45 réponses à ce sujet

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

The goal of storytellers is rarely realism, and with good reason.

 

Realism is not entertaining. It can be illustrative, poignant, and a tool for social commentary, but it does not contribute to entertainment value.

 

What storytellers are concerned about, generally, is plausibility. Implausible stories can be entertaining, but are rarely so if they take themselves seriously. Mass Effect, based on the previous three games, is most certainly intended to be taken seriously. In that regard, elements of the game and story that are implausible would certainly have a negative impact on some of the audience's appreciation. For that reason, efforts are made to explain things like FTL travel, and future weapons. Those efforts are intended to produce explanations that are plausible, while lacking in details (so that the explanation doesn't fall apart under scrutiny.)

 

Attempting to make Mass Effect realistic would be a) impossible and b) counter-productive to the design team's goals.

[BabyPuncher]

The goal of storytellers is rarely realism, and with good reason.

 

Realism is not entertaining. It can be illustrative, poignant, and a tool for social commentary, but it does not contribute to entertainment value.

 

Kinda, but it goes deeper than that.

 

The deeper problem is not that 'realism,' (again, defined as 'what would be most likely to happen if this situation were to occur in real life) is not entertaining, it's that 'realism' is pointless.

 

Pointless is the absolute worst thing fiction can be. Pointlessness is at the heart of all of BioWare's biggest narrative failings.

[General TSAR]

@Majestic Jazz

 

You still don't understand anything I said, huh?  It's silly but I'm willing to suspend my disbelief on it.  Provided that it's evenly distributed across both genders.  I've said from the beginning that I'm cool with EDI cameltoe and Miranda's ass in my face provided that I get Jacob's visible penis outline and Kaidan's pants so tight that I can see he asscrack.  If I get that, I'm fine with it.  But I'm sure you won't be able to figure out what I'm saying on this point either.  So the only thing you "got" is a continued lack of comprehension.

Friend, you should have been playing MGS4.

 

Everybody's got tight pants. 

[daveliam]

Friend, you should have been playing MGS4.

 

Everybody's got tight pants. 

 

Then I fully approve!  Tight pants all around!

[Lady Artifice]

I almost certainly over rely on tv tropes, but while it's not perfect, I still think it's too handy a tool to ignore.

 

http://tvtropes.org/...sionOfDisbelief

 

I have my lines for what fantastic aspects I'm willing to overlook for the sake of an exciting narrative or visual and stylistic appeal. My expectations are going to adapt, depending on the genre and the context of a specific story. I also try not to pick and choose what I'm willing to suspend disbelief over, depending just on my preferred content. With Mass Effect, the entire story is built around the "space magic" of the Mass relays. This is soft science fiction to begin with, that's the genre we're working with. Going forward from there, the story is meant to be sensational, visually stunning and full of action and combat. That's my expectation, and I don't want them to hold back from delivering that for some arbitrary sense of realism. 

[BabyPuncher]

Going forward from there, the story is meant to be sensational, visually stunning and full of action and combat. That's my expectation, and I don't want them to hold back from delivering that for some arbitrary sense of realism. 

 

That really kind of misses the point.

 

The implication here is that 'sensational' fantasy stories should be free to be 'unrealistic,' but then when you're telling a hard, mature, intelligent, 'real,' story then you actually have to buckle down and stick to 'realism.' That's not how it works.

 

Doesn't matter how 'hard' or 'soft' a story is, 'realism,' by the definition of 'what would be most likely to occur in the real world were this situation to arise' is nearly always bad writing when it comes to plot points.

 

For the record, I'm curious of an example or two of what you would consider 'hard' science fiction?

[Exile Isan]

The only realism I really, really, really want in the ME:A is for people to wear actual armor and re-breather helmets in vacuum! I can suspend disbelief about almost everything else.

[Lady Artifice]

That really kind of misses the point.

 

The implication here is that 'sensational' fantasy stories should be free to be 'unrealistic,' but then when you're telling a hard, mature, intelligent, 'real,' story then you actually have to buckle down and stick to 'realism.' That's not how it works.

 

Doesn't matter how 'hard' or 'soft' a story is, 'realism,' by the definition of 'what would be most likely to occur in the real world were this situation to arise' is nearly always bad writing when it comes to plot points.

 

For the record, I'm curious of an example or two of what you would consider 'hard' science fiction?

 

Borrowing from the tv tropes article again here, but I would echo what Daemion told you about this subject in a different thread and cite Jules Verne, as well as mention The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. The article also mentions The Machine Stops by E.M. Forster (one of my favorite writers of all time). 

 

This isn't to say that they would hold up against thorough scientific scrutiny, but that the creators of harder science fiction stories are generally trying to avoid any errors or disparity with known facts. This is not a black and white dichotomy, it's a relative scale. As soon as the ME team created the Mass Effect field concept, they veered their chosen genre away from speculative science, and towards something fantastical. I'm personally cool with that, because I love fantasy and pulpy story telling. 

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

The goal of storytellers is rarely realism, and with good reason.

 

Realism is not entertaining. It can be illustrative, poignant, and a tool for social commentary, but it does not contribute to entertainment value.

 

What storytellers are concerned about, generally, is plausibility. Implausible stories can be entertaining, but are rarely so if they take themselves seriously. Mass Effect, based on the previous three games, is most certainly intended to be taken seriously. In that regard, elements of the game and story that are implausible would certainly have a negative impact on some of the audience's appreciation. For that reason, efforts are made to explain things like FTL travel, and future weapons. Those efforts are intended to produce explanations that are plausible, while lacking in details (so that the explanation doesn't fall apart under scrutiny.)

 

Attempting to make Mass Effect realistic would be a) impossible and  counter-productive to the design team's goals.

 

Not to harp on the ME3 endings yet again but there is a good example there of breaking suspension of disbelief.

 

The synthesis ending proposed that the organic DNA merges with the synthetic DNA to form a new being (Iirc). Now, this shatters suspension of disbelief, for me at any rate, because in the Mass Effect universe, nothing up to that point made me think DNA worked any differently than it does in the real world. In fact they even reference it in telling the difference between Turian/Quarian DNA and ours.

 

So to tell me that DNA exists to be merged in synthetic lifeforms rips me out of the story, and leaves me in tears from laughing. It's a genre switch. We go from science fiction to pure magical fantasy where the laws of physics and biology don't apply anymore.

 

I'm not sure what the writer/design teams goals were with this ending, but it sure didn't leave me feeling terribly impressed with their work.

 

Suspension of disbelief worked just find with some sort fo 'magic' element (eezo) giving humans magical powers. This was part of the universe from the beginning. robots having DNA? not so much.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

That really kind of misses the point.

 

The implication here is that 'sensational' fantasy stories should be free to be 'unrealistic,' but then when you're telling a hard, mature, intelligent, 'real,' story then you actually have to buckle down and stick to 'realism.' That's not how it works.

 

Doesn't matter how 'hard' or 'soft' a story is, 'realism,' by the definition of 'what would be most likely to occur in the real world were this situation to arise' is nearly always bad writing when it comes to plot points.

 

For the record, I'm curious of an example or two of what you would consider 'hard' science fiction?

 

It's my understanding 'hard science fiction' is where every tech in the story can be extrapolated from current science. Elite:Dangerous is a good example. Its a space  trading and exploration sim. All the tech either exists or could exist given what we know of physics. Fuel is scooped from the Sun, but flying too close to the Sun for extended periods will cook you.

 

Mass Effect, on the other hand, has magic rocks that give you superpowers and cause mass to disappear, allowing for FTL travel.so, no, not hard science

[BabyPuncher]

Mmm. Does this game have FTL travel? 'Deflector' shields? Any sort of teleportation?

[L. Han]

Realism can make characters more relatable. Paving ways for whatever emotions that you would not normally have if it were otherwise.

[KaiserShep]

Mmm. Does this game have FTL travel? 'Deflector' shields? Any sort of teleportation?

 

It does. There's "supercruise" and there is hyperspace. 

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Mmm. Does this game have FTL travel? 'Deflector' shields? Any sort of teleportation?

 

Elite Dangerous? Yes it has FTL and shields. Not teleportation though.

[camphor]

Realism is overrated i personally only care about 3 things

 

1 is voice acting passable (ala no this )

2. characters have an arc of some sort

3, something doesent happen with 0 explanation, i can deal with a total asspull explanation that makes no sense at all after 3 seconds of thinking "how could he do that" "through sheer power of will" is acceptable to me if the answer is "no answer" that bothers me

[KaiserShep]

Man, that video is hilarious. Oh Dante. 

[Larry-3]

Sense there is kenetic barriers in the future, is it not entirely possible to fight in your underwear and still not die. My barriers once absorbed a sniper round. I am certain Miranda catwoman-ish suit would not matter to her in combat as long as she has her barriers switched on.

[FemShem]

Well after reading those being evil thread I came to realise Shepard in the original trilogy came away with everything. I don't know if it was already stated how a soldier could just commit genocide, shoot random people in the citadel (is almost the same as shooting a civilian you don't like in a parliament) and all that kind of sh*t. It's not really realistic in a supposed civilised galaxy isn't it?

Realism, in it's true since is boring, when used as slice of life doubly so.

Sci-fi is typically a space western.

We like gun-slinging swagger.  If the audience wanted realism they'd go to a park or mall and just people watch.

Gaming should be higher stakes than real life, and should really have conflict.  Conflict is drama.  It's not just true on BSN, FB, and Social Media, it is a make or break of a good rpg.

Doesn't everyone do the evil palythrough as some point on some rpg?

[camphor]

Man, that video is hilarious. Oh Dante. 

loved that game to death but that was the first and maybe only time i physically cringed from a bad line and i got some low standards on what breaks immersion

[N7Jamaican]

Shepard got away with a lot but Shepard didn't get away with everything.

[Capt_Kangaroo]

Just as long as the "realism" doesn't intrude on the fun aspect of the gameplay. There are certain games being produced at the moment that are making flight with more realism..., which is totally ruining the gameplay.

 

Cheers