It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionRealism/plausibility in sci-fi (and fiction in general)(20 posts)(20 posts)
(20 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 02, 2019
Hi, folks!

Since I'm tired of useless discussions about politics in games (and other media), I would like to suggest a less conroversial (I hope) topic.

What do you think about realism in sci-fi? Is it important for you to see laws of physics manifesting correctly? Or some technical references being accurate? Or maybe you don't care about it at all, and some technobabble is enough for your "suspension of disbelief"?

For example, I know that Star Trek was never a realistic in terms of physics. But it still had inner logic in its episode. If something was explained to work this way or the other - it would work exactly like that with all logical consequence (but not necessarily realistic physics models) to have a compelling story.

Or what about fantasy? Magic defies laws of physics, sure. But when you have warriors or someone making a mechanical trap - do you think it still need to be realistic? I, for example, do. I even cringed when in Avatar: The Last Airbender in one fight someone blocked lightning with water (despite whater is a good conductor).

So, what's your opinion? Do you prefer hard sci-fi like Jurassic Park or something as wild as Doctor Who? Was there some specific moment that made you stop watching/plaing because it was too unplausible? What about some unrealistic game conventions?
Posted July 02, 2019
avatar
LootHunter: Hi, folks!

Since I'm tired of useless discussions about politics in games (and other media), I would like to suggest a less conroversial (I hope) topic.

What do you think about realism in sci-fi? Is it important for you to see laws of physics manifesting correctly? Or some technical references being accurate? Or maybe you don't care about it at all, and some technobabble is enough for your "suspension of disbelief"?

For example, I know that Star Trek was never a realistic in terms of physics. But it still had inner logic in its episode. If something was explained to work this way or the other - it would work exactly like that with all logical consequence (but not necessarily realistic physics models) to have a compelling story.

Or what about fantasy? Magic defies laws of physics, sure. But when you have warriors or someone making a mechanical trap - do you think it still need to be realistic? I, for example, do. I even cringed when in Avatar: The Last Airbender in one fight someone blocked lightning with water (despite whater is a good conductor).

So, what's your opinion? Do you prefer hard sci-fi like Jurassic Park or something as wild as Doctor Who? Was there some specific moment that made you stop watching/plaing because it was too unplausible? What about some unrealistic game conventions?
Well, it all depends on the genre...

Sci Fi I would usually say it needs to either stay grounded in reality (a la The Martian that mostly stays pretty close to scientific reality)... or it needs to set up rules -- scientifically accurate or not -- that the audience can understand and follow.

Likewise, Sci Fi Fantasy doesn't need to be scientifically accurate at all, but it does need to set up rules that the audience can understand (a la Star Wars).

But a situation like the one you brought up from The Last Airbender is just ridiculous. That would seem to be a clear mistake from people who must not understand how lightening works.
Post edited July 02, 2019 by kai2
Posted July 02, 2019
I think there's a place for very realistic sci-fi, but it's far from necessary for me. I wouldn't even say I'm looking for it particularly, though when I see it I might be like "oh neat there's no sound in the space shots." I think Firefly was the one that did that? That was neat. I don't really care though.

What I DO care about is suspension of disbelief, i.e. not being so outlandish I roll my eyes and get taken out of the experience. I think it's very important for any form of media... games, movies, shows, novels... to create a world that FEELS real, even if it's super not realistic at all. Star Trek has a ton of insane stuff in it, but it feels like a genuine real world, which is what matters. Well the TNG era did, anyway.
Posted July 02, 2019
As far as space flight sims are concerned, I'm kind of ok with still hearing explosions. Though I suppose I'd be just as ok with it if a developer went to the lengths of substituting the nonsensical explosion sounds, with all manner of sounds you'd expect to hear from the pilot seat. Kind of like Battlestar Galactica, where the cannon fire of the ships are muffled, as if that is what it sounds like from the inside of the ship. Augementing that with a bunch of beeps and boops from your flight console might be pretty cool.
But not in Star Wars though! Those space battle sounds are too intertwined with the setting by now.

A lot of space sims also have various differing max speeds for space ships, which doesn't make sense either. But that I'm ok with, since otherwise space dog fights will become too frustrating. Case and point more realistic combat flight sims with F16s and the like. It's incredibly difficult to get up close and engage in a proper dog fight because of the very high relative speeds involved.

But this is mostly gaming. As for films, the lack of realism is sometimes annoying. Like how bodies explode/freeze seconds after entering space without a space suit.
Posted July 02, 2019
I'm generally pretty tolerant about such things in sci-fi, as long as you've got some scientific "explanations" for stuff and it feels ok I'm good. Of course, there's a line which you cross and the audience starts thinking "OK this is now fantasy, not sci-fi". For example, Star Wars never felt like fantasy to me, as the Force just seemed like psychic powers to me, rather than magic.
Posted July 02, 2019
I prefer something that's believable and that there's a good amount of suspension of disbelief. When I play a game, watch a movie or read a fiction book I want them to be entertaining first and foremost. I don't expect them to educate me on things. If the game or whatever can be educational as well as entertaining then more power to it but the most important aspect is that it's a good and believable world that makes sense within the context and the rules set up by that story/medium.
Posted July 02, 2019
On the general scale, I'd prefer if a plausible explanation was offered, but I often can accept showing without telling, such as how the warp core works in TNG.
Posted July 02, 2019
I like my sci-fi to be somewhat grounded. Something like Star War's "force" just comes off to me as just plain stupid. I guess you can say that I prefer "hard" takes on Star Wars like TIE Fighter, while fantasy interpretations like the movies and Jedi Academy just turn me off.

Mind, I dislike magic in the first place. Aside from often lacking an explanation, magic feels very selfish to me: Those powers typically only benefit a few select special people, while technology supports everyone in their daily lives.
Posted July 03, 2019
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: I like my sci-fi to be somewhat grounded. Something like Star War's "force" just comes off to me as just plain stupid.
Psionic powers are pretty common in sci-fi though.
Posted July 03, 2019
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: Mind, I dislike magic in the first place. Aside from often lacking an explanation, magic feels very selfish to me: Those powers typically only benefit a few select special people, while technology supports everyone in their daily lives.
What about magic in common magic settings; that is, one where almost everyone can use magic, even commoners? This reminds me of SaGa Frontier 2, where one of the major characters can't use magic, and that is, in fact, a major plot point. (I note that we could have a setting where technology only benefits the rich, but everyone can use magic, so your thought would be inverted in such a setting.)

(By the way, SaGa Frontier 2, like the Romancing SaGa games, can be considered fantasy; SaGa 1-3 and SaGa Frontier 1, on the other hand, have heavy science fiction elements. That series hasn't always been consistent with its settings. SaGa Frontier 1 is a rather interesting case, as the setting is rather disjointed, in a sense.)
Posted July 03, 2019
avatar
jepsen1977: the most important aspect is that it's a good and believable world that makes sense within the context and the rules set up by that story/medium.
The thing is - often medium "sets up" explicitly only a handful of rules, implying that everything else is supposed to be the same as in real world. So when some "rule" comes up that was never explicitly mentioned and at the same time totally goes against, for example, physics (like certain moments in Interstellar) - what is your reaction?
avatar
dtgreene: I note that we could have a setting where technology only benefits the rich, but everyone can use magic, so your thought would be inverted in such a setting.
I think, you missed the point. Being rich is not an immutable characteristics of a person - you can loose money, you can get money. "Magic talent", however, is (in many fictional words) is unalterable - in Harry Potter series Harry has magic, Dursleys don't and it can't be changed.
Post edited July 03, 2019 by LootHunter
Posted July 03, 2019
I am fine with laser guns making "pew pew" sounds and causing explosions, and the laser beams themselves travelling at 80 km/h.

It is just more interesting than if the gun would just make a silent and very narrow beam that scorches a small pin hole into the enemy.
Posted July 03, 2019
On the fantasy side, I really like the scientific-ish explanation of how magic works in The Name of the Wind.
Posted July 03, 2019
Who wants realistic Sci-Fi? :P

"Hurry, they need our help in the Bantar system! It should only take us thirty years to get there!"

"Of course, when we get there none of us will have enough muscle mass left to even pick our noses, not that it's gonna matter because the Bantar system may not be there in thirty years and the people who need our help most likely dead and gone."
Posted July 03, 2019
avatar
tinyE: Who wants realistic Sci-Fi? :P

"Hurry, they need our help in the Bantar system! It should only take us thirty years to get there!"

"Of course, when we get there none of us will have enough muscle mass left to even pick our noses, not that it's gonna matter because the Bantar system may not be there in thirty years and the people who need our help most likely dead and gone."
Are you saying that FTL travel isn't realistic or even plausible?
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionRealism/plausibility in sci-fi (and fiction in general)(20 posts)(20 posts)
(20 posts)