Aller au contenu

Photo

Should developers consult scientists?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
139 réponses à ce sujet

#76
IanPolaris

IanPolaris
  • Members
  • 9 650 messages

tractrpl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That is one estimate.  Dark Energy is very much cutting edge astrophysics and 70% of the estimated energy density is NOT the same thing as saying it doesn't have 'effectively' negative mass because it does.  Those are DIFFERENT things and I was very careful and you frankly were not.

-Polaris


Dark Energy is hardly cutting edge physics. It's an unknown but measurable quantity, much like electromagnetism in the 1800s. They knew it existed, but didn't know what it was made of. This is essentially the same here, except that we haven't found any way to use Dark Energy in the same way that the scientists of the 1800s could use electromagnetism, even though they didn't understand it, really. Dark Energy is not a theory, it is a measured quantity, and a measurement that has been refined numerous times. We know it exists, we just don't know what it is.


Not quite.  The existance of Dark Energy is inferred based on our current understanding of expansion theory and General Relativity.  It's existance is required to make the known age of the universe match the observed expansion rates at given periods of time.  I think it exists but that doesn't mean it's understood...and yes during the middle of the 19th century electro-magnetism was very much cutting edge physics....precisely becasuse it wasn't well understood.

-Polaris

#77
IanPolaris

IanPolaris
  • Members
  • 9 650 messages
I should make a correction. I should have said that TRANVERSABLE wormholes aren't possible with a non-rotating singularity....and if the wormhole isn't transversable, it's not worth talking about for the purposes of sci-fi travel/communication.

-Polaris

#78
tractrpl

tractrpl
  • Members
  • 1 271 messages

IanPolaris wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That is one estimate.  Dark Energy is very much cutting edge astrophysics and 70% of the estimated energy density is NOT the same thing as saying it doesn't have 'effectively' negative mass because it does.  Those are DIFFERENT things and I was very careful and you frankly were not.

-Polaris


Dark Energy is hardly cutting edge physics. It's an unknown but measurable quantity, much like electromagnetism in the 1800s. They knew it existed, but didn't know what it was made of. This is essentially the same here, except that we haven't found any way to use Dark Energy in the same way that the scientists of the 1800s could use electromagnetism, even though they didn't understand it, really. Dark Energy is not a theory, it is a measured quantity, and a measurement that has been refined numerous times. We know it exists, we just don't know what it is.


Not quite.  The existance of Dark Energy is inferred based on our current understanding of expansion theory and General Relativity.  It's existance is required to make the known age of the universe match the observed expansion rates at given periods of time.  I think it exists but that doesn't mean it's understood...and yes during the middle of the 19th century electro-magnetism was very much cutting edge physics....precisely becasuse it wasn't well understood.

-Polaris


I have a differnt view. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are physical effects that have been measured with fair confidence thus far. It's not cutting edge to me because there are no real testable theories so far to explain their existence, at least not so far as I'm aware. We're grasping at straws here. I consider "cutting edge" something like SR and GR in the few years in the early 1900s, or quantum theory at around the same time. In those days, we had testable theories that we could experiment on and refine. With Dark Energy and Dark Matter, those are not even theories, just unknown. We're grasping at staws with them. There's no edge to our sword in that field.

#79
tractrpl

tractrpl
  • Members
  • 1 271 messages

IanPolaris wrote...

I should make a correction. I should have said that TRANVERSABLE wormholes aren't possible with a non-rotating singularity....and if the wormhole isn't transversable, it's not worth talking about for the purposes of sci-fi travel/communication.

-Polaris


I should also make a correction. It appears you said Dark Energy does appear to really exist. For some reason I thought you said doesn't. :unsure: Sorry for jumping down your throat. I will say that I should still submit that your statement be revised. Dark Energy isn't something that may or may not exist. It's merely a measureable quantity, something that we can observe but not yet explain. For lack of knowing what it is, we call the phenomenon "Dark Energy". All the argument is about is what Dark Energy is made of, or possibly, what causes the phenomenon we call "Dark Energy".

#80
IanPolaris

IanPolaris
  • Members
  • 9 650 messages

tractrpl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I should make a correction. I should have said that TRANVERSABLE wormholes aren't possible with a non-rotating singularity....and if the wormhole isn't transversable, it's not worth talking about for the purposes of sci-fi travel/communication.

-Polaris


I should also make a correction. It appears you said Dark Energy does appear to really exist. For some reason I thought you said doesn't. :unsure: Sorry for jumping down your throat. I will say that I should still submit that your statement be revised. Dark Energy isn't something that may or may not exist. It's merely a measureable quantity, something that we can observe but not yet explain. For lack of knowing what it is, we call the phenomenon "Dark Energy". All the argument is about is what Dark Energy is made of, or possibly, what causes the phenomenon we call "Dark Energy".


I won't revise that statement because it is remotely possible that Dark Energy does not in fact exist.  It seems to and I'd agree that the data we have supports that it does, but it's not the only possible interpretation of the data.  It'spossible that GR is wrong and that a complete quantum gravity theory explains what we are seeing in ways that don't involve Dark Energy.  I don't believe that, but I am not ruling it out.

It's because of this questioning and because we don't understand what we are observing that makes it cutting edge physics just as the study of electromagnetism was cutting edge physics in the 19th century.  I don't see how this is a contentious point.  Just because a phenomena may be observed (or seemingly so) doesn't make the study of it less cutting edge.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  "Cutting Edge" in physics merely means analyzing/observing physics that we don't have a good grasp/understanding of.  This can be either on the theoretical side (such as relativity and QM in the early 20th century) or on the experimental side such as Dark Energy today or Newtonian Gravity in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 24 avril 2012 - 05:12 .


#81
Mole267

Mole267
  • Members
  • 291 messages
Scientists charge by the hour?

#82
tractrpl

tractrpl
  • Members
  • 1 271 messages

IanPolaris wrote...


I won't revise that statement because it is remotely possible that Dark Energy does not in fact exist.  It seems to and I'd agree that the data we have supports that it does, but it's not the only possible interpretation of the data.  It'spossible that GR is wrong and that a complete quantum gravity theory explains what we are seeing in ways that don't involve Dark Energy.  I don't believe that, but I am not ruling it out.


It's also possible that this computer is not real because electrons don't exist and this is all just a huge illusion. At some point you have to draw a line at what is utterly ridiculous to doubt. Dark Energy is not a theory, it's an observed phenomenon that hasn't yet been explained. The only way you could say Dark Energy doesn't exist is by saying that all the observation made by multiple different observatories were all the results of equipment malfunctions or miscalculations. If this is true then possibly everything we observe is wrong or a figment of our imagination. I don't entertain such thoughts. I assume that if something is independantly observed by multiple different organizations using different methods, techniques, and equipment, then I can say with confidence that what they observed is real. I'm not saying that anyone's explanation for it is correct, but we know for certain that the universe is experiencing accelerated expansion. Accelerated expansion is what is called "dark energy" because the current laws of physics state that any acceleration is cause by a force, and this force is driven by dark energy.

#83
InvincibleHero

InvincibleHero
  • Members
  • 2 676 messages
What would be the point if it is fictional? If it is a $200 million dollar movie based on hard science than yeah. A video game where the sci-fi is the setting and backdrop. Nope. All it needs is good gameplay to go with the theme and you're good to go. People that are going to be pedantic will argue the minutate regardless.

#84
tractrpl

tractrpl
  • Members
  • 1 271 messages

InvincibleHero wrote...

What would be the point if it is fictional? If it is a $200 million dollar movie based on hard science than yeah. A video game where the sci-fi is the setting and backdrop. Nope. All it needs is good gameplay to go with the theme and you're good to go. People that are going to be pedantic will argue the minutate regardless.


I've seen sh*tty movies, with sub-par plots, still consult scientists, engineers, military experts, etc.  David Weber does the same with his Honor Harrington series, and he has a much smaller budget than BW. I don't know why they couldn't do the same here.

#85
InvincibleHero

InvincibleHero
  • Members
  • 2 676 messages

tractrpl wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

What would be the point if it is fictional? If it is a $200 million dollar movie based on hard science than yeah. A video game where the sci-fi is the setting and backdrop. Nope. All it needs is good gameplay to go with the theme and you're good to go. People that are going to be pedantic will argue the minutate regardless.


I've seen sh*tty movies, with sub-par plots, still consult scientists, engineers, military experts, etc.  David Weber does the same with his Honor Harrington series, and he has a much smaller budget than BW. I don't know why they couldn't do the same here.

Ok they are likely compensating for unknown actors or universe etc. Making a strong setting is viable to a point.

Mass Effect works how BW wants it and that is fine. Paying a scientist for a pseudo validation of so mething made up is wasteful if you're counting $$$. They don't really need it per se.

#86
IanPolaris

IanPolaris
  • Members
  • 9 650 messages

tractrpl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


I won't revise that statement because it is remotely possible that Dark Energy does not in fact exist.  It seems to and I'd agree that the data we have supports that it does, but it's not the only possible interpretation of the data.  It'spossible that GR is wrong and that a complete quantum gravity theory explains what we are seeing in ways that don't involve Dark Energy.  I don't believe that, but I am not ruling it out.


It's also possible that this computer is not real because electrons don't exist and this is all just a huge illusion. At some point you have to draw a line at what is utterly ridiculous to doubt. Dark Energy is not a theory, it's an observed phenomenon that hasn't yet been explained. The only way you could say Dark Energy doesn't exist is by saying that all the observation made by multiple different observatories were all the results of equipment malfunctions or miscalculations. If this is true then possibly everything we observe is wrong or a figment of our imagination. I don't entertain such thoughts. I assume that if something is independantly observed by multiple different organizations using different methods, techniques, and equipment, then I can say with confidence that what they observed is real. I'm not saying that anyone's explanation for it is correct, but we know for certain that the universe is experiencing accelerated expansion. Accelerated expansion is what is called "dark energy" because the current laws of physics state that any acceleration is cause by a force, and this force is driven by dark energy.


A scientist has to keep an open mind.  That doesn't mean you have to accept all possible explainations as equally likely, but the observed fact is we have an accellerated expansion rate that can not be explained via conventional models or theories.  The extistance of Dark Energy with it's unique "negative' stress-energy tenser curvature is the simpliest explaination put forth and I am inclined to say it's the most likely.  However it WRONG to say that Dark Energy is a directly observed phenomena.  It's not.  It's the most likely inference based on known data.  However other explainations (such as an underlying quantum gravity theory that makes much of what we think we know about GR wrong) are still very much possible....and so it is NOT utterly ridculuous to doubt the existance of Dark Energy.

We are getting beside the point.  The POINT getting back to Mass Effect is that the best data we have seems to indicate that "exotic" energy (Dark Energy) exists with the properties needed for stable warp and/or transverse wormhole solutions AND we know that the speed of light only applies to LOCAL space and not global space.  Given all that, the "Mass Effect" phenoma I think is plausible enough to pass the muster as reasonably serious sci-fi.  Otherwise virtually no modern sci-fi would qualify.  (Now things like Biotics are pure space-magic, but that's different).

-Polaris

#87
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages

metawanderer wrote...
 Mass Effect or even Deus Ex needs to have their lore grounded in real science

Its title is:

'Mass Effect'

a phenomenon that has to do with reduction of mass


yes, mass


Seriously.
What are you even on about. You can't have scientists consult you on something that doesn't even come close to the modern interpretation of mass. The very concept of the title is not 'grounded in real science', how come the rest of the universe should be?

Modifié par Phaedon, 24 avril 2012 - 07:55 .


#88
Vormaerin

Vormaerin
  • Members
  • 1 582 messages

tractrpl wrote...



I've seen sh*tty movies, with sub-par plots, still consult scientists, engineers, military experts, etc.  David Weber does the same with his Honor Harrington series, and he has a much smaller budget than BW. I don't know why they couldn't do the same here.


Writing 24 novels is quite a bit different than making a few video games.   A novelist generally needs to provide more detail than a game, because rather less of it can be covered by gameplay and visuals.

No one seriously thinks the ship is burning raw platinum when we run out of fuel in ME2, do they?   Much less that we mysteriously mine on planets owned by other people by just shooting cheap probes into the planet?

#89
Spiritwolf1

Spiritwolf1
  • Members
  • 669 messages
First off a few things, some guy said he was studying physics and there are some things he and his mates find funny. Well I don't study them and the game flowed just fine for me. A few others said the background should have been mapped out and I do agree with that, although they did a better job then most. I can think of a few people that never did and got away with , George Lucas and Star wars being one.

Now of course then you have Tolken who mapped the hell out of his back ground and I really enojyed that, but I also really enjoyed Star Wars.

Personally I play games and watch show (Yes Sci Fi/ Fantasy) but I do so for enjoyment, not to become a scientist. Star Trek threw out way to much techno babble for the average person, but as long as it sounded good then who cared. I prefer less techno babble.

The bottom line is some people like it some dont... Keeping it simple usually works the best. throw a tiny bit out so everyone understands but you dont need to go to the levels of a Star Trek.

Modifié par Spiritwolf1, 24 avril 2012 - 08:11 .


#90
Embrosil

Embrosil
  • Members
  • 338 messages

vania z wrote...

When creating new game setting, should they consult professionals? I think ME would have greatly benifited if they actually used help from scientists to create codex and maybe fix some plot twists, which require something to be possible IRL.  


Scientists? Not necessary. Profesional writers? Most definitely yes.

#91
Shermos

Shermos
  • Members
  • 672 messages

Phaedon wrote...

metawanderer wrote...
 Mass Effect or even Deus Ex needs to have their lore grounded in real science

Its title is:

'Mass Effect'

a phenomenon that has to do with reduction of mass


yes, mass


Seriously.
What are you even on about. You can't have scientists consult you on something that doesn't even come close to the modern interpretation of mass. The very concept of the title is not 'grounded in real science', how come the rest of the universe should be?


The Mass Effect is grounded in real science. Dark matter and dark energy. We don't know beyond inference that dark matter actually exists, so the writers just made something up.

The point being that Mass Effect is grounded in real science, but being science fiction, it still has a lot of fiction in it...

www.gametrailers.com/video/the-science-gt-tv-extended/63464

#92
DaJe

DaJe
  • Members
  • 962 messages
The most important thing is consitency of internal logic.
You don't have to be confined to real world phsics when creating a fictional universe.
However, what Bioware did way too often is contradict their stories and universe rules for no valid reason, which just damages immersion and the ability to care for characters and story.

For example. How am I supposed to accept Shepard dying of space exposure when later in the same game (and ME3) there are numerous ocasions of people ignoring extreme conditions and surviving everything through magical breather masks alone. There is no reasonable explanation and it takes away from the dramatic start of ME2.

The codex or planetary description saying one thing and a cut-scene saying something else is a very common thing that prevents suspension of disbelief.

If you don't know what is true and what isn't it becomes harder to care.

Modifié par DaJe, 24 avril 2012 - 08:21 .


#93
Lord Phoebus

Lord Phoebus
  • Members
  • 1 140 messages

Shermos wrote...

The Mass Effect is grounded in real science. Dark matter and dark energy. We don't know beyond inference that dark matter actually exists, so the writers just made something up.

The point being that Mass Effect is grounded in real science, but being science fiction, it still has a lot of fiction in it...

www.gametrailers.com/video/the-science-gt-tv-extended/63464


Yes and no, dark matter and dark energy are theoretical constructs that are useful in solving some cosmological and astronomical problems.  However element zero which is the origin of "Mass Effect" is not grounded in real science and would violate either conservation of momentum or conservation of energy.  In theory something with negative mass can exist; a magical element that can take something with positive mass and make that mass negative by passing an electrical current through it cannot exist.
 

#94
Foxhound2121

Foxhound2121
  • Members
  • 608 messages
You mean should writers consult scientist...

Actually, I think it's the other way around which people don't normally realize. Scientist and inventors are influenced in pop-culture by science fiction on a regular basis to create sparks of innovation that would have been previously impossible. Even ideas like another dimension were created by writers long before physics and science created many theories of it in reality. Cell phones existed in science fiction long before they were created.

#95
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages
It's soft sci fi at best. Fantasy in space at worst. They could have used some professional help with the strategy and tactics of the Reaper war.

#96
Shermos

Shermos
  • Members
  • 672 messages

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Shermos wrote...

The Mass Effect is grounded in real science. Dark matter and dark energy. We don't know beyond inference that dark matter actually exists, so the writers just made something up.

The point being that Mass Effect is grounded in real science, but being science fiction, it still has a lot of fiction in it...

www.gametrailers.com/video/the-science-gt-tv-extended/63464


Yes and no, dark matter and dark energy are theoretical constructs that are useful in solving some cosmological and astronomical problems.  However element zero which is the origin of "Mass Effect" is not grounded in real science and would violate either conservation of momentum or conservation of energy.  In theory something with negative mass can exist; a magical element that can take something with positive mass and make that mass negative by passing an electrical current through it cannot exist.
 


You're taking it too literally. Yes, the whole element zero thing is not actually possible, but it is based on real science. They didn't just pick the idea out of a hat.

#97
Madecologist

Madecologist
  • Members
  • 1 452 messages

Vormaerin wrote...

You don't need scientists, militarists, or engineers. You just need consistency.

The idea that a spacefaring military would automatically grow out of our Navy is not a given. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a unified service or using a different rank structure than the one we have. The Navy's current rank structure is barely a hundred years old, even if you ignore the assorted tweaks its had since then. Why would it need to be the same in another hundred years.

Heck, you don't even have to have a rank structure. You could have a system built around MOS based paygrades (Ashley is B2, IIRC, Shepard is N7, Vega is N6, etc) and billets (ie jobs like Chief Engineer, CO, XO, etc).

The only problem with ME is lack of internal consistency. Biotics do some stuff in some places, but can't do that same stuff in others. Ashley's changes in rank don't follow any rules that are explained. And so on.


I do agree, you probably don't need 'modern' hard facts. Just consitency and consitency that has internal logic to the setting. You pull it off right and even the ready accepts this new logic within the fiction even if it is not 'realistic'. It is the very foundation of the term suspension of disbelief.

The second trick would be familiarity, you do want a certain sense of familiarity so the audience can still associate but you do not want this familiarity to backfire either by turning known conventions around yet appealing to said known conventions. 

For example the travesty of the ranks is one source says a Major holds the same rank as a Captain (using the naval tradition Captain in rank rating). If the System Alliance has a unified command structure, why does it suddenly have two ranks at a given rank rating? Also why would a rank that was always considered below another in human history suddenly be above or equal? There is being new, than there is being silly.

It can have its own ranks removing and adding new ones to meet the demands of the future, but turning already established traditions upside down will only cause confusion in the audience, which is not a good thing. Truth be told it is more likely born from writers not paying attention to each other's contribution and breaking consitency.

The same is true with scientific elements. If you going to have an NPC talk about evolution or inertia, at least google the subject and read its wikipedia entry at the very least; but better yet go to your local library (or online via a legitimate article) and read up on the subject a bit. Doesn't take much time to get the basics.

***

Now I do defend the idea of consultants. The role of consultants is during large productions you tend to have more than one creative mind behind the project (finish ME3, look at the credits... see how many writers they had...). So instead of trying to have 4-8 people going out and doing the 'homework' they can go and cosult the one guy they have on set or in the studio, or in the office.

Of course this is also the job of the lead, the lead is suppose to double check everyone's work to make sure their is consistency, not just with the facts. Just plain old consistency. If writen by several writers the peer review process is also important for this fact (since the lead won't be able to catch all the inconsistencies).

However, any project that only has 1 writer on it, does do his homework when he writes about anything. All good writers admit to this, writers that say they don't are only kidding themselves. Even writers that write in groups should also do their homework too if they are writing about the subject or are the lead.

Modifié par Madecologist, 24 avril 2012 - 05:31 .


#98
Fearloc

Fearloc
  • Members
  • 22 messages
They should have consulted an actual published author on how to finish their story without a whole mess of confusion at the end of their trilogy.

#99
mmm buddah23

mmm buddah23
  • Members
  • 204 messages

Sgt Stryker wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...

If they consulted scientis, FTL would never be in any game, if you travel FTL speeds and collide with a marbel sized object, the resulting explosion would be larger than 100 nuclear bombs. SO no.

A good writer would accept the feedback from the consultant, and work out a way to get around this issue.

Creating a wormhole would b e the only logical conclusion.and the WHOLE mass effect universe would have to be re written.

#100
mmm buddah23

mmm buddah23
  • Members
  • 204 messages

IanPolaris wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...

If they consulted scientis, FTL would never be in any game, if you travel FTL speeds and collide with a marbel sized object, the resulting explosion would be larger than 100 nuclear bombs. SO no.


That's just not true.  FTL is necessary for a lot of cluster or galaxy spanning Sci-Fi.  Futhermore there is at least some cutting edge science (notably areas of GR and Quantum Theory in Curved space) that allow at least the shred of some sort of "Global" FTL drives existing (there are phenonma well known today such as gravitational lensing that are globally FTL but don't violate relativity).  The classic example is the wormhole.  In fact wormholes have recently become somewhat more plausible since apparently energy with a negative stress-energy tensor seem to exist (Dark Energy) but are currently poorly understood.

The point is that a casual "sci-fi" series like Mass Effect doesn't (and probably shouldn't) go into this in any depth, but if you can at least appeal to general plausibility and get the reader to say, "OK,I can roll with this" then you are most of the way there.

-Polaris

So you are tlling me the leading scientist for astronomy and astro physics in germany is wrong? Good show. What happens when a meteor hits our planet going 50 thousand miles per hour, yeah, massie explosion, now imagine a dreadnought going FTL hitting a small object in space, that equals a giant explosion. Its simple physics. And space is full of small to large objects that are very uncharted. Wormholes are the only feasible way to travel the galaxy.