Poll: Hard science, in your sci-fi games?

[high_castle]

I wouldn't necessarily call Mass Effect hard SF. The concepts it toys around with are based on real-life theories of dark matter and dark energy, but with many liberties taken. What Mass Effect does, though, is present a set series of rules that do not change. Thus, the technology in their universe is internally consistent, if not necessarily realistic. And that's fine with me. The dev team created a world that at least sounds plausible, even if it's really far-fetched. And I like you appreciated the codex entries. Beyond science, they delved into the history, cultures, and figures of their universe. What I loved about this game and others is the depth of the universe. I want a world I can be lost in, and one as well thought out as ME's was just that. So I appreciate the background info in games, and I will never criticize ME for being wordy.

 

[Omikron009]

Here's the thing about hard sci-fi. The laws of physics apply in it, essentially preventing us from leaving the solar system. In almost every sci-fi I can think of some law of physics is broken in order for the whole limitless exploration, wonder of new worlds and alien races, goodness that we usually find can be applied. In hard science fiction we would just be sitting around in our boring little system, and unless the aliens came to us not much would happen. So I say no to hard science fiction. Criticize me all you want but I honestly prefer my movies, books, and games to be entertaining rather than realistic.

 

[Zeramo]

In hard science fiction we would just be sitting around in our boring little system, and unless the aliens came to us not much would happen. So I say no to hard science fiction. Criticize me all you want but I honestly prefer my movies, books, and games to be entertaining rather than realistic.

Our system? Boring? There's a hell of a lot more potential in our solar system than you'd think; off-world colonies of countries on Earth could lead to territorial disputes, which cause a lot of the war on Earth today. A Total War-style RTS based on hard science could be a very good game, with plenty of sabotage of industrial stations, people stretching out to claim as much land as possible and occasionally getting into huge space battles in orbit around some of the outer planets.

That idea sounds pretty much like a near perfect game

 

[Headshot Gamer UK]

I think science is needed in terms of like physics e.g rain falls, the sky is blue blah blah blah, but I admit in some games e.g spiderman, a fictional approach is more enjoyable, but in other games it easily becomes far too much.

YOUR LEADER HAS SPOKEN
wait, what?

 

[DeadRow]

As long as it is believable within the game universe I don't particular care tbh.

 

[diamondwolf]

I personally want science in my games. This is not to say I am not going to be able to tolerate a warp in relatity (example: the mass effect) but if they warp the reality in such a way, it now becomes their responsability to show how this has effected science.

To give an example, Left 4 Dead claims that the zombies are actually infected humans that aren't dead. Okay I'll go along with that. This makes it feasible for the zombies to run fast. Now, if the zombies were stated to be dead then they have to also state why the zombies do not immediately lock up into Rigamortis, rendering them imobile for a while before they can even get up (why a surivor suddenly turning zombie and attacking is impossible) and othersuch inconsistantsies in the universe. And I expect a GOOD reason why if it is supposably set in our universe.

Put simply, I love science in games. But, I do not require it to be stated to me (though I am fond of learning the mechanisms behind the special guns and whatnot) UNLESS the creators suddenly decide to go off on a tangent. And even then if they could come up with even a slightly possible explination, I will be content. Otherwise, it is just seems lazy and unprofessional and I would rather not play the game.