Limits in Science-Fiction.

[Togs]

Im currently training to be a biochemist- as my training has gone on my tolerance for bad science in media has gone.

I prefer it when they just handwave it, I loved how they did FTL travel in Firefly- there's an engine, it spins and makes you go through space- simple, elegant and with minimal stupidity or exasperating signs of a media student failing to get their head around high level physics.

 

[alandavidson]

Limits? None. But I do like to be tricked into believing that it COULD work IRL

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I was more concerned with basic fundemental things, such as the eyes, people where also wondering wether the charcter viewed the answeres in 1st or 3rd person, well he is basically looking trough the eyes of his ancestor, and our eyes are in the front of our heads, so he seas 1st person. stuff like that i don't think can be changed.

I presume you're talking about Assassin's Creed (By "ansers", did you mean Ancestors?) Well there's a perfectly logical explanation for that. Wanna hear it? It's a doozy!

Ready: Assassin's creed would have been a pain in the ass to play from the first person. That's it. There IS no "scientific reason", and I didn't think anyone really WANTS one. Would you like AC to be "Half-Life 2's Annoying platforming section where you can't see where you're fucking standing" the game?

OT: The central tenet of Star Wars is Space Magic. But no-one gives a shit about that because A) They named it after a fundamental aspect of Physics and B) Well, even if it IS just Space Magic. So what?

 

[Trolldor]

Science fiction, basically taking massive liberties with theoretical or even certain science.
But what lines can science fiction not cross? What scientific facts just cannot be changed?

I thought of this after having a little debate with someone on the AC forums over the way Genetic inheritance works, a constant argument was that "it's science fiction, they can do what they want" But i think Sci-Fi needs some boundaries, it's the only thing stopping it from becoming utterly insane nonsense.

So where should the line between Reality and imagination be drawn?

Science Fiction does not and never will take liberties with science.

Science Fantasy can do what it wants, but the whole point of science fiction is to explore possibilities of plausabilities we just can't achieve yet.

 

[Trolldor]

It shouldn't. That's the whole point of sci-fi, that those constraints are lifted.

exactly what i was thinking, there's no limit, putting limits to science fiction is like putting an iron bar to the wheel of a bycicle !

Both of you have completely missed the point of Science Fiction.

 

[AugustFall]

If they go into detail on how it works then it can't just be bullshit. IMO anyway. If they want to say, "This cardboard box turns back time," that's fine but if they go into it and it has something to do with midichlorians then I'm putting the book down.

 

[Caliostro]

I think what's more important is that the author/creator is capable of staying within the confines of their work's internal rules and logic.

This. Essentially the only "limit" I'd apply is one of consistency and coherence. If a work remains logical in it's own universe, then it's free game.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So where should the line between Reality and imagination be drawn?

Generally speaking, it's about how you divulge from reality. Give an explanation, and it's hard science fiction, say there's an explanation and it's soft science fiction, not bother and it's science fantasy.

 

[Alexias_Sandar]

Mainly, the science in such should be INTERNALLY cohesive. It should make sense within context and not contradict itself. Same with magic in settings that have such. So long as it follows the rules set forth and laid out within the setting, I don't mind. I do mind when such doesn't happen, though.

 

[Scabadus]

Established, real science shouldn't just be ignored, but if you really need to contradict it then any half-decent writer can think of an explination that works within the setting. Need genetic inheritance to work differently? Gene regulation among humans has become commonplace to prevent diseases. Need gravity to be twice as strong? A collapsing black hole sent a shockwave through space-time that tweaked the laws of physics.

It's all about the backstory.

 

[erto101]

It's SCIENCE fiction. If it is not within the realms of possibilities it becomes a space based adventure like Star Wars. Which i find a lot more enjoyable than true science fiction

 

[Titan Buttons]

Well I disagree with you for 2 reasons
1: It is Fiction, as such it is only limited by the imagenation of te writer
2: It is Literature and to put a boundry on it is to put a boundry on a persons speech or opinion or the limits to which anyone can express themselves through words and thoughts and also the limit to which topics can be explored and the perspectives exploring them.
To limit one form of expression gives permission to limit many more.

 

[MindBullets]

There's a whole spectrum of sci-fi "hardness" that deals with this sort of issue. "Hard" sci-fi doesn't stretch the known laws of science very far so as to keep it realistic and believable, whereas "soft" sci-fi takes a lot of liberties with science to suit whatever the writer wants to happen. Mass Effect is harder sci-fi than Doctor Who, to give an example.

So, basically, it's all a matter of personal preference. Both ends of the spectrum have their appeal, so if you think a show/game/book/etc has taken something too far, it's not really a bad thing. It's just how it was written.

 

[flamingjimmy]

Star Wars killed science fiction.

Don't get me wrong, I love it. But it is not science fiction.

Pretty much no-one makes real science fiction anymore, just fantasies that include technology that might as well be magic.

 

[shadyh8er]

Breathing in space. My suspension of disbelief is immediately broken whenever I see people breathing in space. I mean come on! Goku couldn't do it, why should Simon be able to?

 

[Abengoshis]

Science FICTION should stay just that.

 

[II2]

Softscience is fun. It gives us explosions in space.

That said, I'm in favor of things that have been proven false still being used as plot devices. I can't remember what it was, but I watched some 2010 release that brought up the whole "it's said we only use 10% of our brain... [what's the rest doing?]" thing and it was just painful and embarrassing.

 

[Sam Ronin]

Surely it depends on which forms of Sci-Fi you are writing for.

Now a so called Hard Sci Fi show should keep as much as possible plausible within current scientific thinking. Although this can then seem rather boring to others. This rule also depends on the time frames involved. Near future or far future.
To quote the late Arthur C Clarke. "Any technology significant advanced beyond us would be indistinguishable from magic."

Now on the other hand you have Sci Fantasy. Stories which have a more scientific basis but play a lot looser with known rules. Star Trek would fit this. Asd half the stuff is made up to fit convenience or story devices. Although enough fans of the show working hard on real day tech make leaps towards some of what we see in it.

My point here being that it depends on the story you want to tell and how you want to tell it. If you make something which is mostly realistic but then sideline the laws of physics then many will not like the end result. On the other hand if you have a off beat television show, lets say with a 900 year old lead then you can create just about anything to make for fun television...

TLR. It depends on the story. The closer to realism and the here and now, the more realistic you should be.
The further into the future or alternate reality, the looser the rules become. But you also risk losing people over stuff that seems too implausible.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

There are different sorts of standards applied to science fiction. The goals of the genre as a whole are not fixed as different people have very different ideals of what they should be.

Some people say that the important thing is transplanting current "human condition" situations into different sphere where they can be played with in a different way using stylised "sci-fi" elements that give themes a magical "other world" feeling. Other people say the same but replace human condition with mythology or whatever. But the harder science fiction people reject this and say that the root of science fiction is a new idea that can be speculated on in a plausible way. I would say that futuristic fantasies that don't have at least one or two ideas that seem plausibility enough to make you think about possibilities differently at least for a while are not great science fiction, just fantasies with a scientific theme instead of spiritual one. Although it's rare for authors of this sort of sci-fi to have the discipline to exclude things like spiritualist themes or themes that are not credible based on current scientific knowledge. But authors are normally allowed a couple of free passes for ideas that don't seem possible like faster than light space ships.

One reason for science fiction existing in the first place is the problem that older themes like fairies and ghosts stopped feeling so credible in a new era where people were more educated. The feeling of wonder could be regained by speculating on things that seemed plausible based on a better understanding of reality. If science fiction itself just becomes a new collection of unbelievable cliches then it loses power and needs to be replaced by something else.

Frankenstein's Monster seemed plausible when it was first created because of experiments with electricity doing things like animating frogs legs. Now that we know stitching corpses together and animating them with electricity is nonsense the monster is reduced to a camp comic horror character.

 

[AlkalineGamer]

Science FICTION

That says it all imo....although it should supply some sort of explenation of how something works...doesn't matter if it would be possible in the foreseeable future as long as it isn't "A wizard did it" ;P

SCIENCE fiction. see i can do that too.

People i'm not talking about things like teleportation, time travel or deathstars.
I mean where IS the line between science fiction and fantasy, where does one become the other.
When they start changing basic things?