  I'm fairly thorough about dialog, but I'm also old and forgetful, so I could be forgetting or missing something.  I can lay no claim to infallibility.

However, the context of the question remains the same, nobody knows anything about it, and the only people we do talk to about it think it will destroy the Reapers, but are concerned about how, such as killing us all when it does it.  Hackett can touch on this too, and uses the Hiroshima nukes as an example of using tech when nobody is 100% sure what it's going to do.

[Argolas]

The Twilight God wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I've often wondered why the Leviathan coined it with that identity? When does intelligence become catalytic?

The Leviathans called it the Intelligence. I think "Catalyst" is a title it gained later.

"Catalyst" is a prothean codeword for the Citadel. The Kid adopts the title on the spot to make Shepard think it's an important step in activating the Crucible. The catalyst is the Citadel. Nobody knew about any AI other than Shepard and not until the very moment he meet it. That is why it's dialog nameplate says "Kid" instead of "Catalyst".

The Intelligence, according to the Leviathans, came about BEFORE the Citadel was created.

^^ this

[Xilizhra]

"Catalyst" is a prothean codeword for the Citadel. The Kid adopts the title on the spot to make Shepard think it's an important step in activating the Crucible. The catalyst is the Citadel. Nobody knew about any AI other than Shepard and not until the very moment he meet it. That is why it's dialog nameplate says "Kid" instead of "Catalyst".

Garrus' dialogue nameplate on Mennae says "Turian Soldier" before his face is revealed. Clearly he changed his name between games, then changed it back.
Also, the Leviathans never mention the Citadel at all.

I think the dialog you are referencing happens after you go to the Citadel the first time. Where the "He's wrong, dead Reapers is how we win this" dialog? Then goes on to talk about TIM subverting science? I think that may be the one you mean. I'm fairly thorough about dialog, but I'm also old and forgetful, so I could be forgetting or missing something. I can lay no claim to infallibility.

No, it's a different one. This one only becomes available immediately before Cronos (and I think it requires you to board Cronos, then say you don't want to start it yet, then go somewhere else and return to the ship for Samantha to tell you that Hackett is available on vidcom, so it's kind of hidden), and the lead-in question is different. For the one you mentioned, Shepard says something about how TIM thinks that controlling the Reapers is how we win this; on this one, Shepard asks "But... what if the Reapers really can be controlled?" It's rather interesting; it's possible that some of TIM's ideas are also entering Shepard at this time, especially after Horizon.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

"Catalyst" is a prothean codeword for the Citadel. The Kid adopts the title on the spot to make Shepard think it's an important step in activating the Crucible. The catalyst is the Citadel. Nobody knew about any AI other than Shepard and not until the very moment he meet it. That is why it's dialog nameplate says "Kid" instead of "Catalyst".

Garrus' dialogue nameplate on Mennae says "Turian Soldier" before his face is revealed. Clearly he changed his name between games, then changed it back.
Also, the Leviathans never mention the Citadel at all.

I think the dialog you are referencing happens after you go to the Citadel the first time. Where the "He's wrong, dead Reapers is how we win this" dialog? Then goes on to talk about TIM subverting science? I think that may be the one you mean. I'm fairly thorough about dialog, but I'm also old and forgetful, so I could be forgetting or missing something. I can lay no claim to infallibility.

No, it's a different one. This one only becomes available immediately before Cronos (and I think it requires you to board Cronos, then say you don't want to start it yet, then go somewhere else and return to the ship for Samantha to tell you that Hackett is available on vidcom, so it's kind of hidden), and the lead-in question is different. For the one you mentioned, Shepard says something about how TIM thinks that controlling the Reapers is how we win this; on this one, Shepard asks "But... what if the Reapers really can be controlled?" It's rather interesting; it's possible that some of TIM's ideas are also entering Shepard at this time, especially after Horizon.

I never get that one, and I've never seen it either.  I never decide to not attack the base once we're done on Horizon either though.  This is the focal point where the end game starts, and I'm ready for it by then.

[Xilizhra]

I never get that one, and I've never seen it either. I never decide to not attack the base once we're done on Horizon either though. This is the focal point where the end game starts, and I'm ready for it by then.

I did it for roleplaying reasons with Citadel, and am rather glad that I did. You only get a few new lines, but they're all good.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

I never get that one, and I've never seen it either. I never decide to not attack the base once we're done on Horizon either though. This is the focal point where the end game starts, and I'm ready for it by then.

I did it for roleplaying reasons with Citadel, and am rather glad that I did. You only get a few new lines, but they're all good.

I'll have to load up a save to take a look, I can't discuss it since I don't know.  Well, I could, if I wanted to be like some people and just make stuff up, but nah, I rather enjoy actual discussion of the facts.

[remydat]

There is a difference between accepting unquantifiable levels of destruction that hypothetically applies to all races and choosing to accept a specific group as collateral damage when you have other options.  Every race involved likely understood people may die but i doubt they anticipated an entire species would have to be killed and if it were the Asari whose entire existence would be wiped out, I doubt they all say sign me up Shep.  When have any of these organic races been willing to die for another race when doing so means they cease to exist?

Modifié par remydat, 22 avril 2013 - 06:59 .

[Mangalores]

remydat wrote...

There is a difference between accepting unquantifiable levels of destruction that hypothetically applies to all races and choosing to accept a specific group as collateral damage when you have other options.  Every race involved likely understood people may die but i doubt they anticipated an entire species would have to be killed and if it were the Asari whose entire existence would be wiped out, I doubt they all say sign me up Shep.  When have any of these organic races been willing to die for another race when doing so means they cease to exist?

Would have been a neater dilemma: Destroy us and Earth dies alongside mankind. What do you do now? Renegades would have a big problem and also Paragons would have to decide between humanity and the entire galaxy.

I would have still pulled the trigger. Not nice, not great, not heroic but still what had to be done to remove this threat from the galaxy.

[Kunari801]

Mangalores wrote...
Would have been a neater dilemma: Destroy us and Earth dies alongside mankind. What do you do now? Renegades would have a big problem and also Paragons would have to decide between humanity and the entire galaxy.

I would have still pulled the trigger. Not nice, not great, not heroic but still what had to be done to remove this threat from the galaxy.

IIRC, that kind of choice was in the first drafts of ME3.

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

Silver

There is nothing to refute.  You are providing an opinion just as Mordin was.  EDI disagrees as does it appear most of the races who seem fine with Synthesis.  Mordin is not infallible.  Hell he admitted he was wrong about the Genophage.  The game does not tell me Synthesis destroys culture.  It does not.  It does not tell me it will lead to societal collapse.  The Collectors ie the race Mordin was referring two basically were slaves.  No one is said to be slaves in synthesis.  Furthermore the Catalyst says he tried synthesis before and it failed because organics are not ready.  He know says they are ready so again the game makes a distinction between the Collectors and now because the Calalyst claims organics are ready.  You either believe him or you don't.

And I did not ignore your question.  You question is simply pointless because I never claimed synthesis is a Utopia.  Like anything in life, what it becames is done to the people.  A Krogan hybrid as I have said many times may in fact still want to kill a Salarian hybrid.  It is not a Utopia.  I am simply saying it is not the hell you claim it to be.

YES, there IS points that you ignore or refuse to refute. Mordin has had his entire life to study this, AND has the Collectors as PROOF of it.
EDI is the one with the "blind idealism" factor going on. NOTHING to back it up besides the immediate visible effects. You seem to think that EDI is infalible. She is not. The Reaper IFF was proof of That much. As is when she admits that the death of the Reaper Destroyer on Tuchanka broke her predictions.
The game does not say it WON'T destroy culture either. A point you conviently left out. And AGIAN, Moridn's sylibus, with the Collectors as living proof of what happens when all positive and negitive limitations on life are removed. No limitations means there is nothing to adapt past. Meaning that race would always stagnate and die. And the krogan as proof of what happens when life advances too quickly. They look for new chalanges in fighting each-other, and collapse. With nothing to chalange their existance, you really think that war among the Synthisis factions ISN'T a possibility? That's idealism. And AGAIN, you are wrong. The Catalyst does NOT say he believes they are ready. He says that it's up to Shepard to decide if they are ready.

You claimed that every race would understand and accept each-other, and build alongside them. That's the definition of a Utopia. So YES, my question DOES have basing. Especally since in your scenerio, a krogan stil killing a salarian would be proof they do NOT accept each other like you claimed.
And you also refuse to believe that there are more risks then the others, when it holds more risk then ANY of the other choices.

[remydat]

Mangalores,

I have no doubt some would still pullb the trigger but it would not be the 80% that currently pick it. And in the end it is a game. I have a hard time believing that in real life ie no metagame, that the majority of humanity ie 50% or more would really sacrifice all their loved ones to spare aliens from the Reapers. Judging by human history, we are simply not that nice to even humans we think are different than us much less alien races.

[remydat]

Silver,

Please find a post where I say everyone will understand and love each other. I said the game says this is the benefit of synthesis. Personally I have said synthesis does not guarantee it because once again a Krogan still may hate a Turian. You are confusing my saying the game seems to show people getting along with my personal opinion as to whether that will last. Two different things.

The game doesn't say a lot of things. Doesn't mean I need to consider them all. We are both free to reach our own conclusions. And who said EDI is infallible? The point is mordin was not talking about synthesis. He was talking about brainwashed collectors. I am free to consider EDIs opinion as more relevant because she is actually talking about synthesis. Mordin was not. Further as another thread noted the awakened collectors in MP contradicts some of the things Mordin said. Don't care if it is because MP is not really canon but the point is as a scientist Mordin's conclusion regarding the collectors cannot just be lifted and applied to synthesis because science demands he actually study synthesis before formulating a conclusion. You are doing something that Mordin as a man of science would never do unless he had an opportunity to study the situation in detail.

[Mangalores]

remydat wrote...

Mangalores,

I have no doubt some would still pullb the trigger but it would not be the 80% that currently pick it. And in the end it is a game. I have a hard time believing that in real life ie no metagame, that the majority of humanity ie 50% or more would really sacrifice all their loved ones to spare aliens from the Reapers. Judging by human history, we are simply not that nice to even humans we think are different than us much less alien races.

Which is why I'd found it a neat dilemma. A so called "hard choice". There is a problem that most people know what a hero is expected to do. You can't really expect otherwise. The whole point of a story is that you are not you. You  and I wouldn't have survived 1% of what happens in the trilogy.

[remydat]

Mangalores wrote...

Which is why I'd found it a neat dilemma. A so called "hard choice". There is a problem that most people know what a hero is expected to do. You can't really expect otherwise. The whole point of a story is that you are not you. You  and I wouldn't have survived 1% of what happens in the trilogy.

Agreed but there would be even more people going ape sh*t if that was the choice but it would certainly have made for a better dilemma because everyone can identify with the potential collateral damage.  As it stands now, a lot of people simply decide they are machines so kill them.

The only other thing I would add is what people expect a hero to do differs depending how they choose to define a hero. 

[nremies1]

Argolas wrote...

Death before comprimising with the reapers is a principle that about everyone seems to stand for. Edi and the geth included.

Accepting the reapers as a galaxy-wide police fore or allowing them to alterate the very nature of life as they see fit- not so sure.

QFMFT

Mission parameters for my Shep did not include installing the reapers as galactic prison guards, or altering the DNA of all living things against their will because a rampant AI told her to.

Considering the above statement about nobody being okay with compromising - I don't see destroy as a case of sacrificing stuff that's not yours to sacrifice, as another poster said.  Everybody's on board with this plan to stop the reapers.  Unfortunately you don't know the price tag until you're standing there ready to light the fuse. 

I'm actually very interested in the point made about how sacrificing all humanity to stop the reapers was in one of the early drafts.  That would have been a hell of a thing to pick - but my Shep still would have done it.  That's the bill for stopping the reapers and securing self-determination for the survivors.  You either pay it or you don't.

Overall - destroy lets the survivors stand or fall on their own merits.  Picking up and moving on is not going to be easy, but it's better than peace at the point of a gun or simply changing everybody at a genetic level so that we all play nice together.  That's not evolution - nobody overcame their differences or learned to control their more destructive instincts.  Somebody pushed a button and poof, everybody gets along now.  Oh, and if you're a naughty sentient being, the reapers will come and turn you into paste as directed by a dead woman who somehow ended up getting totally coopted by the things she was trying to free you from.

Meanwhile, destroyers united the galaxy, forged bonds in common sacrifice, and at the end of the day left everybody free to live how they want.  Self-determination FTW.  You're totally free to cry moar for everyone who didn't make it after we've thrown off the yoke of the machine overlords who are allegedly more qualified to determine your fate than you are.

[robertthebard]

nremies1 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Death before comprimising with the reapers is a principle that about everyone seems to stand for. Edi and the geth included.

Accepting the reapers as a galaxy-wide police fore or allowing them to alterate the very nature of life as they see fit- not so sure.

QFMFT

Mission parameters for my Shep did not include installing the reapers as galactic prison guards, or altering the DNA of all living things against their will because a rampant AI told her to.

Considering the above statement about nobody being okay with compromising - I don't see destroy as a case of sacrificing stuff that's not yours to sacrifice, as another poster said.  Everybody's on board with this plan to stop the reapers.  Unfortunately you don't know the price tag until you're standing there ready to light the fuse. 

I'm actually very interested in the point made about how sacrificing all humanity to stop the reapers was in one of the early drafts.  That would have been a hell of a thing to pick - but my Shep still would have done it.  That's the bill for stopping the reapers and securing self-determination for the survivors.  You either pay it or you don't.

Overall - destroy lets the survivors stand or fall on their own merits.  Picking up and moving on is not going to be easy, but it's better than peace at the point of a gun or simply changing everybody at a genetic level so that we all play nice together.  That's not evolution - nobody overcame their differences or learned to control their more destructive instincts.  Somebody pushed a button and poof, everybody gets along now.  Oh, and if you're a naughty sentient being, the reapers will come and turn you into paste as directed by a dead woman who somehow ended up getting totally coopted by the things she was trying to free you from.

Meanwhile, destroyers united the galaxy, forged bonds in common sacrifice, and at the end of the day left everybody free to live how they want.  Self-determination FTW.  You're totally free to cry moar for everyone who didn't make it after we've thrown off the yoke of the machine overlords who are allegedly more qualified to determine your fate than you are.

Shepard to Anderson on Earth while making their way to the Normandy(Renegade response):  We're not responsible for the ones that die, we're responsible for the ones left standing when the war is over.  This sums up my attitude about it if I get that far.  I agree that the galaxy being free to forge their own path, no matter how it turns out is what Nature intended.  For a billion years the galaxy has had that right to self determination removed.  When I shoot that tube, that ends.  There are no more Reapers, there's no more Reaper God.  Stupid people will kill each other, or themselves, and that's the way life is supposed to work.

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

Silver,

Please find a post where I say everyone will understand and love each other. I said the game says this is the benefit of synthesis. Personally I have said synthesis does not guarantee it because once again a Krogan still may hate a Turian. You are confusing my saying the game seems to show people getting along with my personal opinion as to whether that will last. Two different things.

The game doesn't say a lot of things. Doesn't mean I need to consider them all. We are both free to reach our own conclusions. And who said EDI is infallible? The point is mordin was not talking about synthesis. He was talking about brainwashed collectors. I am free to consider EDIs opinion as more relevant because she is actually talking about synthesis. Mordin was not. Further as another thread noted the awakened collectors in MP contradicts some of the things Mordin said. Don't care if it is because MP is not really canon but the point is as a scientist Mordin's conclusion regarding the collectors cannot just be lifted and applied to synthesis because science demands he actually study synthesis before formulating a conclusion. You are doing something that Mordin as a man of science would never do unless he had an opportunity to study the situation in detail.

Try to follow along.  We were discussing a
Super AI being created post destroy or post synthesis.  In a post
destroy world where you exterminated all synthetics, that Super AI is
more likely to conclude you are a risk than a post synthesis world where
it sees organics and synthetics working together.

That was your comment to @Rip504 at the bottom of page 33.
THEN:

If Super AI is created in Synthesis, sure there is a risk it goes Rogue
but I don't see why it would. First in Destroy, all synthetics were
eliminated so that organics may live without the horror of their
existence. In synthesis, organics join with synthetics and work
together. So why would it conclude organics are a threat in synthesis?
Even if it did, it is a much lower risk because unlike destroy we have
not given it any evidence to make such a conclusion. Further even if it
did, we would have other synthetic races that we are working with to hep
us like the Geth and EDI.

That was something you posted against @Robertthebard talking about hypothetical future Super A.I.s., a post or so above the one you made against @Rip504.

Every post thus far, you have done nothing but claim that all cultures, organic and synthetic, will instantly work together and understand each-other.  Sorry, but you aren't worming out of this one. You are going to be giving me a diffinitive answer as to why you think that, when the etnire premise of a korgan hating a turians would mean the complete and utter opposate of what you just said.

YOU said that EDI's word was diffinitive proof, when she has nothing but first observations to look at. Mordin's had his entire life, AND has diffinitive proof in the Collectors, and the failed uplift of the krogan. Removal of limitaions on life, and hyperadvancing life well before it's potentally ready. BOTH things that happen in Synthesis. So YES, for all intents and purposes, Mordin IS talking about Synthesis. Being brainwashed does NOT MATTER in his conversation. He's NOT talking about the Collector species, he's talking about the implants and upgrades. NOT their minds. He spicifically says that tech like the synthetic implants of the Collectors destroys the socio-technological balance. And AGAIN, cultural study and the impact of forgien tech advancement was the field Mordin majored in, next to genetics.
And no, it DOESN'T. The Awakened Collectors are operating out of genetic memory. They have the memories, but they aren't the same people anymore. Not technoically, after centuries of indoctrination. They basically are running on auto-pilot. Besides, I think they were created soley for MP, and not entirely thought through on in the cannon department.
Mordin's observations BOTH apply to Synthesis, and therefore, both can be used as accurate gauges on it's effects. YOU are the one doing something Mordin would never do or approve of: instigating such a massive change WITHOUT conforming or even considering all the possible or probable side-effects.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 23 avril 2013 - 03:48 .

[remydat]

silverexile17s wrote...

Try to follow along.  We were discussing a
Super AI being created post destroy or post synthesis.  In a post
destroy world where you exterminated all synthetics, that Super AI is
more likely to conclude you are a risk than a post synthesis world where
it sees organics and synthetics working together.

That was your comment to @Rip504 at the bottom of page 33.
THEN:

If Super AI is created in Synthesis, sure there is a risk it goes Rogue
but I don't see why it would. First in Destroy, all synthetics were
eliminated so that organics may live without the horror of their
existence. In synthesis, organics join with synthetics and work
together. So why would it conclude organics are a threat in synthesis?
Even if it did, it is a much lower risk because unlike destroy we have
not given it any evidence to make such a conclusion. Further even if it
did, we would have other synthetic races that we are working with to hep
us like the Geth and EDI.

That was something you posted against @Robertthebard talking about hypothetical future Super A.I.s., a post or so above the one you made against @Rip504.

Every post thus far, you have done nothing but claim that all cultures, organic and synthetic, will instantly work together and understand each-other.  Sorry, but you aren't worming out of this one. You are going to be giving me a diffinitive answer as to why you think that, when the etnire premise of a korgan hating a turians would mean the complete and utter opposate of what you just said.

YOU said that EDI's word was diffinitive proof, when she has nothing but first observations to look at. Mordin's had his entire life, AND has diffinitive proof in the Collectors, and the failed uplift of the krogan. Removal of limitaions on life, and hyperadvancing life well before it's potentally ready. BOTH things that happen in Synthesis. So YES, for all intents and purposes, Mordin IS talking about Synthesis. Being brainwashed does NOT MATTER in his conversation. He's NOT talking about the Collector species, he's talking about the implants and upgrades. NOT their minds. He spicifically says that tech like the synthetic implants of the Collectors destroys the socio-technological balance. And AGAIN, cultural study and the impact of forgien tech advancement was the field Mordin majored in, next to genetics.
And no, it DOESN'T. The Awakened Collectors are operating out of genetic memory. They have the memories, but they aren't the same people anymore. Not technoically, after centuries of indoctrination. They basically are running on auto-pilot. Besides, I think they were created soley for MP, and not entirely thought through on in the cannon department.
Mordin's observations BOTH apply to Synthesis, and therefore, both can be used as accurate gauges on it's effects. YOU are the one doing something Mordin would never do or approve of: instigating such a massive change WITHOUT conforming or even considering all the possible or probable side-effects.

I refer you to the bold.  I am stating a possibility not a certainty.  That is why I use terms like more likely or say there is still a risk.  Just because I don't say each and every time that something is an opinion does not mean I am stating a fact.  I am stating my opinion.  Whenever someone raises the issue, I alway reiterate it is MY OPINION.  It is a hypothetical situation I am discussing not saying it is 100% fact.

Mordin studied the Collectors.  A race that was clearly brainwashed.  Synthesis is not brainwashed people.  Nothing in the games suggest this.  A scientist does not reach conclusions based on a brainwashed species and then apply those same conclusions to a non brainwashed species.  A scientist would study the situation first and Mordin can't study it because he dies before it happens.  I again am stating my opinion she is correct and her conclusions more valid because she is a machine with vast processing power who can analyze data.  She also has the luxury of being alive when Synthesis happens and to analyze the situation directly.  Once again, Mordin is dead and can't analyze sh*t about synthesis.  His conclusions regarding the Collectors are scientifically irrelevant with respect to synthesis. 

Modifié par remydat, 23 avril 2013 - 04:36 .