What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How much Hard-Sci-Fi are Mass Effect or Halo ?

Aetherius

Member
Pretty much what the Titel says...

Ok, let me explain, as i was playing Halo ODST and ME Andromeda, i came to realise that many of the technologies
displayed in those games are grounded in today´s scientific results.

For example:
Holograms. Right now, they are working on fully working Holograms.
Or Railguns. The Militaries all around the World is working on those, to make them smaller and lighter.

Now my question, how much of the displayed Tech is actual grounded in Real Life and what is pure Sci-Fi ??
 

IndyFront

Ξ⌊:Ξ≪⊕ `∧∀⊥∥'⌊: ∀∃∃∀⌊:⊕⌈≪⌊:⊕Γ.
Author
Eh, they're more like halfway between hard-sci-fi and science fantasy. Yeah their FTL is somewhat realistic, but then you have gigantic fuckhuge walkers like the Kraken and Reapers that somehow manage to not fall to pieces under gravitational forces, which - if you think about it long enough - actually goes from menacing to hilarious with a quickness...

Closer to science fantasy for sure.
 

Eliar

Well-known member
And the other tech ? Such as AI, Railguns, Exotic Propulsion System (Plasma, Proton), Laserweapons, Railguns etc ??
Like you said much of that stuff is either on the works or already in service today?

Railguns are supposed to be the next Big Thing in naval combat, AI is self explanatory, Laser Weapons in an antimissile or AA role is being worked on as well, exotic propulsion systems have been proposed for decades now for extrasolar sattelites and drones with working prototypes proposed.

The only thing that Mass effect added was the Unobtainium/Eezo power source that neatly allows for miniaturization and working systems be introduced to things like spaceships.
 

<Reaper>666

Member
Like you said much of that stuff is either on the works or already in service today?

Railguns are supposed to be the next Big Thing in naval combat, AI is self explanatory, Laser Weapons in an antimissile or AA role is being worked on as well, exotic propulsion systems have been proposed for decades now for extrasolar sattelites and drones with working prototypes proposed.

The only thing that Mass effect added was the Unobtainium/Eezo power source that neatly allows for miniaturization and working systems be introduced to things like spaceships.
Eh, no.
Railguns, ance again, look nice on the paper, but US finnaly understood that greater threat are net centric swarms of network enabled AShMs and in that enviroment, railguns are just too short ranged and not as cost effective.
Lasers are nice but are not yet there where you can have them being used as a viable effector for AMS (aside opto-electronic jammer).
AI alghoritms are necessary for your information driven military to function.
Ezzo is a tool for explanation of FTL travel. It was to be a plot device in the original cut, but that was later discarded. Actually they could have gone with the Einsten-Rosen bridge and narrative device of "FTL motivator", alternatively drive, and leave it at it. But, you see, use of Ezzo was to be disruptive to the gravity fields, being a main plot narration in the series and also whole rationale beyond the Reapers actions.
In the end we got what we got. Paradoxiacally, Star Trek Picard first season actually gave us proper reiteration of Mass Effect story with even proper ending.
 

Eliar

Well-known member
/shrug

So it is now the next Big Flop.

When Mass Effect was produced Rail Guns were the future :)

As for Eezo if I remember correctly was more or less what radiation was for Fallout.

Allowing for FTL, space magic, regular magic/biotics and a host of other effects
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Eh, no.
Railguns, ance again, look nice on the paper, but US finnaly understood that greater threat are net centric swarms of network enabled AShMs and in that enviroment, railguns are just too short ranged and not as cost effective.
Lasers are nice but are not yet there where you can have them being used as a viable effector for AMS (aside opto-electronic jammer).
You seem to be a bit too focused on drones as the 'next big thing' but keep in mind that the hype is pretty much never representative of the real world. These are just one more weapon for warfare, not exactly one that takes precedence over everything or justifies any and all decision around. Sure, they are effective against a tinpot country's military (like F-117 was really cool over Iraq), but quite less so when you're facing militaries which are pretty damn aware of the threat posed by unmanned suicide vehicles, commonly-known as 'missiles'.

And it goes double in naval warfare, where networked effectors have been a thing for literally decades (Soviet AShM were coordinating with each other autonomously to better defeat the enemy IADS). So, friendly advice, don't obsess too much on a new toy because otherwise you end up swallowing all the hype like a F-35 fan.
 

<Reaper>666

Member
You seem to be a bit too focused on drones as the 'next big thing' but keep in mind that the hype is pretty much never representative of the real world. These are just one more weapon for warfare, not exactly one that takes precedence over everything or justifies any and all decision around. Sure, they are effective against a tinpot country's military (like F-117 was really cool over Iraq), but quite less so when you're facing militaries which are pretty damn aware of the threat posed by unmanned suicide vehicles, commonly-known as 'missiles'.

And it goes double in naval warfare, where networked effectors have been a thing for literally decades (Soviet AShM were coordinating with each other autonomously to better defeat the enemy IADS). So, friendly advice, don't obsess too much on a new toy because otherwise you end up swallowing all the hype like a F-35 fan.
Rufus, tone down and do not patronise me.
We do not write here proffessional analysis on the future of warfare, combat platforms nor perspective weaponry. yet at least, nor I have to write them every time I post here.
You are not the only Chosen One.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Rufus, tone down and do not patronise me.
We do not write here proffessional analysis on the future of warfare, combat platforms nor perspective weaponry. yet at least, nor I have to write them every time I post here.
You are not the only Chosen One.
Where's the patronizing? I'm pointing out logical flaws in your perception of what drones are, when you _very frequently_ present them as the new big thing on the forum. That you react very aggressively to this is pretty telling, TBH. And, well, I do the same thing for any such discourse, whether it is space launchers, railguns, energy weaponry or low-observability.
 

<Reaper>666

Member
Where's the patronizing? I'm pointing out logical flaws in your perception of what drones are, when you _very frequently_ present them as the new big thing on the forum. That you react very aggressively to this is pretty telling, TBH. And, well, I do the same thing for any such discourse, whether it is space launchers, railguns, energy weaponry or low-observability.
Presenting a new addition to the modern and perspective arsenals is not equal of perceiving and championing a monorail view. This is not SB, and I do not see a need to write holistic diserates, painstakingly presenting holistic models over and over again, and describing basics from bagining each time I post. We both know what place unmanned technologies and future they have, both in independent use and as organic part of the combat formation.
Fact that you are perceiving my writings as "next big thing" is your subjective view and internal assumption, more or less carried from your own dealing with messeage boards.
Besides we here have never had (yet) a discussion meriting describing whole combat enviroment and then performing descriptive autopsy piece by piece.

You are overreacting in my case.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Presenting a new addition to the modern and perspective arsenals is not equal of perceiving and championing a monorail view. This is not SB, and I do not see a need to write holistic diserates, painstakingly presenting holistic models over and over again, and describing basics from bagining each time I post. We both know what place unmanned technologies and future they have, both in independent use and as organic part of the combat formation.
Fact that you are perceiving my writings as "next big thing" is your subjective view and internal assumption, more or less carried from your own dealing with messeage boards.
Besides we here have never had (yet) a discussion meriting describing whole combat enviroment and then performing descriptive autopsy piece by piece.

You are overreacting in my case.
Well, it's not hard to have this perception when you very regularly bring drones and loitering munitions in your posts, plus argue that the USN renounced its railgun project because of drones. I mean, if you look a bit at your posts, you'll see that you quite regularly bring them up, which is the reason I questioned your position on them, especially as I see drones as really, really overhyped.
 

<Reaper>666

Member
Well, it's not hard to have this perception when you very regularly bring drones and loitering munitions in your posts, plus argue that the USN renounced its railgun project because of drones. I mean, if you look a bit at your posts, you'll see that you quite regularly bring them up, which is the reason I questioned your position on them, especially as I see drones as really, really overhyped.
Yes I bring them quite a lot due to the nature of these posts and topics they concern. Non of the threads did not require playing with defining whole potential combat enviroment, generation of information-decision fields and necessary support systems making it work, nor discription of potential means of deployment and doctrine.
I use "thought shortcuts", becouse as You consider people to rashly jump to conclusion, I assume most of the people can while working on fragmentary information reach the same obvious conclusions, so I do not see reason for whole pamphlets.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Yes I bring them quite a lot due to the nature of these posts and topics they concern. Non of the threads did not require playing with defining whole potential combat enviroment, generation of information-decision fields and necessary support systems making it work, nor discription of potential means of deployment and doctrine.
I use "thought shortcuts", becouse as You consider people to rashly jump to conclusion, I assume most of the people can while working on fragmentary information reach the same obvious conclusions, so I do not see reason for whole pamphlets.
The thing is, these conclusions aren't 'obvious' in any way or shape, more like an opinion which is quite similar to the ones presented by Wetapunga about space access, Doc_Holliday about radar LO/VLO, big gun enthusiasts on railguns, etc., so I point out elements that indicate such conclusions aren't obvious, merely discutable opinions about tech and tactics development.
 
Top Bottom