Hi Dark, I see your point. I guess its just that I'm a very grounded person, an ultra realist, and the older I get the more skeptical I get about the fantastic. On the other hand you make an excellent point about a story may not be at all realistic in a scientific sense but have extremely good character development, a unique storyline, etc that is very compelling to the gamer.
For example, when I was growing up my very favorite cartoon was Masters of the Universe. I think one reason it was so compelling is that the storyline was as much fantasy as science fiction. It truly was unique for its time, and unlike most science fiction and fantasy cartoons the authors were thinking out of the box to create something unlike anything else available. On one hand the people of Eternia lived in a sort of mediaeval world with kings, castles, knights, and ancient weapons. Both heroes and villains could use magic. At the same time the Eternians possessed futuristic technology like laser weapons, Attack Tracks, flying Wind Raiders, robots, etc. Now this seems a bit strange to me, but it worked for that particular cartoon. Anyway, at the time I didn't think anything of it, and while the story is totally unrealistic from a scientific oriented point of view the back story was well done. The authors did an excellent job of mixing science fiction with fantasy for the best of both genres. Plus the characters all had great back stories, were well developed, and even now I can sit down and watch those cartoons over and over again on DVD without getting tired of them. Bottom line, I guess you have a good point. Creativity counts much more for a game, successful cartoon, science fiction series, whatever than how realistic it is. Frankly, some of the most boring science fiction movies were those in which the author tried to have an authentic scientific experience. The movie 2001 is a case in point where Arthur C. Clark chose to stick with a more scientific basis for his stories and it never really appealed to me for some reason. Cheers! On 8/12/12, dark <d...@xgam.org> wrote: > Hi Tom. > > Well with voyager and ds9 I have some thoughts about strengths and > weaknesses of the series, but that's sort of outside the main focus of > discussion here. > > I'm afraid I disagree that science fiction has! to rigidly follow current > scientific thinking for a story to work, indeed I've read a good few hard sf > > novels which were! essentially just extrapolations of existing scientific > concepts, but did nothing for plot, setting or characterization. Isaac > asimov for instance, while I find his concepts such as the laws of robotics > > and the idea of psychohistory intreaguing as ideas, I rarely find his > characters engaging, and his plots always read basically as mystery style > puzzles, ---- very clever puzzles, but essentially just problems that are > solved by fairly emotionnless, comparatively uninteresting people. > > I also am a little more scheptical of our own scientific knolidge. For > instance, Fredrich pohl imagined something very close to the modern internet > > in the 1950's, with everyone carrying personal computers and keeping in > touch, but he believed that such transmissions of large amounts of data > without them being corrupted by radio signals or the like would be > impossible without certain alien crystal technology. > > Now of course, thanks to the digitizing of information and far more > efficient ways of receiving various transmissions, we know that no alien > crystals are needed to accurately share data across large distances. > > So, I personally do not mind an alien race having transporters, faster than > > light travel etc, provided! it is treated in a consistant and logical way > that the reader can understand within the context of the suspention of > disbelief of the story. > > In doctor who for instance, one of my biggest problems with the current > series is how time travel is treated. the doctor is an alien from a highly > advanced civilization who have the technology of time travel. Yet, the > writers realized that a time traveling hero has the power to solve any plot, > > sinse after all if anything goes wrong he can just go back and change it. > So, they introduced the concept of the blinovich limitation effect, by which > > if the Doctor actually travels back to his own past to try to change events, > > he will cause catastrophic damage to the universe, sinse obviously any > changes he made in the past might prevent him from going back in the > future. > > So, though the doctor can! travel around time and space, the abilities of > the tardis to solve plots or get him out of trouble are limited, and limited > > in a way which we can all understand. > > In the new series however, the writers seem to be completely ignoring this > and treating time travel like magic! indeed I've been extremely disappointed > > at several episodes where a future doctor suddenly appears and goes "hay, > lets solve the plot!" > > So, here is an advanced technology, probably impossible under current > scientific thinking, yet we can see it can be treated well or badly by a > story. > > Like wise with genetics. Yes, Belana being half klingon doesn't make much > scientific sense, --- -but heck the idea of even mostly humanoid! klingons > doesn't make much sense either. It does however present some really > interesting opportunities for the character to come to terms with Klingon > culture and Klingon features. > > On the other hand, when in the doctor who tv movie made by fox the doctor > claimed to be half human, it was just utter nonsense, sinse the doctor has > never made such a claime before, there is no evidence of half human, half > timelords, and indeed the classic series even implied that Timelords weren't > > born naturally at all! Such a statement was simply the producers deciding > that the Doctor needed to be a less alien character, and making up a very > implausable reason. > > So, while I agree consistancy is the key, I wouldn't want to be tied utterly > > to science in the plot of a game or indeed fiction, provided that the none > scientific elements are consistant. > > this is doubly true for a game, where certain elements of technology might > need to be considdered in light of game mechanics. For example, one idea I'd > > heavily considder for an sf based game would be instant, ftl travel where a > > ship could jump a vast distance very quickly, appearing somewhere else and > giving the player another encounter. Provided such technology could be > considdered in a reasonable light, and has at least an understandable basis, > > this would I think be fine. > > Beware the Grue! > > Dark. > --- Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
