The made up stuff can't stay consistent with itself. If Bioware was able to design self-consistent theories of physics that could explain things like space travel, they'd be busy winning awards in theoretical physics. Hell, we can't do that IRL with our actual theories of physics.
Made up stuff is the only thing which can be consistent with itself, because writers don't have to write things which controvert the lore.
Snip
For-real though, BioWare, how much pseudoscience can we expect in the next Mass Effect?
<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
Mass Effect has all the elements of science fiction not pseudoscience
Science fiction is a genre of speculative fiction dealing with imaginative concepts such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes and extraterrestrial life
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.
To answer your question: NONE.
We need to recalibrate the main deflector to emit an inverse tachyon pulse.
Yeah too bad about the last couple seasons of that show though 
Made up stuff is the only thing which can be consistent with itself, because writers don't have to write things which controvert the lore.
The made up stuff can't stay consistent with itself. If Bioware was able to design self-consistent theories of physics that could explain things like space travel, they'd be busy winning awards in theoretical physics. Hell, we can't do that IRL with our actual theories of physics.
The whole Grand Unified Theory quest is about figuring out how to turn our logically inconsistent theories of physics into something resembling a logically coherent whole.
You'll note the trope you link to is about very simple rules (like card games).
I'm not talking about maintaining consistency with known science. I'm talking about maintaining consistency with it's own lore. Which a good writer can absolutely do just by making continuity checks.
If you don't like that trope, then try Magic A is Magic A
It's science fiction, so...yeah.
I'm not talking about maintaining consistency with known science. I'm talking about maintaining consistency with it's own lore. Which a good writer can absolutely do just by making continuity checks.
If you don't like that trope, then try Magic A is Magic A
Indeed, the more consistent the lore is, the easier it is to suspend disbelief.
It's call it space magic Mass Effect fields and yes there will be lots of it.
The made up stuff can't stay consistent with itself. If Bioware was able to design self-consistent theories of physics that could explain things like space travel, they'd be busy winning awards in theoretical physics. Hell, we can't do that IRL with our actual theories of physics.
Oh for the love of god, internal consistency is about the plot in a work of fiction following the rules set by the author. By your definition, fantasy can never be internally consistent, which is absolute bollocks
Nobody knows nothing has been announced.
- The End
It's science fiction, so...yeah.
That's no excuse to go balls to the wall crazy with borderline fantasy sh!t like Star Trek did. At least Star Wars had the common decency to market itself as a space fantasy instead of pretending like it was fiction rooted in real world science like Star Trek did.
That's no excuse to go balls to the wall crazy with borderline fantasy sh!t like Star Trek did. At least Star Wars had the common decency to market itself as a space fantasy instead of pretending like it was fiction rooted in real world science like Star Trek did.
In a world where Anne Mccaffery's series exist, nothing surprises me in sf anymore.
The 80s was a really weird time.
Frankly, if they're not going to do the research, I'd rather NOT have the technobabble technobabbled. Mass Effect 2 had this one moment where Mordin claims humans are unusually genetically diverse. And we're not. We're so not. We're the opposite of that. In fact, genetically, we're an unusually homogenous population. And if there's what the Collectors are interested in, they'd be better off kidnapping freaking seagulls. That, "You're just a machine and machines can be broken" and "The Citadel? The fight's here" are my "LALALA, I CAN'T HEAR THE DUMB WORDS COMING FROM MY GAMING DEVICE" moments in Mass Effect.
I'm all for psuedo-science, but it should have the common decency to shield itself under a protective layer of facts instead of bald-faced lies.
I suppose you are right, Han.... But now I am worried about Codex entries. I actually read those.
Well there's you're problem. 
I avoid that stuff like the plague and head cannon plausible scientific explanations where possible...or pretend it didn't happen when it's unavoidable (I'm looking at you Lazurus Project). A lifetime of working in applied physics has diminished much sci-fi for me. But I'm willing to overlook it and just call it what it is: science fantasy.
I am not saying to lose the fantasy elements -- I like a little bit of fantasy -- only that if something cannot be explained, I would rather no explanation be given as opposed to something made up and stupid.
BioWare, be logical or be vague, but do not give us nonsense explanations.
Here is a tip, if you have to make up a definition and or word for it to sound cool, I probably will not like it; if you cannot offer an explanation because it is futuristic or fantasy like, just be vague. I would rather wonder about it, that sit there and listen to nonsense.
I know in one video you all talked about how you all cannot please everyone -- I suppose I can understand that. And I am almost certain that are people out there who like the pseudoscience technobabble, but... at the very least do not go overboard with it.
Not trying to be rude but what you're asking for is a different kind of feedback than... say... the folks who ask to bring back healing. They have a definite mechanism they don't like and want it replaced with another definite mechanism.
With you it's... how much is overboard? What is 100% technobabble overload for you? Or for me? Or for one of the writers? Is there a per-sentence-average? Or is it counted by syllables? Or the type of adjectives used?
Like the one guy earlier said, it's science fiction. It's not going to be real science. If that's not your thing, cool. But there's no way a dev can read what you just asked for and deliver what you want without bringing you in on the editorial process of the game. That's not going to happen. So it's kinda pointless to complain about, especially in this genre.
Oh for the love of god, internal consistency is about the plot in a work of fiction following the rules set by the author. By your definition, fantasy can never be internally consistent, which is absolute bollocks
Apart from math, which is a purely formal system of inference, coming up with internally consistent systems is an absurd and impossible proposition. The single most important set of rules IRL - the law - isn't an internally consistent system. And this is a system that decides the lives of billions of people, that is constantly refined and revised by hundreds of brilliant people daily.
Asking a single person to come up with an internally consistent system of rules to govern the operation of an entire fake reality is insane.
Authors try to come up with reasonable and plausible fake rules, and apply them in reasonable and plausible ways. People will sometimes disagree on whether this makes sense. But talking about it as a matter of consistency is stupid, because internal consistency isn't even a worthwhile aim in most cases, and is almost certainly impossible to achieve outside of very formal systems of inference.
Fantasy is absolutely not internally consistent. Most often, it doesn't even have clear rules.
I'm not talking about maintaining consistency with known science. I'm talking about maintaining consistency with it's own lore. Which a good writer can absolutely do just by making continuity checks.
If you don't like that trope, then try Magic A is Magic A
First off, in ME, "it's own lore" is an idiotic pastiche of actual science and incoherent gibberish. "Element zero" tries to come actual concepts in physics - mass and gravity, and especially atomic number - and builds on that a mind-bendingly stupid justification that's basically magic for why super space neutrons allow for FTL. No implications from this are explored, and the writers don't even have the knowledge or capacity to explore them. They're asking themselves to create thought experiments based on modifying the fundamental rules of reality and then predicting how - in this modified world - bodies would react. This is an insane proposition. Quarian immunology is another dumb concept.
And the opposite concept - and entirely logically consistent idea, but one that obviously contradicts IRL science - the human genetic diversity point gets lambasted all the time on this forum.
So they just make this **** up in a way that tells a good story. Some of the time it's plausible, often it's nonsense, and how close to nonsense it is depends on how ignorant the writer is and how knowledgeable the player is in contrast.
But talking about consistency is just a vacuous talking point. People want stories to seem reasonable and plausible to them. That's fine. But dressing this up as being about some greater principle of logic, in the formal sense, is silly, because it's not.
I truly enjoy this one and as for tactical cloak
(except that the thing is colorless to begin with)
I don't mind technobabble as long as it's not complete and utter nonsense. I won't name anything specific (SYNTHESIS!!!) but as long as it has reasonable roots in real science, and adheres to some consistent internal logic, I think it's ok, and can really add a lot.
This was one of my main complaints with the series as it went along. ME1 started out as reasonably hard sci-fi. It wasn't the hardest by any means, but it was moderately grounded, and it seemed like BW went to a lot of trouble selling that idea. Then as things went along, they started caring less about details and began to abandon all pretense of realism and logic.
For some people that doesn't matter, and that's ok, but for me it does. I really liked the grounded approach and missed it as it started slipping away.
With Andromeda, I don't expect that trend to chance. In fact, I'm expecting it to continue full speed ahead. So my guess is that if there is any technobabble, it will verge on, if not completely devolve into utter nonsense.
SYNTHESIS!!!
I don't mind technobabble as long as it's technobabble that is consistent with itself and not just "hey let´s just change the rules of everything instead of being creative because that way is easier" technobabble.
I enjoy Sci-fi quite a bit, and largely don't pay any attention to the 'Science!' of it. Largely because ALL of its is bunk in reality. Nitpicking details is kind of silly when ignoring the GLARING inaccuracies of everything else.
I mean every planet/space station you go to has the exact same gravity? Not even remotely going to happen, but its easily overlooked.
This was one of my main complaints with the series as it went along. ME1 started out as reasonably hard sci-fi. It wasn't the hardest by any means, but it was moderately grounded, and it seemed like BW went to a lot of trouble selling that idea. Then as things went along, they started caring less about details and began to abandon all pretense of realism and logic.
ME1 was not hard sci-fi. It was borderline science fantasy.
Retour en haut
