1625 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

It's not mind control. Ants don't have minds as we'd understand it. A better example are the minds of brain parasites that change mammal behaviour to get then eaten. Even then, the change in behaviour is subtle and "control" isn't the right word because it carries with it implications of agency on the part of the thing altering behaviour.

Actually there are parasites that drastically alter the behavior of the host in order for the parasite to complete its life cycle. For instance there is a fluke that infects sticklebacks during its larval stage it and forces the stickleback to seek warm waters in order for it to develop. Once its fully matured the fluke then makes the stickleback vulnerable to predators (birds) so it can complete its life cycle in the birds gut. So its not far fetched to say mind control exist in the natural world.

[In Exile]

Actually there are parasites that drastically alter the behavior of the host in order for the parasite to complete its life cycle. For instance there is a fluke that infects sticklebacks during its larval stage it and forces the stickleback to seek warm waters in order for it to develop. Once its fully matured the fluke then makes the stickleback vulnerable to predators (birds) so it can complete its life cycle in the birds gut. So its not far fetched to say mind control exist in the natural world.

It is far-fetched. As I said: insects don't have minds in a way we'd understand and the effects parasites have don't really reflect "control" in the way we see in fiction (which is typically agency-oriented). While humans love to ascribe agency to things, this doesn't work in the parasite scenario.

It's really far-fetched to say mind control exists. Behaviour altering organisms is a very different thing. The Thorian actively filtered people's thoughts. It caused them pain. The reactions varied. It appeared to work at a distance. It could infect any organic species no matter the almost indescribable genetic dissimilarity.

There's no comparison here.

[BabyPuncher]

We sure do seem to have a lot of people very eager to discount Mass Effect as 'hard scifi' on the basis of very reasonable and necessary divergences from the real world such as element zero. Which although I do have some minor complaints against, is overall used very well in the series.

 

I wonder, if the existence of element zero disqualifies a story from being 'hard scifi,' what stories are people claiming are actual 'hard scifi'? Because it sounds to me like we have some people very seriously deluded of how 'hard' pretty much all science fiction aside from a small collection of fairly obscure novels is.

[Degrees1991]

Are people upset about the flying Whale? I think it looks cool, different planet different species.

[Feybrad]

Why do People even seem to be saying that "hard SciFi" is automatically better than "soft SciFi"?

All the harder SciFi Stories I've read I found terribly dull and quite boring, to be honest, while lowest SciFi, bordering on Science Fantasy, contains for Example, Star Wars, which is tremendously great. And Mass Effect... well, I'd put it somewhat in the Middle of the Scale like it's found on TV Tropes.

[In Exile]

We sure do seem to have a lot of people very eager to discount Mass Effect as 'hard scifi' on the basis of very reasonable and necessary divergences from the real world such as element zero. Which although I do have some minor complaints against, is overall used very well in the series.

I wonder, if the existence of element zero disqualifies a story from being 'hard scifi,' what stories are people claiming are actual 'hard scifi'? Because it sounds to me like we have some people very seriously deluded of how 'hard' pretty much all science fiction aside from a small collection of fairly obscure novels is.

There are very few "hard" sci-fi stories, and they're rarely any good. Caring about scientific accuracy in science fiction is generally pointless. As to the actual metric for what makes hard sci-fi, that's a fuzzy line but easy to define: the extent of departure from known IRL science and the absurdity of the justification for that departure. ME - like Star Trek and Star Wars - is built on magic, often using science-y words with no understanding or context.

A plot device to justify FTL travel is necessary and reasonable. "Element zero" in particular is pretty stupid on the scale of things. You're confusing the absurdity of the lip service being paid to science with an argument in favour of being faithful to it.

But more importantly, that's not even the point here. Science fiction typically asks for some allowances from reality to work. Bioware, however, has adopted complete nonsense and gibberish in areas where that's totally not 'necessary' - like machine learning/AI, biology, chemistry, etc.

[Ajensis]

Why do People even seem to be saying that "hard SciFi" is automatically better than "soft SciFi"?

All the harder SciFi Stories I've read I found terribly dull and quite boring, to be honest, while lowest SciFi, bordering on Science Fantasy, contains for Example, Star Wars, which is tremendously great. And Mass Effect... well, I'd put it somewhat in the Middle of the Scale like it's found on TV Tropes.

 

I think it's less about hard > soft sci-fi and more about Mass Effect not deviating too much from its already established place in the middle. Consistency is important.

[BabyPuncher]

A plot device to justify FTL travel is necessary and reasonable. "Element zero" in particular is pretty stupid on the scale of things. You're confusing the absurdity of the lip service being paid to science with an argument in favour of being faithful to it.

 

And why exactly is it stupid?

 

I do hope you're not going to tell me because it's 'made up' or it's 'space magic.' It ought to be rather obvious that if a writer could explain a mechanism for FTL travel based on real phenomena and in compliance with modern scientific understanding, he'd be sprinting to a patent office, not writing fiction.
 

[KaiserShep]

There are very few "hard" sci-fi stories, and they're rarely any good. Caring about scientific accuracy in science fiction is generally pointless. As to the actual metric for what makes hard sci-fi, that's a fuzzy line but easy to define: the extent of departure from known IRL science and the absurdity of the justification for that departure. ME - like Star Trek and Star Wars - is built on magic, often using science-y words with no understanding or context.
A plot device to justify FTL travel is necessary and reasonable. "Element zero" in particular is pretty stupid on the scale of things. You're confusing the absurdity of the lip service being paid to science with an argument in favour of being faithful to it.
But more importantly, that's not even the point here. Science fiction typically asks for some allowances from reality to work. Bioware, however, has adopted complete nonsense and gibberish in areas where that's totally not 'necessary' - like machine learning/AI, biology, chemistry, etc.

I always loved the whole concept of element zero. It's kind of brilliant as a fictional element to base the universe's technologies on, so long as the writers stick to its rules. Being a fictional element, the scale doesn't really matter. I wish eezo were real. We'd probably kill all the blue cat people for it.

[Sartoz]

                                                                         <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Better authors, write hard sci-fi, because they also have a better grasp of science, biology, naval history, military history or have practical experience in missle tech, avionics, served in the military..... etc.

 

Of course, this type of novel is unsuited for everyone. However, if anyone here goes to the David Weber forums were "we" discuss his novels and his snippets of forthcoming books, you will notice, when reading the comments, the educational background and military experience of the commentators. All very adult and respectful of one another. The grognards love the details...

 

While Bio games contain "rich" stories, they are not at the level of hard sci-fi... or what most in the forums consider to be hard. ME games, after all, are more shooters than RPG with some eyecandy weapons and evolving into romance side stories. Hard sci-fi have good explanations of the tech involved and their proper tactical uses if it's a military sci-fi.

 

Still, I have enjoyed the games and I'm looking forward, with a neutral eye, to ME:A

 

 

[Feybrad]

Better authors, write hard sci-fi, because they also have a better grasp of science, biology, naval history, military history or have practical experience in missle tech, avionics, served in the military..... etc.

 

Why does that make them better Authors, though? They could have all that Knowledge and still write bad Stories. Sure, that Knowledge enables them to write "harder" Science-Fiction Stories, but why does that make them better Authors than someone who does not not have that Knowledge and writes "softer" Sci-Fi?

[Sartoz]

Why does that make them better Authors, though? They could have all that Knowledge and still write bad Stories. Sure, that Knowledge enables them to write "harder" Science-Fiction Stories, but why does that make them better Authors than someone who does not not have that Knowledge and writes "softer" Sci-Fi?

 

                                                                         <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Hard-core sci-fi

The better ones do much research to help them lay down the story.  They attempt to stay within the science but postulate (in the story) its development centuries down the road. Also, they emphasize the tech details.

 

Which, perhaps, is the reason some like the genre and others do not.

 

Bad Stories.

Writing bad stories, to me, has nothing to do with sci-fi. Either the author is excellent, good or mediocre. This argument goes both ways. Besides, I'm of the opinion that good authors carve out their niche and when they write outside that comfort zone, their stories suffer.

 

For example:

 

Tom Clancy:

Is known for his tech detailed espionage and military science stories (good read...)

 

Kim Harrison:

Is a well known author of Urban fantasy series the Hollows (good read btw, if you like the genre..demons and magic)

 

Now, if you ask those two to write each other's genre, I doubt the results is on par with their past works.

 

I hope it answers your Qs

 

 

 

 

 

[Feybrad]

*snip*

 

Yes, it does. I was irritated because it seemed like you would automatically place "hard" Sci-Fi Authors above "soft" Sci-Fi Authors, which fortunately, is not the Case. Personally, I tend not to enjoy hard Sci-Fi as I quickly get bored with Tech-Details and scientific Explanation and thus tend to prefer "softer" Science Fiction over "harder" Stories, where by Necessity some Time has to be spent on these Parts.

[Iakus]

"hard" and "soft" science fiction are less important to me than "consistent"

 

I don't care if the super-science is powered by magic rocks, as long as the super-science works consistently.

[CronoDragoon]

"hard" and "soft" science fiction are less important to me than "consistent"
 
I don't care if the super-science is powered by magic rocks, as long as the super-science works consistently.

so you are saying we need more synthesis in andromeda. i didn't think about it like that but yeah, eventually if enough games have synthesis it will far outweigh the ones that don't!

[Iakus]

so you are saying we need more synthesis in andromeda. i didn't think about it like that but yeah, eventually if enough games have synthesis it will far outweigh the ones that don't!

I'm saying we needed more gravity control and mass effect fields and less magic wands and resurrection technology.

[goishen]

I'm more than willing to bet that one of the things that we will be seeing in this game is gravitation.  Ever notice that how in all the previous games, every single planet had earth gravity?  Moon, earth gravity.  Mars?  Earth gravity.  Noveria?  Earth gravity.  Feros,  Earth gravity.  I'm more than willing to bet that's gonna change.  Hell, even the presidium (0.2 of Earth's gravity).  Earth gravity.

[Drone223]

I'm saying we needed more gravity control and mass effect fields and less magic wands and resurrection technology.

Unfortunately we'll most likely be getting more of the latter than the former since getting to Andromeda is most likely going to involve a lot of bad space magic.

[Lady Artifice]

We sure do seem to have a lot of people very eager to discount Mass Effect as 'hard scifi' on the basis of very reasonable and necessary divergences from the real world such as element zero. Which although I do have some minor complaints against, is overall used very well in the series.

 

I wonder, if the existence of element zero disqualifies a story from being 'hard scifi,' what stories are people claiming are actual 'hard scifi'? Because it sounds to me like we have some people very seriously deluded of how 'hard' pretty much all science fiction aside from a small collection of fairly obscure novels is.

 

I have seen you ask this question, and have it answered, so many times. A term being relative doesn't make it obsolete, and Mass Effect is really, really far towards the softer end of the scale. 

 

It's a mistake to regard that as a flaw in and of itself, since it's a viable type of story to write. By perceiving it as an insult to the series, you're just buying into snobbery. 

[KaiserShep]

I'm more than willing to bet that one of the things that we will be seeing in this game is gravitation.  Ever notice that how in all the previous games, every single planet had earth gravity?  Moon, earth gravity.  Mars?  Earth gravity.  Noveria?  Earth gravity.  Feros,  Earth gravity.  I'm more than willing to bet that's gonna change.  Hell, even the presidium (0.2 of Earth's gravity).  Earth gravity.

 

Eh, variances in gravity didn't really reflect well in the games, which is why gravity boots were always the way around it. In the heretic station, it was low gravity and even had debris floating about, but that didn't change the way Shepard and the group moved in the ship at all, even though destroyed geth floated away too. In ME3, Shepard had to walk slowly with gravity boots in a docking tube. 

[In Exile]

And why exactly is it stupid?

 

I do hope you're not going to tell me because it's 'made up' or it's 'space magic.' It ought to be rather obvious that if a writer could explain a mechanism for FTL travel based on real phenomena and in compliance with modern scientific understanding, he'd be sprinting to a patent office, not writing fiction.
 

 

It's stupid because it misses the point of science fiction. It's always been the case that the "fiction" part of science fiction comes in by taking advantage of the unknown in our base of knowledge. There needn't be an explanation for the premise at all - Foundation, for example, doesn't provide a mathematical justification for the idea of psychohistory. If it did, and the result was a geometry proof that wasn't even internally consistent, then we'd all be well within our rights to mock it silly.

 

The problem is that the "mass effect" is explained with reference to things we know, and can very easily rule out and discret. It's the equivalent of someone saying that a 1984 graphing calculator acquired sentience because it had "brilliant" transistors.

 

There are plenty of ways to handwave away FTL without embarassing oneself. Magic neutrons isn't the answer.

 

Beyond that - even if I say that the mass effect isn't stupid - the other comical scientific errors (relating to e.g. AI and machine learning, biology, evolution and immunology) have no point. While the AI we can handwave away - that's still a nascent area IRL - everything else (e.g. Quarian immunology) can have an IRL explanation, which Bioware gets comically and completely wrong. That's what makes ME science a joke. It doesn't quite get the premise of science fiction, explains what it doesn't need to explain using total and utter nonsense, and otherwise comically fails at applying - and even mentioning - existing science which does justify a part of the premise.

[Sartoz]

 

 

Snip

 

Beyond that - even if I say that the mass effect isn't stupid - the other comical scientific errors (relating to e.g. AI and machine learning, biology, evolution and immunology) have no point. While the AI we can handwave away - that's still a nascent area IRL - everything else (e.g. Quarian immunology) can have an IRL explanation, which Bioware gets comically and completely wrong. That's what makes ME science a joke. It doesn't quite get the premise of science fiction, explains what it doesn't need to explain using total and utter nonsense, and otherwise comically fails at applying - and even mentioning - existing science which does justify a part of the premise.

 

                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

One must admit that it is a space video game with a story element and not a sci-fi novel per se.

 

As a video game, the core elements must be getting the user to play the game.  Justification for the much maligned space magic is unnecessary. How you maintain the player's focus on the game is vital for its success, regardless of the hard/soft science behind some of the premises. 

 

ME:A being a video game, I doubt Bio will bother with explanations.

[Han Shot First]

Are people upset about the flying Whale? I think it looks cool, different planet different species.

 

I'm not...

 

It doesn't bother me because I've already suspended disbelief on eezo. So long as the flying whale operates by using the mass effect, I'm good.

 

I don't have an issue with dragons in fantasy universes for similar reasons. When people point out that the dragon should be too heavy to fly, I just shrug and chalk it up to magic, which exists in nearly every fantasy universe.

 

Besides the ME universe already has an animal more ridiculous than that flying whale...thresher maws. 

[Iakus]

Are people upset about the flying Whale? I think it looks cool, different planet different species.

We've already seen resurrection technology powered, apparently, on stuffing a body full of money.

 

The ability to survive hostile environments shirtless and only an allergy mask for protection.

 

A magic want that can turn the galaxy green and enforce everlasting peace.

 

Flying whales is nothing.

[JoltDealer]

We've already seen resurrection technology powered, apparently, on stuffing a body full of money.

 

The ability to survive hostile environments shirtless and only an allergy mask for protection.

 

A magic want that can turn the galaxy green and enforce everlasting peace.

 

Flying whales is nothing.

 

What's all this about "flying whales" now?