"Science" Fiction

[Singularly Datarific]

This does bother me, that writers do not understand just how vast a universe they are trying to paint. On ONE decently populated planet (Earth), there are too many factions to count, untold amounts of and types of culture, thousands of languages, beliefs, ways of life! Then they go on to make each planet the equivalent of a nation, rather than a world. Another thing about scale is how impossible it would make an interstellar empire; vast travel times combined with an impossibly small invasion force (it would take MILLIONS of soldiers to conquer a planet effectively). Also, the eerily similar bipedal aliens bug me. They just aren't likely to look that way.
I've also yet to see one story that handles space combat with strict realism. I imagine it to be akin to flying a hypersonic submarine with 6 degrees of freedom in an infinitely vast void trying to hit tiny flecks 100,000 miles away. No windows, just 3 or 4 guys jammed into a cockpit that would comfortably fit 1, with a dozen computer screen and millions of buttons. Also, it would, unfortunately, be boring. It would take far longer between passes as speed increases (look at the advances in aeronautical warfare. WW1 has close in dogfights being fought within 100 feet of eachother, nowadays we are shooting missiles up to 100 miles away, sans visual contact.), and you'd be entirely screwed in the case that you ARE hit.

 

[J-dog42]

Part of this, I think, comes from Science Fiction's general disregard of the whole "Science" part.

I see where you are coming from, but I think you are forgetting the second part of the name. Fiction.

It is fictional science. Because we do not have the technology to do many of the things they do in science fiction, the writers have to make it up. We don't know what space combat is like exactly so it cannot be described with scientific degrees of accuracy.

 

[Sutter Cane]

Science Fiction as a genre tends to disappoint me. I really want to like it, but generally just can't, and I think I've finally realized why that is: With a few exceptions, Sci-Fi is just really hokey.

Part of this, I think, comes from Science Fiction's general disregard of the whole "Science" part. Think about it. Among other ridiculousness, there's a vast universe potentially full of extra-terrestrial life, life that started from a completely different point and evolved in different conditions, yet aliens are almost always just weird looking humans who are somehow fluent in English.

Spoiler: Parenthetical Statement

The English part in particular gets to me. Even on Earth there are a number of different languages; hell, there are even different variants of the same language, and you're telling me that everyone in space just speaks the one? The popular Mass Effect is particularly guilty of this, which is one of the reasons I find the series so hard to get into.

Despite this silliness, many of these games take themselves way too seriously, which for me only makes the campy bits stand out even more.

Not to give too much credit to Half-Life in one day, but I liked the first and second games a lot because they took a bleaker, scarier and more scientific approach to things than your typical Star-Trek/Star Wars/Starship Troopers knock off, without completely sacrificing the odd bit of humor.

Spoiler: Another Parenthetical Statement

I say the first two because I sort of fell out with series when Episode one came out, since it seemed like a bit of a cop-out after the ending of Half-Life 2, and around Episode 2 things were starting to feel... well, hokey.

Do you like the Sci-Fi genre? Do you feel like I do, that it could be good but generally isn't? Or do you just dislike it in general?

Personally i don't that you should write off science fiction, as it seems that your complaints are more directed at so called "soft sci-fi" which puts a much higher emphasis on the fiction than the science. This is different from hard sci-fi which tries to be more scientifically accurate Tv tropes has a very excellent guide right here you might want to check out [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness]

 

[klakkat]

In general I appreciate science fiction, primarily because it can explore topics that more traditional fiction has difficulty with. Sexuality, Psychoses, and alternate societies are the biggest ones, which can be very difficult to do properly without a sci fi setting. Additionally, I appreciate humor that requires a good scientific or math background, as often occurs in Futurama.

Sure, there's a lot of unrealistic sci fi settings, but the genre isn't ABOUT science. Because science is boring if you aren't a scientist; the only way to glamorize it is to explore areas related to science, such as specific consequences, or a "what if this was possible" sort of thing. Other sci fi simply uses futuristic inventions to get around annoying flow-breaking details that crop up otherwise.

When you make the scientific aspect more important than the story or entertainment, you end up with crap like Contact. You can hold scientific accuracy in high regard (Arthur C. Clarke did this a lot) but it shouldn't get in the way of the plot and characters. For example, most sci fi necessarily glosses over the travel time between solar systems; even if a faster than light propulsion system exists, the consequences of such a thing are ignored, and travel time is plot-convenient rather than realistic (yes, exceptions exist, but in those exceptions the plot isn't hampered by travel times).

 

[tthor]

Science Fiction as a genre tends to disappoint me. I really want to like it, but generally just can't, and I think I've finally realized why that is: With a few exceptions, Sci-Fi is just really hokey.

Part of this, I think, comes from Science Fiction's general disregard of the whole "Science" part. Think about it. Among other ridiculousness, there's a vast universe potentially full of extra-terrestrial life, life that started from a completely different point and evolved in different conditions, yet aliens are almost always just weird looking humans who are somehow fluent in English.

Spoiler: Parenthetical Statement

The English part in particular gets to me. Even on Earth there are a number of different languages; hell, there are even different variants of the same language, and you're telling me that everyone in space just speaks the one? The popular Mass Effect is particularly guilty of this, which is one of the reasons I find the series so hard to get into.

Despite this silliness, many of these games take themselves way too seriously, which for me only makes the campy bits stand out even more.

Not to give too much credit to Half-Life in one day, but I liked the first and second games a lot because they took a bleaker, scarier and more scientific approach to things than your typical Star-Trek/Star Wars/Starship Troopers knock off, without completely sacrificing the odd bit of humor.

Spoiler: Another Parenthetical Statement

I say the first two because I sort of fell out with series when Episode one came out, since it seemed like a bit of a cop-out after the ending of Half-Life 2, and around Episode 2 things were starting to feel... well, hokey.

Do you like the Sci-Fi genre? Do you feel like I do, that it could be good but generally isn't? Or do you just dislike it in general?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

You seem to be the fan of <link=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness>really hard SF. Congratulations, you are such a heavy SciFi fan, that you loop all the way over back to being a fan of <link=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealLife>Real Life

Tv tropes has a very excellent guide right here you might want to check out [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness]

Damn, ninja'd

 

[tthor]

EDIT: double post

 

[Catalyst6]

In general I appreciate science fiction, primarily because it can explore topics that more traditional fiction has difficulty with. Sexuality, Psychoses, and alternate societies are the biggest ones, which can be very difficult to do properly without a sci fi setting. Additionally, I appreciate humor that requires a good scientific or math background, as often occurs in Futurama.

Sure, there's a lot of unrealistic sci fi settings, but the genre isn't ABOUT science. Because science is boring if you aren't a scientist; the only way to glamorize it is to explore areas related to science, such as specific consequences, or a "what if this was possible" sort of thing. Other sci fi simply uses futuristic inventions to get around annoying flow-breaking details that crop up otherwise.

When you make the scientific aspect more important than the story or entertainment, you end up with crap like Contact. You can hold scientific accuracy in high regard (Arthur C. Clarke did this a lot) but it shouldn't get in the way of the plot and characters. For example, most sci fi necessarily glosses over the travel time between solar systems; even if a faster than light propulsion system exists, the consequences of such a thing are ignored, and travel time is plot-convenient rather than realistic (yes, exceptions exist, but in those exceptions the plot isn't hampered by travel times).

See, I typed out a paragraph then glanced up and had to delete ALL of it because you said it first and better.

Jerk. (kidding)

But yes, there are few "hard science" principles that would work well into videogames. Take Mass Effect, for example. Even if you were able to explain away the Mass Gates or whatever they were called, it'd still take *ages* to get between planets, by which time all the interesting things have already happened.

Or even Half Life, as you mentioned. It took a bleaker approach, yes, but it still had a *lot* of science that was caused by the resident Wonderflonium from Xen. The gravity gun, for example, which can remotely lift up any object regardless of composition and move them around with ease, allowing a (w/ HEV suit) 300 lb man to lift up thousands of pounds worth of car then walk around with it. Leverage? HA!

The portals as well, the idea of ripping a hole into Xen is pretty soft.

In all, remember the Rule of Fun. If it's good for the game, then it's probably okay to gloss over it.

 

[Watcheroftrends]

I think the challenge with science fiction is to keep the genre connected to reality at the core while still allowing viewers to escape into the fantastic. The experience of the characters, and vicariously the viewers, must be something that has always been present in humanity like betrayal, conquest, or mystery etc. Then the science fiction flare must take this idea and push it out of our comfort zone. Good science fiction will make us curious and willing to follow the idea "down the rabbit hole" while bad science fiction will just alienate the viewer, leaving them unsatisfied.

This is why gimmicky science fiction doesn't work - it relies entirely on the pushing of boundaries without an established idea at the core, making things seem superficial and too "out there".

Here's a thought: when was the last time you felt a science fiction movie wasn't fictitious enough? My guess is that you'd probably say that no science fiction movie you've ever seen failed to push boundaries. In other words, the problem isn't in the creativity, it's in the selling of a central human theme that is independent of the genre of the film. It's all about the bread and butter, as they say.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[Vault101]

Science Fiction as a genre tends to disappoint me. I really want to like it, but generally just can't, and I think I've finally realized why that is: With a few exceptions, Sci-Fi is just really hokey.

Part of this, I think, comes from Science Fiction's general disregard of the whole "Science" part. Think about it. Among other ridiculousness, there's a vast universe potentially full of extra-terrestrial life, life that started from a completely different point and evolved in different conditions, yet aliens are almost always just weird looking humans who are somehow fluent in English.

Spoiler: Parenthetical Statement

The English part in particular gets to me. Even on Earth there are a number of different languages; hell, there are even different variants of the same language, and you're telling me that everyone in space just speaks the one? The popular Mass Effect is particularly guilty of this, which is one of the reasons I find the series so hard to get into.

Despite this silliness, many of these games take themselves way too seriously, which for me only makes the campy bits stand out even more.

Not to give too much credit to Half-Life in one day, but I liked the first and second games a lot because they took a bleaker, scarier and more scientific approach to things than your typical Star-Trek/Star Wars/Starship Troopers knock off, without completely sacrificing characterization, plot or the odd bit of humor.

Spoiler: Another Parenthetical Statement

I say the first two because I sort of fell out with series when Episode one came out, since it seemed like a bit of a cop-out after the ending of Half-Life 2, and around Episode 2 things were starting to feel... well, hokey.

Do you like the Sci-Fi genre? Do you feel like I do, that it could be good but generally isn't? Or do you just dislike it in general?

I love sci fi its a very broad genre that often overlaps with fantasy on one end of the spectrum, I don't think the probelm is with "sci fi" its with bad writing

if you create a world then it needs to be well thourght out and not just pulled form the writers ass, and obviosly it helps to avoid bad cliche's, using common sci fi tropes isnt bad but only when its bleedingly obvious


Take Mass Effect, its a reconstruction of the classic space opera and its got aliens, but everything is well thourght out, scientifically even, theres a difference between good use of commone sci fi tropes and a cliche

I supose it depends on the induvidual but Im not bothered by scientific explanation I wouldnt be bothered in the slightest if there was no codex explanation for how mass relays work in ME, because it works IN UNIVERSE, If the veiwer is watching and things dont add up in universe, as in gaping plot holes and such yes thats a problem

basically not all sci fi is ment to be completley grounded in reality, not all aci fi is ment to be almost fantasy, it depends completley on the orginal work, I get annoyed when people generalise enitre genres

 

[Vault101]

This does bother me, that writers do not understand just how vast a universe they are trying to paint. On ONE decently populated planet (Earth), there are too many factions to count, untold amounts of and types of culture, thousands of languages, beliefs, ways of life! Then they go on to make each planet the equivalent of a nation, rather than a world. Another thing about scale is how impossible it would make an interstellar empire; vast travel times combined with an impossibly small invasion force (it would take MILLIONS of soldiers to conquer a planet effectively). Also, the eerily similar bipedal aliens bug me. They just aren't likely to look that way.
I've also yet to see one story that handles space combat with strict realism. I imagine it to be akin to flying a hypersonic submarine with 6 degrees of freedom in an infinitely vast void trying to hit tiny flecks 100,000 miles away. No windows, just 3 or 4 guys jammed into a cockpit that would comfortably fit 1, with a dozen computer screen and millions of buttons. Also, it would, unfortunately, be boring. It would take far longer between passes as speed increases (look at the advances in aeronautical warfare. WW1 has close in dogfights being fought within 100 feet of eachother, nowadays we are shooting missiles up to 100 miles away, sans visual contact.), and you'd be entirely screwed in the case that you ARE hit.

thats just bad writing, its got nothing to do with the genre itself, I think the general rule is no matter hoe hard or soft the sci fi is, if it adds up in universe its fine, if you notice plot-holes and lack of logic than its bad writing

 

[ethaninja]

That's why I love Stargate so much. There's no "supernatural" witchypoo involved. It's always some sort of technological thing.

 

[LandoCristo]

Well, the real meaning of the term "Science Fiction", doesn't mean that there's Fiction with science on the side to spruce it up. It's meant in that the Science is fictional, sometimes in ways that will never be possible (Faster than light travel comes to mind as the big one), but sometimes in ways that just aren't available yet (Space travel, droids, advanced computers, lasers).

And not all Sci-Fi is in space, either. Frankenstein is recognized as one of the first sci-fi stories (Creating life in an inanimate object is somewhat scientific, but not currently possible, ergo, scifi.)

 

[Vault101]

Well, the real meaning of the term "Science Fiction", doesn't mean that there's Fiction with science on the side to spruce it up. It's meant in that the Science is fictional, sometimes in ways that will never be possible (Faster than light travel comes to mind as the big one), but sometimes in ways that just aren't available yet (Space travel, droids, advanced computers, lasers).

And not all Sci-Fi is in space, either. Frankenstein is recognized as one of the first sci-fi stories (Creating life in an inanimate object is somewhat scientific, but not currently possible, ergo, scifi.)

exactally, some people don't understand sci fi dose not= space opera with aliens

its like me saying all fantasy is set in meievil europe and its all about finding the macguffan to defeat the dark lord of evil and theres kings and incomprehensible words and the elves are arrogant assholes who chew humans out for being so evil because elves are so friggin pure and youre suposed ot agree with them.......Im not a fan of fantasy But I know not every fantasy story is like this


Fucking arrogant elves

But I LOVED dragon age origins, it was formula as hell but extremly well done and I like it better than lord of the rings (I never liked LOTR that much)

 

[Agayek]

I generally quite like sci-fi. I can accept humanoid aliens, and them all speaking English, if only just for the sake of reading (I'd really not read a book where half of it is in Huttese or somesuch). It's nice when they move out of that mindset (which is one of the reasons I like Star Wars as much as I do), but it's far from necessary.

That said, there's an awful lot of sci-fi I can't stand. The primary reason for such is when they lack actual science in the stories. I don't mean things like the possibility of FTL travel, AI, etc. I mean when things just don't make sense. There needs to be some kind of logical connection between real physics and FTL travel for example. It could be as simple as "We found a way to use black holes to tunnel through space-time to make the actual travel distance 0m". There just needs to be some kind of logical structure for the evolution of the technology rather than "it works this way because the author said so".

 

[gl1koz3]

Mass Effect english is hard to swallow, but it says in the Codex that they all use real-time translators. This isn't that far fetched... Yes, it is far, but not THAT far.

As for other things, yes, I agree. Rarely anyone explores beyond the one-of-an-infinite possibilities (beyond established stuff). Some earlier games seem to be more open in this regard (but the art style really throws me off).

As for the game I'm fan boy of (ME1), even though it uses magic, the first game does so quite sparingly. I can't say the same about the 2nd...

I blame lazy idiot writers who didn't learn physics at school. Seriously... I don't care if you have these million awesome emo characters. If you make them move matter without explaining how it works, then I'm not reading it.