-First about Horatio
A warship realizes that his mission has become useless and it changes his code and destroys itself.
-Why does a warship load his programm into an android?
-Why does this android not know that he is the warship horus ? (well, kind of)
-His name is Nulbuild. Does this mean he does not know who build him?
In the middle of the game I thought for a while that Horatio is the last human who turned himself into a cyborg or the last human copied his personality into an android. The fact that he believes so strongly in humanism makes him a bit unrobot like.

-About clarity (the one that travels with you, just in case I mixed up the names)
I had the feeling she is not an advisor but she is the police of metropol.
She reminded me strongly of Vhailor (the living amor of Planescape Tornment).
So her motto is: KILL EVERYTHING THAT BREAKS THE LAW
On the other hand she appears more emotional to me than Vhailor.
She accepts to bend the law if it fits her goals. For example when you trick Oswald to steal his oil and her actions with the skulls and Scraper.
And she WANTS to kill Metromind.

-About Metromind
She reminds me of Shodan and Glados.
Shodan wants to rule the world, turned people into cyborgs, created a lifeform (the worms) to control people and when the worms turned agains her she betrays other people to fight the worms and tries to kill everyone once the worms are gone.
Glados is obsessed with testing things. It is strange that a morality core prevents her from using poison gas but it does not prevent her from putting people into deadly test chambers or moving them into a pit of fire. In her case the hardware is defect and not her personality because Wheatly becomes obsessed ot testing when they switch places.
Metromind joins the council, than she kills the other council members one after the other, than she turns "people" of her city into "zombies" in order to increase her own power. She also killed the last humans, but I am not sure why. I have no Idea how any of her actions are for a "common good" so that the consequence of her doings benefit anyone in the city (except herself, of cours).
And why does a program that runs a train system want to take over the city anyway? On the other hand, why does anyone want to have power?

And now some questions about the world:
-The concept of gender is completely useless in a world of robots. What does crispin want to do with a gynoid?

-Why do robots use human language? I have two theories.
-First of all its an adventure game and walking around and talking to "people" is a fundamental part of adventure games.
-Second an in game explanation.
When humans were still alive, all "intelligent" robots had natural language processing to communicate with humans. On the other hand the different robots had different (incompatible) operating systems, programming languages and data exchange interfaces and protocols. When the robots were self aware they regarded using human language in communicating with humans as completely normal. And it seems plausible that they used it also in communication with other robots when they did not have the same computer language. Maybe humans build robots in a way that they must use human language because some humans were afraid that intelligent robots plot something behind their backs. Of course, human language is not efficient for transporting lange amounts of data in short time.
PS: I am not a computer expert. I do not know if it is easier to to translate one robot language into another one (as i have written, different OS, programming languages, interfaces, protocolls, who knows what) or if is easier to write natural language processing in different systems.

-Why do robots print books?

Hey Mad!

You definitely did a great job of catching some of the game's inspirations (GlaDOS, Shodan, Vhailor, etc.). Some of your questions are addressed in the commentary track, if you have the interest in playing through again with that on. Quick answers though:

Re: Horatio -- I think the HORUS was trying to create an heir who would surpass the ship, become a builder rather than a destroyer. It's unclear whether prior versions of Horatio knew his origin; by the point of v.5 (the only one we know called himself "Nullbuilt," his memory files about HORUS and his origin were locked or corrupted, leaving him ignorant of his builder.

Re: MetroMind -- If you look at the posters on her walls, she was billed as the Way of the Future and a key toward a better world. She believed it. Running the train was a management job, unlike the jobs the other Council members had. She believed, mistakenly, that she could manage robots as well as she managed trains.

Re: Language -- I think Starmaker had some nice posts about this somewhere, but the basic answer is that robots were designed to be as useful as possible for humans, and then the post-human later generation robots were built in their builders' image. Incidentally, the robots in Civitas did not speak ordinarily. (Hence Gimbal's trouble communication vocally.)

Re: Gender -- Here's an interview with my answer: http://tap-repeatedly.com/2012/11/a-preview-of-gender-and-diversity-in-primordia/

Re: Books -- No great answer here, other than just robots imitating human religion without really understanding what they're doing.

Thanks for your interest in the game, and for thinking so deeply about it!

Mark

About books:
Horatios book is made of paper and leather.
Both materials are rare in a world without animals or plants.
And they are useless for robots.
Unless they enjoy origami and leather fetishism ;-)
(note to myself: visual imagination can be a curse)

about religion:
Steeple was build as robot priest by humans and for humans. (I am not sure, you never meet him)
If Steeple knew humans, than he also knew that they are not perfect.
They act often unlogic and extincted each other in a big war.
Why did he create humanism?

possible answer:
When steeple worked for humans, he realized that many things humans belief in are nonsense (especially from the point of view of a robot that is based on logic).
He thought about it and came to the conclusion: The essence of religion is "people feel better when they strongly belief in nonsense"
He was programmed to be a priest and to teach religion.

When his new audience were only robots he thought:
-religion = people belief in nonsense
-biggest nonsense to be imagined = humans are perfect
-conclusion = robots feel better when they believe humans are perfect

note: I don´t say this theory is correct in the real world. It is just my theory how robots created humanism in this game.

I replayed the game with commentarys.

Some questions have been answered, others remain:

-about Clarity and the skulls
I can understand that she kills the shells in self defense and uses their heads as message to Scaper.
So far, so legal.
She says she does this in order to kill Scraper legally.
Why does placing skulls in front of her "house" allow her to kill Scaper legally?

note: I assume there is no law in the USA or elswhere that says "It is illigal to place bodies you killed in self defence in front of your house." but I have the feeling I would get trouble with the police if I do so.
But as she said. If there is no law that says its forbidden, than its allowed.

-Why can´t Horatio use the "urbanien decryption module" on himself to find out he is Horus? (or at least urbanien)

-If Clarity knows that the main frame of MM is in the station, why don´t we go there first?
Its easier to steal something (power core) when the one who is guarding it is deactivated.
I regard this as logic and efficient.
Even if Horatio does not want to kill MM, Clarity does.
She could at least suggest it and Horatio refuses.

-I don´t really understand the concept of megacycles.
How can you give parts of your brain to her?
How has she acces to all robots, including Horatio?
At the final in the tower, why does she not do the same thing to Horatio as in the station?

-When I ask MM what happened to the humans she says she killed them.
She says something like "Destroying your creator is elemental part of progress."
But in history, if X invented, dicovered or improved something he did rarely kill his parents or somebody who invented something he needed to do his job.
I can understand that she wants robots to believe in progress and not in humans.
The easiest way to do so is telling them the truth. Humans were not perfect machines, but weak creatures who extincted themselfs in a senseless war.

She has to stay within the law. Giving a warning to Scraper satisfies the criteria necessary for her to kill a government official. Excellent question!
If it were an RPG, it would be "because the devs couldn't think their way out of a plot hole". But Primordia is an adventure game. Meaning you help along an independent character, with their own knowledge, goals, and personality traits. So when you don't get an option to do something that seems like a good idea, it's not a direct RL design/budget constraint; it's a character trait first and foremost (one that may or may not make sense, and perhaps is enforced by a design constraint). And the answer is "because Horatio locked that info away and is actively avoiding it". A secondary reason is probably that the decryption has to be done on an offline database, and Horatio doesn't have a second brain to spare and cares about his privacy enough to not entrust it to anyone. She wasn't built to be, and isn't, efficient. Except they are AIs and 'cycles' presumably refer to AI algorithm loops or something.<div class="quot quot_text normal_color "><div class="small_avatar_2_h"><img src="/www/default/-img/newuser_big.png" width="16" height="16" alt="avatar" /></div><span class="quot_text"><span class="quot_user_name">Mad3: </span></span>How can you give parts of your brain to her? <a href="http://www.gog.com/forum/primordia/some_questions_about_characters_and_the_world_big_spoilers/post4" class="link_arrow"></a></div> [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking][1] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing][3] Backdoor hardware (see greeter scene) + wireless. Try pulling the plug during a Windows update and see what happens. Crispin's interference messed up the repartitioning and Horatio was able to reassert control. ...yes, of course? MetroMind is stupid (says you, being a machine, can't possibly have a choice when you literally have a list of options onscreen, and have had lists of options for the whole game) and evil (kills you if proven wrong). Her inability to arrive at a sane and practical conclusion is entirely unsurprising.

> Why does placing skulls in front of her "house" allow her to kill Scaper legally?
It satisfies the "duty to warn" that is owed to trespassers in order to avoid liability for harm the trespasser suffers. In jurisdictions permitting the use of deadly force against trespassers, sometimes a warning is required, followed by an opportunity for the person to withdraw. Presumably Metropolitan law requires something like that. (Incidentally, I am quite confident that it is against public health laws to leave corpses on your lawn, irrespective of how they died. Presumably no such law exists in Metropol.)

> Why can´t Horatio use the "urbanien decryption module" on himself to find out he is Horus?

He's not a hotspot? I realize that's a cute answer, but I guess the in-game rationale is that Horatio is uninterested in engaging with his locked memories for most of the game.

> If Clarity knows that the main frame of MM is in the station, why don´t we go there first?

Here's what I wrote elsewhere in answer to this question. It may not be a satisfying answer:
Two things. First, Horatio isn't going to the Tower to capture or kill MetroMind -- he's going to get his power core back. Clarity isn't going there to capture of kill MetroMind -- she's going to help Horatio get his power core back. When Clarity joins the party, she says:

MetroMind is wrong.
The law is not weak.
And destroying Arbiter did not destroy justice.
She will learn *exactly* how wrong she was.
But first . . . .
First, MetroMind's possessions are forfeit.
Whatever right she claimed to your power core is null and void.
So I will help you take it from her and Scraper.
It will be the first thing I take from them, but it will not be the last.



In other words, the encounter with MetroMind at the Council Tower is, if not a surprise, at least not the mission.

But wait, you say: wouldn't it be easier to kill MetroMind first rather than risking facing her in the Council Tower? Err, why would that be? The presumption would be that her lair would be better guarded than the Council Tower. Scraper would've shown up there no less than he would've shown up at the Council Tower. In fact, while it happened that MetroMind caught them entering the Tower, she indisputably would have seen them entering the hallway leading up to her lair: there is no obvious sentry robot at the Tower entrance (the Crier being disabled), but there's a sentry in the hallway leading up to the lair.

And, whereas they can potentially crack the code to enter the Council Tower, they can't crack a code to get into MM's inner sanctum (they would have to melt the door). (Would Clarity know this? Probably not, but it's a fair-ish inference.) And even if they went and arrested or killed MM in her sanctum, they'd still need to crack the Council Code.

> I don´t really understand the concept of megacycles.

The answer to the last part of this question is that she's already redeemed all the megacycles she's entitled to, and it appears she's unable to take more than she has the right to take. The other questions are more or less addressed by Starmaker in this thread: http://www.gog.com/forum/primordia/obvious_spoilers_who_has_finished_this_game_d

[ADDITION: It appears Star Maker has already summarized this point here.]

> But in history, if X invented, dicovered or improved something he did rarely kill his parents or somebody who invented something he needed to do his job.

Yes. MetroMind's statement on this point is a sign that she's Bad. But she's not totally insane -- new, better species, ideas, products do eliminate the older, worse species, ideas, products. Hence, no more neanderthals, no more geocentrism, no more telegraphs, etc. That is often true even when the species, ideas, and products are derived from the very things they're supplanting.

> The easiest way to do so is telling them the truth. Humans were not perfect machines, but weak creatures who extincted themselfs in a senseless war.

MetroMind's lack of faith in other robots is part of what dooms her project. This isn't the only error she makes in that vein: despite aspiring to create a powerful enough distributed processing network to achieve a singularity, she starts out by destroying several super-powerful primordial computers (Arbiter, Memorious, and Steeple).

Clarity also says something like:
"It is sad that Metromind does not have a head."
(What I interpret as "I (clarity) will kill her and I am sad that I will not get a trophy from that.")

When I show her the memories of Charity, Claritys main objective becomes killing MM because she seek vengance for the death of her sister and father. She joins me because she knows my mission will lead me (and her) sooner than later to MM.
Clarity hated MM all the time, but she could not do anything against her because she (Clarity) must obey the law and MM makes the laws. After I show her the evidence, she is convinced that MM broke the law and she can take actions against her.

Yeah -- her goal is to bring MM to justice, but before she does that, she'll help Horatio with his goal, which is to get his power core back.

One of the things I find great about this game and the subsequent discussions of and around it is the inherent tendency we all have to anthropomorphize. I've been playing point and click adventure games since... well, what seems like forever, now, and despite all the titles in this genre I played, I had never come across one with such intricate, deep lore, mythology and significance, especially regarding this field of "good vs. evil". It's a human trait, and not a robot/computer one, to follow such deontology -- they wouldn't probably even have the "need" of it.

But the thing is, just as much as this game was made by humans, robots and their "descendants" would have been originally built by humans as well, and would have most certainly been coded with some kind of human ethics and morality values. There's also the fact that we don't yet know how a full fledged artificial intelligence would evolve and develop on its own, and since all the Primordian robots seem to be running on advanced, semi-autonomous AIs, it's really hard to have an impartial and idoneous view on the matter, aside the flawed aforementioned mimetic anthropomorphization that's common to us, humans (we're doing it with animals, as well, since now we have "pet psychologists", based on a notion that whatever is common to us, humans, should be the universal truths all else is ruled by -- proving we're actually not that far from the days of the geocentrism and of the absolute disregard for local cultures as of the "discovery" of the Americas time).

There's a saying in my country that roughly translates as "opinions are like clocks: every one thinks theirs is the right one" (the word for a clock displaying the correct time and for something to be the right thing is the same), and that couldn't apply better to all the discussions I've been reading about this game. It's ultimately all perspective and opinion, and that's what makes it great -- that's what makes this game more than just a game, but a real art piece: the fact that it can resonate with this many number of people, in all these ways.

This is my 3rd adventure (the other 2 were Harvey and Edna) but I played tons of RPG. When I say RPG I mean games with lots of story (Planescape Tornment, Xenosaga). Calling Diablo an RPG is an insult to all RPG. So from my point of view the only difference between adventure and RPG is that RPGs have combat.

I don´t think this game is about good vs evil. I think in the DnD system all robots in this game would be lawful neutral. The only "robots" with a diifrent alignment I know are chaotic evil (SHODAN is definitly chaotic evil, I am not sure about Glados)

I think this game is about individualism vs collectivism.
Arbiter is the individualist. He was created as judge for humans and when humans disappeared he applied the human laws on robots (right of private property, it is forbidden to rob or harm somebody, everything is allowed as long as no law forbids it, . . . )
Metromind is a collectivist. She ran trains. From her point of view it makes no difference if you transport humans, robots or containers. She even regards robots as trains. When you build a train that moves faster and needs less energy, you take it and trash the old one.

I am on the side of Arbiter. When a creature is self aware and lives in a complex society, it must have individual rights and duties. My argument is Kants categorical imperative which says: You must regard a person not only as tool but also as purpose.
Assuming in our human world genetic engeneering makes big progress. Somebody finds out than when you change the genetic code in a certain way the energy usage is reduced by 10% so the same amount of food is enough for more people. Somebody with MM´s point of view would say: Everybody must do this and all who don´t want this gets executed because he is against progress.
I think MM acts like the Nazis (but with good intentions).

My philosophical english is not perfect, so I am not sure if collectivism is the right term.

I think MM's main problem isn't her approach to how exactly the city should be ruled, but that she went way too far with her goals while not having enough skills to reach them. Instead of just accepting this as a fact, she made the situation worse by getting rid of several other council members, and still failed.

Anyone with that kind of attitude is going to do more harm than good, so whether or not MM's approach was wrong or evil from the start is kind of left open to interpretation (after all, we never get to see what happens after Horatio joins her in one of the endings).

Gross incompetence is something that's incompatible with any sort of politics, which is, sadly, the very reason people keep arguing about which views are "right" - it's very hard, if not downright impossible, to get an example of a particular way of managing things that didn't involve somebody screwing something up along the way.

And MM specifically cites the fact that she was made for running trains when she asks Horatio for help, showing that she was unable to go beyond her original purpose in terms of her way of handling things. It's really less of "good vs. evil" and more of "dynamic vs. static" - whether or not you are capable of adapting your way of thinking (or changing it completely!) in order to progress.

So you mean MMs actions are a good example for the Peter principle.

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

The principle holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Eventually they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions.

MM reached her level of incompetence when she promoted herself from beeing "head of train system" to beeing "head of the entire town".

First, let me thank you for your prompt response to my post. Secondly, please, do notice I quoted good vs. evil -- those were actually scare quotes. I don't think a game with as profound and varied interpretations, such as Primordia, should be abridged with the levity and frivolity of being just a game about "good vs. evil". The game is a lot of things, that was my main point, and due to my lack of better knowledge of the english language (though I am, for better and worse, a major in English and Portuguese Literature), my point obviously got lost somewhere in my ramblings about anthropomorphization -- ramblings which I absolutely stand by.

I'm also not aware whether "collectivism" is the right "philosophical english" term, but I, for one, understood what you meant and absolutely agree. I might not agree with everything you said, but you make valid points throughout your posts, and that's what really makes me happy when wandering through Primordia forums -- the fact that people are actually thinking and reflecting upon the game once they finish it or reach any part that resonates with them. I can't help but feel glad to be a part of this healthy, thought provoking discussion, albeit a somewhat silent one at that. I learnt a lot from playing and finishing the game, playing through it again and again with the commentary on, and especially when I finally lost my "community fear" and decided to start reading these forums (as you can probably see, I'm a brand new GOG user, so, it actually didn't take me that much time to come into the forums, but, still...).

All I can say is "keep it up". I'm thankful for all the amazing insights people like you and Starmaker brought into the table, things I definitely would never have thought of or realized when playing the game by myself, and that more than enriched(-es) my experience of it.

Just wanted to say that I'm very much enjoying this discussion. It'll definitely help my brainstorming for the next game.