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?
Briefly prepared thing I put up, I didn't think too deeply about it, it was the time when I was experimenting a blend between the basic D&D lore and mechanisms with a bit of the ones in Vampire: The Requiem.
Star Trek tried to talk science. And its where we get technobabble as a phrase from. It didn't do it well. And I'd say all ME games were equally bad.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.
Was it confirmed Andromeda takes place after ME3?
Nothing has been confirmed except the title.
Nothing has been confirmed except the title.
Well, and a few other things like that it takes place in Andromeda, we are human, the guy in the E3 2015 trailer is not the protagonist, etc. .
The "fiction" part doesn't refer to nonsense made up on the spot, it refers to ideas and technologies that we think/know we can achieve in real life, but haven't so far. Excellent example: Fusion power. We know it's possible (just look at the sun), but we are yet unable to do it ourselves on a practical level. We are fairly positive we WILL be able to do it in the future, but we can't right now.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.
Ah yes, science. We have dismissed that claim.
Nothing has been confirmed except the title.
Star Trek tried to talk science. And its where we get technobabble as a phrase from. It didn't do it well. And I'd say all ME games were equally bad.
<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
Yep. "technobabble"... a word coined by the Mundane (intellectually inferior).
No, it was coined by people who know a hell of a lot more than you do.<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
Yep. "technobabble"... a word coined by the Mundane (intellectually inferior).
Riker is a master of it.
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.
Star Trek. Star Wars. Battlestar Galactica. Stargate. Halo. Babylon 5. All at least as scientifically illiterate as Mass Effect.
More a comment on the sad state of mainstream sci-fi than a defense of Mass Effect.
Star Trek. Star Wars. Battlestar Galactica. Stargate. Halo. Babylon 5. All at least as scientifically illiterate as Mass Effect.
And yet all better too.
Well, maybe not Stargate and Halo.
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.
who knows what science will invent next 
just think we thought the earth was flat. Now it's not. 1 like 2 science. 2 likes 1 mass effect.
The "fiction" part doesn't refer to nonsense made up on the spot, it refers to ideas and technologies that we think/know we can achieve in real life, but haven't so far. Excellent example: Fusion power. We know it's possible (just look at the sun), but we are yet unable to do it ourselves on a practical level. We are fairly positive we WILL be able to do it in the future, but we can't right now.
Another great example: a Space Elevator. We know a space elevator can be built in principle, but we have yet to invent the necessary materials to build it ourselves. Space elevators are commonplace in sci-fi.
Science fiction is meant to be a glimpse into possible futures of human civilization, not a physics-breaking joyride. That's what science fantasy like Star Wars and Star Trek is for.
Like Interstellar. There's hokey stuff in it, but it tries very hard to ground itself in science. Especially the idea of fate - I'd say the notion of fate as a stable time loop is probably my favourite part.
Star Trek tried to talk science. And its where we get technobabble as a phrase from. It didn't do it well. And I'd say all ME games were equally bad.
"Technobabble" means to use terminology that's meaningless in our current technological/scientific context in order to explain some of the SF universe's technology. I think you can't completely avoid doing that if science and technology become a topic, since the alternative is to use existing terminology in a wrong way, and that results in talking wrong science like ME does. The trick is to invent a consistent terminology that's meaningful within the SF universe's context, use it consistently, but limit it to the concepts needed to illustrate important aspects of that universe. Star Trek's problem is that it often went into details beyond illustrating the universe for some reason, and that resulted in an explosion of technobabble. I think if, for instance, in your SF universe it's possible to teleport bombs through hyperspace into enemy ships, it's best not to have a plot depend on the inner workings of the machine that does that.
And yes, all of the ME games are bad, but only in ME3 did wrong science affect important plots.
"Technobabble" means to use terminology that's meaningless in our current technological/scientific context in order to explain some of the SF universe's technology. I think you can't completely avoid doing that if science and technology become a topic, since the alternative is to use existing terminology in a wrong way, and that results in talking wrong science like ME does. The trick is to invent a consistent terminology that's meaningful within the SF universe's context, use it consistently, but limit it to the concepts needed to illustrate important aspects of that universe. Star Trek's problem is that it often went into details beyond illustrating the universe for some reason, and that resulted in an explosion of technobabble. I think if, for instance, in your SF universe it's possible to teleport bombs through hyperspace into enemy ships, it's best not to have a plot depend on the inner workings of the machine that does that.
And yes, all of the ME games are bad, but only in ME3 did wrong science affect important plots.
That's not science. If I invent something that's (as close as possible) self-consistent but has absolutely no plausible empirical connection to modern science, then I have come up with a very well justified system of magic.
In ME1, the whole plot is made possible by magic space telephones that beam images into your mind, and not one but two plot critical revelations are only possible because Asari can read the minds of other alien races, including one that is a [x] thousand year old plant.
That's not science. If I invent something that's (as close as possible) self-consistent but has absolutely no plausible empirical connection to modern science, then I have come up with a very well justified system of magic.
Is it not science if in a fictional universe certain things work differently from ours, but are understood according to scientific methodology? The problem of "space magic" exists not because it can't be science, but because the SF genre (most call it "speculative fiction" these days, which is more accurate IMO) generally assumes its universes are like ours in most ways. We retain an existential connection to SF universes because they could be interpreted, if not always as a possible future of our civilization exactly, at least as a possible future of a civilization very much like ours in a universe like ours. As long as that connection is maintained, the story stays convincingly within its genre, and that means that technology can get pretty fantastic (magical, if you want) as long as it only occupies unknown space in our body of scientific knowledge, and doesn't contradict it. Occupying that unknown space, however, means that new terminology is occasionally needed, even in the hardest of SF universes. After all, if it didn't have anything new, why call it SF?
In ME1, the whole plot is made possible by magic space telephones that beam images into your mind, and not one but two plot critical revelations are only possible because Asari can read the minds of other alien races, including one that is a [x] thousand year old plant.
Well....I guess you have a point here 
I used to think that the Prothean beacons aren't that "magical" once FTL has been established, but any rationalization collapses once you start to think it through.
Clicked on the post because of "...how it may contribute to the story of me:a".An in-depth look at the Andromeda Galaxy and how its characteristics may contribute to the story of Mass Effect: Andromeda
Can't make it past this guy's introduction. That avatar goes right along with that creeper voice.
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.
Little hint: As opposed to the MEU, D&D worlds are not designed as worlds where by implication, genetics work more or less like IRL.
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.
Of course there will be eezo. Nearly ALL of the technology in Mass Effect depends on eezo. If there was none, then most of our technology wouldn't work and we'd be done for.
Little hint: As opposed to the MEU, D&D worlds are not designed as worlds where by implication, genetics work more or less like IRL.
"Mass Effect" is much closer to fantasy than to science, for a science fiction work. Just look at things like "eezo", "medigel", "biotic powers", "travel through relays" etc.
You can't deal with it like it was a science fiction opera where sticking to the science we know is imperative.
"Mass Effect" is much closer to fantasy than to science, for a science fiction work. Just look at things like "eezo", "medigel", "biotic powers", "travel through relays" etc.
You can't deal with it like it was a science fiction opera where sticking to the science we know is imperative.
I think it's closer to fantasy not necessarily because of those individual things, but because of it's emphasis on the past and digging up artifacts. It's not really the kind of sci-fi that explores scientific potential or concepts. It's just scavenging. It's kind a pathetic view of humanity's future (or rather, everyone in the Milky Way). It makes everyone out to be dumb consumers, stumbling in the dark. And the only way to find answers to solve problems is to go backwards.
And lo and behold, the new game seems the same. Even the name "Remnant" tells us everything.
The "fiction" part doesn't refer to nonsense made up on the spot, it refers to ideas and technologies that we think/know we can achieve in real life, but haven't so far. Excellent example: Fusion power. We know it's possible (just look at the sun), but we are yet unable to do it ourselves on a practical level. We are fairly positive we WILL be able to do it in the future, but we can't right now.
Another great example: a Space Elevator. We know a space elevator can be built in principle, but we have yet to invent the necessary materials to build it ourselves. Space elevators are commonplace in sci-fi.
Science fiction is meant to be a glimpse into possible futures of human civilization, not a physics-breaking joyride. That's what science fantasy like Star Wars and Star Trek is for.
That's an adequate definition of hard science fiction, but certainly not one that could be applied to the genre as a whole.
Of course, precisely what constitutes 'science fiction' has been a matter of debate for as long as it has been recognised as a literary genre, but this modern trend towards attempting to redefine any works of science fiction that do not deal exclusively in existing science as 'science fantasy' is reductive, and ignores almost all of the decades-long conversation over defining both science fiction and science fantasy--which, to be clear, has a far more complex definition itself than simply 'science fiction with wonky science'.
Retour en haut