LINKS:
Something to speculate about:
Is there Eezo in Andromeda or any other material with such damatic consequences for technology advancement? What kind of effect would a different type of Eezo-like material display?
If there is no Eezo in the area where the colonists land, will Asari descendants keep their biotics after a few generations? After all, Thessia is said to be rich in Eezo which is the whole reason for the very strong natural biotic prowess of its inhabitants.
edit: second post speculating about lack of Eezo >here<.
An in-depth look at the Andromeda Galaxy and how its characteristics may contribute to the story of Mass Effect: Andromeda.
LINKS:Spoiler
"That's a lotta ****in' stars!" Thanks alot, now I have to clean up coffee, which I was drinking.
"That's a lotta ****in' stars!" Thanks alot, now I have to clean up coffee, which I was drinking.
hehehehe
I almost thought this was official and we were gonna see Michio Kaku again. ![]()
Was it confirmed Andromeda takes place after ME3?
Was it confirmed Andromeda takes place after ME3?
It's completely separated from the trilogy, so yes, it takes place well after ME3's events.
We believe that it starts sometime before ME3 ends, but the events take place well after. Of course it'd help if we could get some confirmation *cough*hint*cough*.
Bah. From ME I expect the type of science I'd find at a congregation of religious fundamentalists. I'd be hard pressed to find any work of SF with such a level of ignorance. That did more to make me lose regard for the trilogy than the endings (though they contributed considerably to the scientific nonsense). The fake science is inconsistent, and the real-world science is wrong. *disgusted noise*
Mass effect universe has no basis in real science.
Mass effect universe has no basis in real science.
Certain things are supposed to work like IRL. Genetics, for instance. Except they got it all wrong in the worst possible way.
I think Chris L'Etoile was one of those guys who at least had a way of making things sound plausible. Which is all I ask from sci-fi. Clever technobabble.
But he's gone. And Casey Hudson was an engineer at best. And most engineers are paranoid or crazy.. and usually have kooky mystical ideas. Don't mistake them for scientists...despite often working with science.
Don't mind me.
Certain things are supposed to work like IRL. Genetics, for instance. Except they got it all wrong in the worst possible way.
You remind me of a past D&D player I had, when I told him he was made a vampire and thus no longer considered half-elf due to the loss of elven blood. He came up with claims about genetics... I'm letting you imagine what I answered to him shortly after.
You remind me of a past D&D player I had, when I told him he was made a vampire and thus no longer considered half-elf due to the loss of elven blood. He came up with claims about genetics... I'm letting you imagine what I answered to him shortly after.
I think Ieldra has a point, but you sound like a fun DM.
Yeah, I'm afraid that the only reason we are going to Andromeda is because it's more marketable, despite their being dwarf galaxies and even galaxies much closer to us. To be honest, that worries me because they are putting Rule of Cool in front of what makes more sense.
For those who argue on the science of mass effect, does any science fiction title have any real basis in science? It's called SCIENCE FICTION for a reason.
There are multiple science fiction franchises that have a real basis in or operate fully in real science. For example The Expanse.
And? We can only predict. We can't know for certain. In Mass Effect, we got jump-started from alien tech. There are many mysteries we have yet to uncover. Maybe we never will. But we can try. As much as we like to deny we know for certain that there is life out there in the Universe. We are proof of that. The dinosaurs were proof of that. Telekinesis,in a way, is possible. Watch the science of mass Effect 2 video.There are multiple science fiction franchises that have a real basis in or operate fully in real science. For example The Expanse.
And? We can only predict. We can't know for certain. In Mass Effect, we got jump-started from alien tech. There are many mysteries we have yet to uncover. Maybe we never will. But we can try. As much as we like to deny we know for certain that there is life out there in the Universe. We are proof of that. The dinosaurs were proof of that. Telekinesis,in a way, is possible. Watch the science of mass Effect 2 video.
I was just answering your question about "does any science fiction title have any real basis in science?". The answer is yes, there are.
For those who argue on the science of mass effect, does any science fiction title have any real basis in science? It's called SCIENCE FICTION for a reason. Granted, there are some things that work. Unless anyone here is michio kaku, Stephen Hawking, or an ivy league educated physicist or whatnot, stop complaining. It does nothing for you. I never seen anyone complain about star wars or firefly.
First, I agree.. basically.
But science fiction isn't necessarily called that as an excuse to entertain any old idea. Science fiction has often been about entertaining potential of a real theory or some spin on the theory. It can be realistic sometimes.
That said, I don't exactly put Mass Effect in the same category. It's main plot derives from the past, rather than the future. It doesn't entertain potential as much as it does ancient mistakes.Uncovering monsters and ancient artifacts. It's got as much in common with fairy tales. And even the solution is an ancient one.
Yeah, I'm afraid that the only reason we are going to Andromeda is because it's more marketable, despite their being dwarf galaxies and even galaxies much closer to us. To be honest, that worries me because they are putting Rule of Cool in front of what makes more sense.
If that's your issue, ME1 should have been your exit point in the series. Around the time that intro text mentioned "mass effect". Certainly by the time we get to the rubber-skinned aliens and universal translators you should be dousing that disk in kerosene.
There are multiple science fiction franchises that have a real basis in or operate fully in real science. For example The Expanse.
But not ME.
I think Ieldra has a point, but you sound like a fun DM.
Well players, especially if near to the friendly relationship, need to be reminded that it's a game and, given any universe setting except those more attached to reality, they have to work with their imagination. To make it short, I told him that it was D&D and all is about an almost entirely fictional story with little to faint relation with reality.
Just to know, I've always being kind with that player, even proposing solutions after that happening in the game, and he said no, no, no.
Sad, that didn't taught me that you shouldn't give them a finger because they're most probably taking the whole arm in return, and thanks to the not learnt lesson I had embarked in a difficult situation with complete strangers and one friend I had for 7 years. Results, I made them all understand to go screw theirselves, and the only friend I had betrayed my friendship with extreme selfishness.
Sorry for the partially wrong contextualised post, I thought I could share.
Well players, especially if near to the friendly relationship, need to be reminded that it's a game and, given any universe setting except those more attached to reality, they have to work with their imagination. To make it short, I told him that it was D&D and all is about an almost entirely fictional story with little to faint relation with reality.
Just to know, I've always being kind with that player, even proposing solutions after that happening in the game, and he said no, no, no.
Sad, that didn't taught me that you shouldn't give them a finger because they're most probably taking the whole arm in return, and thanks to the not learnt lesson I had embarked in a difficult situation with complete strangers and one friend I had for 7 years. Results, I made them all understand to go screw theirselves, and the only friend I had betrayed my friendship with extreme selfishness.
Sorry for the partially wrong contextualised post, I thought I could share.
I thought you were screwing with him.. Which is why I thought it'd be (friendly) fun. Is that an actual rule, about elf blood and vampirism?
For those who argue on the science of mass effect, does any science fiction title have any real basis in science? It's called SCIENCE FICTION for a reason. Granted, there are some things that work. Unless anyone here is michio kaku, Stephen Hawking, or an ivy league educated physicist or whatnot, stop complaining. It does nothing for you. I never seen anyone complain about star wars or firefly for its "science".
I really HATE that excuse for nonsense. In SF, I expect things to be consistent, and that means that not anything goes, DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!!!
As I said countless times, good SF extends science into the unknown, but leaves the known pretty well alone unless there's a good reason to change it. And if by implication, something is supposed to work like IRL, I can damn well expect the writers to do their research!
So, if the story needs some way to travel FTL and the writers don't want to deal with the implication that this means time travel is possible, well, give me some consistent (!!!) fake science and I'm perfectly fine with it. But if the writers talk about genetics and evolution, and it's supposed to be important to some plot and by implication of the terms used, supposed to work as IRL, I expect the writers to do their research, and if they don't, their work is bad SF.
As for Star Wars and Firefly, they don't touch scientific topics much. ME does - consider the genophage story, or the claims of the catalyst, or Javik talking about the nature of synthetic and organic life. An SF story doesn't need to talk about science, but IF it does, I expect it to do so competently.
And I'd be hard-pressed to find a work that did that so incompetently as ME. ME3 in particular.