188 réponses à ce sujet

[SavageNoble]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

How would we know if there is or isn't a final stage of evolution before we reach it? We don't even understand much about evolution as it is.

Your opinion is subjective.

I'm sorry, but what?

You may not understand Evolution very well, but scientists certainly do. Evolution does not have stages or goals. If it did, it's only "goal" would be to adapt to changing circumstances in the enviroment, to ensure a living organism's survival.

The catalyst's explanation of synthesis defies basic biology. It's just one more way the ending of ME3 is nonsensical.

[Oldbones2]

Yeah, OP I put this in a post a while back. It seem Bioware doesn't just fail Biology once (Machines DO NOT HAVE DNA), they fail it twice.

It's just frustrating. Knowing the science and logical errors the Catalyst makes and not being able to say ANYTHING.

[What a Succulent Ass]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

But my point is that you cant prove that there isn't a cosmic directive, or a point of adaptation where life would be able to deal with any enviornmental stressor and not need to evolve any more.

Did you just ask me to prove a negative? The evidence of absence is a terrible fallacy. Don't do that. It's silly. It doesn't make sense.

Plus Mass Effect has been hinting at synthesis being the pinnacle of evolution all the way back to Sovereign in ME1, with the discovery of the Human Reaper Larva building on it. You're only concern is looking for any reason to hate on the Star Child. When in reality you'll have to bash Sovereign, Harbinger, and the Collectors along with him.

I'm not "looking for reasons." It gives reasons all on its own for being a complete diabolus ex machina.

Mass Effect has been hinting at nothing of the sort. The narrative's only facet of cosmicism was Sovereign from ME1, and since he was an antagonist who clearly disdained organic life (and indeed, the entire concept of adaptation), he is what you might call unreliable, especially since he clearly isn't infallible. Outside the claims of one biased character (who was proved to be a liar by the events of ME2), the series posits exactly zero thematic evidence in favour of the idea (it actually does the opposite), so you cannot claim the story supports the concept of a "cosmic directive." Such a thing would supercede even the reapers (who are proven to be no more than cybernetic toys) and the Guardian itself, and there are no narrative hints toward this theory. What you're essentially saying is that there is some godlike force in the Mass Effect universe that causes the reapers to reap for the sake of creating "perfect beings." Not only does this not line up with what the Catalyst itself says, there is literally no evidence to support this. The synthesis "solution" supposedly allows organics and machines to "understand" each other by creating "a new DNA" (wut?). There is no talk of transcendence for the sake of transcendence. At no point does the Catalyst mention this will halt evolution, and nor does it at any point address the fact that the race of cyborgs could create pure synthetics who could themselves experience a modicum of "evolution." It's just dumb.

And for the record, I already bash Harbinger, the Collectors, and the Reapernator. They were all silly.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 04 avril 2012 - 01:38 .

[Richard 060]

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

As someone who studied palaeontology and evolutionary biology, I'm so damn glad that other people picked up on this.

Unless you learned biology from Pokémon, you should be aware that evolution is a CONSTANT reaction to environmental changes.

There is no fixed goal, since who knows how the local habitat/world/universe will change in years/decades/millennia to come? Thus, life will adapt accordingly over generations to survive in some form or other.

Likewise, to imply an end point would require the universe to reach a fixed status quo, with nothing changing, right down to variations in DNA, which is so unlikely it's impossible to all practical intent.

Let's not start on how synthetics aren't a part of the organic evolutionary process - considering how evolution leads to successive generations of lifeforms becoming MORE varied, not increasingly similar, it's highly unlikely that organics and synthetics would ever 'evolve' convergently, to the point they could actually interbreed...

The big glaring hole is that the sheer complexity of the varables involved over millions of years of evolution, plus the unpredictable nature of the ever-changing universe, means that it's almost impossible to accurately predict where life will end up in millions of years' time. Therefore, the Catalyst is either indulging in baseless speculation (and hoping Shepard won't call 'shenanigans' on it), or has God-like powers of clairvoyance.

Neither of which is acceptable as 'good writing' for the dénouement of a story.


It's really sad to think that a series built on really solid narrative development and an imaginative mix of accurately-applied real science and plausible-sounding, internally-consistent 'pseudo-science' could throw it all away at the last minute with poor writing and unscientific nonsense.

Just one more reason why it's no loss to 'creative vision' and 'artistic integrity' to change the ending - it's never a bad thing to fix something that's broken.

[EHondaMashButton]

Richard 060 wrote...

Unless you learned biology from Pokémon, you should be aware that evolution is a CONSTANT reaction to environmental changes.

Lawl.  I was about to chime in, but I think you just shut the thread down 

[The Razman]

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

You can say that, but at the same time its obvious that evolution is a progressive process; we can say with certainty that more complex and advanced creatures and organisms exist today than did several million years ago.

If it's a progressive process, then there must be a logical end, or peak to it.

[What a Succulent Ass]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

Richard 060 wrote...

Unless you learned biology from Pokémon, you should be aware that evolution is a CONSTANT reaction to environmental changes.

Lawl.  I was about to chime in, but I think you just shut the thread down 

Yep.

[WhiteKnyght]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Also you forget that during ME3, EDI wonders if the mass effect phenomenon only occurs in one universe, a finite bubble area. Which by that logic, another universe would have its own set of laws and possibilities. You're judging Mass Effect by our universe's laws, when arguably it's not our universe. Their Earth may share a common history with ours, but it's a different universe entirely.

Their universe could have its own evolutionary process that is similar, yet different than what we perceive ours to be. Holding them to our standards is completely stupid. And if you stuck to your guns on that, you'd also have to criticize anything out of the ordinary in any fictional work. From Biotics in ME to magic in Dragon Age to Superman being able to defy gravity.

You're critcisms are shallow. You're ignoring the fact that the writers can shape their universe as they see fit just because you don't like it.

I'd like to quote this for reference.

I should have thought of this earlier. The fact that you're criticizing a fictional universe for differing from real life is laughable.

Tell me, when you read an X-Men comic, do you say "This is stupid, these writers don't understand evolution at all"? When you read a Superman comic, do you say "This is dumb, people cant fly"?

The very criticism of a fictional universe for not holding up some nonexistent obligation to be "realistic" is a big joke in itself. Why do you think they call it "Science Fiction?"

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 04 avril 2012 - 01:42 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

The Razman wrote...

If it's a progressive process, then there must be a logical end, or peak to it.

No there isn't. Biological adaptations become either a help or hindrance according to the development of an environment. There is no "perfect" trait or organism. The mutation that allowed the prey to escape yesterday may have it trapped in the predator's maw tomorrow. Unless the universe ceased to change tomorrow and all its variables stayed exactly the same for all eternity, there can never be a pinnacle of existence. Any claim otherwise is just nonsense ****alorum.

[JBONE27]

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

You can say that, but at the same time its obvious that evolution is a progressive process; we can say with certainty that more complex and advanced creatures and organisms exist today than did several million years ago.

If it's a progressive process, then there must be a logical end, or peak to it.

It's not a progressive process though.  It's an adaptive process.  The environment is in a constant state of change and organisms adapt to said environment.  The only end is actually a dead end.  There was a particular ape that evolved to be perfectly adept at eating this particular type of grass that grew in abundance.  It was perfectly suited to its environment, but the ice age came.  With the colder temperetures, the grass died out.  And so, this ape became extinct because he was perfectly adapted to an environment that ceased to exist.

[What a Succulent Ass]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The very criticism of a fictional universe for not holding up some nonexistent obligation to be "realistic" is a big joke in itself. Why do you think they call it "Science Fiction?"

SCIENCE fiction.

You realise you aren't making any sense anymore, right? The reason why this is objectively wrong is because it's internally inconsistent. X-Men's entire premise is fantastic mutation. Superman can fly because he's an alien. For these universes to exist, they establish their frame of reference at the beginning of the story, just as Mass Effect did with element zero. All stories are a Socratic exercise: they ask one question (suppose we had phlebotonium called "eezo"?) and allow the resulting extrapolations to follow. They must then adhere to their specific line of logic. At NO point does the narrative imply that the laws of evolution are suddenly taking pages from Pokémon. At no point does it establish that these laws work differently from our own. That is why it's wrong. It's an arsepull and bad.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 04 avril 2012 - 01:52 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Random Jerkface wrote...

The Razman wrote...

If it's a progressive process, then there must be a logical end, or peak to it.

No there isn't. Biological adaptations become either a help or hindrance according to the development of an environment. There is no "perfect" trait or organism. The mutation that allowed the prey to escape yesterday may have it trapped in the predator's maw tomorrow. Unless the universe ceased to change tomorrow and all its variables stayed exactly the same for all eternity, there can never be a pinnacle of existence. Any claim otherwise is just nonsense ****alorum.

Except for the fact that in a science fiction universe, they can make evolution anything they want it to be.

The synthesis process is no more unrealistic than the Reapers themselves, which are created from melting down humans into goo and mixing them with synthetic life, while allowing their living minds to remain intact and form a more advanced version of the Geth's concensus. Or the fact that technology can go far beyond the speed of light without even exploring the idea of time travel.

[FlyingWalrus]

The "ultimate goal" of evolution (from the human point of view anyway) is the theoretical "technological singularity," which there is actual scientific rumination about. Incidentally, there is an Isaac Asimov short story about this which speculates at the Ultimate Question, which according to the story is "how to stop the progression of entropy?"

Should've stuck to the Dark Energy angle, Bioware.

[WhiteKnyght]

Random Jerkface wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The very criticism of a fictional universe for not holding up some nonexistent obligation to be "realistic" is a big joke in itself. Why do you think they call it "Science Fiction?"

SCIENCE fiction.

You realise you aren't making any sense anymore, right? The reason why this is objectively wrong is because it's internally inconsistent. X-Men's entire premise is fantastic mutation. Superman can fly because he's an alien. For these universes to exist, they establish their frame of reference at the beginning of the story, just as mass effect did with element zero. All stories are a Socratic exercise. They ask one question (suppose we had phlebotonium called "eezo"?) and allow the resulting extrapolations to follow. They adhere to a specific line of logic. At NO point does the narrative imply that the laws of evolution are suddenly taking pages from Pokémon. At no point does it establish that these laws work differently from our own. That is why it's wrong. It's an arsepull and bad.

The Reapers do that when in the very first game when Sovereign describes Reapers, a race of organic/synthetic hybrids as the "pinnacle of evolution.

Also X-Men describes mutation as the "next step in human evolution" on more than one occasion.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 04 avril 2012 - 01:54 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The Reapers do that when in the very first game, Sovereign describes Reapers, a race of organic/synthetic hybrids as the "pinnacle of evolution."

So? Are the reapers infallible? What Sovereign says is of no consequence, especially when it's revealed in ME2 that they need organics in order to reproduce. That is an evolutionary weakness. The biggest, in fact.

This is just further destroyed with the idiocy of the Starchild.

[sartt]

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

You can say that, but at the same time its obvious that evolution is a progressive process; we can say with certainty that more complex and advanced creatures and organisms exist today than did several million years ago.

If it's a progressive process, then there must be a logical end, or peak to it.

The underground Reptilians have been here for 55 million + years.

[What a Succulent Ass]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Also X-Men describes mutation as the "next step in human evolution" on more than one occasion.

Yes. And in X-Men's universe, that is true. Did you miss the part where I said that a story has to establish a premise and adhere to its internal logic? X-Men's internal logic is that humans are experiencing mutations that grant them fantastic powers. For the entire story to work, you must accept this premise.

At no point does Mass Effect take this liberty with evolution.

[JBONE27]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The very criticism of a fictional universe for not holding up some nonexistent obligation to be "realistic" is a big joke in itself. Why do you think they call it "Science Fiction?"

SCIENCE fiction.

You realise you aren't making any sense anymore, right? The reason why this is objectively wrong is because it's internally inconsistent. X-Men's entire premise is fantastic mutation. Superman can fly because he's an alien. For these universes to exist, they establish their frame of reference at the beginning of the story, just as mass effect did with element zero. All stories are a Socratic exercise. They ask one question (suppose we had phlebotonium called "eezo"?) and allow the resulting extrapolations to follow. They adhere to a specific line of logic. At NO point does the narrative imply that the laws of evolution are suddenly taking pages from Pokémon. At no point does it establish that these laws work differently from our own. That is why it's wrong. It's an arsepull and bad.

The Reapers do that when in the very first game when Sovereign describes Reapers, a race of organic/synthetic hybrids as the "pinnacle of evolution.

You missed the part where I said that they may have been programed to believe it.

[WhiteKnyght]

Random Jerkface wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Also X-Men describes mutation as the "next step in human evolution" on more than one occasion.

Yes. And in X-Men's universe, that is true. Did you miss the part where I said that a story has to establish a premise and adhere to its internal logic? X-Men's internal logic is that humans are experiencing mutations that grant them fantastic powers. For the entire story to work, you must accept this premise.

At no point does Mass Effect take this liberty with evolution.

One difference between Mass Effect and Dragon Age, and a lot of other media is that we're not given a complete frame of reference about the world/universe at the beginning of the story. What we are given is what the people living at that point in time believe it to be, which isn't always the truth. So instead of reading/watching/playing while aware of things the people in the story aren't, we are as in the dark as them. It also gives them more creative freedom.

[greatgoodness]

 The other cycles must have had the starchild facepalming.

I would be interested though to see where they go with this higher being type of approach.  Was there only one starchild?  Were there many?  Are they ascended higher beings that oversee things?

[WhiteKnyght]

Random Jerkface wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The Reapers do that when in the very first game, Sovereign describes Reapers, a race of organic/synthetic hybrids as the "pinnacle of evolution."

So? Are the reapers infallible? What Sovereign says is of no consequence, especially when it's revealed in ME2 that they need organics in order to reproduce. That is an evolutionary weakness. The biggest, in fact.

This is just further destroyed with the idiocy of the Starchild.

Except "Reaper reproduction" is EDI's best guess at what they were hoping to accomplish by doing this. Not an established fact.

We learn later that it's not to reproduce, but to preserve the older lifeforms. It's like uplifting them, albeit very gruesomely.

[atheelogos]

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

The Starchild wasn't talking about biological evolution. He was refering to technological evolution

[EHondaMashButton]

atheelogos wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

The Starchild wasn't talking about biological evolution. He was refering to technological evolution

Either way there's no such thing as the pinnacle of evolution.

Thats like saying the pinnacle of adaptation.  There's always something else to adapt to.  

[WhiteKnyght]

atheelogos wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

The Starchild wasn't talking about biological evolution. He was refering to technological evolution

A good point.

The Star Child's exact words are that "Synthesis is the final evolution of life." A statement that implies as much as it answers.

If you look at evolution with an open mind, it's not a straight line, there are several variables and possibilities. Rather than being the apex of existence, synthesis might simply be the last possible form of evolution. And while achieving that, other areas will continue to improve.

And it's not the first time it's been implied that the Reapers are capable of doing this. The Protheans underwent extensive genetic rewrites and synthetic enhancements to become the Collectors. Rather than "space magic," the Crucible could have been distributing Reaper nanotechnology across the galaxy to fuse into people the same way they do Husks and their cross species equivalents. But not in a manner that enslaves or disfigures them.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 04 avril 2012 - 02:29 .

[Oldbones2]

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I will try to make this as spoiler free as possible.  Mass Effect 3's Synthasis ending got evolution wrong.  There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.  It is how life-forms adapt to their envoronments, and has nothing to do with combining organics and synthetics.

That is all... Thank you. 

You can say that, but at the same time its obvious that evolution is a progressive process; we can say with certainty that more complex and advanced creatures and organisms exist today than did several million years ago.

If it's a progressive process, then there must be a logical end, or peak to it.

That's absurd. 


The only  logical end to a species evolution is extinction.


Up until that point, biological creatures are still mutating, still
passing genes on to their offspring, and still 'succeeding in life based
partially on their genes.  Thus evolution continues.