318 réponses à ce sujet

[InvincibleHero]

As applies to a fictional setting created by BW writers they are free to make whatever decisions they wish to apply to their creation. So they are right.

However, I'd have to say I have little interest in future games in a post-synthesis setting. I am unlikely to purchase it.

[Guglio08]

Synthesis would have been better if the actual process of how it occurs was explained in some way.

We know the Crucible powers the Citadel, which channels the Mass Relays to fire its energies, but other than Destroy, there's no real reason given for how Synthesis would actually occur. Control is easy to extrapolate - Shepard replaces the Catalyst. There is no extrapolation for Synthesis that makes any kind of sense, which is particularly frustrating because Mass Effect is based primarily on insane amounts of technobabble to explain basically everything,

[bleetman]

vivaladricas wrote...

bleetman: MS also owns Windows so it would have been PC as well since they know the community is mostly PC gamers for this game it seems.  Gears and Halo didnt do as well on the PC when they were on there.  Halo 2 might have, but I am not sure.  MS makes money off Windows games regardless. 

...

If you say so. I'd say the fact they've never bothered porting any Halo games past the second to the PC speaks pretty clearly as to where their priorities are.

[kobayashi-maru]

Guglio08 wrote...

Synthesis would have been better if the actual process of how it occurs was explained in some way.

We know the Crucible powers the Citadel, which channels the Mass Relays to fire its energies, but other than Destroy, there's no real reason given for how Synthesis would actually occur. Control is easy to extrapolate - Shepard replaces the Catalyst. There is no extrapolation for Synthesis that makes any kind of sense, which is particularly frustrating because Mass Effect is based primarily on insane amounts of technobabble to explain basically everything,

I agree with you but when in doubt about technobabble use Star Trek Voyager get out of jail card - Borg nanoprobes

[Varus Praetor]

If she and the rest of the BW staff view the blending of organic and synthetic "DNA" as inevitable, I certainly feel better about the ME3 ending. They might want to get the gas leak in their offices fixed, but I at least have an explanation for why the ending is so nonsensical.

[sistersafetypin]

gorezeelar wrote...

But honestly, it would make sense. The Reapers prophersize synthetics would destroy organics. Maybe after the Reapers were defeated, people got smarter, or simply took that warning.

I think I just found the heart of the Problem. The beings that have been trying to kill us since the beginning of the game,  prophesize what "might" happen and we're supposed to take their word for it? These are beings that have apparently already been harvested and thus have had years to be indoctrinated. 

It just doesn't make sense. 

[dreman9999]

kobayashi-maru wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

kobayashi-maru wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

kobayashi-maru wrote...

Here's the problem with you point. It already is happen in the ME universe with biotic implants,gray boxes, the quarians, and Shepard's implats.
You confusing the catalyst offer of synthesis with synthesis in general.
Evolution is based on evirnment vs needs of the being. Based on the envirment in ME it already started. It can only stop if an outside force or unknow element changes the course of evolution.

I see your point but still disagree, the implants, grey boxes and all the other tech is in the ME universe, but just because they have used various types of synthetic material to aid them, it is an aid not a complete retrofit for eternal life. The Shepard implants complicate it I admit but I go with the they will wear out Babylon 5 resurrection style in a number of years.

I just don't know it's really complicated argument, considering by the end of the trilogy the only certain thing is that billions of species have been decimated and the only one with the chance to quickly repopulate is the less techie Krogans. So does that alter the argument. I'm not sure but get your point and agree while disagreeing if that makes sense.

Then I have to be more clear...
Synthesis is an inevitality of evolution for beings that are dependent on tech. You need to understand the evolution is based on evironment and needs of the being. In the ME universe, the races environmnet make a demand on the use of tech and advancement of it. For beings not dependent on tech, synthesis is not the final stage evolution.

Synthesis become an eventually as long as the races of ME depend on tech. If they become independent of tech, that course is gone.

But those species have been decimated. The tech left over will inevitably fail because the resources they once had have been destroyed during the invasion. They may have once depended on tech but after the war maybe not so much, even the Quarians are racing to get out of there suits. Then add in most of the tech they have is based around Eezo, just how much of that is left after the events of the game.

The more dominant species will enevitably become the Krogan because of birth rates and the newer species will more naturally evolve because of it - mainly due to fewer Asari without secret beacon.

I would support your argument if it happened naturally, but it didn't, the Asari where uplifted by Protheans and pretty much every piece of Tech in the Universe has it's origins in pre-prothean societies.

And by your argument Synthesis is not right choice because of the races left most are not dependant on technology. And with limited Eezo how exactly would the billions of new Krogan get implants.

I could see Synthesis as the solution in the ME universe maybe a few hundred thousand years later when they actually create there own tech rather than copy from old tech using old energy forms. But as for forcing it on everyone icluding uplifting those species not even able to properly understand the situation Yahg, Varren, heck even the poor fish in Shepards cabin. And God only knows what Synthesis would do to Space Hamster...

That's not the case at all. The races have not been so set back that they can't advance technologically any more. It's clear in the ending of destory and control that they easily can develop their tech with ease. 
And no the krogan will not be the most advance race and the asari will not lose there place. There tech is still there.
And you missed my point completly. All races are dependent of tech. The korgan arn't going to be the most advance.

Also, on this..
"I could see Synthesis as the solution in the ME universe maybe a few hundred thousand years later when they actually create there own tech rather than copy from old tech using old energy forms.  "
That is what Jessica means. Nothing she stated or in my point are pro-the catalyst synthesis offer.

[CitizenThom]

DinoSteve wrote...

woo! this dead horse again.




I really wish someone would stop her using twitter.

How do I add that signature bar? I too chose Destroy.

Much like the cake, synthesis is a lie. Synthesis is indoctrination.

[kobayashi-maru]

Modifié par kobayashi-maru, 23 août 2012 - 05:17 .

[kobayashi-maru]

dreman9999 wrote...

-clip or something internety-

Again the tech is based in Eezo and how much would be left after the war? Also the Asari may still have various tech but as a species they are pretty much the Vulcans in the Star Trek reboot, there civilisation is gone, the Asari councillor says as much. The Turian managed to fight back enough to rebuild but not the Asari, the Reapers knew of there tech so would have pretty much unleashed hell on Thessia - more than Earth.

I got your point sorry if I wasn't clear enough I know most species reliant on tech but the vast majority of surviving races are not. The Yahg aren't and the Krogan was destroyed by tech, I think going back to old ways for a few centuries is on the cards for them. As for the races who where wholly dependant, humans on the whole were not all implanted, very few were, the others apart from the Asari used it externally and as equipment not as cyborg tech.

I don't hate catalyst by the way, okay I close eyes and think of harby , but in end I guess we do agree that it may happen in future. The problem I have is just the forced aspect of the evolution, it shouldn't happen like that and considering everything said up to that point it goes against cannon. But thats just my opinion. I can see yours as equally valid.

The worst thing is I am awake too early and discussing theoretical future issues which may occur in a fictional Universe. I need to google C-span again....

And I double posted cause got stuck in box, couldn't get out it wouldn't go away. Not philospphical box more a help my text stuck in quote box...

Modifié par kobayashi-maru, 23 août 2012 - 05:17 .

[XXIceColdXX]

Synthesis is nonsense. I'm hoping we never see it again in any Mass Effect series.

[dreman9999]

kobayashi-maru wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

-clip or something internety-

Again the tech is based in Eezo and how much would be left after the war? Also the Asari may still have various tech but as a species they are pretty much the Vulcans in the Star Trek reboot, there civilisation is gone, the Asari councillor says as much. The Turian managed to fight back enough to rebuild but not the Asari, the Reapers knew of there tech so would have pretty much unleashed hell on Thessia - more than Earth.

I got your point sorry if I wasn't clear enough I know most species reliant on tech but the vast majority of surviving races are not. The Yahg aren't and the Krogan was destroyed by tech, I think going back to old ways for a few centuries is on the cards for them. As for the races who where wholly dependant, humans on the whole were not all implanted, very few were, the others apart from the Asari used it externally and as equipment not as cyborg tech.

I don't hate catalyst by the way, okay I close eyes and think of harby , but in end I guess we do agree that it may happen in future. The problem I have is just the forced aspect of the evolution, it shouldn't happen like that and considering everything said up to that point it goes against cannon. But thats just my opinion. I can see yours as equally valid.

The worst thing is I am awake too early and discussing theoretical future issues which may occur in a fictional Universe. I need to google C-span again....

And I double posted cause got stuck in box, couldn't get out it wouldn't go away. Not philospphical box more a help my text stuck in quote box...

We have plenty of enzo and based on the endings it's not an issue. Please use facts. Show where it's stated their is an enzo shortage in the lore . Then you can state it.
Added , based on the endings advancement in tech is not an issue. We I speak of dependency on tech, i don't mean implants alone. Added, the benifits of implantaion is hard to ignore.

[kobayashi-maru]

Based on original and EC endings it may be issue. Even if Relays survived in your ending the shockwave thing which causes the endings is powered by the energy from the Eezo cores of the many Mass Relays. To get them working again they will need to get more Eezo and the material is already rare.

As for other cannon proof I will check about and see if I can find some, mostly it just implications based on what happened not specifically stated.

[KiwiQuiche]

DinoSteve wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...
Even top-end and educated scholars, proffesors believe that Synthesis is the final step.  

Yes yes and once upon a time top-end and educated scholars, thought the world was flat.

Actually that was a lie spread by the Church in the Middle Ages; some ancient societies knew the Earth's size down to a few centimetres.

That being said, I don't think Ms Merizan understands what the word evolution means. And everything evolves differently. Even us humans have evolved differently depending on where we are/how we are raised. That would be even more apparent amongst alien species.

[Jassu1979]

Evolution cannot have a "final step" because it does not aim for a specific end point.

It is merely the process of life adapting to the conditions it is placed in. There are no "higher" or "lower" steps, let alone a final one.

[Jassu1979]

As a matter of fact, Mass Effect 1's conception of organic species being deliberately cultivated in a certain direction by the material circumstances they are placed in (by using the relay technology etc.) comes a lot closer to an evolutionary process than the Synthesis ending.

[Ksandor]

gorezeelar wrote...

But honestly, it would make sense. The Reapers prophersize synthetics would destroy organics. Maybe after the Reapers were defeated, people got smarter, or simply took that warning.

So organics improve themselves by synthesize themselves, while synthetics, wanting a better understanding of life, make themselves organics. 

If you think about it, it's really the only way forward.

But I honestly don't really care which ending is canon. Introducing a bigger bad guy (Ooh! Ask me!) instead of fighting "Upgraded Reapers" would be a nice change. 

Do you know anything, anything about technological singularity? Please read Michio Kaku's books and Wikipedia. As simple as that. Synthesis will come and humanity will ascend and cease to exist in the sense we know. And only within a century but nothing like the Reapers or ME3 synthesis. Nanites in our brains and bloodstream will make us immortal nano cyborg super computing beings. We won't even need genetic treatment. But our eyes won't glow. Physics of the Future and Physics of the Impossible. All from Kaku. Pretty easy to read too!

[Ksandor]

Jassu1979 wrote...

As a matter of fact, Mass Effect 1's conception of organic species being deliberately cultivated in a certain direction by the material circumstances they are placed in (by using the relay technology etc.) comes a lot closer to an evolutionary process than the Synthesis ending.

Evolution is blind, it is not a design. It has no purpose, it is about adaptation. It has nothing to do with improvement. It is not about survival of the fittest. That's Social Darwinism and it has nothing to do with Darwin. Evolution is not creation. > Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker and Selfish Gene. Cultivation is social engineering not evolution. Evolution is genetic and random. Genetic engineering is not evolution.   

Disclaimer: The purpose of this post is to explain what evolution is. I do not defend or attack evolotion or say anything about believing or disbelieving God.

[Jassu1979]

Ksandor wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

As a matter of fact, Mass Effect 1's conception of organic species being deliberately cultivated in a certain direction by the material circumstances they are placed in (by using the relay technology etc.) comes a lot closer to an evolutionary process than the Synthesis ending.

Evolution is blind, it is not a design. It has no purpose, it is about adaptation. It has nothing to do with improvement. It is not about survival of the fittest. That's Social Darwinism and it has nothing to do with Darwin. Evolution is not creation. > Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker and Selfish Gene. Cultivation is social engineering not evolution. Evolution is genetic and random. Genetic engineering is not evolution.   

Disclaimer: The purpose of this post is to explain what evolution is. I do not defend or attack evolotion or say anything about believing or disbelieving God.

Superficial knowledge strikes again!
Most of what you say is correct - but then you mess up big time! (Also, you probably picked the wrong post to make an example of: I'm pretty sure we are essentially on the same page here.)

Yes, evolution is blind, and it has no purpose, it is about adaptation. I pretty much spelled that out in the post above the one you quoted.
It's also true that social Darwinism is a misappropriation of Darwin's theory, and wrong on many different levels (mistaking an "is" for an "ought", misinterpreting "fittest" as "strongest", failing to see that cooperation has also manifested because of evolutionary processes, etc.).

HOWEVER, Charles Darwin DID include the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" in his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" from 1969 onward, and it does not automatically connotate the pseudo-science of social Darwinism.
At its core, all the phrase does is describe adaptation by means of natural selection, and the "fitness" described therein stands for adaptive specialization.

Breeding (and, by extension, shaping a civilization by supplying it with specific technology) is a goal-oriented process, naturally, but that does not stop it from using the adaptive processes of evolution. The reapers did not genetically engineer the races of the galaxy - all they did was create specific conditions that would manipulate the direction in which the natural evolution of life would take the organic civilizations.

[dreman9999]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Ksandor wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

As a matter of fact, Mass Effect 1's conception of organic species being deliberately cultivated in a certain direction by the material circumstances they are placed in (by using the relay technology etc.) comes a lot closer to an evolutionary process than the Synthesis ending.

Evolution is blind, it is not a design. It has no purpose, it is about adaptation. It has nothing to do with improvement. It is not about survival of the fittest. That's Social Darwinism and it has nothing to do with Darwin. Evolution is not creation. > Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker and Selfish Gene. Cultivation is social engineering not evolution. Evolution is genetic and random. Genetic engineering is not evolution.   

Disclaimer: The purpose of this post is to explain what evolution is. I do not defend or attack evolotion or say anything about believing or disbelieving God.

Superficial knowledge strikes again!
Most of what you say is correct - but then you mess up big time! (Also, you probably picked the wrong post to make an example of: I'm pretty sure we are essentially on the same page here.)

Yes, evolution is blind, and it has no purpose, it is about adaptation. I pretty much spelled that out in the post above the one you quoted.
It's also true that social Darwinism is a misappropriation of Darwin's theory, and wrong on many different levels (mistaking an "is" for an "ought", misinterpreting "fittest" as "strongest", failing to see that cooperation has also manifested because of evolutionary processes, etc.).

HOWEVER, Charles Darwin DID include the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" in his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" from 1969 onward, and it does not automatically connotate the pseudo-science of social Darwinism.
At its core, all the phrase does is describe adaptation by means of natural selection, and the "fitness" described therein stands for adaptive specialization.

Breeding (and, by extension, shaping a civilization by supplying it with specific technology) is a goal-oriented process, naturally, but that does not stop it from using the adaptive processes of evolution. The reapers did not genetically engineer the races of the galaxy - all they did was create specific conditions that would manipulate the direction in which the natural evolution of life would take the organic civilizations.

But you do need to understand evolution is based on environment and needs of the being. That generaly controls how a being evolves. The path ofevolution only change if an outside element changes the course. With that in mind you have to note the the environment and need of the races in ME have a dependency on tech. That would lead to a syngularity and synthesis.

Synthesis is not a final step of evolution but it is an inevitablity beings dependent on tech will go. It already is happening in the ME universe.

Modifié par dreman9999, 23 août 2012 - 09:05 .

[dreman9999]

kobayashi-maru wrote...

Based on original and EC endings it may be issue. Even if Relays survived in your ending the shockwave thing which causes the endings is powered by the energy from the Eezo cores of the many Mass Relays. To get them working again they will need to get more Eezo and the material is already rare.

As for other cannon proof I will check about and see if I can find some, mostly it just implications based on what happened not specifically stated.

You'll find that enzo is not an issue. Infact in all ending at high ems, tech advanement is shown to be not an issue.

[Ksandor]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Ksandor wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

As a matter of fact, Mass Effect 1's conception of organic species being deliberately cultivated in a certain direction by the material circumstances they are placed in (by using the relay technology etc.) comes a lot closer to an evolutionary process than the Synthesis ending.

Evolution is blind, it is not a design. It has no purpose, it is about adaptation. It has nothing to do with improvement. It is not about survival of the fittest. That's Social Darwinism and it has nothing to do with Darwin. Evolution is not creation. > Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker and Selfish Gene. Cultivation is social engineering not evolution. Evolution is genetic and random. Genetic engineering is not evolution.   

Disclaimer: The purpose of this post is to explain what evolution is. I do not defend or attack evolotion or say anything about believing or disbelieving God.

Superficial knowledge strikes again!
Most of what you say is correct - but then you mess up big time! (Also, you probably picked the wrong post to make an example of: I'm pretty sure we are essentially on the same page here.)

Yes, evolution is blind, and it has no purpose, it is about adaptation. I pretty much spelled that out in the post above the one you quoted.
It's also true that social Darwinism is a misappropriation of Darwin's theory, and wrong on many different levels (mistaking an "is" for an "ought", misinterpreting "fittest" as "strongest", failing to see that cooperation has also manifested because of evolutionary processes, etc.).

HOWEVER, Charles Darwin DID include the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" in his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" from 1969 onward, and it does not automatically connotate the pseudo-science of social Darwinism.
At its core, all the phrase does is describe adaptation by means of natural selection, and the "fitness" described therein stands for adaptive specialization.

Breeding (and, by extension, shaping a civilization by supplying it with specific technology) is a goal-oriented process, naturally, but that does not stop it from using the adaptive processes of evolution. The reapers did not genetically engineer the races of the galaxy - all they did was create specific conditions that would manipulate the direction in which the natural evolution of life would take the organic civilizations.

Just a small clarification: My criticism about the "fittest" was criticism of people who think that only the most powerful, fit creatures will survive or has right the survive. For Darwin the term "fit" is different than this racist, oligarchic view point. This is why I didn't specifically mention Darwin's term. Maybe I should have clarified this previousy but in the end I did not make a mistake for I was criticizing Social Darwinism. Fit as being the most adapted to current environment is different than fit as the most powerful shall survive. Yes we are on the same track.

But: "Using the adaptive processes of evolution" is still social engineering and it is not evolution. When design enters to equation, it is not evolution.

Modifié par Ksandor, 23 août 2012 - 09:19 .

[Memnon]

How much more energy is required to power the synthetic portions of our bodies now? Do we go from a 2k calorie to 4k calorie intake at rest now, for example? Sure hope the food supply is able to keep up with our new caloric intake.

[iSousek]

Ksandor wrote...

gorezeelar wrote...

But honestly, it would make sense. The Reapers prophersize synthetics would destroy organics. Maybe after the Reapers were defeated, people got smarter, or simply took that warning.

So organics improve themselves by synthesize themselves, while synthetics, wanting a better understanding of life, make themselves organics. 

If you think about it, it's really the only way forward.

But I honestly don't really care which ending is canon. Introducing a bigger bad guy (Ooh! Ask me!) instead of fighting "Upgraded Reapers" would be a nice change. 

Do you know anything, anything about technological singularity? Please read Michio Kaku's books and Wikipedia. As simple as that. Synthesis will come and humanity will ascend and cease to exist in the sense we know. And only within a century but nothing like the Reapers or ME3 synthesis. Nanites in our brains and bloodstream will make us immortal nano cyborg super computing beings. We won't even need genetic treatment. But our eyes won't glow. Physics of the Future and Physics of the Impossible. All from Kaku. Pretty easy to read too!

Never again refer to a natural scientis when refering to social dynamics. Much like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, S. Hawking and many other physicist, Kaku is completely off the charts when making sociological predictions. Methodology of social sciences is not analogus to that of natural, thus their conclusions are not much better than that of a 10 year old Sci-Fi fanboy.

Also, two things. Much like Asimov's 3 laws of robotics, technological singularity is a concept created by a fiction writer, not a scientist. Second, that same concept of tech singularity is based on reverse engineering of human brain which by itself is a pretty big sci-fi concept with no guarantee of every happening.

[Memnon]

iSousek wrote...

Ksandor wrote...

Do you know anything, anything about technological singularity? Please read Michio Kaku's books and Wikipedia. As simple as that. Synthesis will come and humanity will ascend and cease to exist in the sense we know. And only within a century but nothing like the Reapers or ME3 synthesis. Nanites in our brains and bloodstream will make us immortal nano cyborg super computing beings. We won't even need genetic treatment. But our eyes won't glow. Physics of the Future and Physics of the Impossible. All from Kaku. Pretty easy to read too!

Never again refer to a natural scientis when refering to social dynamics. Much like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, S. Hawking and many other physicist, Kaku is completely off the charts when making sociological predictions. Methodology of social sciences is not analogus to that of natural, thus their conclusions are not much better than that of a 10 year old Sci-Fi fanboy.

Also, two things. Much like Asimov's 3 laws of robotics, technological singularity is a concept created by a fiction writer, not a scientist. Second, that same concept of tech singularity is based on reverse engineering of human brain which by itself is a pretty big sci-fi concept with no guarantee of every happening.

This is basically the line of thinking that started the cycles:

Catalyst: "Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence; but those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits they must be allowed to evolve; they must, by definition, surpass their creators." 

I've said before, and I'll say it now - that's a load of bunk

Modifié par Stornskar, 23 août 2012 - 12:58 .