Science fiction vs. science purism

I would argue such solid assertions either way. There are plenty of amazing things in reality that can blow peoples minds. People confuse the concept of realism for mundane day to day things but this doesn't have to be the case. I think it does a disservice to the wonders we have uncovered in the universe to say that we understand it all and nothing is novel in reality.

Bobucles is right in that anyone who thinks reality is boring is not looking in the right direction, or not looking deep enough into something. Look at it this way, knowing about something can greatly enhance ones enjoyment of said thing. As an example lets look at stars and planets. We can known nothing about them, as points of light in the sky, we can even create fictions about them and stories. But to know what the reality is? that is neither boring or lacking in novelty.

This is not to say that fiction doesn't have its place of course, far from it. Poetic license and departures from reality by contrast can be both novel and fun and work well. They can also quite often be simplifications of something in reality to make things easier for audiences to connect with. Also it is key for fiction to have some grounding, either in something realistic, or at least a consistent logic within the fiction.

I guess I am saying that both have their place, and to scorn one over the other doesn't help either. The best entertainment has the two meet in a harmonious way.

One word...GAME
Realism, rubbish, get over it, not important, has no relevance at all.

Was that clear enough?

No, not clear and certainly not inspired. Dealing in absolutes is rarely the answer. There are many things that are helped by being informed from a basis in realism. A functioning physics engine that conforms to what we expect to happen for instance. Cause and effect. There is plenty of room for relevance when it comes to realism informing game design. To claim anything else is more than a little silly.

What can be discussed is to what depth realism and logic is adhered too. A full blown physics simulation for instance would most likely not be the best for game-play. So we have a reasonable model or stylistic approach to things in order to maintain suspension of disbelief, have the game world behave in a fashion that players would reasonably expect (even with fantastic sci fi happening everywhere) whilst still remaining fun and leaving game mechanics clear and easy to follow.

This is something which is being discussed at length in many threads, on many aspects of game design, and the degrees of realism that people are happy with can vary quite dramatically between different facets of the game, both confirmed and proposed. It is important for the people who funded the game to find a balance which is appropriate which can be agreed on by most people. Statements like yours add nothing to the discussion.

If realism cannot be realistically realised in virtual reality, really we should reach the realisation that realists' realistic views of realism should be realigned with realisable realisms that can be reached.


Say 3 times fast.

Hahaha nicely done

The subject was "Science Fiction or Science purism"

I take that to mean we are talking about non-existent things like teleportation, artificial gravity, super luminal velocities, nanite construction, giant walking robots of death, all of which are Science FICTION none of which have any basis in reality.

Physics is not "Science Fiction" it is fact, so you mention it by way of example is irrelevant, I'm not disputing aspects like that, what I don't want is an aspect included or not based on whether it's scientifically feasible (this is science purism). What I am saying is that an idea should only be included or not based on how it effects the gameplay.

It's like a post on the SupCom forums, declaring that because the UEF gunship had big engines, it should move faster.
People were posting pictures of big engines from actual aircraft to assist in their argument for and against the post, but none of it made a lick of sense, because the UEF gunship is a bunch of pixels in a game.

Sorry if the subject to this thread was not clear, or worded correctly, but my point remains. Science Purism has no part to play in a scifi game.

To clarify, the extent to which physics is modelled in game, for example, is not relevant to a conversation about Science Fiction vs Science Purism, as Physics is already established science. The only points in that discussion is PC performance rendering complex physics calulations vs game speed and enjoyment.

Guys, we already have a thread for this;

PSA - Realism VS Awesome

Mike

Well this started as a discussion on technobabble with a very poorly chosen title, which your thread is not.

Doesn't matter what it started at, only what is actually being discussed.

Mike

@yxalitis looks like we were arguing for very different things. I agree with you in relation to the science purism. I was arguing more from a 'awesome vs realism' perspective as it seemed to be heading in that direction. In any case I misunderstood your intention when I responded to you : )