By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Khuutra on 08 August 2010
Edit Thread
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Khuutra said:

No. No no no no no no.

You're arguign with me about scince fiction. That's fine. But your explanation of your understanding of the genre is almost solely based on its aesthetics. That's not the point.

To start it, Star Wars and Star Trek are anomalous in the canon of Western science fiction because they are not grounded in hard science in any respect. Star Wars in particular is the scifi most heavily influenced by Japanese traditions, not the other way around.

Your H. G. Wells comparison - and Verne, too - Christ, Verne - is particularly distressing. Wells I can almost understand in some capacity since his use of science fiction was as political allegory, but Verne actually sat down and did the cold hard math on every single story he ever wrote. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was almsot prophetic in how well it predicted the scientific advancemnt of the U-boat and Journey to the Center of the Earth, while scientifically inaccurate, was based on the best scientific understanding and theory of the day. Jules Verne is the father of hard science, of grounded fiction which flirts with the fantastic without ever lifting its skirt up.

The Wells problem is worse because "grim realism" is almsot exactly hat he was all about - War of the Worlds is one of the grittiest, darkest, starkest science fiction stories ever written, and even its more fantastical elements were grounded primarily in understanding of what was possible at the time. That's the differenc between Japanese and Western science fiction right there.

Read anny anthology of Japanese science fiction (you could just watc anime I guess but it's not the same) and you'll discover something surprising: Japanese science fiction is rooted in fantastical elements without the constraint of possibility. That's why so many elements of science fiction are prevalent in Japanese fiction and not western fiction: mecha, the space opera, "energy weapons", on and on and on.

I'm not saying that all western science fiction holds to hard science. Of course it doesn't. Star Trek and Star Wars are two examples of science fiction which throw the traditions of Verne and Wells out of the freaking window and never look back. That said, they are not the norm, and it's Wells and Verne who set the tone for Western scifi which has been held to since then.

You're not going to find echoes of Asimov's ruminations on artificial intelligence in Japanese games, but you can find it in the geth in Mass Effect.

You're not going to find Verne's adherence to the problem of pressure and heat in Japanese games, but you can find it squirreled away in the limitations of the Normandy.

You're not going to find Wells' grounded damnations in Japanese games, but you can find it in the claustrophobic halls of the vaults.

The point is that Western science fiction is gounded in physics, in mathematics, because that's the tradition on which we were raised and it's the tradition which we understand. Mecha don't appear in serious Western science fiction. It doesn't happen.

This isn't about setting.

This isn't about aesthetics.

It's not about politics.

It's not about tone.

It's about being grounded in our current understanding of the universe, about capitalizing the "science" in science fiction. Western scifi - and western games, born of the same traditions - do that. Japanese games, as a rule, don't.

(1) Wow, you're going off on so many tangents, I don't know where to begin.  Or if I even want to.

(2) I understand you're REALLY focused on this notion that Western Science Fiction (and by default games with a Science Fiction setting) are more based on 'logic' and 'reality'.  But I was trying to show you that everything is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. 

(3) Plus the fact that you can't just simply look at ONE facet of a genre and say '[X] series is more realistic because it has more of [Y]'.  That's the short answer.

The LONG answer is that the Science Fiction genre has been evolving (much like the RPG genre has been evolving) for over 100 years.  (4) And trying to claim that one whole subdivision of that genre (western science fiction) is more 'grounded in reality' while another subdivision (Japanese based Science Fiction) doesn't is just ignorance. 

(5) How is Mass Effect any more valid a Science Fiction work than Ghost in the Shell? 

(6) And by your own example, how is Star Trek LESS realistic than Mass Effect? 

(7) WHere are all these 'rules' coming from, especially since you're trying to totally ignore such things as setting, athstetics or tone.  What's left?  E=mc2? 

(8) I'm sorry buddy, but a big part of Science Fiction isn't about exact calculations or 'fortelling the future', its about telling a story with the 'atmosphere' of technology and the 'setting' that is beyond our time.  Or are you now going to say stuff like Blade Runner and Foundation and Empire are not Science Fiction now?

(9) Also, as an aside, Jules Verne didn't just write technical dramas with depressing endings, as a lot of Science Fiction is today.  They were also functional stories with solid characters and most had happy endings that portrayed a positive outlook for both humanity and technology.  Once again, I point to how this is a common theme in Japanese Science Fiction (using Technology to help humanity, positive outlook on technology) whereas in contrast the opposite is true in Western media and Sci Fi (Technology is a tool, Technology is ultimately the tool of destruction).

1. These only seem tangential because you came into a topic without trying to familiarize yourself with the discussion or with the topic being discussed. At its heart, this discussion is about the storytelling modes of two very different storytelling cultures, and the points I made build upon the observed differences between those modes.

2. Not "any game with a science fiction setting". I'm talking about games which come about as a result of a storytelling culture that finds its roots in Verne and Dickens and Dumas. Science fiction settings aren't enough to qualify, here, because that doesn't imply that they're more attached to the principles set down in these storytelling modes.

More, it's not about "logic and reality", it's about justification according to our current understanding of the universe.

3. I think you mean  "a series is more [x] because of [y]" but whatever. And actually, yes, you can, when X and Y have correlation through causation. Pretending that patterns can't be recognized is dishonest.

4. It would only be a conclusion of ignorance if the conclusion were based on ignorance rather than observation. Trying to ignore differences in cultural storytelling modes when they are consistent and easy to point out is not ignorant, it's actively and personally dishonest. Hell, some people would argue that assuming identical standards of cultural modes is a form of cultural racism, but I've never belonged to that camp so I won't accuse you of pigeon-holing all storytelling cultures according to your own understanding. The point remains, though, that this is not ignorance, it's observation.

5. Well, the digitization of the human mind is a philosophical concept rather than a practical one, sinnce the advent of that kind of technology won't come around in the same timeframe as presented in Ghost in the Shell (obviously).

But more, you're being misleading: you latch onto one of the only examples of a particularly grounded piece of Japanese science fiction and hold it up as an example of the genre in that culture. It's not. It is an exception. More, it doesn't reflect on JRPGs, or even on science fiction in anime; its influences (like in the Matrix) were primarily philosophical rather than scientific. That's an important distinction.

6. I'm glad you asked, actually.

Mass Effect operates off of a single fantastical idea: the Mass Effect, wherein a particular element is able to exert an effect on spacetime based on the charge of an electric current running through it:

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Mass_Effect_Fields

That is the only real fantastical idea in the whole shebang. Everything else - FTL travel, biotics, FTL communications, etc. - are all based on the Mass Effect, logical extrapolations of a new scientific principle.

Beyond this, everything is figured out through hard science and calculations. There are certain planets that certain vehicles can't travel to because you would produce enough ehat in escaping the atmosphere to severely damage the environment. Space combat is limited by thermal buildup. Metabolic rates of alien species have a direct effect on lifespan. Every single weapon, ship, planet, species, and fantastical concept (even the Lovecraftian race of machine gods) are grounded in possibility and our understanding of physics. The team creating this world has gone to extreme lengths to be able to justify everything about the series in a way that eases suspension of disbelief for nerds of hard science:

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Computers:_Artificial_Intelligence_.28AI.29

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Element_Zero_.28.22Eezo.22.29

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Weapons,_Armor_and_Equipment#Small_Arms

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Weapons,_Armor_and_Equipment#Mass_Accelerators

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Weapons,_Armor_and_Equipment#Kinetic_Barriers_.28.22Shields.22.29_2

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Space_Combat:_Combat_Endurance

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Space_Combat:_Pursuit_Tactics

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Starships:_Crew_Considerations

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Starships:_Dreadnought

On and on and on and on and on. Everything is painstakingly researched and crafted to be justifiable in the context of this universe.

Star Trek is not like that.

Star Trek plays hard and loose with the laws of physics and continuity for the sake of the story. It was true when Roddenberry was at the helm, and it's been true for every single writer since then. No Star Trek series has ever built a story around science. You can tell that I don't thhink this is bad. It's not. Star Trek is good science fiction. It's just not hard, not grounded.

But how do you explain the physics of the warp drives? The energy output of phasers? The heat problems of the Borg Cube? The Q? Man, the Q. I could have just said "the Q" and avoided this, but I want to finish.

7. You have to understand that the point here is not about "good" science fiction or fantasy. We are not referring to a body of quality, but to a single quality: being grounded in physics, logistics, and hard and concrete scientific principles. This is not necessarily a good quality to have. I've seen stories choke to death on realism. But noting realism where it exists is not a crime.

8. Agreed! Absolutely agreed. But those qualities that make for a good story are not what we'e tlaking about here.

And don't call me buddy with that tone, it's very offensive.

9. Granted, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This isn't about tone or theme.