151 réponses à ce sujet

[The Black Ghost]

wulf3n wrote...

Before i get started im not bagging either ME1 or ME2 they are still some of the best games i've played.

However, while playing the game, theres something nagging me, i can't quite put my finger on what it is, yet it somehow sucks me out of the illusion that this is real.
Other sci-fi games like the Halo series(even  though i think mass effect is better) have me believing that the future they've created is one that COULD exist, it feels real to me, but for some reason Mass Effect doesn't.
At first i thought it may have been the squeeky clean feel to ME1, almost like a disney movie, it didn't really show the darker side of nature, however that issue was addressed in ME2, yet i still feel the same way.

Im wondering if anyone has the same feeling, or may know what the reason could be.

My guess is that it is because you are alone, and essentially without guidance from a major superior. The entire universe is static, whilst you are goijng from place to place doing things. You never see any other ships (except derelict ones)... , no one else moves around on the planets or anything. You're the only one DOING anything.

[Aus_Da_Boss]

blank1 wrote...

I find the tech in Halo much more believable.

Who's to say that, in 500 years, we won't have tech that is largely similar to what we have today? Every area of tech doesn't advance at a predictable rate -- technology advances based on necessity. For example, Earth got way too populated, so humans in the Halo universe created faster propulsion systems for sublight travel. The Solar System got too small, so someone found a way to rip space-time a new one (Shaw-Fukijawa Space, or slip space) so that we could defy the laws of physics (Mass Effect is a horrible perpetrator here... FTL without using a "different dimension" cop out is pretty much 100% impossible). Why do weapons have to be super advanced pew pew laz0rz in the future? The power necessary to run what Mass Effect calls an assault rifle, or a particle accelerator, is enormous, and impossible. It's 100% feasible to say that, 500 years in the future, soldiers will be armed with standard chemical propulsion cartridges, but have much more advanced battlefield awareness tech, recoil compensation, cybernetic augmentation, etc. The wave of the future in warfare isn't laser beams and disruptor torpedoes, it's a seamless battlefield where commanders can issue orders based off of real-time intelligence and sitreps... but I digress.

Halo is more believable. Cultural stagnation is inevitable... there's only so much tech can do before things start becoming impossible. Take traveling outside the solar system for example... impossible. Traveling at light speed not only has serious repercussions (HEY LOOK, MY MASS BECAME INFINITE RELATIVE TO THE UNIVERSE *dies of massive organ failure*), but it's not possible. I think we're all going to have to live with the fact that one day we're going to overpopulate our solar system and blow each other up for resources, and back to the stone age we go. Aliens on some other planet are doing the same thing. Travel to other solar systems will never happen. Ever.

Just to say it,
1. our "tech" has improved in 20 years that surpassed "tech" that took about 2000 years to come up with(including B.C. years) So either we hit a rock and keep the same "tech" or we move forward so fast that we come up with freakin black hole machines or some messed up thing like that. Oh and this "Traveling at light speed not only has serious repercussions (HEY LOOK,
MY MASS BECAME INFINITE RELATIVE TO THE UNIVERSE *dies of massive organ
failure*)" is very debatable. We only "know" that  becaused it is accepted that Einstein's theory is correct, which it very well couldn't be. This means that FTL travel could be possable, but not for quite awhile.

Modifié par Aus_Da_Boss, 11 février 2010 - 05:32 .

[Aus_Da_Boss]

sedrikhcain wrote...

binaryemperor wrote...

It's more plausible than Star Wars.

Star Wars was never meant to be science fiction. It's actually fantasy, it's just set in space. Notice, there is never any attempt in any of the movies to explain how a lightsaber works, how the repulsor lift on luke's landspeeder works (heck, the term repulsor lift isn't even in the movies). A science fiction saga would've attempted explanations of all these things.

Very true, i always found it funny that they have laser guns that shoot lasers really slowly and swords made of stabalized laasers that can cut through anything where the laser guns really aren't worth s*** and the lightsaber couldent deflect a modern day bullet, just melt it and get molten lead in a jedi's eye.

'Tis entertaining. But that is it.

[AGogley]

All of this bickering over a make believe, Science Fiction, fantasy game?  I mean really?  Look, the difference between Science Fiction and other fantasy is that the laws of science are hopefully bent not broken to make the fantasy part seem at least plausible to those of us who didn't major in engineering or physics.  But in the end, it's still fiction.  Bioware did a great job of trying to immerse us and provide some explanation as to how things came into being.  But some of those explanations are going to be...well, quite implausible, because our current understanding of Science doesn't allow for them to be plausible.  Again, it's fiction.

[dan107]

Andorfiend wrote...
You greatly underestimate what a soldier's job is. A soldier does not merely carry a gun into position so that it can do its job. He needs to be able to asses the situation in real time and accurately determine what is a friendly unit, a neutral one, and a hostile one. He needs to be able to tell the difference, at a glance, between an armed hostile wearing a turban and a bandana and a helpless civillian wearing a burka. No robot we are even close to developing can do that job. Nor are we close to producing a robot that has anything even close to the in the field endurance of a human. He also needs to be able to dig a trench, help build a school, guard a post, rescue a dog, etc etc etc.

I said a soldier's primary job is to kill enemy combatants. That's what differentiates a soldier from a civilan construction worker. Yes, frequently soldiers get asked to do civilian jobs as well, but we're gonna have trech-building, post-guarding, dog-rescuing robots well before we have interstellar space travel. I didn't even mention those things because I considered them trivial compared to being effective in combat.

Theoretically we could have tele-operated combat waldos, but any remote operation technology is subject to jamming, interference and hacking, none of which is a problem for the human soldier. In an age of high speed information warfare a human presence in the loop becomes more critical, not less.

A human soldier, on the other hand, is subject to starvation, exhaustion, and dying, which is are not big factors for a robot. The need to minimize casualties and keep troops rested and supplied greatly limit the kinds of operations that can be performed with living soldiers especially in the arena of space. Jamming, interference and hacking are easier to take counter-measures against, and as I mentioned, that's one of the primary areas where tomorrow's battles will be lost and won. Information and technological superiority makes victory on the battlefield all but assured.

UAV combat aircraft are practical because air combat is so much simpler that ground combat is several important ways that all relate to the type of decision making that humans are good at and robots suck at.. Ground combatants do not have predicatble outlines and IFF transponders.

The decisions are still made by humans. UAVs are just remote controlled planes. No reason why you couldn't do that with a tank or a ship today, and with a humanoid robot a few decades from now.

As far as AI autonomous robotic ground troops, they exist in the ME universe. They are called Geth. 
 

Indeed. And perfectly capable of carrying out all tasks that an organic soldier would. Full AI certainly does have existential implications, but there's no reason why the organic races couldn't build their armies to be physically similar to the geth, without the programming, and controll them remotely. Like I said, and inconsistency in the setting.

[Doug84]

Gar_Logan wrote...

I feel the exact opposite. Halo looks like some...well, it doesn't look real. However Mass Effect seems actually plausible.

Pretty much - its like "If the US army ran the future."

Although to be fair, neither scenario is technically plausible from what we understand about physics at the time of writing Though hopefully there's going to be a major shake up of physics soon, because there are major fundamental problems with current theories.

[dan107]

sedrikhcain wrote...
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". My all-time favorite quote. If you had told scholars just 300 years ago that we'd be able to talk to people on the other side of the earth, they would've laughed at you and produced all kinds of "indisputable facts" to prove that what you claimed was impossible. Yet here we are Skyping w/relatives like it's the Jetsons.

Today's impossible is tomorrow's old hat.

Actually no one 300 years ago would've been able to give you facts for why you couldn't have radio, satellites, etc. Those things simply wouldn't have made sense to them. Unfortunately FTL travel is a bit of special case, because our current understanding of physics implies quite clearly that it's impossible, it raises all sorts of paradoxes on a theoretical level, and most importantly there are mountains of experimental data that confirm it to be the case. The Theory of Relativity and the light-speed boundary has had practically every physicist gunning for it for almost a century, and has withstood every test ever thrown at it.

Any theory that permits FTL travel would not only have to explain things that we don't understand, but it would somehow have to account for all the things that we do understand quite well (as well as all the solid experimental evidence backing them) which suggest that FTL travel is impossible, and to show why they are all wrong. Never say never, of course, but this is a tall order indeed.

[Doug84]

dan107 wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". My all-time favorite quote. If you had told scholars just 300 years ago that we'd be able to talk to people on the other side of the earth, they would've laughed at you and produced all kinds of "indisputable facts" to prove that what you claimed was impossible. Yet here we are Skyping w/relatives like it's the Jetsons.

Today's impossible is tomorrow's old hat.

Actually no one 300 years ago would've been able to give you facts for why you couldn't have radio, satellites, etc. Those things simply wouldn't have made sense to them. Unfortunately FTL travel is a bit of special case, because our current understanding of physics implies quite clearly that it's impossible, it raises all sorts of paradoxes on a theoretical level, and most importantly there are mountains of experimental data that confirm it to be the case. The Theory of Relativity and the light-speed boundary has had practically every physicist gunning for it for almost a century, and has withstood every test ever thrown at it.

Any theory that permits FTL travel would not only have to explain things that we don't understand, but it would somehow have to account for all the things that we do understand quite well (as well as all the solid experimental evidence backing them) which suggest that FTL travel is impossible, and to show why they are all wrong. Never say never, of course, but this is a tall order indeed.

But our current understanding of physics is pretty bad, given we have 2 very accurate theories about the universe that say wholy different things about the nature of space-time and both say the other can't be true (i.e. General Relativity and Quantum Theory).

EDIT:

It's likely that FTL is a no-go,
but hopefully there is a way around it. Well, more accurately, a way
around it that doesn't require such huge sums of energy or exotic
matter as current idea's do (bending space time, worm holes, etc). Like teleportation and so forth.

And come to think of it, Newton's laws of motion stood for several centuries before being thrown down to be replaced by General and Special Relativity ...

Modifié par Doug84, 15 février 2010 - 10:59 .

[dan107]

Doug84 wrote...
But our current understanding of physics is pretty bad, given we have 2 very accurate theories about the universe that say wholy different things about the nature of space-time and both say the other can't be true (i.e. General Relativity and Quantum Theory).

They don't really contradict each other. As a matter of fact most physicists believe that General Relativity can be expressed as a subset of a unified theory of quantum gravity, and such a theory is the current Holy Grail in physics. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, however, break down if you violate the lightspeed barrier. Like I said, you can never say never in science, but the more you read and understand physics, the more apparent it becomes why FTL travel is so problematic.

Unfortunately this is not the case of some nay-sayers saying that it can't be done just because it's beyond their mental capacity. This is a case of some of the most brilliant minds that humanity has to offer attempting to tackle a problem for nearly a century, and not only not making any progress, but constantly coming up with more evidence and reasons that reaffirm the limitation.

Modifié par dan107, 15 février 2010 - 10:59 .

[Doug84]

dan107 wrote...

Doug84 wrote...
But our current understanding of physics is pretty bad, given we have 2 very accurate theories about the universe that say wholy different things about the nature of space-time and both say the other can't be true (i.e. General Relativity and Quantum Theory).

They don't really contradict each other. As a matter of fact most physicists believe that General Relativity can be expressed as a subset of a unified theory of quantum gravity, and such a theory is the current Holy Grail in physics. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, however, break down if you violate the lightspeed barrier. Like I said, you can never say never in science, but the more you read and understand physics, the more apparent it becomes why FTL travel is so problematic.

Unfortunately this is not the case of some nay-sayers saying that it can't be done just because it's beyond their mental capacity. This is a case of some of the most brilliant minds that humanity has to offer attempting to tackle a problem for nearly a century, and not only not making any progress, but constantly coming up with more evidence and reasons that confirm the limitation.

I think they do, to be honest. Quantum theory states that space-time is 'flat' in the sense that it has no ability to be shaped by matter within it. General Relativity states that what we see as gravity is a curve in space-time. Hence, they seem to really disargee on their most fundamental ideas on the nature of space-time.

But then again, physics isn't what I subjected at uni, so I'm willing to admit I might be horribly wrong.

And I'm not saying scientists are dumb, at all. Scientists who believed in the Ether theory of light wheren't dumb - it was a wholy valid theory that survived many tests against reality until the idea of Ether waves was replaced with the photon. What I'm saying is its wholy possible our understanding of physics today has fundamental flaws we either haven't realised yet (like the issues between General Relativity/Quantum mechanics) or simply haven't found yet.

[abisha]

what i really hate that their are planets around stars with twice the size of that star, witch hance inposable, do to mass.

FTL ain't a problem for me, i recall reading their are objects in the universe that travel faster then light.

as for the world reality.

i think the stations looks to clean, also the planet where Liara is staying is to clean for being real.

makes it kind of unrealistic.

[dan107]

Doug84 wrote...
I think they do, to be honest. Quantum theory states that space-time is 'flat' in the sense that it has no ability to be shaped by matter within it. General Relativity states that what we see as gravity is a curve in space-time. Hence, they seem to really disargee on their most fundamental ideas on the nature of space-time.

But then again, physics isn't what I subjected at uni, so I'm willing to admit I might be horribly wrong.

On this issue, you are indeed horribly wrong. There is absolutely nothing in quantum mechanics that contradicts space-time curvature cause by local gravity.

And I'm not saying scientists are dumb, at all. Scientists who believed in the Ether theory of light wheren't dumb - it was a wholy valid theory that survived many tests against reality until the idea of Ether waves was replaced with the photon. What I'm saying is its wholy possible our understanding of physics today has fundamental flaws we either haven't realised yet (like the issues between General Relativity/Quantum mechanics) or simply haven't found yet.

Unfortunately this particular case isn't quite as simple. The FTL barrier is not something that arises from a lack of understanding, on the contrary, an increase in our understanding of physics has done nothing but increase our appreciation for the problems caused by FTL travel. When it comes to fundamental flaws in our understanding in physics -- again, anything is possible but we have all sorts of working technology that's based on that understanding that would have to be explained away.

To give a simplifed example -- let's say someone came to you and said that Benjamin Franklin was completely wrong, that he misunderstood electricity, and that the technology that lightbulbs are based on is wrong. Then in response to your natural question of "Well why the f*uck do lighbulbs work then?", he would have to provide a comprehensive, logical, and consistent theory that completely contradicted what we know about electricity and yet somehow explained why lightbulbs worked exactly as designed for 200 years.

No scientist worth his salt will tell you that this is completely impossible and will always remain so, but it's highly, highly unlikely and has never happened before in the history of science. Same with FTL travel. The lightspeed barrier has as much evidence stacked in it's favor as does gravity or electricity, which are mundane and universally accepted concepts. The only reason why it fascinates us so is that we WANT to be able to travel to other stars, but unfortunately what we WANT has no bearing or relevance on cold scientific facts.

abisha wrote...
FTL ain't a problem for me, i recall reading their are objects in the universe that travel faster then light.

Got a source for that?

Modifié par dan107, 15 février 2010 - 11:36 .

[Doug84]

dan107 wrote...

The lightspeed barrier has as much evidence stacked in it's favor as does gravity or electricity...

Did I mention I occasionally get a moment of verigo when imagine the idea of gravity suddenly stopping? Silly, know

But yeah, sadly your post is probably right. About the only hope for a Mass Effect style universe would be a 'cheat' way of doing it so that FTL never occured, but two points in the Universe where connected via a short wormhole. However, this is unlikely or at least impractical. But we can dream...

[dan107]

Doug84 wrote...

dan107 wrote...

The lightspeed barrier has as much evidence stacked in it's favor as does gravity or electricity...

Did I mention I occasionally get a moment of verigo when imagine the idea of gravity suddenly stopping? Silly, know

But yeah, sadly your post is probably right. About the only hope for a Mass Effect style universe would be a 'cheat' way of doing it so that FTL never occured, but two points in the Universe where connected via a short wormhole. However, this is unlikely or at least impractical. But we can dream...

That we can..

[TLK Spires]

you think halo is more likely to 'happen' than mass effect?



really? you are either 13ish, ignorant. trolling, or a combination of those.

[abisha]

http://www.livescien...ooky-limit.html



Tachyons

Main article: Tachyon



In special relativity, while it is impossible in an inertial frame to accelerate an object to the speed of light, or for a massive object to move at the speed of light, -> it is not impossible for an object to exist which always moves faster than light.<- The hypothetical elementary particles that have this property are called tachyons. Their existence has neither been proven nor disproven, but even so, attempts to quantise them show that they may not be used for faster-than-light communication.[21] Physicists sometimes regard the existence of mathematical structures similar to tachyons arising from theoretical models and theories as signs of an inconsistency or that the theory needs further refining.[22]



striped right from the article

[dan107]

abisha wrote...
http://www.livescien...ooky-limit.html



Tachyons

Main article: Tachyon



In
special relativity, while it is impossible in an inertial frame to
accelerate an object to the speed of light, or for a massive object to
move at the speed of light, -> it is not impossible for an object to
exist which always moves faster than light.<- The hypothetical
elementary particles that have this property are called tachyons. Their
existence has neither been proven nor disproven, but even so, attempts
to quantise them show that they may not be used for faster-than-light
communication.[21] Physicists sometimes regard the existence of
mathematical structures similar to tachyons arising from theoretical
models and theories as signs of an inconsistency or that the theory
needs further refining.[22]



striped right from the article

Emphasis added. You're referring to a highly theoretical entity, which has never been thus far observed, and which even in theory cannot have any implications for accelerating objects to the speed of light. Even assuming that they do exist, and are not a result of mathematical imprecisions, they have nothing to do with actual FTL travel by any known particle, let alone objects with mass.

[The Happy One]

I think Mass Effect's universe is believable enough, but how were humans able to become/rival the dominant species after only 30 years or so?

[Doug84]

The Happy One wrote...

I think Mass Effect's universe is believable enough, but how were humans able to become/rival the dominant species after only 30 years or so?

Lasers.

[WillieStyle]

dan107 wrote...

They don't really contradict each other. As a matter of fact most physicists believe that General Relativity can be expressed as a subset of a unified theory of quantum gravity, and such a theory is the current Holy Grail in physics. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, however, break down if you violate the lightspeed barrier. Like I said, you can never say never in science, but the more you read and understand physics, the more apparent it becomes why FTL travel is so problematic.

The reason the a unified theory is the current Holy Grail in physics is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are currently incompatible.  Attempting to generate a wave equation that includes gravity leads to embarassing "infinities."

Unfortunately this is not the case of some nay-sayers saying that it can't be done just because it's beyond their mental capacity. This is a case of some of the most brilliant minds that humanity has to offer attempting to tackle a problem for nearly a century, and not only not making any progress, but constantly coming up with more evidence and reasons that reaffirm the limitation.

Why do you think a century is  a long time in the grand scheme of things.
In an earlier post, you said 300 years ago people had no thoeretical reasons to disbelieve near instantaneous earth-spanning communications.  This is false.  If electromagnetic waves required an "ether" to propagate, then much of our current telecommunications architecture would be impossible. 

Making definitive claims about what will or won't be possible centuries from now is kinda silly.  Most physicists have the humility not to make such claims.

[Doug84]

WillieStyle wrote...

dan107 wrote...

They don't really contradict each other. As a matter of fact most physicists believe that General Relativity can be expressed as a subset of a unified theory of quantum gravity, and such a theory is the current Holy Grail in physics. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, however, break down if you violate the lightspeed barrier. Like I said, you can never say never in science, but the more you read and understand physics, the more apparent it becomes why FTL travel is so problematic.

The reason the a unified theory is the current Holy Grail in physics is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are currently incompatible.  Attempting to generate a wave equation that includes gravity leads to embarassing "infinities."

I thought that was the case!

Unfortunately this is not the case of some nay-sayers saying that it can't be done just because it's beyond their mental capacity. This is a case of some of the most brilliant minds that humanity has to offer attempting to tackle a problem for nearly a century, and not only not making any progress, but constantly coming up with more evidence and reasons that reaffirm the limitation.

Why do you think a century is  a long time in the grand scheme of things.
In an earlier post, you said 300 years ago people had no thoeretical reasons to disbelieve near instantaneous earth-spanning communications.  This is false.  If electromagnetic waves required an "ether" to propagate, then much of our current telecommunications architecture would be impossible. 

Making definitive claims about what will or won't be possible centuries from now is kinda silly.  Most physicists have the humility not to make such claims.

True. Thats what I was saying earlier. Though I still find it sadly questionnable that FTL will ever happen - "jump" style travel, possibly but unlikely.

[dan107]

WillieStyle wrote...
The reason the a unified theory is the current Holy Grail in physics is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are currently incompatible.  Attempting to generate a wave equation that includes gravity leads to embarassing "infinities."

I would call that a "discrepancy that has yet to be worked out" more than a flat out contradiction that renders the two theories completely incompatible (Newtonian Mechanics are not incompatible with GR, they're just a less precise approximation), but I suppose that's my personal opinion more than anything else, so I can't really argue this point.

Why do you think a century is  a long time in the grand scheme of things.
In an earlier post, you said 300 years ago people had no thoeretical reasons to disbelieve near instantaneous earth-spanning communications.  This is false.  If electromagnetic waves required an "ether" to propagate, then much of our current telecommunications architecture would be impossible. 

Point me to a substantial body of work dated 300 years ago that explains in great detail, and is backed by experimentation, why lightspeed communication using electromagnetic waves is problematic to the point of being paradoxical.

Making definitive claims about what will or won't be possible centuries from now is kinda silly.  Most physicists have the humility not to make such claims.

I did mention that no scientist worth his salt would ever claim something to be completely impossible, and deliberately avoided making such a claim myself. This whole debate started when I said that we are very likely to have nano weapons of mass destruction and remote controlled robot soldiers well before we have FTL travel, and I stand by that. Nanotechnology and robotics are on the verge of a major explosion, whereas FTL is still out of the question even in theory.

[WillieStyle]

dan107 wrote...

Why do you think a century is  a long time in the grand scheme of things.
In an earlier post, you said 300 years ago people had no thoeretical reasons to disbelieve near instantaneous earth-spanning communications.  This is false.  If electromagnetic waves required an "ether" to propagate, then much of our current telecommunications architecture would be impossible. 

Point me to a substantial body of work dated 300 years ago that explains in great detail, and is backed by experimentation, why lightspeed communication using electromagnetic waves is problematic to the point of being paradoxical.

Nonsequiter.
Wether or not anyone ever wrote "A Treatise on the Impossibility of Fiber Optic Communications," ether-based light propatation would make modern telecommunications impossible.  That no one 300 years ago bothered to point this out has nothing to do with anything.

[dynas2001]

It was my impression that most of the things in this game are based on fringe science and could very well be possible. (must like the stuff in star trek)