138 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

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'.

 

But there has to be some dividing line - and the fact that a setting is heavily dependant on technology and has well-articulated rules of nature can't be enough to make it sci-fi. Though I think the real debate is between people who think the genre is defined by an aesthetic (and connection to historical Earth and humanity) or a particular adherence to science. 

[The Hierophant]

Meh. ME's science is more reminiscent of The Fifth Element's sci-fantasy versus Star Trek's.

[Addictress]

Meh. ME's science is more reminiscent of The Fifth Element's sci-fantasy versus Star Trek's.

Oh


Oh I wouldn't go that far.

[Ieldra]

But there has to be some dividing line - and the fact that a setting is heavily dependant on technology and has well-articulated rules of nature can't be enough to make it sci-fi. Though I think the real debate is between people who think the genre is defined by an aesthetic (and connection to historical Earth and humanity) or a particular adherence to science. 

Why shouldn't it be enough? Advanced technology beyond present-day Earth's and a scientific understanding of the world is what describes it best, isn't it? Beyond that, you could only make distinctions based on its prevalent themes: space travel and extraterrestrial life, among a few others.

[KirkyX]

But there has to be some dividing line - and the fact that a setting is heavily dependant on technology and has well-articulated rules of nature can't be enough to make it sci-fi. Though I think the real debate is between people who think the genre is defined by an aesthetic (and connection to historical Earth and humanity) or a particular adherence to science. 

I agree that there's a divide, but I tend to see that divide as between 'soft' science fiction and 'hard' science fiction--I find the label 'science fantasy' more useful in defining works that deliberately blend the tropes of fantasy literature and science fiction literature, like the Numenara RPG setting, though I'll admit that there are almost as many competing definitions for science fantasy as there are for science fiction itself. (A good argument could certainly be made for Star Wars as science fantasy, as well, even for those who consider the aesthetic paramount to the definition--though it would depend heavily on whether one considers a Gilgamesh-esque 'hero's journey', and attendant tropes, as belonging primarily to fantasy literature.)

 

" Though I think the real debate is between people who think the genre is defined by an aesthetic (and connection to historical Earth and humanity) or a particular adherence to science. "

 

It's this, exactly. I'm fairly firmly on the aesthetic side, as you can probably imagine--I don't think I'd be willing to accept any definition of science fiction that didn't leave room for Star Trek, or the Culture books, or Asimov's Foundation novels. The plausibility of the science has never mattered to me as much as how that science is presented - that is, if a given fictional science is accepted within the context of the setting to be science, and treated as such - and, more importantly, how it is used. If a work features a well-crafted allegorical exploration of the human condition, I'm really not fussed about how accurate the science used to enable that exploration is.

[Ieldra]

@KirkyX:

I don't think there can be any doubt that Star Wars is more fantasy than SF. Not only has it supernatural elements which aren't understood through scientific methods, but rather by an extrusion of human psychological traits into the structure of the universe (an element very typical for fantasy), but it is also received as fantasy by the audience. Consider the reaction when one of the movies attempted to give the Jedi's abilities to manipulate the Force a biological underpinning. It is generally considered desirable that the Force keeps its mystique. Were this a work of SF, the goal would be understanding, even if for the sake of keeping things going, this understanding, in-world, might have to be deferred to the future. 

 

Beyond that, I prefer my SF at least semi-hard, but I agree that in order to quality as (good) SF, a scientific understanding of the world by its inhabitants is a distinction rather more important than the plausibility of the technology in terms of RL science. Yet, I think it is also important that if the fictional universe doesn't tell us differently, things work like in the real world by implication, and that means that competently dealing with science is important for all kinds of SF.

[Gwydden]

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.

As someone who spent most of his childhood wanting to be an archaeologist and has remained with a considerable love of history and respect for the profession... I am insulted, sir, very much insulted!

 

I cannot even begin to describe how cool I find the concept of digging through the ruins of ancient alien civilizations.

[Laughing_Man]

As someone who spent most of his childhood wanting to be an archaeologist and has remained with a considerable love of history and respect for the profession... I am insulted, sir, very much insulted!

 

I cannot even begin to describe how cool I find the concept of digging through the ruins of ancient alien civilizations.

 

I don't see why you can't appreciate history while at the same time appreciate the need for innovation and standing on your (race) own merits.

[KirkyX]

@KirkyX:

I don't think there can be any doubt that Star Wars is more fantasy than SF. Not only has it supernatural elements which aren't understood through scientific methods, but rather by an extrusion of human psychological traits into the structure of the universe (an element very typical for fantasy), but it is also received as fantasy by the audience. Consider the reaction when one of the movies attempted to give the Jedi's abilities to manipulate the Force a biological underpinning. It is generally considered desirable that the Force keeps its mystique. Were this a work of SF, the goal would be understanding, even if for the sake of keeping things going, this understanding, in-world, might have to be deferred to the future. 

I agree, and by that very same token, I would proclaim Star Trek, for example, as most firmly not science fantasy, no matter how dubious the science could be. I can't think of any other televised or theatrical work of science fiction more firmly dedicated to the pursuit of understanding.

 

Even the Bajoran Prophets, the most out-and-out mystical entities in all Star Trek, were ultimately there to provide a means to explore the question of whether there truly is a difference between sufficiently advanced aliens who pose as gods, and whatever one might define as actual gods.

[straykat]

As someone who spent most of his childhood wanting to be an archaeologist and has remained with a considerable love of history and respect for the profession... I am insulted, sir, very much insulted!

 

I cannot even begin to describe how cool I find the concept of digging through the ruins of ancient alien civilizations.

 

There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying it isn't science fiction exactly.. it doesn't explore potential, human or otherwise. It's more about being forced to fix past mistakes (someone else's mistakes at that).

 

I blame it on them probably relying on some in-house formula.. and using it whether it's fantasy or sci-fi. Like almost everything they write is about artifacts or fixing the past. Sometimes it can be really cool.. Especially if they don't focus on it too much (Kotor is more than the plot of the star forge.. and Hawke in DA2 isn't all about the deep roads idol).

[Gwydden]

I don't see why you can't appreciate history while at the same time appreciate the need for innovation and standing on your (race) own merits.

I agree that ME tends to focus a bit too much on knowledge from the past as opposed to autonomous advancement, but the former shouldn't be entirely dismissed. Do you think Arabs during the Middle Ages or Europeans during the Renaissance should be looked down upon for recovering "lost ancient knowledge" from classical Greece and Rome? Weren't they realizing their potential by learning from past civilizations and building upon what they restored?

 

There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying it isn't science fiction.. it doesn't explore potential, human or otherwise. It's more about being forced to fix past mistakes.

 

I blame it on them probably relying on some in-house formula.. and using it whether it's fantasy or sci-fi. Like almost everything they write is about artifacts or fixing the past. Sometimes it can be really cool.. Especially if they don't focus on it too much (Kotor is more than the plot of the star forge.. and Hawke in DA2 isn't all about the deep roads idol).

I guess I just don't see science fiction as being about any theme in particular. Cyberpunk, for example, is the very opposite of what you're describing. If anything, it is a subgenre that tends towards romanticism, depicting a dystopian future where all of the best things about humanity have been lost.

 

I'm in George Martin's camp when he described the difference between fantasy and science fiction as being mostly just set dressing. There is fantasy that explores potential and science fiction that romanticizes the past. No need to bind either genre in restrictive definitions.

[fizzypop]

Certain things are supposed to work like IRL. Genetics, for instance. Except they got it all wrong in the worst possible way.

pretty much yeah. I pretend that doesn't exist....lol

[fizzypop]

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.

Um we do not know if there is life out there. The femi paradox. So that's not true, it could go either way. You are drunk, go home.

It doesn't matter because there is no way that we could ever go faster than the speed of light. If we could we would be sending out waves that could disrupt literally an entire planet. This doesn't even include the time dilation or other wonky things. Going the speed of light or even close to the speed of light isn't possible. Element zero was just a convenient way to skirt having to talk about science. That itself means the very basis of mass effect is not based in actual science. I don't really care if it is or not, but trying to argue that Mass effect understands science is like saying a child understands what it means to be an adult. They may think they do, but really they don't.

[straykat]

I agree that ME tends to focus a bit too much on knowledge from the past as opposed to autonomous advancement, but the former shouldn't be entirely dismissed. Do you think Arabs during the Middle Ages or Europeans during the Renaissance should be looked down upon for recovering "lost ancient knowledge" from classical Greece and Rome? Weren't they realizing their potential by learning from past civilizations and building upon what they restored?

 

I guess I just don't see science fiction as being about any theme in particular. Cyberpunk, for example, is the very opposite of what you're describing. If anything, it is a subgenre that tends towards romanticism, depicting a dystopian future where all of the best things about humanity have been lost.

 

I'm in George Martin's camp when he described the difference between fantasy and science fiction as being mostly just set dressing. There is fantasy that explores potential and science fiction that romanticizes the past. No need to bind either genre in restrictive definitions.

 

Cyberpunk is still exploring scientific concepts about human/machine relationships/merging. And it has authors on both sides of the "singularity" issue.. they both speculate whether it's a real thing to fear or much ado about nothing. This is science fiction. It's taking things we're already familiar with to a farther conclusion. Secondly, the problems are our own doing in cyberpunk. Not the Reapers. It's the result of our own scientific hubris.

[straykat]

Um we do not know if there is life out there. The femi paradox. So that's not true, it could go either way. You are drunk, go home.

It doesn't matter because there is no way that we could ever go faster than the speed of light. If we could we would be sending out waves that could disrupt literally an entire planet. This doesn't even include the time dilation or other wonky things. Going the speed of light or even close to the speed of light isn't possible. That itself means the very basis of mass effect is not based in actual science. I don't really care if it is or not, but trying to argue that Mass effect understands science is like saying a child understands what it means to be an adult. They may think they do, but really they don't.

 

Whenever I think about the speed of light, I get depressed.

[fizzypop]

Whenever I think about the speed of light, I get depressed.

You and me both I have always wanted to explore the universe, but the more physics classes I take, the more lectures I attend, and the more reading I do I don't think its really possible. That makes me super sad. I wanted to be a starship captain!

[Gwydden]

Cyberpunk is still exploring scientific concepts about human/machine relationships/merging. And it has authors on both sides of the "singularity" issue.. they both speculate whether it's a real thing to fear or much ado about nothing. This is science fiction. It's taking things we're already familiar with to a farther conclusion. Secondly, the problems are our own doing in cyberpunk. Not the Reapers. It's the result of our own scientific hubris.

The Reapers ARE the result of our own scientific hubris. Creating advanced AIs that follow instructions a bit too clinically is a real concern even today. And what about the gazillion science fiction stories where the "problem" is aliens wanting to eat our faces? How is that our own doing?

 

As for things we're already familiar with... If history is to be trusted, galactic civilizations would be just as susceptible to collapsing as planet-bound ones, probably more. It stands to reason that some of them would be more advanced than us at the time of their fall. Do you really think that if humans came across the remnant of an ancient space-faring civilization we would just go "nah, we should try to figure things out on our own" instead of taking a look at their technology and try to avoid the same fate?

 

I find the idea of learning from others, even from the past, to be perfectly consistent with the potential of already existing technologies. Personally, I find the idea of the remains of ancient alien civilizations much more fascinating than advanced aliens who want to eat us or advanced aliens who want to be surrogate parental figures.

 

And I find it very likely that that is the ultimate fate of humanity. Eventually we'll go extinct and there'll be nothing left of us but the ruins of our civilization spread out over however far we managed to get before going down. If we manage to become an interstellar civilization, chances are we'll suffer the same fate as all others: we'll advance for a while, then fracture, then die. The ruins of the protheans are the future — our future.

[straykat]

The Reapers ARE the result of our own scientific hubris. Creating advanced AIs that follow instructions a bit too clinically is a real concern even today. And what about the gazillion science fiction stories where the "problem" is aliens wanting to eat our faces? How is that our own doing?

 

As for things we're already familiar with... If history is to be trusted, galactic civilizations would be just as susceptible to collapsing as planet-bound ones, probably more. It stands to reason that some of them would be more advanced than us at the time of their fall. Do you really think that if humans came across the remnant of an ancient space-faring civilization we would just go "nah, we should try to figure things out on our own" instead of taking a look at their technology and try to avoid the same fate?

 

I find the idea of learning from others, even from the past, to be perfectly consistent with the potential of already existing technologies. Personally, I find the idea of the remains of ancient alien civilizations much more fascinating than advanced aliens who want to eat us or advanced aliens who want to be surrogate parental figures.

 

And I find it very likely that that is the ultimate fate of humanity. Eventually we'll go extinct and there'll be nothing left of us but the ruins of our civilization spread out over however far we managed to get before going down. If we manage to become an interstellar civilization, chances are we'll suffer the same fate as all others: we'll advance for a while, then fracture, then die. The ruins of the protheans are the future — our future.

 

The Reapers have nothing to do with us. They were created by a tyrannical, slave-driving giant lobster race. It's no wonder their creations are jackasses and don't know **** about how people actually live (or value life).

 

And it's not even exploring anything intelligible about AI anyways. The writers just make them ineffable and mysterious. They might as well be Cthulu. They're "beyond" and unknowable. We're too stupid to understand. This isn't science.. even in a malicious sense.

 

I'm not saying I don't enjoy it though. It's just not stimulating in the typical sci-fi sense, for me.

[Laughing_Man]

I agree that ME tends to focus a bit too much on knowledge from the past as opposed to autonomous advancement, but the former shouldn't be entirely dismissed. Do you think Arabs during the Middle Ages or Europeans during the Renaissance should be looked down upon for recovering "lost ancient knowledge" from classical Greece and Rome? Weren't they realizing their potential by learning from past civilizations and building upon what they restored?

 

I would argue that any such learning was probably limited in scope, and in the end didn't matter much for the overall

advancement and modernization of science.

 

Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, and Louis Pasteur were not archaeologists.

 

That is not to say that the study of the past is useless of course, only that it is rather limited in what you can learn from it.

 

Of course, the Mass Effect universe is rather different, but even without the threat of Reapers, there would have been at some point some drawbacks and unfortunate consequences to the obsession with "Element Zero Science" and the focus on ancient technology.

 

Still, this is more about the perspective of the writer, and the unfortunate decision to go with technology that is essentially given as a gift from a higher power, instead of earned through blood sweat and brain cramps.

[Ieldra]

That is not to say that the study of the past is useless of course, only that it is rather limited in what you can learn from it.

You can learn, however, some of the more important things: why cultures died out. You can't avoid the mistakes made by others if you don't know they were mistakes. This would become even more important in an interstellar setting.

[Laughing_Man]

You can learn, however, some of the more important things: why cultures died out. You can't avoid the mistakes made by others if you don't know they were mistakes. This would become even more important in an interstellar setting.

 

True of course, but that was not my point.

[straykat]

I need to put here that I love archaeology.. or more like, I love history.

 

My opinions here have nothing to do with that.. I just want to make that clear This is just literary criticism.. more or less.

[Laughing_Man]

I need to put here that I love archaeology.. or more like, I love history.

 

My opinions here have nothing to do with that.. I just want to make that clear This is just literary criticism.. more or less.

 

Appreciation of the past is a good thing, and it has very little to do with the wish to see more innovation and self-reliance.

[Ieldra]

Still, this is more about the perspective of the writer, and the unfortunate decision to go with technology that is essentially given as a gift from a higher power, instead of earned through blood sweat and brain cramps.

I hate this idea of technology having been "earned". I see it as a conceit of Protestant work ethics and completely irrelevant. Technology exchange has been part of human civilization ever since it exists. The source of a technology doesn't matter, only that we understand it.

Of course I like it if an advancement is an achievement for a civilization rather than a gift from another, if only because I want "my" people to be creative and test their limits and generally be at the forefront of advancement, but the idea that we wouldn't deserve it if we had it from somewhere else is completely ludicrous.

[straykat]

I hate this idea of technology having been "earned". I see it as a conceit of Protestant work ethics and completely irrelevant. Technology exchange has been part of human civilization ever since it exists. The source of a technology doesn't matter, only that we understand it.

Of course I like it if an advancement is an achievement for a civilization rather than a gift from another, if only because I want "my" people to be creative and test their limits and generally be at the forefront of advancement, but the idea that we wouldn't deserve it if we had it from somewhere else is completely ludicrous.

 

Yeah, but Mass Effect isn't even promoting an understanding really. No one even knows who the hell the Keepers are. So much for an understanding of the Citadel... the very foundation of their entire civilization. They're all mindless consumers.