| Kenryoku_Maxis said: 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." |
Firstly, Star Trek was non-grounded science fiction from the start. That was as true all those years ago as it is now. They broke the laws of logic more often in the old days, but things haven't really changd much. Trying to defend the groundedness of Star Trek is an inherently fruitless endeavour.
Secondly, you are misreading that quote. The Bethesda representative's quote ends with "If you compare the sci-fi in Mass Effect to the science fiction in a million Japanese games, it just gets really, really out there. I think the two sensibilities break down more like that." The OP in this topic simply failed to delineate the quote from the article that quoted it.
Thirdly:
YOU ARE NOT LISTENING.
An observation of differences in storytelling modes is not a qualitative judgment concerning those modes.
Being grounded in hard science does not make something "more science fiction". You're jumpingi nto an argument that no one is posing - I'm not going to guess why! Actually yes I am: it's because you are demonstrably overdefensive whenever you think anyone is slighting JRPGs. I don't care about that! I do not give a shit about the WRPG vs. JRPG "debate". That is not what this discussion is about!
This discussion is about a tendency in WRPGs to be more grounded in reality than JRPGs are! You have not offered an argument to the contrary that made any sense whatsoever. You keep trying to turn this into some horse shit about what constitutes "real" science fiction or RPGs because that's the mode you'reu sed to arguing in, but I do not care. I'm here to point out that that's not what the quote is about. It's about being grounded in our current understanding of how things work.
It's true. The storytelling modes in the East and the West are to be different. That's fine! It's even great. It's to be celebrated, because differences lead to richness and variety of experience. It has nothing to do with which is better or which is more "real" as examples of a genre.
Do you understand?
