82 réponses à ce sujet

[Majestic Jazz]

I think it is widely known by now that ME4 will put a larger emphasis on exploration much like Mass Effect 1 and even Dragon Age: Inquisition (hopefully with more cinematic dialog as DAI had that stupid 3rd person adjustable dialog camera). However what about the tone of the game? ME2 and ME3 had a tone that was largely around the feeling that you have limited time to accomplish a task such as destroying the Collector Base or building the crucible to defeat the Reapers. They were also soft of the science end the the spectrum. I mean, there was some science with the implementation of EDI, the way Shepard Communicated with TIM in realtime, the genetics of the Collectors, and the engineering of the Crucible. ME1 even had it's fair share of science but most of this throughout the three games were explained in the non-voiced codex entries.

 

With ME4 having a focus on exploration/pathfinding (allegedly) I was thinking that perhaps the game could take on a more scientific tone (Like the 1960s Star Trek) as opposed to the more action-themed ME trilogy (like the JJ Abrams Star Trek Films). 

 

What do you guys think?

[L. Han]

It's a bit up in the air I think. A fair number of BioWare guys have come and gone. Safe bet will be that they will try to keep it in level with the trilogy (somewhat scientific).

 

Then again, they do put scene composition and gameplay before actual science.

[x Raizer x]

I like how well written the codex was.  They gave it enough scientific rhetoric to make it sound plausible and believable.

I imagine BIoware would keep the codex, and likely expand on it more.  It just wouldn't be a Bioware game without a rich awesome lore, or a codex to spend hours dwelling into!

[timebean]

I hope they bring back voice-narrated codexes!!  I could listen  to that guy all day

[Exaltation]

They should hire Richard Dawkins for the evolution related stuff and Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson for planet and physics stuff.

[x Raizer x]

They should hire Richard Dawkins for the evolution related stuff and Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson for planet and physics stuff.

 

They should just hire Morgan Freeman for all narration, and be done with it.
Maybe the occasional Ron Pearlman once in a while.  Every 10th codex entry or so.

[ApocAlypsE007]

As long as the science stuff is similar to ME1-3 i'm happy. I don't need too much accuracy so it will get limited and boring, but enough accuracy to let ideas fly in my head. Too far fetched, and you get something like Star Wars, where everything is impractical and despite episodes 4-6 being great movies they gave me 0 ideas.

[x Raizer x]

Ron Perlman should be a new AI companion. 

 

Then again, that might be too much like Bender....

 

Omg.  If we had a Bender-like companion...

[Fidite Nemini]

I prefer my science fiction to be more on the harder side of the Moe scale. Not necessarily hard as opposed to soft, because that would make for difficult if not boring gameplay if the setting were truly realistic, but the absolute minimum I require is consistency.

 

ME1 did a great job there. Sure, it basically went the space-magic route with mass effects and Eezo, but the game's setting fleshed it out, clearly defined its in-setting conditions/limitations and stuck with it. Something that sadly got the axe treatment in favour for more "Woah!" effects in the following games of the trilogy (looking at you life-leeching biotics, made-of-light-combat drones, etc.).

[Iakus]

"Scientific" is less important than "consistent."

[Vazgen]

Mass Effect series are weird in this regard. The basis for the universe is great, they add one fictional block (Element Zero) and then build on it using the science we know. It requires very little stretch of the player's suspension of disbelief and results in a relatable and immersive universe. But ME universe also has elements that do not fit within that established technology and can be described as "space magic". Thorian cloning Shiala, Lazarus project, Crucible - each stretches the believability of the universe more and more. For some players it was too much and in the end of the series the illusion was broken. I hope that ME:Next will have no (or, at least, very few) such elements. And judging from the extremely limited info we had so far, I'd say they follow that route. ME1 (arguably the most scientific of all three games) seems to have a large influence on ME:Next.

[Kabooooom]

I think it is widely known by now that ME4 will put a larger emphasis on exploration much like Mass Effect 1 and even Dragon Age: Inquisition (hopefully with more cinematic dialog as DAI had that stupid 3rd person adjustable dialog camera). However what about the tone of the game? ME2 and ME3 had a tone that was largely around the feeling that you have limited time to accomplish a task such as destroying the Collector Base or building the crucible to defeat the Reapers. They were also soft of the science end the the spectrum. I mean, there was some science with the implementation of EDI, the way Shepard Communicated with TIM in realtime, the genetics of the Collectors, and the engineering of the Crucible. ME1 even had it's fair share of science but most of this throughout the three games were explained in the non-voiced codex entries.

With ME4 having a focus on exploration/pathfinding (allegedly) I was thinking that perhaps the game could take on a more scientific tone (Like the 1960s Star Trek) as opposed to the more action-themed ME trilogy (like the JJ Abrams Star Trek Films).

What do you guys think?

There is nothing scientific about quantum entanglement communicators. Indeed, right now, we know with certainty that the idea simply wouldn't work. Actually we've known for half a century at least, because one of the very first things people thought of with respect to the EPR paradox was "hey, maybe we could use this to communicate instantaneously". But nope, it turns out that there is no way to send meaningful information.

It actually bothered me that they included it for that reason. Maybe it is nit-picky, but it isn't even pseudoscience or a scientific gray area. It is just straight up anti-science.

[Inprea]

I'd like them to get a geneticist and physics major with some good imaginations on the team. The more possible the science sounds the better as far as I'm concerned. They just need to be open minded enough to accept that we might one day find some new element or the like. As for in game I'd like science to play a bigger roll as you might imagine. For example while exploring you can find a new material that lets you make better heat shielding that is also lighter improving the performance of certain systems but I want to really embrace this.

 

Well and of course I'd love some genetic tweaking of our main character. If I remember correctly this was done in the peripheral with specter training in Mass Effect 1. If I'm not mistaken it mentioned some light genetic tweaking. That or cybernetics.

[Sion1138]

Hopefully more so than the trilogy, but it's going to be tough after what has been established.

 

Omg.  If we had a Bender-like companion...

 

Ever play 'Binary Domain'?

 

There's a great robot in that.

 

He's French.

[goishen]

There is nothing scientific about quantum entanglement communicators. Indeed, right now, we know with certainty that the idea simply wouldn't work. Actually we've known for half a century at least, because one of the very first things people thought of with respect to the EPR paradox was "hey, maybe we could use this to communicate instantaneously". But nope, it turns out that there is no way to send meaningful information.

It actually bothered me that they included it for that reason. Maybe it is nit-picky, but it isn't even pseudoscience or a scientific gray area. It is just straight up anti-science.

 

 

You'll have to forgive me if my science is a tad off, but aren't quantum-entangled pairs a correct thing?   And aren't they at least in opposite rotation, at least up to a few feet?  You go anything over that, and they go wonky?

 

I'm asking here.  

[Kabooooom]

You'll have to forgive me if my science is a tad off, but aren't quantum-entangled pairs a correct thing? And aren't they at least in opposite rotation, at least up to a few feet? You go anything over that, and they go wonky?

I'm asking here.

Yes, they are, and indeed their entanglement can be separated by light years of distance theoretically. That's not the problem.

The problem is that you can't actually USE this phenomenon to transfer any information at all.

To put it very simply, the information that one can encode in the entanglement cannot be extracted unless one compares each of the entangled pairs. That information, by necessity, must travel slower than the speed of light. Thus, faster than light communication via entanglement violates basic principles of quantum mechanics.

Wiki is by no means an authoritative source, obviously, but this page offers some very general (and correct) introductions to the concept that you can use as a springboard for further investigation, if you wish:

http://en.m.wikipedi...ication_theorem

When I was in school, this was taught in basic quantum mechanics courses. I dont know if it still is - but it is a pretty fundamental concept. Like the uncertainty principle, it appears to be fundamental to nature: You cannot design an experiment around it, no matter how clever you are, no matter how hard you try. You will fail to bend or break the rules. Nature calls the shots here.

Unfortunately, it just can't be done. Too bad, because it obviously would be very cool.

[Helios969]

OP - that ship sailed long ago...and synthesis took the little scientific "plausibility" remaining, loaded it onto a rocket, shot it into a black hole, which was then eaten by a supermassive black hole.

 

QEC is one of the few things that remains theoretically possible...though ME3 makes it all a bit too straightforward and easy.

 

http://www.extremete...um-cryptography

 

Best advice I can give is embrace the fantasy aspect, companions and combat, and try not to think too hard about the "science."

[Arcian]

They should hire Richard Dawkins for the evolution related stuff and Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson for planet and physics stuff.

Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss doesn't have the most enjoyable voices to listen to. Black Science Man, on the other hand...

[BabyPuncher]

To put it very simply, the information that one can encode in the entanglement cannot be extracted unless one compares each of the entangled pairs. That information, by necessity, must travel slower than the speed of light. Thus, faster than light communication via entanglement violates basic principles of quantum mechanics.

 

This is a complete and absolute load of drivel.

 

FTL quantum communication is indeed impossible by current though incomplete understandings, but it has utterly nothing to do with 'comparing entangled pairs.' (In that, Alice doesn't know if her data is a result of Bob's manipulation or not) That's a minor and completely solvable problem by not one, but several simple methods, which I'm fairly sure are used here and there in modern encryption and secure connections and so forth.

 

Even if that was the case, that has nothing to do with 'basic principles of quantum mechanics' which you seem you know very little about. It has nothing really to do with quantum mechanics at all. It's just simple causality.

 

The actual issue is that any sort of manipulation of the quantum bit collapses the entanglement. That's the problem.

 

You really should get your facts straight before you go claiming something is 'anti-science' and a fool of yourself.

[BabyPuncher]

I don't even know Kaboom, but what he says about the Uncertainty Principle is right. And you're not helping by just calling people fools. The thread was going well for awhile. Bohr and Einstein argued about this **** until the day they died. It's not that simple.

 

First of all, he didn't say anything about the Uncertainty Principle except that it was true. What is that supposed to count for?

 

Second of all, getting around the problem of 'comparing data' is, irrefutably, that simple. if you understand the problem, I can explain that solution here and now, if you like.

 

Thirdly, calling something 'straight up anti science' is a bold claim that really should not be made unless you know what you're talking about.