Mass Effect and Space Magic

[Ruzinus]

Fiction by definition contains elements that do not exist in reality. People call shit 'space magic' pejoratively because it violates the tacit agreements between the authors and the audience concerning the rules of what is possible in the Mass Effect universe. Those rules are usually laid down in the first minutes of a story, no matter if it's fantasy, science fiction, or whatever. The tension and emotional impact in the story depends on abiding by the tacit agreements. The agreement doesn't have to be rigid or static but it does have to be respected.

Why didn't Gandalf just summon an army of Nazi Zombies From Outer Space to defeat Sauron and destroy the Rings of Power? Because he can't. That's the arrangement between us and Tolkien. You didn't sign a contract, it's just implied.

It appears that what I needed to say has already been said, so I just bolded the most important part in order to feel like I added something.

 

[bluesession]

I'm not really posting to object against star timmy (I will borrow this name because It reminds me of how generic The Kid that start child is).
I don't like the ending because of other reasons. I could accept the whole magic weapon we know nothing about, turns to be a battery, you get to see star child.
What I don't accept is the 3 choices of "do what we tell you or game over". Shepard (Me, You) took his own desitions the whole games (even if they were 2 choices given) and He gets to the end of the story and the 3 choices are... do what the reaper tells you (Yeah THE main Reaper) or die...

Anyways;
The reason I really posted is the space magic.
Most (or maybe all) the fantastic things that you described in your post are explained in the codex.
I cant really remember all well the details. But its all powered by eezo (yeah, fantastic element) that can make this 0 mass fields.
So If you have 0 mass you can have engines that travel faster than light, cause you won't get the relativity theory effect.
In other words: It is an accepted theory that if you travel towards the speed of light your mass will become greater and greater.
So reducing mass to zero lets you go faster than the speed of light. Remember the loading screen in ME2 where you could see the rainbow flowing from the normandy's wings. That was explained in the codex that when something travels faster than light. The light waves (that go slower than the ship) colide with it and slow down showing for a short period the color espectrum. (PURE EXPECULATION)

About landing. Again Eezo reduces mass so gravity affects you less or none at all. No mass, no weight.
Thats why the normandy just floats in the airdock in Ilum. (and other visual examples in the ME games).

Then you have weapons. Basically you take a tiny pieace of metal, envelope in a 0 mass field and send it flying away by pulling it with electro magnets that turn on in sequence.
Thats how (some) REAL bullet trains work. Without the Eezo part

Also

Omni-gel isn't that much of a stretch, the device breaks down matter into what I always assumed to be like futuristic superglue+duct tape+neosporin. It's omni-gel, it can be used for a lot of stuff.

This is all science fiction. Science because it has some real scientific theories. Its fiction because it has fantasy element zero.


When people say that Space Timmy does Space Magic is because for a game that takes so much efort in explaining its setting. Sudenly in the last 30 minutes we get some piece of fiction that is not really explained or justified.
Maybe if they came up that the green choice had nanobots changing the genetic code of everyone (and creating one for machines?). Maybe if the star child explained why he needs shepard to make his magic.

Yeah, there are some explanations with the EC but that is not enough to explanations to go from fiction to cifi

So we had 3 games with lots of that ended in a sequence.

THAT is what people call space magic. And why the same people doesn't call FTL drives as Space Magic.

 

[TheCommanders]

There's this really good video on youtube that explains the difference. Draws a comparison between Star Trek's tech and Q and--oh, never mind. Someone beat me to it. You really should watch it. I loved it.

Watch this video it explains really well...

Heh, I was going to post that video. Basically, it's not about what is scientifically possible, but what gels with narrative coherence, and the Star Child fails to do so. The inclusion of the rejection ending is an enormous "Fuck you" from the developers. It's like a child who drew a picture, and showed it to you. You tell him you don't like it, and offer some constructive criticism. The child then hands you the piece of paper and sets it on fire, saying now there is no picture, hope you're happy now. This is what the rejection ending is like.