Khuutra said:
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. |
Really, I fail to see how Star Trek is 'less' Science Fiction than Mass Effect just because they emphasized realism and physics in Mass Effect. They tried to do much of the same thing in Star Trek. Yes they took liberties with the story in Star Trek, but that's because they didn't want to spend 100 years traveling from one planet to the other.
And frankly, if this was 20 years ago, you would be using Star Trek as your example as a Science Fiction series grounded closest in Science Fact. Its only because you can look at it now after the fact, now that much of the series has come to reality and some of its technology has been scientifically disproven, that you can say its 'not grounded in reality'. Sure, warp drives and the transporter can't work, but much of the show is grounded in scientific fact.
And as for your other comment, Voyager and Enterprise were the shows that were based on tons of scientific jargon and hypothesis. Much of the reason they were the least popular (along with having the weakest writing and characters).
Also, I don't really see any main point in this thread. I went back and read the guys main 'point'. He just stated no western games are more 'realistic' and backed up his point by stating an example of Fallout 2:
"..Because flaming dogs falling from the sky ( a quest found in Fallout 2) and giant ants that breathe fire by expelling flammable venom from their venom sacks, then igniting it with a spark made by clicking their mandibles( also in Fallout 2) is ultra-realistic, isn’t it?"
As I've already pointed out. Just because a game has more 'technical' or seemingly more 'realistic' does not make it more of an RPG or more Sci FI.
And he even stated that at the end, by saying: "No one game is realistic. That’s why they’re called games."