Mass Effect 3

[Zoraptor]

It's whatever the story calls for it to be. If it needs to be a frigate, it's a frigate, if it needs to be a pocket cruiser it's that. If it needed to be the offspring of two overly amorous reapers who got a bit drunk on intergalactic ale after a spot of planet busting and ended up Regretting It In The Morning then it'll be that.

 

It's like the time(s) you get trapped by foozle in a ludicrously contrived situation you've seen coming a mile off in [almost anygame], it's what the plot calls for that's the determining factor, not any theoretical 'logic'.

 

To be fair though, being able to look out the window when all else fails is a pretty sensible idea, even if having a single pilot sitting in an exposed position is on the face of it absolutely ludicrous.

[Giantevilhead]

The Normandy is actually designed like how a real stealth vessel would be like.

Having a pilot at the front and a floor to ceiling window at his station is probably significantly worse than beam weapons not being up to expectation.

 

The Normandy isn't a battlecruiser. It's not suppose to engage in combat. Plus since it is designed for stealth, it would have limited sensors as well.

Are you trying to tell me that it's a ship designed to be piloted by looking out the window?

 

The window will be very useful in stealth mode when it has very limited sensors and may need to navigate areas that interfere with sensors even more.

[Orogun01]

The Normandy is actually designed like how a real stealth vessel would be like.

Having a pilot at the front and a floor to ceiling window at his station is probably significantly worse than beam weapons not being up to expectation.

 

The Normandy isn't a battlecruiser. It's not suppose to engage in combat. Plus since it is designed for stealth, it would have limited sensors as well.

Are you trying to tell me that it's a ship designed to be piloted by looking out the window?

Why, it made perfect sense when they did it on Star Trek.

[Bos_hybrid]

Are you trying to tell me that it's a ship designed to be piloted by looking out the window?

Why, it made perfect sense when they did it on Star Trek.

 

And Star Wars and Stargate.

[Oner]

The Normandy is actually designed like how a real stealth vessel would be like.

Having a pilot at the front and a floor to ceiling window at his station is probably significantly worse than beam weapons not being up to expectation.

 

The Normandy isn't a battlecruiser. It's not suppose to engage in combat. Plus since it is designed for stealth, it would have limited sensors as well.

Are you trying to tell me that it's a ship designed to be piloted by looking out the window?

Why, it made perfect sense when they did it on Star Trek.

Umm, Star Trek ships had a huge display monitor for external cameras, not a window.

[Giantevilhead]

The Normandy is actually designed like how a real stealth vessel would be like.

Having a pilot at the front and a floor to ceiling window at his station is probably significantly worse than beam weapons not being up to expectation.

 

The Normandy isn't a battlecruiser. It's not suppose to engage in combat. Plus since it is designed for stealth, it would have limited sensors as well.

Are you trying to tell me that it's a ship designed to be piloted by looking out the window?

Why, it made perfect sense when they did it on Star Trek.

 

Except the bridge didn't have windows in Star Trek. If they did then the battle of the Mutara Nebula in Wrath of Khan would have been a lot simpler.

[Tale]

The window will be very useful in stealth mode when it has very limited sensors and may need to navigate areas that interfere with sensors even more.

Anything you can see with the naked eye in space, you would be so close to it, you'd be incapable of hiding from it. Unless it's a planet. You'd be radiating detectable radiation through that window enough to ruin the stealth, as well.

 

 

Are you trying to tell me that it's a ship designed to be piloted by looking out the window?

Why, it made perfect sense when they did it on Star Trek.

 

And Star Wars and Stargate.

Star Trek didn't pilot by windows. Star Wars did, Stargate does on occasion, but only the most diehard of fans ever gave them brownie points for their science.

[Bos_hybrid]

Star Trek didn't pilot by windows.

 

*cough*runabout*cough*

[Tale]

Star Trek didn't pilot by windows.

 

*cough*runabout*cough*

Star Trek has lots of inconsistency. And how can it avoid it, it has lots of material, lots of writers of varying skill and backgrounds, to be inconsistent with. Anything said about it as a generality will have several exceptions. And it also made concessions for various reasons, narrative effect, drama, not wanting to deal with the special effects of landing the ship every episode.

 

The entire point is that Mass Effect does not have good science and never did. It has lots of technobabble, but not good science. Pointing out Star Trek's science fopaux does not defend Mass Effect against that claim. Spaceships don't become submarines just because it happened in Balance of Terror and Wrath of Khan, either.

 

It's not a bad thing that Mass Effect has bad science. I just find it silly to pick out beam weapons being weak as somehow worse than the stealth and window problem.

[Hassat Hunter]

Reminds me of the audio commentary on a Stargate: Atlantis episode.

 

"So we established here drones do not fire underwater, you see."

(At the end of the episode)

"Remember how drones couldn't fly underwater? However here they do to save the day. Sorry"

(was one of the writers)

[Giantevilhead]

The window will be very useful in stealth mode when it has very limited sensors and may need to navigate areas that interfere with sensors even more.

Anything you can see with the naked eye in space, you would be so close to it, you'd be incapable of hiding from it. Unless it's a planet. You'd be radiating detectable radiation through that window enough to ruin the stealth, as well.

 

Unless they're navigating an area of space that distorts sensors and has limited visibility like a nebula, asteroid belt, planetary ring, or a planet with really thick atmosphere, which is something that a stealth ship would do to hide from people.

[Tale]

Obscuring nebula and asteroid belts are pure fiction. Nebula density is still less than that of a vacuum produced on earth. Asteroid belts are incredible sparse, with large distances on the order of thousands and millions of miles between rocks. Planetary rings can be dense. Too dense to navigate around stuff, which means you're dealing with the structural weakness of the impacts against glass. But not so dense that visibility is really limited.

 

A ship could hide in a planet's atmosphere. But at that point it no longer needs to hide its emissions. It stops being a stealth ship and it becomes a ship hidden by aplanet.

 

In short, if there's anything to see in space, it's either a planet or colliding.

[Giantevilhead]

Yes, they are fiction but they're common in sci-fi.

 

I never said that Mass Effect was hard science fiction. It was established to have science that was at least comparable to the best of what Star Trek had. The problem is that they've already established how powerful ship mounted weapons are in previous games and now they're contradicting that. That's something that I can accept in a 40 year franchise that has had hundreds of different writers and gone through countless creative changes. But ME has only been around for a short while and the same people have been in control of it all this time, so I would expect them to keep their made up science consistent.

[Orogun01]

Yes, they are fiction but they're common in sci-fi.

 

I never said that Mass Effect was hard science fiction. It was established to have science that was at least comparable to the best of what Star Trek had. The problem is that they've already established how powerful ship mounted weapons are in previous games and now they're contradicting that. That's something that I can accept in a 40 year franchise that has had hundreds of different writers and gone through countless creative changes. But ME has only been around for a short while and the same people have been in control of it all this time, so I would expect them to keep their made up science consistent.

You forget one fact that they ME writers are acutely aware of: ME fans care more about the romances than the science, they're more likely to throw a fit if their favorite companion isn't romanceable than if they decided to get rid off the "mass effect fields" and instead use magic gnomes as the cause of all phenomena.

[Hassat Hunter]

Maybe they've "upgraded" the mounted weapons of ships.

 

You know, like how weapons got "improved" by no longer having infinite ammo. Which I think in war is a lot better than some minor issues with overheating if firing rapidly. Supply's a bitch on the combat front...

[Nepenthe]

Yes, they are fiction but they're common in sci-fi.

 

I never said that Mass Effect was hard science fiction. It was established to have science that was at least comparable to the best of what Star Trek had. The problem is that they've already established how powerful ship mounted weapons are in previous games and now they're contradicting that. That's something that I can accept in a 40 year franchise that has had hundreds of different writers and gone through countless creative changes. But ME has only been around for a short while and the same people have been in control of it all this time, so I would expect them to keep their made up science consistent.

You forget one fact that they ME writers are acutely aware of: ME fans care more about the romances than the science, they're more likely to throw a fit if their favorite companion isn't romanceable than if they decided to get rid off the "mass effect fields" and instead use magic gnomes as the cause of all phenomena.

[Raithe]

Well, just to throw in the whole.. pseudo-science aspect.. but haven't they done the whole "Humans don't like being wrapped up in tin cans with no outside views" psychological studies?

 

And Joker has a crudload of sensors and readouts on his console, and during battle those big shutters actually come down and cover the windows.. So I'm not really stressing over the thoguht that he looks out of the window to fly the ship..

 

To me it's more, he gets the damn good view when the ship isn't in combat.

 

After all, how many people do you know who really don't like seeing clear images of stars and spinning, swirling gas clouds in space?

[Gorth]

After all, how many people do you know who really don't like seeing clear images of stars and spinning, swirling gas clouds in space?

Most officers on Imperial vessels in WH40k?

[HoonDing]

It's also doubtful whether WH40k pilots and officers have brittle bone disease. Or are whiny little bitches.

[Raithe]

After all, how many people do you know who really don't like seeing clear images of stars and spinning, swirling gas clouds in space?

Most officers on Imperial vessels in WH40k?

 

Because that's a stirring example of clean psychologically healthy folks...

[HoonDing]

At least they're not into poetry.

[Malcador]

Because that's a stirring example of clean psychologically healthy folks...

 

A suspicious mind is a healthy mind.

[Giantevilhead]

Because that's a stirring example of clean psychologically healthy folks...

 

A suspicious mind is a healthy mind.

 

But blessed is the mind too small for doubt. In order to have suspicion, one must have doubt. Therefore a healthy mind is one that is open to corruption and must seek absolution.

[greylord]

Speaking of windows in the front of a ship, I actually do not see why people say that's bad science.

 

They actually tried to build a plane where the pilots sat at the back of the plane and used sensors to fly it. They sort of nixed that idea...since if anything happens to the sensors...they are screwed.

 

Then we have the entire drone thing where the pilots aren't even in the plane...those planes seem to go places they aren't occasionally...like into foreign countries who then claim them...or even worse...straight down into the ground.

 

It's not science, it's common sense. If all your sensors to fly the dang thing goes...at least you still have ONE way to make some sort of spatial judgement even without them. You HAVE to have some way to see where you are going and what you are doing.

 

I'm NOT a commercial pilot, but I do fly privately. I can fly the plane off of instruments only...and with modern ****pits (I can't believe the word catching on these forums edited this...so...this is the place where the PILOT sits and flies the plane...that's what the word with all the asteriks mean), you can even come in for landing almost only on instruments. However, I still want my windows to look out of...not only for aesthetics...but I've had all my instruments die on me, my battery die, etc....and at those times you better believe I'm dang glad for those windows.

 

So I'm calling BS on all those statements that are saying there's no reason for a window or ****pit at the front of the Normandy. If you have the science to go faster than the speed of light, you surely have the science to be able to have a well protected window that doesn't crack under the pressures that you would extend to such a craft.

 

At this point, because there can always be some sort of electrical or sensory failure...I'd say ONLY AN IDIOT wouldn't have a window in the ****pit...preferably one with easy to make judgements on spatial relations. I'd say it's less scientific to argue against a window...than to argue for one.

Edited December 23, 2011 by greylord

[pmp10]

Speaking of windows in the front of a ship, I actually do not see why people say that's bad science.

Same reason it's not done in submarines.

In space you can't really see anything with an naked eye.