Poll: Hard science, in your sci-fi games?

[Zand88]

In other words, if I see the latest zombie flick, I'll be bothered if it isn't realistic.

Now, I know that's ridiculous. The very premise of a zombie movie, or X-Men movie, etc., is fictional.

Sorry to single out one line, but that bothers me.

First of all, zombies are possible. Not in the way that anything is possible, but that we know similar things do occur, and seems like an inclination. Here's an informative, but humorous article about it.

Secondly, I think why people are so fearful and interested toward zombies is because it's NOT a fictional idea; Cannibalism, disease, parasites, anarchy, people eaten alive, and rabies are all very real occurrences and cases. They aren't usually tied together in the same instance, but are all in the realm of possibility. Because of that, they tickle our primal fears.
Maybe most zombie flicks devolve into gore and dark humor, but there is still that enduring quality to it.

Anything is not just possible, but probable.

 

[Lazarus Long]

Mass Effect was pretty good about only requiring one leap of faith from you. If you accept that ME fields work, everything else is perfectly feasible. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the dev team was a fan of this cat: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kakalios&search=tag

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Sorry to single out one line, but that bothers me.

First of all, zombies are possible. Not in the way that anything is possible, but that we know similar things do occur, and seems like an inclination. Here's an informative, but humorous article about it. []

Link didn't work. Anyway, mutants exist, but do they have superpowers? No, they're albino or have Klinefelter's.

Secondly, I think why people are so fearful and interested toward zombies is because it's NOT a fictional idea; Cannibalism, disease, parasites, anarchy, people eaten alive, and rabies are all very real occurrences and cases. They aren't usually tied together in the same instance, but are all in the realm of possibility. Because of that, they tickle our primal fears.
Maybe most zombie flicks devolve into gore and dark humor, but there is still that enduring quality to it.

Anything is not just possible, but probable.

Yes, but you're forgetting the most important point; zombies are dead. Situations like those depicted in 28 Days Later are possible, yes; the film version of I Am Legend, less so. However, having corpses sprinting, all desiring to feed (a la Dawn of the Dead's remake) is quite far removed from scientific possibility. Hell, classic Romero zombies are more realistic; at least they move slowly.

 

[Zand88]

Link didn't work. Anyway, mutants exist, but do they have superpowers? No, they're albino or have Klinefelter's.

Whoops, damn BBCode. Should work now.
I wasn't defending the mutants, though.

Yes, but you're forgetting the most important point; zombies are dead. Situations like those depicted in 28 Days Later are possible, yes; the film version of I Am Legend, less so. However, having corpses sprinting, all desiring to feed (a la Dawn of the Dead's remake) is quite far removed from scientific possibility. Hell, classic Romero zombies are more realistic; at least they move slowly.

Neurogenesis. Organic tissue can be revived -- It's an aim of biology, and not far off from possibility. The article talks about it briefly.
That's another thing; fear of science getting out of control.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Neurogenesis. Organic tissue can be revived -- It's an aim of biology, and not far off from possibility. The article talks about it briefly.
That's another thing; fear of science getting out of control.

Science getting out of control can find thousands of other ways to kill us; zombifying the population is the least of our worries. As funny as the article is, it still is humour and only humour. They compare humans to chickens. Our brain stem is not similar to theirs in any way. When you decapitate a human, it does not run around for a few hours. They say that self-replicating nano-bots will rule the world.

I acknowledge that some of this may be possible in the future; however, so will space flight, railguns, and force fields.

 

[Zand88]

Science getting out of control can find thousands of other ways to kill us; zombifying the population is the least of our worries.

That wasn't the point. I was just saying that it's a constant fear the population has, which is why it's so enduring.
I would also say bio hazards and disease is a more immediate threat from scientific progress, though.

As funny as the article is, it still is humour and only humour. They compare humans to chickens. Our brain stem is not similar to theirs in any way. When you decapitate a human, it does not run around for a few hours. They say that self-replicating nano-bots will rule the world.

It's still well read. I don't know if you go with that magical thinking that humans are somehow more complicated than animals, but the human body isn't that much more complicated. If it's possible in one species, there's another to it with another.

I acknowledge that some of this may be possible in the future; however, so will space flight, railguns, and force fields.

Space flight.. What a concept!

 

[CuddlyCombine]

That wasn't the point. I was just saying that it's a constant fear the population has, which is why it's so enduring.
I would also say bio hazards and disease is a more immediate threat from scientific progress, though.

It isn't exactly a real fear. People are also afraid of the dark, for equally irrational reasons.

It's still well read. I don't know if you go with that magical thinking that humans are somehow more complicated than animals, but the human body isn't that much more complicated. If it's possible in one species, there's another to it with another.

Not really. When my bird has a cold, I don't have to be afraid of catching it. We may not be intensely complicated, but we're wired differently.

Space flight.. What a concept!

You mistake space flight with space... crawling? I'm not sure what the term for it is. All we've done is put a few shuttles in Earth's orbit and sent pods to the moon. Whoa. I mean, that's like saying that jumping off of a cliff is flying.

I'm talking about having ships which can make it to Mars, don't rely on fossil fuels for propulsion, and are comfortable to live in.

 

[dontworryaboutit]

lol, 100% so far!

I like real science such as warp drives... they're fun and interesting in ways teleportation isn't...

They floated in the air in exactly the way bricks don't.

 

[MasterSqueak]

"Video games is srs bzniss"

But really, it would take a REALLY interesting universe to get me to care.

Well, as long as it made a tiny bit of sense.

 

[Worgen]

thats why I liked mass effect so much, it got really close to being able to have decent science in it at least from the ingame encylopedia thing, at least if you accept the whole mass effect field thing

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Hmmmm... I won't answer the poll, since it seems incredibly polarized to me, but I'll say a few words.

First, I think what we're looking for is less actual science than in-universe integrity. As in, everything works once you accept the few basic rules of the universe. It's when the game contradicts its own established rules or just suddenly pulls some magical thingymabob out of thin air that it becomes irritating. Two examples are provided by "Assassin's Creed", where (1) Saracen demagogues use the word "crusade" in its modern sense (a lot of stuff in AC is shoehorned in by using the 'Animus' cop-out, but this one doesn't even make sense in context), and (2) after the whole game establishes that there is no supernatural, we are suddenly introduced to an ancient artifact which is, for all purposes, magical. Made my teeth grind every time...

That being said, I actually enjoy watching "Eureka", whose whole premise is supposed to be based on real-world science, and yet all too often just recedes to practically supernatural stuff masked by a wall of technobabble. I enjoyed it partly because the misconceptions were often so blatant, but mostly for its "science can achieve aaaanything!" feel which brings nostalgia of some old SF...

I'd have to say, though, that I wouldn't probably want to see a game based on real hard science. A LOT of established conventions of science fiction are either outright impossible or hypothetical at best. And I think that a strictly realistic space game would simply be boring.

 

[Rodger]

First, I think what we're looking for is less actual science than in-universe integrity. As in, everything works once you accept the few basic rules of the universe.

This, more or less. I don't expect to have everything explained (especially not when they get it completely wrong in the first place and just throw around scientific buzzwords, I'm looking at you Star Trek) but it should be consistant and should follow real scientific terms and advancements unless its stated otherwise that they've made some new discovery or advancement of their own that allows them to get around it. In-universe consistency, and consistency with scientific facts that it hasn't subverted.

Unfortunately, many sci-fi writers have no bloody clue what they're actually talking about. They spend more time throwing around scientific buzzwords that even they don't really know the meaning of (I'm looking at you, Star Trek). Forget in-universe continuity, they'll make shit up as they go along period. Distance, time, physics, they have no concept of any of this or how to go about trying to subvert it. And let's not get started on space. Space is NOT an ocean. Trying to plant mines in a 3D plane is doomed to fail. There is no concept of up or down in space. And finally, our tiny human minds cannot comprehend how utterly massive space is. If you're using measures of distance like "millions of miles", you're probably thinking too small and definitely so if you plan to take your series outside the solar system. Maybe I've just been getting into the wrong series, but it'd be nice if sci-fi authors had some sense of scale, science, and biology, before they started writing series that'd be heavily influenced by them.

That said, I really want to give Mass Effect a shot as a sci-fi continuity to replace the hole in my life where Star Wars used to be (I've since decided that the parts of the EU that are written by authors who actually know what they're doing aren't worth dumpster diving for) Unfortunately, I've heard the word "plasma" thrown around which is dampening my enthusiasm a bit. Though it still looks like the writers did their homework at least...

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Unfortunately, many sci-fi writers have no bloody clue what they're actually talking about. They spend more time throwing around scientific buzzwords that even they don't really know the meaning of (I'm looking at you, Star Trek). Forget in-universe continuity, they'll make shit up as they go along period. Distance, time, physics, they have no concept of any of this or how to go about trying to subvert it. And let's not get started on space. Space is NOT an ocean. Trying to plant mines in a 3D plane is doomed to fail. There is no concept of up or down in space. And finally, our tiny human minds cannot comprehend how utterly massive space is. If you're using measures of distance like "millions of miles", you're probably thinking too small and definitely so if you plan to take your series outside the solar system. Maybe I've just been getting into the wrong series, but it'd be nice if sci-fi authors had some sense of scale, science, and biology, before they started writing series that'd be heavily influenced by them.

You might want to look at some old SF, from the 60s or 70s. Back then SF was less about "fantasy, but in space", and more about trying to accurately predict how the future would look like (and obviously failed completely). A lot of the authors had significant knowledge about real world science and extrapolated from established theories. I'm pretty sure that one of the best representatives of that approach, the Polish author Stanislaw Lem, has been translated to English. And the aaaaaawful movie "Solaris" gives him exactly 0 justice.

But if you decide to read something by him, bear in mind that his novels are either hard SF with solid scientific grounding, or a humorous run through a caricature of SF with people baking potatoes in nuclear reactors and funny-named inventors building poetry-writing machines.

If you're looking for native English-language writers, you might want to look at Greg Egan or Tony Ballantyne.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

as long as it gives me the choice to skip it i don't care if it's there or not. As long as my gun shifts gravity or makes portals i don't really give a fuck why. But then again I'm not a fan of the sci-fi genre as a whole

 

[Zacharine]

Depends entirely on the game. If the game manages to be consistent even with the addition of Unobtainium (Mass Effect) it doesn't matter all that much. Infact, some games would be less great with hardcore physics added. Take Wh40k: It not only laughs at the face of physics, it pick Physics up form a seedy bar, takes her on a ride around the town and when morning comes dumps her out of his apartment with not su much as a 'see ya' and barely a quid for a bus. Yet Wh40k is universe is fun, diverse and immersive.

The more important part for me is consistency: if X has been declared impossible, it better be impossible for the forseeable future. Likewise, if X has been declared possible, I expect character and NPCs to use it (or at least think of using it) to solve problems.

 

[Jandau]

Real science is nice, but what is even nicer is consistency. If a game universe can establish certain laws and then stick to them and work inside them, it makes it that much more enjoyable.

Mass Effect is an excellent example. It asks you to take on faith the existance of Element Zero and its effects on the mass of objects, but then proceeds to integrate this element into existing laws of science. For instance, using element zero cores to reduce the mass of spaceships so they are easier to accelerate. The Codex is a marvel and it's one of the things that really set ME apart.

 

[Cuniculus]

Hard science is always welcome, but not necessary at all. Who cares? Are we really going to stop playing the game if we don't believe it's possible? Part of the gaming world is to believe things that are absolutely untrue.

"Well, my character got shot fifty times in the chest, cooked off a granade for a bit too long having it go off in his hand, and fell into a pit of boiling acid... yeah this med pack should do the trick."