Where does that 300 year figure come from? The Reapers are capable of traveling more than 8000xFTL!?
Reaper speed - 30 light years per day
Council races speed - 12 light years per day
Distance to Andromeda - 2.54 million light years
+ basic math =
232 years to Reach Andromeda at Reaper speed
580 years to reach Andromeda at Council speed
There were multiple threads on this. Reapers can travel 30 light-years a day. Distance between MW and Andromeda is 2.5 millions light-years + a little inside MW/Andromeda. You can figure this out.
I believe I already did 
. That seems...implausible. Ah, well, their game, their rules.
*points at 600 years*
Somebody let something slip.
Well, they already admitted that 400 years of travel wasn't a bad guess, so admitting it's 600 years won't be much of a change. The idea is that people must know that whatever happened in the MW, it will be in the distant past from Andromeda's point of view.
We don't know that either. A reaper-type drive doesn't mean Reaper-spec capabilities. We aren't exactly flying something as small as a Reaper, and we're using (at best) experimental/reverse engineered Reaper tech, not Reaper tech itself.
Don't invent an incompatibility where none exists.
Wait, wait, "as small as a Reaper"? Until now, Reapers are officially some of the largest ships ever seen in the ME setting. As far as we know, only a Quarian liveship might be larger than them.
Wait, wait, "as small as a Reaper"? Until now, Reapers are officially some of the largest ships ever seen in the ME setting. As far as we know, only a Quarian liveship might be larger than them.
The Ark ships might be as big as the Citadel, but I don't know if size matters in space without the gravity and stuff
Okama's Razor. If reaper speed allows to get there in 300 years, convienient FTL would take twice as much. Which matches the time Walters mentioned. I don't invent anything, simplest logic here.
BTW Reapers are small now?
Why are we trying to actually reason out space magic? Mass Effect is based on impossible nonsense physics. Their technologies are just techno magic. All of their innovations are conceptually impossible in the way they portrayed them. They'll make up some nonsense like they made up some nonsense to justify FTL travel to start with, and that's it.
Because it doesn't matter if the magic is based on real-world physics, or what we know to be (im)possible.
What matters is if the magic operates on its own consistent set of rules. If we are told standard cruising speed for FTL is ~12 LY/day, then that is the standard speed for FTL engines in this setting, regardless of whether or not FTL is a real ting.
It's when we start veering off into regions where we are told the tech does X but we are shown Y with no reason as to why this is where the problem comes in. Like when we are told a drive core needs to be discharged every 50 hours or so of use, but are shown it working nonstop for centuries with no ill effect. That is when we are past magic and into space magic.
Whay happened to that mini mass relay in the Citadel? If it wasn't destroyed couldn't it have been reverse engineered? Or used in some way to make this trip plausible?
Relays as far as we know, need pairs. So to use a relay to get to Andromeda we'd need one in each galaxy.
I suppose this group could start building one in Andromeda once it finds a good spot for one...
Because it doesn't matter if the magic is based on real-world physics, or what we know to be (im)possible.
What matters is if the magic operates on its own consistent set of rules. If we are told standard cruising speed for FTL is ~12 LY/day, then that is the standard speed for FTL engines in this setting, regardless of whether or not FTL is a real ting.
It's when we start veering off into regions where we are told the tech does X but we are shown Y with no reason as to why this is where the problem comes in. Like when we are told a drive core needs to be discharged every 50 hours or so of use, but are shown it working nonstop for centuries with no ill effect. That is when we are past magic and into space magic.
The setting veered off course the second we got gibberish psychic space beacons, super force powers from gravity phenomenon, and all the other incomprehensible nonsense and general gibberish we got introduced to in the first 30 minutes in ME1 (like magic metals that stay pristine and undamaged for 50,000 years). The rules of the setting aren't consistent. They're stupid nonsense, and a series of non-sequiteurs wrapped up in a marginally cogent gloss.
You're wringing your hands about one detail in a sea of arble-garble. If you want a setting that tries - and the operative word here is tries, because we're talking about made-up nonsense, and creating an internally self-consistent system is an insanely challenging conceptual problem that arguable no one's really ever pulled of in humanity's history - to be self-consistent, then you've desperately latched on to the wrong series.
This is a series that can't be consistent with the actual science it uses, with phenomena we know and understand. Like the unspeakable stupidity that is Quarian immunology, or the series complete lack of understanding of what "AI" actually is, how it works, and what challenges we would have to face to make "true" AI, and what we even need "true" AI for IRL.
What matters is if the magic operates on its own consistent set of rules. If we are told standard cruising speed for FTL is ~12 LY/day, then that is the standard speed for FTL engines in this setting, regardless of whether or not FTL is a real ting.
The setting veered off course the second we got gibberish psychic space beacons, super force powers from gravity phenomenon, and all the other incomprehensible nonsense and general gibberish we got introduced to in the first 30 minutes in ME1 (like magic metals that stay pristine and undamaged for 50,000 years). The rules of the setting aren't consistent. They're stupid nonsense, and a series of non-sequiteurs wrapped up in a marginally cogent gloss.
You're wringing your hands about one detail in a sea of arble-garble. If you want a setting that tries - and the operative word here is tries, because we're talking about made-up nonsense, and creating an internally self-consistent system is an insanely challenging conceptual problem that arguable no one's really ever pulled of in humanity's history - to be self-consistent, then you've desperately latched on to the wrong series.
This is a series that can't be consistent with the actual science it uses, with phenomena we know and understand. Like the unspeakable stupidity that is Quarian immunology, or the series complete lack of understanding of what "AI" actually is, how it works, and what challenges we would have to face to make "true" AI, and what we even need "true" AI for IRL.
You must really hate the science fiction genre.
You must really hate the science fiction genre.
Sten wasn't taken. He was hiding eating cookies. And cakes.
The cake was a lie.
Or, they just see ME1 for what it actually is: very, very soft.
That doesn't invalidate Iakus' point. Hard sci-f fans hating soft science fiction are still hating science fiction (the larger part of it, at least), although some will try to disguise it by summoning the No True Scotsman.
That doesn't invalidate Iakus' point. Hard sci-f fans hating soft science fiction are still hating science fiction (the larger part of it, at least), although some will try to disguise it by summoning the No True Scotsman.
Still kinda disappointed at how there wasn't any media blowout, but I have to say, I think Mac seems to have gotten confident as the man in charge. A lot of what he says comes across as sensible, and hey, he even brought the ending criticism up himself this time and aknowledges there was something that needed to be improved upon there, so that's a plus in my book. I also love he's not sugarcoating the fact that they are deliberately trying to do something brave and new with this in regards to all the "where is Shepard!?" or "Will there be cameos?" questions. It's everything I wanted to hear!
Definitely feeling more optimistic about this again!
EDIT: I see some discussion about the sci-finess of ME1. I'm not too knowledgable on this but basically I think dreamgazer has a point in saying that ME1 is basically soft-sci fi because of the Mass Effect technology and how despite the techno-babble talk a lot of the lore isn't actually realistically plausible. Compared to 3 though it's definitely more hard-sci-fi I'd say though. In ME3 the problem was that too much of the technical aspect of the story was made wishy-washy and vague. Talk of "true AI" or some energy beam, a huge galaxy-spanning construction project where all the details you hear are "it's massive in scope, complex in design, yet strangely simple as well" and basically a lot of "HEY LOOK, IT'S NOTHING!"
I felt the beacons were explained well enough though. It was admittedly alien in introduction -- that was the point, but then they explained it semi-plausibly later by telling us they were a construct of an alien race with alien communication and abilities. It's at least better than the wishy-washy babble of 3 where the concepts being discussed but not explained properly are not even supposed to be alien. The Crucible was perhaps ancient, but we knew how to decipher prothean texts and we HAD the blueprint at the ready for scientists to actually develop it, yet they still couldn't figure out to just say "it uses Mass Effect/dark energy" or "It's a reactor drawing energy potentially from Mass Relays to load a huge blast".
I hope they can redact that in Andromeda. I feel as though Schlerf whose writing hopefully still makes it into the game we're getting is more of a Drew Karpyshyn type writer. Very drab style, but full of minutiae and as long as that is balanced out with some more human and emotional writing as well, I'm totally on board.
I also hope Mac has written at least a few characters in the game because he's good at making characters that feel realistic and not too fantastical.
You can still appreciate a piece of science-fiction while acknowledging how soft it is.
True enough, although many disagree when trying to fathom how soft a certain work is. Or whether being soft is a bad thing to begin with.
You can still appreciate a piece of science-fiction while acknowledging how soft it is.
Yeah. I recognize that ME is soft af and often unintentionally silly, but despite that (and sometimes because of that) it's still a fun game series with a lot of good bits.
You must really hate the science fiction genre.
Yeah. I recognize that ME is soft af and often unintentionally silly, but despite that (and sometimes because of that) it's still a fun game series with a lot of good bits.
For me - and my name isn't In Exile so, y'know, take this for what it's worth - the main takeaway from ME being soft and inconsistent isn't that it's bad, but that fans who expect it to be hard or consistent, and who talk about it as if it is either of those things, are badly deluded. iakus is talking about a version of ME that has never really existed save in his own head. It certainly didn't exist in either Revelation or ME1. And making the actual ME franchise into that version would require a top-down, fundamental rewrite in a way that would destroy any resemblance to the ME that actually exists.
Basically, yeah. That's my point. Although I wouldn't say deluded - just asking the series for something it cannot and never delivered.
I like to think of physics as the space magic.
I don't think scientific impossibilities are a bad thing at all. At the end of the day, this is science fiction. Of course it's going to have nonsensical elements that just can't work in real life. Realism would mean we play as a NASA bureaucrat who tries to get another drone deployed to Mars in 10 years or something. It's just not fun. Until we actually leave our planet and/or encounter aliens (which isn't likely in the foreseeable future), any science-fiction story relies on convenient nonsense by defintion.
That said, I do think there's a difference between scientific mumbo-jumbo that was introduced early in the setting and makes some amount of sense when presented to a layman (the titular Mass Effect, for instance) and something that is just so mind-boggingly ridiculous that thinking about it for a minute makes the entire concept fall apart even with no proper scientific knowledge (such as the Synthesis beam). The first preserves the suspension of disbelief. The latter does not.
In a universe with magic, this means that a mage throwing a fireball is OK if it was explained it's a common magic power, but introducing a character that can make the entire planet love each other with a snap of their finger with no explanantion is just cheap. Neither is more realistic than the other, yet the audience can learn to accept the fireballs, but probably not the wave of instant peace and love.
So yeah, I disagree with In Exile that it's all just space magic nonsense with no distinction. Building a credible world, or at least a world with a convincing enough veneer of credibility, is important to writing science-fiction that I enjoy. For all its faults (Project Lazarus, urgh) and missed details, I thought Mass Effect did a good enough job of that until the ending made the entire thing crash down.
And yeah, I'd like to have an explanation on how they managed to get to Andromeda with no need to discharge their drive core. If what Mac Walters let slip by in a recent interview is real, the journey took 600 years. That's actually somewhat consistent with the speed of FTL as described in the original trilogy. But where did they discharge their cores, is a question that kinda needs answering IMO. It's a rule of the setting. Ignoring it now isn't a great idea, no more than it would make sense for all the mages in Dragon Ages to all be able to turn into dragons at will with no explanation given despite the fact that magic, by its very nature, is nonsensical.
I don't think scientific impossibilities are a bad thing at all. At the end of the day, this is science fiction. Of course it's going to have nonsensical elements that just can't work in real life. Realism would mean we play as a NASA bureaucrat who tries to get another drone deployed to Mars in 10 years or something. It's just not fun. Until we actually leave our planet and/or encounter aliens (which isn't likely in the foreseeable future), any science-fiction story relies on convenient nonsense by defintion.
I truly feel sorry for the first generation to actually meet aliens. That'll throw the entire sci-fi genre into a tizzy. Of course, with that being said, watch aliens land tomorrow.
I love science fiction. It's my favourite genre. Just like I love fantasy. But I don't expect most science fiction to be scientifically accurate - except when it invokes IRL science concepts that stand alone from the space magic necessary to allow for e.g. space travel or to allow aliens to exist - anymore than I expect the author to come up with an internally consistent set of rules.
Let's take Babylon 5 as an example. Brilliant series. Don't need someone to sit down and wring their hands about the nonsense space magic rules of that universe, when we have nonsense like actual psychics. Or we can use harder sci-fi if you want, but I don't actually care as much for hard sci-fi as often it's just a scientific thought experiment rather than a good standalone story.
Again, scientific accuracy matters less than consistency. AS long as it's inaccurate in a consistent manner, there's room for the suspension of disbelief.
I can accept jump gates that somehow transport people through hyperspace as long as it's done in a consistent manner. Regardless of how little it makes sense scientifically. But if it starts, oh, allowing for time travel, or access to parallel universes because Rule of Cool, we have a problem.
Retour en haut