397 réponses à ce sujet

[Sartoz]

 

 

Everything you mentioned is based on nonsensical technobabble anyone with even the most minute insight into actual science and tech will recognize as ludicrous. Of course, this is to be expected, Star Trek's writers were writers, not scientists.

Bottom line, science fiction is meant to make hypothetical ideas plausible, not to make impossible ideas possible. The latter is what fantasy is for, and both Star Wars and Star Trek fall squarely in that territory.

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

Too bad you're stuck on technobabble bandwagon.  Since I have taken math and science  it may be technobabble to you but I, on the other hand, can see possibilities.  A perfect example is at the turn of the 20th century, going to the moon was looked at as pure fantasy... technobabble to you.  But, hey, what happened six decades later, hu?

 

Be as it may, I'm moving on..

[Iakus]

 

It is not a part of the plot, but it is the impetus of the plot. Those are two different things here. Not to mention, like all plot devices, it is designed to make sense in-universe so it can drive the plot further. The Crucible, for example, did that too. 

 

Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.

[LinksOcarina]

Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.

 

And?

 

Thats not really evidence of it being part of the plot. Once again, its window dressing; its a reason to justify why the Reapers exist and what their motives are.

[LinksOcarina]

Yea well, that goes for everyone (yourself included).
 

Well, I already wrote about the difference between the function of eezo and Lazarus/the crucible within the ME universe and why "coming first" is exactly not the point. So now we have come full circle. Therefore and before you call me anything else between disingenuous, off point and irrelevant, please click here to continue.

 

Still irrelevent. So I guess full circle regardless then. 

[Iakus]

And?

 

Thats not really evidence of it being part of the plot. Once again, its window dressing; its a reason to justify why the Reapers exist and what their motives are.

Mass Effect technology, the basis of all advanced tech in the galaxy.  The tech that makes biotic possible, mass relays, kinetic weapons and barriers.  It permeates the entire setting.   The tech the NAME OF THE FREAKING SERIES was based on, was all part of the Reapers' (you know, the Big Bad of the series?) trap for us.  The galaxy was deliberately made dependent on the technology to they'd be easier to harvest.  

[LinksOcarina]

Mass Effect technology, the basis of all advanced tech in the galaxy.  The tech that makes biotic possible, mass relays, kinetic weapons and barriers.  It permeates the entire setting.   The tech the NAME OF THE FREAKING SERIES was based on, was all part of the Reapers' (you know, the Big Bad of the series?) trap for us.  The galaxy was deliberately made dependent on the technology to they'd be easier to harvest.  

 

And it's in the background of the whole setting still. Remember, it was a trap that was set, that never went off because of the actions of the Protheans. 

 

That part seems to be hard to understand I guess. 

[Former_Fiend]

I'm honestly not entirely sure where this hard on, militant idea that science fiction needs to be hard science and that anything impossible falls into the realm of fantasy came from. That isn't the distinction between the two genres.

[Iakus]

And it's in the background of the whole setting still. Remember, it was a trap that was set, that never went off because of the actions of the Protheans. 

 

That part seems to be hard to understand I guess. 

It did go off.  Many many times.  There's a Sovereign-class Reaper for each time.  

 

Finding a flaw that could be exploited taht we can escape that trap is what Shepard's story was about.

[Iakus]

I'm honestly not entirely sure where this hard on, militant idea that science fiction needs to be hard science and that anything impossible falls into the realm of fantasy came from. That isn't the distinction between the two genres.

It doesn't have to be hard science.

 

What is should be is consistent.

 

What I don't get is this militant insistence that all science fiction needs is a bit of handwaving.  Even fantasy should aspire for something more.

[Former_Fiend]

It doesn't have to be hard science.

 

What is should be is consistent.

 

What I don't get is this militant insistence that all science fiction needs is a bit of handwaving.  Even fantasy should aspire for something more.

 

That's a statement towards the quality of the work in question, not a determining factor for what genre that work  belongs in.

[Drone223]

It doesn't have to be hard science.

What is should be is consistent.

What I don't get is this militant insistence that all science fiction needs is a bit of handwaving. Even fantasy should aspire for something more.

Exactly consistency helps makes a fictional settings believable (the setting doesn't break the rules set by its own internal logic). If there is no consistency then people can't suspend their disbelief.

[Former_Fiend]

I do believe there are times where an intentional inconsistency can help a setting when it increases the sense of mystery and wonder about the setting in question, but over all I agree that most things need to be fairly consistent.

 

But again, that isn't my point. A setting being inconsistent doesn't make it a fantasy setting. Just makes it a flawed setting, regardless of genre.

[Iakus]

I do believe there are times where an intentional inconsistency can help a setting when it increases the sense of mystery and wonder about the setting in question, but over all I agree that most things need to be fairly consistent.

 

But again, that isn't my point. A setting being inconsistent doesn't make it a fantasy setting. Just makes it a flawed setting, regardless of genre.

Even then, the inconsistency must have a reason to exist, even if that reason only exists in "deep lore" (stuff about the setting the writer knows about, but has not revealed to the audience).  Something beyond "Huh, that's weird"

 

What makes inconsistency associated with a fantasy setting is that if it's simply sued as a plot device without regard for the lore of the setting, it takes on a dream-like sequence, where anything can happen for whatever reason.  THe setting becomes unreal, unbelievable, and, in a sense, fantastical.

[LinksOcarina]

Even then, the inconsistency must have a reason to exist, even if that reason only exists in "deep lore" (stuff about the setting the writer knows about, but has not revealed to the audience).  Something beyond "Huh, that's weird"

 

What makes inconsistency associated with a fantasy setting is that if it's simply sued as a plot device without regard for the lore of the setting, it takes on a dream-like sequence, where anything can happen for whatever reason.  THe setting becomes unreal, unbelievable, and, in a sense, fantastical.

 

But the arguments I keep hearing have nothing to do with consistency. 

 

Your whole thing above about Element Zero...what makes it consistent exactly, because its used all the time? Because they said so in the game codex? You say its because its the foundation of how the world works...ok fair enough, but does it's use have to be all the time in making the world work? Don't we have other semi-fantastical tech out there too?

 

What is there to stop putting little Mass Effect drives in your ships and saying the technology got better? Is that consistent because it uses Element Zero?

 

Consistency seems subjective only to the person based upon how much they can suspend their disbelief to me. Saying one thing makes more sense over the other when both elements are fantastical because its consistent with the game world is not exactly a good argument if you ask me. 

 

We all want the world to be good, to have rules and make sense, but we all arguments I see seem apprehensive to change of that world, when it needs to, when it has to. And most of those arguments don't even call into question why outside of it not possibly making sense...even though i bet it will, people may not want it to though because of their own reasons.

[Iakus]

But the arguments I keep hearing have nothing to do with consistency. 

 

It' my argument though, so you're hearing it here

 

 

 

Your whole thing above about Element Zero...what makes it consistent exactly, because its used all the time? Because they said so in the game codex? You say its because its the foundation of how the world works...ok fair enough, but does it's use have to be all the time in making the world work? Don't we have other semi-fantastical tech out there too?

 

Yes

Yes

Pretty much.  Unless it's tech we could plausibly invent on our own within the next two centuries (Mass Effect is not set all that far into the future, remember)

We seem to have a couple, but it's existence is all handwaved.  We have no idea what the Lazarus Project really is or how it was developed, for example.  WHich I find to be terrible writing.

 

 

 

What is there to stop putting little Mass Effect drives in your ships and saying the technology got better? Is that consistent because it uses Element Zero?
 

If MEA takes place many thousands of years in the future, perhaps.  But simply saying "tiny mass effect drives that got better" explaining things would be like saying GM figured out how to build an engine that can keep running constantly for five hundred years on a single tank of gas.

 

 

 

Consistency seems subjective only to the person based upon how much they can suspend their disbelief to me. Saying one thing makes more sense over the other when both elements are fantastical because its consistent with the game world is not exactly a good argument if you ask me.
 

That's when you turn to in-game lore.  Biotics and the Fade are both fantastical elements.  But one exists in Mass Effect lore and functions a  certain way.  THe other does not.

 

 

We all want the world to be good, to have rules and make sense, but we all arguments I see seem apprehensive to change of that world, when it needs to, when it has to. And most of those arguments don't even call into question why outside of it not possibly making sense...even though i bet it will, people may not want it to though because of their own reasons.

The apprehensiveness for me (besides their not learning their lesson, or learning the wrong lessons from ME3) are that while they claim to be making another Mass Effect game, they are abandoning those things that made Mass Effect its own unique setting.  All for the sake of convenience.

[LinksOcarina]

It' my argument though, so you're hearing it here

 

Yes

Yes

Pretty much.  Unless it's tech we could plausibly invent on our own within the next two centuries (Mass Effect is not set all that far into the future, remember)

We seem to have a couple, but it's existence is all handwaved.  We have no idea what the Lazarus Project really is or how it was developed, for example.  WHich I find to be terrible writing.

 

If MEA takes place many thousands of years in the future, perhaps.  But simply saying "tiny mass effect drives that got better" explaining things would be like saying GM figured out how to build an engine that can keep running constantly for five hundred years on a single tank of gas.

 

That's when you turn to in-game lore.  Biotics and the Fade are both fantastical elements.  But one exists in Mass Effect lore and functions a  certain way.  THe other does not.

 

The apprehensiveness for me (besides their not learning their lesson, or learning the wrong lessons from ME3) are that while they claim to be making another Mass Effect game, they are abandoning those things that made Mass Effect its own unique setting.  All for the sake of convenience.

 

Two things.

 

1) You assume they are abandoning things for convenience when you know there is no way of telling that without playing the game. 

 

2) Mass Effect is still a unique setting, that's not going to change. The aliens, culture, technology, abilities, even mechanics in some cases, will be present. We will have visual callbacks to Mass Effect, and probably written ones as well.   So to argue that things are being left behind distinctly Mass Effect is ridiculous and you know it. 

 

As for the rest...whatever. You know how I feel about lore and how it should be fluid, and how things for the sake of convenience are already present with what you consider the foundation of the world. They are one in the same, you just happened to have one explained and used as the title of the series I guess, so that makes it more special.

[Iakus]

Two things.

 

1) You assume they are abandoning things for convenience when you know there is no way of telling that without playing the game. 

 

2) Mass Effect is still a unique setting, that's not going to change. The aliens, culture, technology, abilities, even mechanics in some cases, will be present. We will have visual callbacks to Mass Effect, and probably written ones as well.   So to argue that things are being left behind distinctly Mass Effect is ridiculous and you know it. 

 

As for the rest...whatever. You know how I feel about lore and how it should be fluid, and how things for the sake of convenience are already present with what you consider the foundation of the world. They are one in the same, you just happened to have one explained and used as the title of the series I guess, so that makes it more special.

1) Thermal clips.  The Lazarus Project,  Legion's transformation from ME2 to ME3.  I'd say this is a safe bet.

 

2) And you have no way of knowing this without playing the game.  Aside from the presence of a krogan and the Mako (which is already said to be different from the ME1 version)

 

Consistent lore is what makes immersion and suspension of disbelief possible.  Without it, all I can do is sit back and wait for the deus ex machina to fix everything.

 

And yeah, being told in the opening sequence of the game that "this is the basis of all advanced technology and is in the title of the freaking series does make it kinda special

[Ilwerin]

2) Mass Effect is still a unique setting, that's not going to change. The aliens, culture, technology, abilities, even mechanics in some cases, will be present. We will have visual callbacks to Mass Effect, and probably written ones as well.   So to argue that things are being left behind distinctly Mass Effect is ridiculous and you know it. 

 

 

Others said before perfectly what makes Mass Effect THE Mass Effect...

You know, whales also look like fish, but they aren´t...

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

There will be eezo. Eezo is space magic and makes Mass Effect possible.

[Arcian]

<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
Too bad you're stuck on technobabble bandwagon.

Once again, the writers of Star Trek are not scientists. They have no idea what they're talking about. They're literally just making up fancy, technical-sounding jargon to suspend the disbelief of their audience. This is their job description. What part of this is so difficult for you to grasp?
 

Since I have taken math and science it may be technobabble to you but I, on the other hand, can see possibilities.

I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously when you consider Star Trek's writing to hold scientific possibilities. No amount of mathematical or scientific know-how will make a quantum slipstream drive feasible. It is literally based on nonsense written by someone who wasn't paid to be mathematically or scientifically savvy.
 

A perfect example is at the turn of the 20th century, going to the moon was looked at as pure fantasy...

No, it was not looked at as pure fantasy. Many brilliant aerospace engineers of the time believed it was possible (Wernher von Braun, Yuri Kondratyuk, Sergei Korolev, etc) if extremely difficult. They believed it was possible because there was REAL SCIENCE behind the idea. Kondratyuk even figured out the best method, i.e the method they actually used, to send a person to the moon and back in 1916, a good 53 years before Neil actually walked on the moon... so much for "pure fantasy".
 
Star Trek is not real science, it's fictional nonsense masked as science through the use of technobabble. This concept seems to elude you in spite of its simplicity.
 

technobabble to you.

Well, I didn't live on the turn of the century to have an opinion about the legitimacy of the idea of going to the moon, so this sentence makes absolutely no sense. By the time I was born it had been decades since Neil took that first step. I've never had to question it, it was scientific fact long before I was even conceived.

 

But, hey, what happened six decades later, hu?

Scientists sent Neil Armstrong to the moon. Scientists. Not a bunch of fiction writers whose solution to break the light barrier was to invent magical dilithium crystals.
 

Be as it may, I'm moving on..

Oh no you're not.

 

Here's the distinction I've desperately been trying to get across:

 

Mass Effect is science fiction that places emphasis on the SCIENCE part of science fiction (at least it did in ME1). Mass Effect asks the question, "What if this was plausible?" which is the question that drives science fiction. It has ONE invented piece of science, the eponymous Mass Effect phenomenon (that there exists a form of exotic matter which can manipulate mass, m, in the mass-energy equivalence, or e=mc^2, which has the consequence of altering the speed of light, c, since energy, e, remains unchanged), which all futuristic technology is based on.

 

Star Trek is science fiction that places emphasis on the FICTION part of science fiction. Their writing doesn't have rigorous adherence to real science, they just invent stuff that has no basis in reality in order to drive the plot (sometimes literally). Star Trek asks the question, "What if this was possible?" which is a question that more often drives the fantasy genre.

 

Mass Effect is harder Science Fiction.

Star Trek is softer Science Fiction.

 

Mass Effect has been softening and needs to harden again to regain its sci-fi credibility. Taking ludicrous nonsense ideas from Star Trek is NOT the way to accomplish this. Star Trek should keep its ****** ideas to itself and remain where it belongs, deep on the bottom of the sci-fi trash bin.

[LinksOcarina]

Others said before perfectly what makes Mass Effect THE Mass Effect...

You know, whales also look like fish, but they aren´t...

 

Well, if thats what makes the series for you, more power to you I guess.

[Addictress]

They really need to just use the Alcubierre drive already. It's the most feasible real world theory out there and what's more, in real life it's just missing the special material (eezo).

[Arcian]

They really need to just use the Alcubierre drive already. It's the most feasible real world theory out there and what's more, in real life it's just missing the special material (eezo).

Well, we also need to finagle with the math to drive down the energy requirements to manageable levels. I think the latest estimate was the Voyager 1 probe's mass in antimatter? If I remember correctly, that's like 7% of the annual US energy consumption. Bonkers levels of energy but not quite Jupiter's mass in antimatter-bonkers.

 

EDIT: Nice avatar, one of my favorite movies of all time.