|
Post by GroxGlitch on Apr 23, 2010 2:37:21 GMT
I, personally, think it should be allowed so long as it isn't godmodding, because all the best sci-fi shows are ones that DON'T follow the possible.
|
|
UFO King
Satellite Scribe
We've but one Earth on which to live.
Posts: 38
|
Post by UFO King on Apr 23, 2010 3:05:57 GMT
No, I don't want to hear any crap about neutron singularities. The real world is exciting enough, just take a look at The Universe or Naked Science. Aren't strange matter and orbital bombardment cooler than transhyperfluxo-beeblebroxicgooglephonic transmutatoronics?
|
|
|
Post by Eligecos on Apr 23, 2010 3:08:00 GMT
I believe in proper balance. I do believe people need to understand the technology that they "create" and be able to explain it. More importantly, whether it is necessary to have it and whether they can get by without it. There needs to be ways to bypass something that seems to give a creature too much immunity. It just doesn't make things interesting.
At the same time, mulling over the details can get boring and doesn't make for good story at all. You get lost putting so much effort into that, you start to lose interest in what the whole deal is. We don't want to be writing a history textbook, we want to make a story that you can be entertained by.
|
|
Clarke
Celestial Castellan
Posts: 116
|
Post by Clarke on Apr 23, 2010 3:09:29 GMT
To a degree. While we can't expect anyone to fully explain the way their races starship or starbridge works, it should be based around concepts that are possibly real, such as the warp drive.
|
|
UFO King
Satellite Scribe
We've but one Earth on which to live.
Posts: 38
|
Post by UFO King on Apr 23, 2010 3:20:47 GMT
Thanks, Clarke. Yeah, I based gravity field metal on that kind of thing. Don't explain it too much, but make it plausible and possible.
|
|
DarthGrievi
Satellite Scribe
He's watching...
Posts: 61
|
Post by DarthGrievi on Apr 23, 2010 4:30:42 GMT
I'm all for plausibility. The occasional sprinkling of technobabble to get through a concept that isn't entirely understood by modern science, maybe some mild fudging of the "rules" (FTL , anyone?), just enough that you seem to know what you're talking about and aren't just pulling it out of your ass.
|
|
UFO King
Satellite Scribe
We've but one Earth on which to live.
Posts: 38
|
Post by UFO King on Apr 23, 2010 5:06:25 GMT
Exactly. For example, we use wormholes and know that they're possible, but we humans have absolutely no idea how to actually create them. Just remember that real-world science is often incredibly awesome. One example is this one Hot Jupiter I heard about. It's a gas giant orbiting so close to its sun that one of its years is complete in something like 4 days. This means that its sun is slowly burning it away, and on its "surface" the clouds are made of gaseous iron. It rains molten iron, and because of the ridiculously close proximity to the star, the strong magnetic fields cause northern lights to appear all over the planet. Now THAT is awesome. Oh, and ocean planets. No solid ground, just a water world. 'Nuff said.
|
|
haseri
Satellite Scribe
Posts: 18
|
Post by haseri on Apr 23, 2010 6:17:32 GMT
Exactly. For example, we use wormholes and know that they're possible, but we humans have absolutely no idea how to actually create them. Just remember that real-world science is often incredibly awesome. Well, we know we would have to convert something the mass of Jupiter into energy to create a wormhole. Just beware of the Roddenberry Line.
|
|
Flisch
Satellite Scribe
Posts: 35
|
Post by Flisch on Apr 23, 2010 10:30:05 GMT
Exactly. For example, we use wormholes and know that they're possible, but we humans have absolutely no idea how to actually create them. Just remember that real-world science is often incredibly awesome. Where do you get the idea, that wormholes are scientifically proven? Either get your facts right or stop complaining about the lack of science in other people's stuff.
|
|
Martyk
Satellite Scribe
Never underestimate the power of dolphin.
Posts: 21
|
Post by Martyk on Apr 23, 2010 15:09:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GroxGlitch on Apr 23, 2010 22:27:12 GMT
I know, my "neutron singularity" thing was stupid, but I was a noob. What I mean is, some of us got to the point we were aiming for what seemed like hard science, and for people like me, that's a deterrant. I've stood by using simple will, but for other people, they might not want to spend hours on wikipedia to find a way to make a decent weapon that people aren't going to whine about.
|
|
Clarke
Celestial Castellan
Posts: 116
|
Post by Clarke on Apr 23, 2010 22:59:25 GMT
I know, my "neutron singularity" thing was stupid, but I was a noob. What I mean is, some of us got to the point we were aiming for what seemed like hard science, and for people like me, that's a deterrant. I've stood by using simple will, but for other people, they might not want to spend hours on wikipedia to find a way to make a decent weapon that people aren't going to whine about. Well, part of the fun is researching things and figuring out, even if its simply by intuition, how something might work. Its a lot more fun spending half an hour figuring out, say, how a group of flora-like organisms might exploit the electromagnetic field of a brown dwarf their planet is rotating around to increase the energy yield of methanogenisis, rather than just making up the word "voltosynthesis" without any explanation. While it doesn't have to be completely accurate, we shouldn't be using "a wizard did it"(or, more appropriately, "a naucean did it") to explain things that can be explained through normal means, at least in most cases. At least thats my opinion, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by GroxGlitch on Apr 23, 2010 23:03:50 GMT
Ah, that right there is debatable. I, personally, find it better to come up with an explanation for Voltosynthesis, than spending that half-hour doing what you said.
|
|
|
Post by lushcity on Apr 25, 2010 20:46:35 GMT
I sugest we take a "High Art" method, we TRY to be as scientific as possible, and explain away what we can with internally consistant rules, but well never discount something on "scientifc unaccuracy" unless it defies already establshed in-game physcs of violates common sense.
|
|
crazen
Satellite Scribe
glue
Posts: 74
|
Post by crazen on Apr 25, 2010 23:18:39 GMT
For instance lasers are lasers, Meaning they are sustained beams, not blaster guns: those would be a different weapon entirely. Star Wars is full of s***
Just wanted to get a really glaring one out of the way. Again.
|
|