The Necromancy

[DanielOR]

As one of the people who did the aforementioned lecturing, I would somewhat disagree that it "does not help anyone" - some folks might actually enjoy it and, in fact, have posted to that extent.  The science content both in the game and in the forum can be easily ignored, I think.  Having well-explained concepts in the game helps the "immersion", makes the game world more belieavable.  And if it does make someone curious - hey, why not?

[sirg]

I agree with you that it might be interesting to read some pop-science on the forum or in game, however this isn't the issue - people are concerned about gameplay issues and items which could affect the gameplay and fun factor in a way or the other. Anyway, you can't sustain everything in a game with science, otherwise it will become a PhD thesis.

The fact that the game world is plausible is OK, but there are alot of tones of grey here, because having something "wild" doesn't make the game absurd. I think there is a trap here, wanting to back up everything with pop-science bits - not everyone will agree that a certain theory or deviation from fact is valid from the current scientific point of view, and so you have people with PhDs comming and arguing about the game's scientific story (which is somehow silly). However, if you emphasize less on theory and science, and you say it's SF, then none can say anything. To me threads where people debate if some weapon technology is realistic or not are somewhat useless, because I don't care that much about how some SF weapon really works. I.e. lightsabers from Star Wars are totally unrealistic and silly, but as a concept are an awsome idea and the vast majority of people like them alot, even though many realize that such a device can't exist.

To me it's important to see cool things in the game, weapons that make me want them and use them, fun and good gameplay concepts, that sort of thing. When you are creating something in a SF setting, it's really not difficult to tie something "wild" to the story. That's creativity.

[TrashMan]

Well said Sirg.

fun >>>>>> realism
cool >>>>> possible

But one shouldn't overdo it. A healthy dose of fun and a healthy dose of realism are the best mix.*


*not saying that realism can't be fun, but it most often isn't.

[DanielOR]

Sirg,

Not sure if "pop-science" is a compliment here...  I can only speak confidently for Babunito and myself...  I assure you that both of us (we are, in fact, PhD's in physics) are meticulous about not BS-ing and we do provide disclaimers if we might BS.

Honestly, there is no conflict at all between having science content and beautiful, fun flight of fancy.  Yes, of course the premise is fiction and the game does not intend to be a scientific journal.  But what makes a difference between good science fiction and drivel?  Among other things, homework and details.  The world, while fictional, should net offend common sense.  I call it "being internally consistant".  

You brought up light sabers - thank you, great example.  Surely, there are several things "wrong" with the design.  And yet, why does the idea not offend?  For one, light sabers have limitations.  They do not cut through material (like blast doors) instantly.  The blades have finite range.  How much fun would that world be if the light saber could extend into space and cut a star destroyer in two right in orbit?  Well, that, somehow, would be even *more* rediculous than the concept of a light saber itself.  I'll bet you that there were a few physicists and egineers working as consultants on all six movies.

Which is why several people (and not just us eggheads) enjoy the science of sci-fi.  Not to mention that in a few years me may actually get to same technology, or something close, in daily life.

The science content really does seem to bother you.  Well, the concept of a forum is that there is room even for those who want to see more science stuff.  I can only remind you that you should feel free not to read it.

[DanielOR]

TrashMan,

I suppose the definition of "healthy" may vary. 

[Darkpriest667]

the powered armor would eliminate the weight problem of a human carrying a minigun

also someone mentioned the military is working on it.. yes they are very hard. and it comes back to a huge scientific discussion we had which id like to bring up here

POWER SOURCES - so far i have these 3 ideas capable of providing the power quantities nuclear, fusion, zero point. Antimatter would not be reccomended however if the game would like to incorporate anti matter as the future power source thats fine with me too


secondly i like the science posts.


so carry on

[sirg]

@DanielOr

I didn't know you were the one with PhD here... I haven't read these forums for several months, so I am not familiar with everyone yet. The reference to pop-science wasn't meant to offend you or others. All games are built on some science facts, so it's a good thing. Besides, I'm not against science here... or in general. Even more, I am quite fascinated with these topics and more, reading alot of science related books since I was a kid. But because I was poor with maths (I have an artistic talent that compensates) I couldn't go study physics at the University. But nevermind that...

My point was that we are talking about the game here, and that should be more focused on gameplay and design issues, rather than scientific talk. Sure, we can have a big forum thread about science and FTL physics, but I would rather talk about the game. The science talk doesn't bother me, but I think it's out of place. People are developing a game, not a jet fighter simulator. Ofc the science background is important, but secondary.

I had this post because I saw some good ideas dismissed just because they aren't totally valid from a scientifical point of view, and that's bad, because in order to have a game, you have to make some compromises and create a crude model of what happens in reality, or even ignore how things happen in reality.

One example is the medkit. According to UFOpedia, the effects of a plasma hit are so gruesome that not even the best surgeons in the world could heal such a wound. Besides even a small hit would incapacitate the victim completely due to the pain and shock. However, in game you can take alot of hits, heal, and continue with no probs. Is this a bad design idea? I think not. Is it totally unrealistic? Yes. Do I care? Not really. The soldier has a number of hitpoints and you don't have to translate hitpoints into health. You can imagine that your soldier isn't really hit until his hitpoints reach zero, and then he is lethaly hit, and so he dies.

Regarding lightsabers, I heard Lucas saying that he knew the swords are unrealistic, but he liked the idea so much that he had to put in in the movies. He is a creative person, and knows when something is so good that it has to came on film no matter how silly is from a scientifical point of view. The Jedi are the SF version of the medieval knight or monk, and the lightsaber makes it all. If Vader had a broadsword then that would have been stupid, even if the sword is more realistic than the lightsaber.



@Darkpriest667

Regarding the minigun.... Even though they look cool, they are totally impractical as a personel weapon. Even if you are very strong with the help of a power armor like in Fallout, the minigun eats alot of ammo, so unless you are carrying a cart with ammo around, it's totally impractical. BUT, one solution could be a plasma minigun, so you don't have to carry a truck with bullets with you.


OMG wall of text 

[TrashMan]

Or a laser minigun...but the ammo problem, even using regular mass driver tech can be solved in multiple way. For instance, check out the workings of Mass Effect weapons.

@DanielOR - yes, I'd say the "healthy" is rather open to debate.
But, something I found out while talking to the devs from Bioware and Kerberos (I'm always on those forums, got to know the developers good since they post REALLY often) is that most players appreciate science, but if it stands in the way of cool and fun, they'd rather not have it.

Granted, a comercial game should appeal to a bigger audience to boost sales, while you are free make a game that only you and a small nieche will appreaciate it - nobody is paying you anyway.
I myself like games with internal consistency an a certain dose of cool.

[Nevasith]

Actually there is no need to make a laser minigun, as there is no barrel that would overheat and there is no need to increase the RoF as laser can fire as long as it is suplied with power.
Id really welcome laser canon shooting like a long range flame thrower- did anyone read Frank herbert's Dune? in one of the later parts there was a battle where guy used to scorch entire area with a single burst from a laser rifle- cutting and burning quite a lot of enemies. Of course such a firepower would be imbalancing but a cone shaped firing mode would be great - the soldier just presses the trigger and moves slightly sideways his laser until the battery runs out

[TrashMan]

Lasers don't overheat? 

[DanielOR]

Sirg,

I don't see much point in continuing the debate - we have expressed our views and there is little else to be gained.  It was certainly never my intention to detract from game option by adding science content.  I was, in fact, trying to put plausible science behind the game's sci-fi gear.  It was the very real (though not hand-held) minigun that I was opposed to.

Medikits: while they do provide a hell of an edge, I think they are somewhat too powerful in their present incarnation - soldier is at 2 HP and 2-3 heals later are at full health and need no recovery at the hospital?  I think the UFO:EU had a more realistic behavior of medikits - they stop the HP loss, recover some of the stat loss, but the soldier is still very much a walking wounded. 

[sirg]

Sirg,

I don't see much point in continuing the debate - we have expressed our views and there is little else to be gained.  It was certainly never my intention to detract from game option by adding science content.  I was, in fact, trying to put plausible science behind the game's sci-fi gear.  It was the very real (though not hand-held) minigun that I was opposed to.

Medikits: while they do provide a hell of an edge, I think they are somewhat too powerful in their present incarnation - soldier is at 2 HP and 2-3 heals later are at full health and need no recovery at the hospital?  I think the UFO:EU had a more realistic behavior of medikits - they stop the HP loss, recover some of the stat loss, but the soldier is still very much a walking wounded. 

It's OK to back up in game sci-fi gear with scientific fact, but I got the feeling that people got to technical and some topics were drifting away from subject because of the scientific talk. I'm not against it, yes, it's an interesting subject yet there can be a separate thread called "scientific talk concerning in-game stuff".

Regarding the healing system, let's keep in mind that even though UFO-EU had this more realistic system implemented, it also featured the option to save during the battles, while this game doesn't have this feature. For me it's quite frustrating to play 30 mins clearing a map without any casualty, and after that, spending more 15 mins hunting the last alien, that lonely alien to kill my best soldier. It happened to me alot.

Because there is no save game feature, and there won't be any, there has to be a simpler system of "refreshing" your troops. I am so and so about this restriction of saving the game while fighting, because this doesn't allow big large maps like Terror from the Deep had.