73 réponses à ce sujet

[Shechinah]

Would it not belong to the soft science category rather than the science fantasy category since I think Mass Effect tries to explain their magic-like elements like biotics with pretend science rather than present it as being actual magic?

[Iakus]

 

Fantasy is absolutely not internally consistent. Most often, it doesn't even have clear rules.

 

Then you're reading the wrong fantasy.

 

 

 

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'm not asking for plausible speculation on FTL, dark matter, gravity manipulation, alien biology, etc.  I don't expect the writers to be experts in theoretical physics, biology, etc.  By all means, make up an enjoyable magic system to "explain" how it all works.

 

But be consistent in your application of it.  If kinetic barriers only protect against kinetic energy, they shouldn't suddenly be proof against radiation, or fire.  Just to use one example.  

 

This is not "hard" sci-fi.  Even fantasy fiction can do this.

[Arcian]

Apart from math, which is a purely formal system of inference, coming up with internally consistent systems is an absurd and impossible proposition.

In literary writing, internal consistency is simply about drawing the line between things that can happen and things that can't happen in a fictional universe. Compare them to our own universe's laws of physics, if you will.

Using the The Lord of the Rings as an example, Gandalf is an immensely powerful wizard who is able to use magic, but he can't do everything with his powers - Tolkien has set up limitations on what he can do with his powers because otherwise he could just use his powers to, for example, teleport the One Ring into Mount Doom, thereby bypassing the entirety of the story. If the story is internally consistent, Tolkien will respect these limitations as he is writing Gandalf, and not have him do things his limitations states he cannot do.

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.

No, the single most important set of rules IRL is the motherf***ing laws of physics.

[SwobyJ]

Element Zero does everything. EVERYTHING. That's the only consistency they have, so far.

[Selene Moonsong]

The pseudoscience of science fiction works have often been the catalyst for real science and technological innovation. What is known vs. what is possible has been proven to be irrelevant over the centuries.

 

Mankind once believed the world was flat, and we all know that it is not true. Mankind once believed man could not fly, but that too has been proven false.

 

Sure, the technobabble used in science fiction sometimes sounds rather far-fetched, but is it really? 

 

The Star Trek "communicator" is already obsolete: "flip phones" were a common design for cellular phones in the past, and the cellular phone concept was developed in the mid to late 60's (one only needs to look back for old copies of science and technology magazines to find that out,  such as in the 'Popular Science' magazines of the time)

 

What about 'Rocket Man' (50's Sci-Fi)? Bell Laboratories designed and built a working 'Jet Pack' that was demonstrated live at Super Bowl 1.

 

I, for one, do not discount that which is presented in science fiction works as impossible to achieve because it does not meet the current understanding and knowledge of science and technology. I consider it a challenge to the scientific community to prove or disprove whether or not such things are even plausible. True science is about open-minded discovery and not limiting ones self to currently proven 'factoids'.

 

So, no, I don't worry over pseudoscience and technobabble at all. If mankind can dream it, mankind can create it. While it isn't always easy to accept,  that is the true nature of technology and science.

[Fayfel]

Just for the record, element zero is not an element. The codex deliberately refers to it as a material. Eezo is simply a human nickname for the stuff.

 

The writer who wrote the science of mass effect has actually written a lot about his thoughts on the matter. Of course, everything he wrote seems to be taken out of context. The codex is plain for all to see and yet of the few people who actually read it, only a handful actually understand what it says.

[In Exile]

Then you're reading the wrong fantasy.

I'm not asking for plausible speculation on FTL, dark matter, gravity manipulation, alien biology, etc. I don't expect the writers to be experts in theoretical physics, biology, etc. By all means, make up an enjoyable magic system to "explain" how it all works.

But be consistent in your application of it. If kinetic barriers only protect against kinetic energy, they shouldn't suddenly be proof against radiation, or fire. Just to use one example.

This is not "hard" sci-fi. Even fantasy fiction can do this.

You are absolutely asking them to be experts. The kinetic barriers is a great example. It requires writers to have a clear understanding of the modern scientific concept of kinetic energy, including its possible implications or distinctions. You're asking them to answer theoretical questions - would a barrier that prevents all kinetic energy from passing through it stop radiation from passing through it, as a matter of fact? Or a different question - why can a person with kineric barriers ever hear sound (that is clearly all kinetic energy)?

So what's "consistent" in this case? There may well be a justifiable basis to say that a barrier that stops kinetic energy actually does stop fire - to answer the question properly you'd have to come up with a concept of how fire works at the subatomic level.

You're not just making up a magic system. You're requiring complicated prediction and analysis.

[In Exile]

Just for the record, element zero is not an element. The codex deliberately refers to it as a material. Eezo is simply a human nickname for the stuff.

The writer who wrote the science of mass effect has actually written a lot about his thoughts on the matter. Of course, everything he wrote seems to be taken out of context. The codex is plain for all to see and yet of the few people who actually read it, only a handful actually understand what it says.

Element zero is a magic neutron. It's beyond stupid.

[Iakus]

You are absolutely asking them to be experts. The kinetic barriers is a great example. It requires writers to have a clear understanding of the modern scientific concept of kinetic energy, including its possible implications or distinctions. You're asking them to answer theoretical questions - would a barrier that prevents all kinetic energy from passing through it stop radiation from passing through it, as a matter of fact? Or a different question - why can a person with kineric barriers ever hear sound (that is clearly all kinetic energy)?

So what's "consistent" in this case? There may well be a justifiable basis to say that a barrier that stops kinetic energy actually does stop fire - to answer the question properly you'd have to come up with a concept of how fire works at the subatomic level.

You're not just making up a magic system. You're requiring complicated prediction and analysis.

I'm asking them to be experts in their own lore.

 

Take a look at the codex entry for kinetic barriers:

 

Kinetic barriers, colloquially called "shields", provide protection against most mass accelerator weapons. Whether on a starship or a soldier's suit of armor, the basic principle remains the same.

Kinetic barriers are repulsive mass effect fields projected from tiny emitters. These shields safely deflect small objects traveling at rapid velocities. This affords protection from bullets and other dangerous projectiles, but still allows the user to sit down without knocking away their chair.

The shielding afforded by kinetic barriers does not protect against extremes of temperature, toxins, or radiation.

 

There.  Those are the "rules" for how they work.  That's the consistency I ask for.  It can do X, but not Y.  If it continues to operate that way, that is consistency.  Whether it operates on real-world physics or not is irrelevant.  This is how it 's supposed to work in this setting.

[In Exile]

I'm asking them to be experts in their own lore.

Take a look at the codex entry for kinetic barriers:

Kinetic barriers, colloquially called "shields", provide protection against most mass accelerator weapons. Whether on a starship or a soldier's suit of armor, the basic principle remains the same.
Kinetic barriers are repulsive mass effect fields projected from tiny emitters. These shields safely deflect small objects traveling at rapid velocities. This affords protection from bullets and other dangerous projectiles, but still allows the user to sit down without knocking away their chair.
The shielding afforded by kinetic barriers does not protect against extremes of temperature, toxins, or radiation.

There. Those are the "rules" for how they work. That's the consistency I ask for. It can do X, but not Y. If it continues to operate that way, that is consistency. Whether it operates on real-world physics or not is irrelevant. This is how it 's supposed to work in this setting.

That's incredibly vague. It deflects "small" objects at "rapid" velocity. How small is "small"? The ME bullets are supposed to be tiny pellets - are IRL bullets large enough to penetrate it? What about speed?

It says "extremes" of temperature. What's extreme? Does that mean that it does protect from non extend temperature? Fire doesn't necessarily burn at an "extreme". It says it won't stop toxins, but why? Are they too small? Presumably that's why you don't suffocate. Is an arrow small? If I have a villain basically use a repeating crossbow will those projectiles penetrate the kinetic barrier? It says "rapid" velocities and "small" objects -both have to be true. So "rapid" large objects might penetrate.

These rules aren't clear. They can be read different ways. I could read "cold" - in the sense of North pole cold - as not being an extend of temperature and so have kinetic barriers protect you. I meant read extreme as space extremes in Kelvin like close to absolute zero. But I might read it as extreme in the usual sense - so you'd freeze at 20 below unless your armour had special insulation. The writers could have Shepard outside in the cold and be fine OR freeze without padding and it would each be notionally consistent with the rule.

This is the very reason I used law as an example. Even a simple rule like - no vehicles in the park - is am ambiguous rule at the periphery.

A writer wouldn't be wrong according to this rule to invent kinetic barrier penetrating repeating crossbows. But she wouldn't be wrong to have those arrows stopped by the crossbow either.

This is my point about internal consistency.

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

As little as you hope, and yet as much as you fear.

[Luke Pearce]

I think Mass Effect did a great job of making the world scientifically believable (despite being completely fictionalised).

 

For example, when the Codex explained about the Asari and how they mate through a form of 'parthenogenesis'. My friend (who thinks he knows everything) said it was a made-up word. Fact is though parthenogenesis is real. They used a real-life example to explain their fiction which I thought was great. It certainly made their universe feel more believable.

[aoibhealfae]

Yes, there are parthenogenesis that do occur naturally among animals (amphibians, insects, sharks) but overtime lack of genetic variation do have severe consequence on their gene pool. Loss of genetic diversity might explain why the Asari was determined to find newer species to mate with. But if I were the science consultant at Bioware, I would make the Asari as hermaphrodites without the feminine aspect. They created an all-female alien race concept first and make up the science around it, hence the monogendered nonsense. The Asari could have been an interesting alien race if they're made to be true androgenous and only develop gender characteristics upon sexual maturity. 

[Iakus]

That's incredibly vague. It deflects "small" objects at "rapid" velocity. How small is "small"? The ME bullets are supposed to be tiny pellets - are IRL bullets large enough to penetrate it? What about speed?

It says "extremes" of temperature. What's extreme? Does that mean that it does protect from non extend temperature? Fire doesn't necessarily burn at an "extreme". It says it won't stop toxins, but why? Are they too small? Presumably that's why you don't suffocate. Is an arrow small? If I have a villain basically use a repeating crossbow will those projectiles penetrate the kinetic barrier? It says "rapid" velocities and "small" objects -both have to be true. So "rapid" large objects might penetrate.

These rules aren't clear. They can be read different ways. I could read "cold" - in the sense of North pole cold - as not being an extend of temperature and so have kinetic barriers protect you. I meant read extreme as space extremes in Kelvin like close to absolute zero. But I might read it as extreme in the usual sense - so you'd freeze at 20 below unless your armour had special insulation. The writers could have Shepard outside in the cold and be fine OR freeze without padding and it would each be notionally consistent with the rule.

This is the very reason I used law as an example. Even a simple rule like - no vehicles in the park - is am ambiguous rule at the periphery.

A writer wouldn't be wrong according to this rule to invent kinetic barrier penetrating repeating crossbows. But she wouldn't be wrong to have those arrows stopped by the crossbow either.

This is my point about internal consistency.

Sure it's vague.  That leaves wiggle-room for the writers.  Exploring those limits could make for an interesting story later.

 

So we don't know what "extremes" are exactly.  But I don't think it would be a stretch to say "dangerous for humans"  Toxins because unless it's shot at you as a small, fast-moving projectile the barrier isn't designed to stop it.  So poison gas or a venomous bite are still hazards.  It would be very interesting to see if crossbows could get past shields.  It could be  handy low-tech way to get around them.  And large rapid objects could penetrate the barriers as well.  How large is again an interesting question.

 

But the point is:  explore what we already have rather than throw it out the airlock because it's not sufficiently "awesome"

[Angry_Elcor]

Pseudoscience is the best science. Just ask John Harvey Kellogg.

[Fade9wayz]

I'm not worried, there should be enough to raise all kind of hells in BSN. I should stock up on pop-corn

[NM_Che56]

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.

But let's not get up our own arses with the "science" part of a video game.

[NM_Che56]

answer: the same amount that we've had in previous games.

[Arcian]

Element zero is a magic neutron. It's beyond stupid.

What's beyond stupid is your inability to read the codex. If you'd done that, you'd know Element Zero is basically a brand name and has absolutely nothing to do with neutronium.

[AlanC9]

He didn't say "netronium." Jeez,Arcian, if you're going to attempt to call someone out for not reading stuff....

[Iakus]

He didn't say "netronium." Jeez,Arcian, if you're going to attempt to call someone out for not reading stuff....

Given he called eezo "a magic neutron" and neutronium is the theoretical substance composed entirely of neutrons, it was a fair extrapolation.

[SwobyJ]

Yes, there are parthenogenesis that do occur naturally among animals (amphibians, insects, sharks) but overtime lack of genetic variation do have severe consequence on their gene pool. Loss of genetic diversity might explain why the Asari was determined to find newer species to mate with. But if I were the science consultant at Bioware, I would make the Asari as hermaphrodites without the feminine aspect. They created an all-female alien race concept first and make up the science around it, hence the monogendered nonsense. The Asari could have been an interesting alien race if they're made to be true androgenous and only develop gender characteristics upon sexual maturity. 

 

Agreed yet... Bioware: blue boobs.

[7twozero]

You see OP what we have here is something called the Iakus Effect, where a certain small but loud portion of BSN posters won't be happy with anything, because all joy is gone from their world save the joy of spending years picking apart their favorite video game on the internet, while the rest of us just have fun playing it.

[In Exile]

What's beyond stupid is your inability to read the codex. If you'd done that, you'd know Element Zero is basically a brand name and has absolutely nothing to do with neutronium.

 

You're wrong that the codex makes it clear. The codex calls it a "material". Pure elemental gold is a "material". The codex says nothing about it being a brand name. It's a stretch to say that the use of dubbed - especially when in conjunction with a neutron star, i.e., which "are composed almost entirely of neutrons" - is somehow supposed to convey that it was not an element, despite the name, and despite where it was found. 

 

But more to the point, let's say I'm wrong and illiterate. That still doesn't make the incoherent garbage actually science. I will in fact quote its creator: "It is "unobtainium" (i.e., made-up BS)."

 

 

When subjected to an electrical current, the rare material dubbed element zero, or "eezo", emits a dark energy field that raises or lowers the mass of all objects within it. This "mass effect" is used in countless ways, from generating artificial gravity to manufacturing high-strength construction materials. It is most prominently used to enable faster-than-light space travel. Eezo is generated when solid matter, such as a planet, is affected by the energy of a star going supernova. The material is common in the asteroid debris that orbit neutron stars and pulsars. These are dangerous places to mine, requiring extensive use of robotics, telepresence, and shielding to survive the incredible radiation from the dead star. Only a few major corporations can afford the set-up costs required to work these primary sources. Humanity discovered refined element zero at the Prothean research station on Mars, allowing them to create mass effect fields and develop FTL travel.