Wasteland 2 to contain some real science

[BruceVC]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/11/putting-the-science-back-in-wasteland-2s-science-fiction/

 

Fascinating article, InXile Entertainment is looking at the possibility of future science to explain some of features that will be in the game.

 

 

I like this reasoning

[AGX-17]

It's too bad these guys weren't around when Bioware was starting Mass Effect. Although somehow I doubt Bioware would be interested in not including space magic in their games.

[C2B]

http://arstechnica.c...cience-fiction/

 

Fascinating article, InXile Entertainment is looking at the possibility of future science to explain some of features that will be in the game.

 

 

I like this reasoning

 

Just nitpicking, but the current thread title is a little confusing.

 

Because, well. It's kinda obvious there is *some real science* in Wasteland 2. Because, well. That's not really hard.

Edited November 8, 2012 by C2B

[alanschu]

I'm curious how much do people really care?

 

Sure the stuff in Deus Ex was effectively magic, but the game was awesome. Would I have even noticed if there was a stricter adherence to plausible science? More importantly, would it have actually made for a better game?

[AGX-17]

http://arstechnica.c...cience-fiction/

 

Fascinating article, InXile Entertainment is looking at the possibility of future science to explain some of features that will be in the game.

 

 

I like this reasoning

 

Just nitpicking, but the current thread title is a little confusing.

 

Because, well. It's kinda obvious there is *some real science* in Wasteland 2. Because, well. That's not really hard.

 

No, it is not obvious that a game with giant rainbow colored robot scorpions (with laser tails,) has real science in it. "SCIENCE!" is not science. It's a fictional trope.

 

And where? Provide evidence of this claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the respondent.

 

 

I'm curious how much do people really care?

 

Sure the stuff in Deus Ex was effectively magic, but the game was awesome. Would I have even noticed if there was a stricter adherence to plausible science? More importantly, would it have actually made for a better game?

 

People who know about/are interested in science and how the universe really works care. Would you have noticed if they bothered to be more realistic? Your response gives me the impression that you don't care and aren't interested, so haven't you answered your own question in that case?

 

This is a valid issue for those of us who are interested in the sciences, because the more you learn about the universe, the more obvious it is that most Sci-Fi is actually Space Fantasy, complete with Space Magic. It wouldn't be difficult for a sci-fi writer to just say "this takes place in a different universe with different laws of physics," but most sci-fi writers know so little about actual science that it would never occur to them.

Edited November 8, 2012 by AGX-17

[pmp10]

I'm curious how much do people really care?

 

Sure the stuff in Deus Ex was effectively magic, but the game was awesome. Would I have even noticed if there was a stricter adherence to plausible science? More importantly, would it have actually made for a better game?

 

People who know about/are interested in science and how the universe really works care. Would you have noticed if they bothered to be more realistic?

There is no way to make such things more realistic without impacting a lot of other things like art design.

Putting attention to that is just a waste of time.

Especially since writers can't stay consistent even without paying attention to science.

 

And it's true that people expect tropes not science.

In the end there will be a need for fantasy elements sooner or later so you might as well make them easy to understand.

Even if the source of understanding is a 50 year old tv-show.

Too much techno-babble can always hurt a title.

Edited November 8, 2012 by pmp10

[alanschu]

People who know about/are interested in science and how the universe really works care.

 

Really? Because I see a lot of people that claim how important realism is to their gaming experiences then substantiate it with decidedly unrealistic impressions they get (often from games that people believe are realistic, or their representation in other forms of media). People already seem pretty willing to suspend disbelief (or even further, assume that the material presented to them is factual for seemingly little reason aside from being cool if it was).

 

Unless the goal of your game is to specifically educate (which is fine), then I find realism is less critical.

 

 

Would you have noticed if they bothered to be more realistic? Your response gives me the impression that you don't care and aren't interested, so haven't you answered your own question in that case?

 

My question was presented in the way that it was to solicit the same question for others. If you'd prefer, I could have been more general with the question to make that clear

 

 

This is a valid issue for those of us who are interested in the sciences, because the more you learn about the universe

 

I most definitely am interested in the sciences. To the point where I would still find myself satiated if video gaming didn't exist at all. I'm all for it being present in a game, but I'm curious if it justifies the cost of using a consulting service, especially for a sequel to a game that seemed to pride itself of being silly. Although I'm sure arachnophobes will be happy knowing that giant spiders are pretty much an impossibility (for example).

 

 

I think I see eye to eye with Sawyer in that realism is nice and all, but arguing stuff (and implementing it) purely for realism's sake may not have the benefits people think they will have. (I actually tried to find the one where Sawyer talks about the "realism" of getting shot and other gunplay mechanics, but that one serves the point better IMO).

Edited November 8, 2012 by alanschu

[Orchomene]

Being really into science (research and things like that), I think there is a need for some level of plausible scientific elements.

First, avoiding things that are really offending for people having a bit of scientific culture. It's not that important for the majority of the players, but it doesn't really affect negatively to avoid things like sound propagation in void space. It's just a matter of taking care of details (the devil is in the details, after all). People complain after things that are not realistic in fps (like infinite ammo or things like that). It's the same here.

Second, a bit of scientific approach can help the creation of a world where you take care of impacts of new discoveries. It may be like nanotechnology and ethic debates of what is the limit of human/machine. It can also be the social impact of an immortality serum.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Orchomene

[C2B]

http://arstechnica.c...cience-fiction/

 

Fascinating article, InXile Entertainment is looking at the possibility of future science to explain some of features that will be in the game.

 

 

I like this reasoning

 

Just nitpicking, but the current thread title is a little confusing.

 

Because, well. It's kinda obvious there is *some real science* in Wasteland 2. Because, well. That's not really hard.

 

No, it is not obvious that a game with giant rainbow colored robot scorpions (with laser tails,) has real science in it. "SCIENCE!" is not science. It's a fictional trope.

 

And where? Provide evidence of this claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the respondent.

 

There's humans, right?

 

There's the concept of gravity, right?

 

The history is based on the real world right? There was an america, right?

 

There are social structures right?

 

There is an englisch language right?

 

There's my proof.

 

*Science* is an INCREDIBLE broad term. What I meant is just a more specific title. *contain* sounds just, well.....

 

Like: Wasteland 2 to lay focus on realistic/plausible science/science-fiction.

 

And as I said it's nitpicking on an internet forum.

Edited November 8, 2012 by C2B

[Orchomene]

I most definitely am interested in the sciences. To the point where I would still find myself satiated if video gaming didn't exist at all. I'm all for it being present in a game, but I'm curious if it justifies the cost of using a consulting service, especially for a sequel to a game that seemed to pride itself of being silly. Although I'm sure arachnophobes will be happy knowing that giant spiders are pretty much an impossibility (for example).

It's a matter of balance. In a game like Wasteland or ME, only small small details are fun and shouldn't require a lot of work.

In a game like Deus Ex, it's central and may require more effort.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Orchomene

[Zoraptor]

I only get annoyed at bad science if it's both unnecessary and obviously bad science. Something like the FEV in Fallout is... implausible but since it's necessary to the story and at least vaguely possible I tend to give it a pass. On the other hand, for something like the grove in System Shock 2 having reached Tau Ceti V at relativistic speeds or the weapons in the game falling apart like they're made of cardboard I can't help but wish that they'd included some sort of explanation rather than hoping that people wouldn't notice.

 

One thing which does tend to annoy me and is somewhat similar is including ahistorical stuff just for the sake of being ahistorical. I'm not really talking lost Maori tribe invade western europe in world war two with neutronium waka and mecha Hitler fights them off the beaches (that will be $100 for the idea, ta Paradox) which is just silly, but either hammering square history into the round storyline or airbrushing like crazy so as to have nice clean good guys and bad guys.

[Rosbjerg]

I think the biggest problem (and where you really notice it) is when a game/story is inconsistent according to it's own internal logic. Like a zombie game, which for instance only focus on slow zombies, suddenly have teleporting Z's that couldn't move so fast to ambush you according to the internal logic of the game - if a game is consistent we tend to be a lot more forgiving when it asks us to suspend our disbelief.

[HoonDing]

Good to see that Kickstarter money put to good use.

[alanschu]

Silent Storm strikes me as one of the biggest WTF moments. Really awesome WW2 squad TBS game that suddenly has germans walking around in mechs.

 

Or in general the twist that many games take to becoming decidedly supernatural (I'm looking at you FarCry) for seemingly inexplicable reasons aside from maybe "We felt shooting humans all game would be boring!"

[Humanoid]

Since Deus Ex was mentioned, one such 'huh' moment for me was HR's silly VTOL craft which did everything from travel two city blocks to flying non-stop across the bloody Pacific Ocean. In itself it was a bit silly, but in the context of the original reverting back to conventional helicopters.... well. On the other hand, the other complaint I often hear, that Jensen's augments are more advanced than some seen in the later-setting game I don't really mind. And yeah, Silent Storm, urgh.

 

 

I think Alpha Centauri got the balance more or less right. I know some aspects of it were considered to be a bit pretentious, but eh, didn't bother me.

[alanschu]

The Human Revolution team was pretty up front that while they were intending for the game to be a precursor to the original game, they weren't interested in handicapping themselves by forcing their technology to be less advanced than the original's given that in many cases actual reality far outstripped the original (they don't use 4:3 monitors in Human Revolution, but they do in the original)

[anubite]

Fantasy worlds; fantasy RPGs; hell, RPGs in general need PLAUSIBILITY. You can set the game in some cartoony hell-hole that uses non-euclidean space and is populated by anthromorphic weasel ancient-astronauts and I'll buy it if the story is PLAUSIBLE and set up in a manner in which the audience can suspend their disbelief.

 

Having good, accurate scientific foundation or good, consistent writing can suffice for having "realism". Unfortunately, the games we DO NOT like, tend to have neither.

 

A game being designed with 'realism' is not a bad thing, but a game's purpose is not to simulate life, but to simulate aspects of it that result in fun or entertainment.

[Humodour]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/11/putting-the-science-back-in-wasteland-2s-science-fiction/

 

Fascinating article, InXile Entertainment is looking at the possibility of future science to explain some of features that will be in the game.

 

 

I like this reasoning

 

About ****ing time!

 

I'm absolutely sick of the pseudoscience bull**** which artists push these days. I will be all over this game if what is said in the article is true. I think I pledged so I guess I'm all over it anyway, but still.

 

Deus Ex 1 may have been 'magick-y', but it adhered to its own internal rules. And heck, it had internal rules in the first place!

 

The Fallouts were also fairly like this (tending to delve often into real-world science, politics, and economics amongst the odd vacuum tube and mutant). Even Planescape: Torment - a fantasy game - was like this.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Krezack

[alanschu]

There's a large difference between being internally consistent and scientific accuracy.

[Humodour]

There's a large difference between being internally consistent and scientific accuracy.

 

Yeah, I thought of that as I was posting. Although I think Deus Ex 1 pulled off an acceptable level of scientific accuracy, too - for what constituted scientific accuracy in the year 2000. Based on some of the stuff I've seen in Nature articles, modern nanotechnology is both far more advanced in some ways and far less advanced in other ways than Deus Ex 1 nanotechnology.

 

Still internal consistency is a basic requirement of scientific accuracy, so if games could at least nail that down first, it would be a good start (and, really, an endpoint for fantasy games). Some do. Many don't.

 

Judging by the article, these guys are way ahead of that, though. The article was excellent - I recommend everyone reads it.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Krezack

[WorstUsernameEver]

Good to see that Kickstarter money put to good use.

 

Second-hand but reliable info is that it's a very unimpressive sum. Having a pair of extra eyes helps, I guess. I personally don't think it was needed (especially given as the original Wasteland was a very surreal, pastiche-y game and it seems like they're aiming for the same tone with the sequel), but if the team felt like that helped the project, more power to them.

[HoonDing]

Ctrl + F: verisimilitude

 

...

 

Disappointed.

[anubite]

verisimilitude

 

Too lazy to try and spell it in my previous post, too lazy to google the spelling of said word.

[LadyCrimson]

verisimilitude

 

Too lazy to try and spell it in my previous post, too lazy to google the spelling of said word.

FF's browser spellcheck feature actually works on that word. I was surprised.

[AGX-17]

http://arstechnica.c...cience-fiction/

 

Fascinating article, InXile Entertainment is looking at the possibility of future science to explain some of features that will be in the game.

 

 

I like this reasoning

 

Just nitpicking, but the current thread title is a little confusing.

 

Because, well. It's kinda obvious there is *some real science* in Wasteland 2. Because, well. That's not really hard.

 

No, it is not obvious that a game with giant rainbow colored robot scorpions (with laser tails,) has real science in it. "SCIENCE!" is not science. It's a fictional trope.

 

And where? Provide evidence of this claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the respondent.

 

There's humans, right?

 

There's the concept of gravity, right?

 

The history is based on the real world right? There was an america, right?

 

There are social structures right?

 

There is an englisch language right?

 

There's my proof.

 

*Science* is an INCREDIBLE broad term. What I meant is just a more specific title. *contain* sounds just, well.....

 

Like: Wasteland 2 to lay focus on realistic/plausible science/science-fiction.

 

And as I said it's nitpicking on an internet forum.

 

See, now you're just making deliberately, overly broad claims because you had no foundational claim to begin with. "There are humans in this game" does not mean "there is realistic science in this game." By your fallacious standards, every fantasy game with humans is a game rooted in real world science, when in fact the truth is quite to the contrary.

 

Will you follow this up with claims that magic is a scientifically confirmed phenomenon?

Edited November 9, 2012 by AGX-17