Development Info InXile consults academics to create Wasteland authenticity

[MaskedMan]

They should hire Cleve.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Science!

http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/

A Slower Speed of Light is a first-person game prototype in which players navigate a 3D space while picking up orbs that reduce the speed of light in increments. Custom-built, open-source relativistic graphics code allows the speed of light in the game to approach the player's own maximum walking speed. Visual effects of special relativity gradually become apparent to the player, increasing the challenge of gameplay. These effects, rendered in realtime to vertex accuracy, include the Doppler effect (red- and blue-shifting of visible light, and the shifting of infrared and ultraviolet light into the visible spectrum); the searchlight effect (increased brightness in the direction of travel); time dilation (differences in the perceived passage of time from the player and the outside world); Lorentz transformation (warping of space at near-light speeds); and the runtime effect (the ability to see objects as they were in the past, due to the travel time of light). Players can choose to share their mastery and experience of the game through Twitter. A Slower Speed of Light combines accessible gameplay and a fantasy setting with theoretical and computational physics research to deliver an engaging and pedagogically rich experience.

 

[Johannes]

That's really cool actually, at least for me as a former physics student.

 

[hiver]

Well, you won't be dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear attack and battling radiation, so survival experience is more relevant. Like this guy, for example:
http://www.spiveysabertoothknife.com/History/History.htm

What...You want realism in games? - What, like SOIL EROSION?!?!? -
Survival knives? Where does this ludicrous idea of survival problems after apocalypse even comes from?
What if it was designed so that hamburgers fall out of the sky everyday, right at high noon?

A pogo stick would work fiftysevenhundred ways better then some silly realistic knife. Traveling over rough terrain? ha! A joke! Avoiding enemies? never easier! fighting enemies? +3 to dodge! +5 to damage on every successful hit from above! Aerial supremacy!!!
Going over rivers and such? piece of cake!+ it catches fish by itself!

And if you think a knife is better because it is sharp - well... a sharp pogo stick takes care of that fallacy!

I don't see anything in that anecdote about attacking tank treads with his allegedly "handy" knife.

I guess this is what happens when sarcasm detector fails.

Science!

Science.

 

[Oriebam]

I don't see anything in that anecdote about attacking tank treads with his allegedly "handy" knife.

I guess this is what happens when sarcasm detector fails.

No, that's what happens when your jokes are non sequitur or otherwise poor, HIVer

 

[Brayko]

Yes because "paramilitary and/or survivalists" have survived some mad post-apoc environments and are eager to share their experiences.

Oh you're right, to get that practical knowledge of realistic post-apoc scenarios, you need biologists and pharmacologists. Wait...

I think that their knowledge and theories of such an environment would have much more meat than a trained soldier or hiker who's only trained in conventional warfare for the former and the current static environments for the latter. Not to mention the fact that it is a computer game and any retard who plays military games can optimize proper tactics and weapons in a desert environment where's a scientist could actually add some more environmental theoretical knowledge of the given scenario of a post-apocalyptic desert.

 

[Alex]

I think that their knowledge and theories of such an environment would have much more meat than a trained soldier or hiker who's only trained in conventional warfare for the former and the current static environments for the latter.

Both a scientist's and and a survivalist's insight might be very useful for the right game. But the place where a scientist can help directly in a game like Wasteland, for the virtue of being a scientist, would be less than those where a paramilitary man could, simply because of the focus of the game. If you must fill the game with details (which can be a good thing, if they really affect gameplay) better be about those things the game is about. And Wasteland was never about science. If anything it was about Science!, and then, only a little bit. A geologist might know thousands of little facts about a desert or a wasteland, and there certainly is a chance that some of these might be useful to build a game about survival and rebuilding. Whereas a good survivalist would certainly have insights about living through it first hand.

Of course, a scientist would (well, at least might) also understand how these fact connect, which can be pretty useful in keeping the semblance of reality in a what if scenario. The problem is that semblance with reality was never really important to this kind of fiction.

Not to mention the fact that it is a computer game and any retard who plays military games can optimize proper tactics and weapons in a desert environment where's a scientist could actually add some more environmental theoretical knowledge of the given scenario of a post-apocalyptic desert.

Just like any retard can do the work of a scientist and research stuff in wikipedia and a library. Heck, if anything, I think a layman could probably do a better job of researching some theoretical knowledge than a scientist would be able to guess what can be best learned through experience. Maybe you meant that having actual knowledge about tactics and conflicts isn't really important to design a game like this, and would probably add little if anything at all. If so, I fully agree with you. But then again, the same is true about knowledge about physics, geology or biology.

 

[Brayko]

It's obviously mostly a fluff or PR thing, yes, I can agree with that.

 

[hiver]

Both a scientist's and and a survivalist's insight might be very useful for the right game. But the place where a scientist can help directly in a game like Wasteland, for the virtue of being a scientist, would be less than those where a paramilitary man could, simply because of the focus of the game.

You mean a science fiction game... about an alternate history and post apocalypse caused by wast meteor strike and then compounded by Nuclear war it caused in cold war alternate history?

If you must fill the game with details (which can be a good thing, if they really affect gameplay) better be about those things the game is about.

No shit? Is your middle name Columbus maybe?
How do you make these discoveries?
It must be magic.

And Wasteland was never about science.

What the fuck do you think science is?

I mean, seriously... (although im fucking sure i will regret asking) - what is science?

I must ask since it seems to several of you it means something about geology and making fantastical concepts "real" and explained and... nothing much else.
You all seem to be talking about "a scientist" as if thats a singular weird vodoo like category. Like it doesnt even matter what branch of science there are at all.

If anything it was about Science!, and then, only a little bit.

What?

Of course, a scientist would (well, at least might) also understand how these fact connect, which can be pretty useful in keeping the semblance of reality in a what if scenario. The problem is that semblance with reality was never really important to this kind of fiction.

You mean like...science fiction?

The reality is never really important?

 

[The Bishop]

Of course, a scientist would (well, at least might) also understand how these fact connect, which can be pretty useful in keeping the semblance of reality in a what if scenario. The problem is that semblance with reality was never really important to this kind of fiction.

I really don't think that's the case. While being factually correct on everything isn't a strict requirement and might actually be detrimental to the wacky style of Wasteland, an ability to capture the living essence of things, the way everything works, is and always has been the hallmark of good fiction of any kind. You don't make a fascinating fictional world by simply mishmashing random outlandish ideas. That world will only come to life if those ideas, while outlandish, form a coherent whole and "make sense", even if only inside crazy and unrealistic conventions. Keeping "semblance of reality" not in form, but in substance, is pretty much what makes for good fiction.

 

[hiver]

The building foundations must be realistic.
The proposed advances in technology or science itself must be plausible and believable - according to what we know now. Again - based on reality.
The way individuals or humanity as a whole react to such proposed changes must be - realistic.
Diverse, funny, tragic, expected, unexpected, silly, smart, - all of that is realistic.

There is absolutely no fucking need to invent actual explanations of some fantastic looking tech or futuristic science. AT ALL!!!!!
Because it cant be done! Because if it was possible than you could bloody well actually create all those "inventions".
If you could actually explain FTL drive then you can bloody well make one!

The point is not to actually explain it. Nobody is even trying.
The bloody point is to ask "If we had FTL drive... how would things look for us? What would we do? What would it mean for humanity, society or individual? Would there be any cost to it, any consequence according to what we do know about laws of the universe?"


The role of science fiction was NEVER EVER to come up with actual explanations for any of the speculative technologies it uses. Because speculation about future tech is nothing more than one of the tools it has.
This speculation must be plausible - yes. Probable. Possible.
Actually explained - no.
And SF can be created without even including any sort of specific technology speculation at all.


Written in 1953, Fahrenheit 451 sent out a stark warning to future generations about the importance of reading. The novel follows Guy Montag, a fireman who starts to question his life after a chance encounter with a strange girl.
Within this world, books are outlawed because they are considered dangerous and the root cause of society’s problems.
In place of reading, people sit in their parlours watching inane television shows on screens the size of walls.


Brave New World - 1931
"And this," said the Director opening the door, "is the Fertilizing Room."


Its real purpose is to explore the possibilities.
To go down paths people never dream existed, or go down well known paths in ways people never dreamed about, to expand our everyday limited, constrained views and explore them as far as possible, - and to serve as a warning.
And nothing of it would make any sense at all - if it wasnt realistic. If it wasnt based on reality.

 

[Brother None]

New interview

To help shape Wasteland 2's radiation-soaked, er, wasteland, the team at Thwacke reviewed research on everything from Hiroshima to the nuclear tests on Bikini Atoll to determine how survivors and the environment would be affected. For example, Alvarado points out that nuclear blasts often create trinitite, a shiny green glass formed when sand gets super-heated incredibly quickly. Thwacke passes that background on to InXile and lets them decide how or whether to use it in the game.

One of the best examples of how Wasteland 2 will be intertwining real world science and imaginative fantasy probably comes through in enemy design. Alvarado recalls that the InXile team needed some believable enemies for a waterlogged area that had been ruined by a natural disaster. "We wanted to explore what kind of animals would survive in water and out of water, what animals do we know that live in a tidal zone and that could survive, things like that," he said.

The scientists found the humble hermit crab was a likely candidate for post-nuclear survival, thanks to its ability to absorb radiation in its shell and then discard it during a molting cycle. That's the academically valid, scientific part. But since this is still a video game, they wanted to make sure it was a little "off the wall" as Alvarado put it.

"We used radiation as a very simple gaming mechanism to argue that it makes animals super large, because everyone knows radiation makes things super-large... we'll just take that one as a granted," he said, laughing. "So let's let these hermit crabs get [so big] they can't find housing in their conventional shell and they'll actually seek housing in a bus or a telephone booth or something like that."

"So the whole idea is that they'll hide in parts of the environment and they'd actually have this stealth ability, in the fact that they wouldn't actually be seen by the player," Alvarado continued. "It kind of works with a bit of biology, it works a bit with what Wasteland is after ... it fits into this world that Wasteland has with bizarre and fun off-the-wall type humor and everything."​

That's a definite no on "hard science" or "science-approved", but them suggesting such very specific creatures might be more world design involvement than some are comfortable with.

LET THE DEBATE BEGIN ANEW.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

You dick.

 

[Surf Solar]

And they needed to pay scientists foe this "research"?

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

HAHAHA BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN THE GAME PLAYED IT AND ITS SHIT RIGHT?! HAHAHA THAT'S SO FUNNY.

Also, in serious biz please either fix your: Keyboard, Fingers, Brain.

 

[Stinger]

And they needed to pay scientists foe this "research"?

So it's less research and more hiring a team for worldbuilding who happen to have a science background that can make the setting interesting just by having a different perspective and knowing what they're talking about.

What's wrong with this?

 

[almondblight]

So it's less research and more hiring a team for worldbuilding who happen to have a science background that can make the setting interesting just by having a different perspective and knowing what they're talking about.

Because you don't need a scientific background at all for those examples?

 

[Gozma]

Giant hermit crab using a bus as a shell is actually a funny idea and seems like a productive outcome of whatever this is

 

[Brother None]

And they needed to pay scientists foe this "research"?

Kind of. I can't reveal much here but let me put it this way: if you guys knew the cost involved here, you wouldn't think it much of an issue. It's, uh, not very significant.

 

[Infinitron]

And they needed to pay scientists foe this "research"?

Kind of. I can't reveal much here but let me put it this way: if you guys knew the cost involved here, you wouldn't think it much of an issue. It's, uh, not very significant.

 

[Shadenuat]

I already want to see a giant crab in a phone booth.
...and make it with missiles. Yeaaah.

lots of missiles

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Kind of. I can't reveal much here but let me put it this way: if you guys knew the cost involved here, you wouldn't think it much of an issue. It's, uh, not very significant.

Aww, don't say this. Without whining and making mountains out of molecrabhills VD might have to actually focus on...shit, I dunno...making his own game better?

 

[DraQ]

We don't care about their sense of smell or sight because it's limited by the screen size.

Actually we do. Because having some creatures using different senses and having different instincts may make ofr more diverse and interesting gameplay.

make everything interconnected

This.

Also, one scientific breakthrough leads to another (what would be the next step provided we have this thing covered, what would humanity try to achieve at this point?), and each imporant invention provides its own set of moral and ethical dilemmas which may or may not be relevant depending on the game you're making (DX:HR handled it superbly).

DX:HR is actually perfect example of both - having and failing to have the right consultants. Augs are mostly awesome. OTOH genetics was wince inducing and problems introduced by transhumanism were mostly missed completely.

Did you see the screenshot? Look at again.

I'm not saying that tracks are impossible to destroy, I'm saying they are harder to destroy with small gun fire than the leg joints that are up in the air.

Leg joints can be easily protected from at least any horizontal small arm attack by adding armoured "knee protectors". Sure legged form is generally more fragile, but we're talking about arthropod robot, not 12m tall bipedal mecha and legs do have their uses.

But how about other details? Original scorpitron had "mandibles" it could snap menacingly - how were they helping in anything?

What *does* it mean? I've yet to hear a single solid argument from the pro-science crowd.

How about you clean the shit out of your ears then?

- Science! It makes games better!
- How?

How about:

1. There is a lot of shit to reality and any reasonably detailed setting. Shit in reality is interconnected in ways most of which we can't even imagine, nevertheless those ways exists and contribute to the reality forming a cohesive whole.It's good to have someone who spent most of their fucking life vigorously exploring some of those connections between stuff you're going to feature in your game.

2. There is a lot of shit to reality and any reasonably detailed setting. When making a setting you're going to be making tons of unwitting assumptions about stuff, architecture, culture, technology, biology, physics and fuckload of stuff. A lot of those assumptions are going to be at least partially asspulled and likely at least partially very wrong. Guess who could help?

3. Reality is a goldmine of weird, awesome and consistent stuff. Stuff that can be used as basis for creating an interesting setting. Unfortunately to ask google about something you must first know that it exists, and know how it's called. A science consultant can be a goldmine of awesome ideas in addition to shooting down crappy ones.

No proof then.

As for the example, it's always easy to imagine a non-existent situation that supports your point of view. It's much harder to provide specific and real examples. I have no idea whether or not a space game with realistic gravitational pulls and real physics would be interesting to play, but I do know that Elite - an unrealistic space game where you landed on planets and docked at stations - was a fucking blast.

You didn't land on planets in Elite, but you did so in Frontier - a game with realistic physics. It was a blast.

I think midichlorians sucked because they were an uninteresting detail. Not because they were a detail.

Mystical paranormal endosymbiotes don't qualify as an explanation for mystical paranormal Force.

You still have the exact same amount of mysticism and unexplained stuff, only derpy instead of cool.

I can't get into Russian authors at all. The Brits are kinda' acceptable, some of them, but for me, American sci-fi authors is where it's at. Truth be told, most of the sci-fi authors are American to start with, particularly those worth reading. This literary genre is not very common with the writers in many other places. That does have an explanation in the fact that many, if not most, sci-fi writers are scientists (or, at least, technical, educated people) which are financially secure enough to do this. You can't really be bothered to write sci-fi if you're freezing to death, dieing of hunger or being afraid that you're going to be thrown in jail for your anti-revolutionary writings or lynched by an angry, fanatic mob for your blasphemous writings.

1. Lem was Polish.

2. Lem was an extraordinarily erudite guy (although he did make a few blunders in his writing career) and often injected a lot of science or at least fairly rigorous speculations into his works. He wasn't as fixated on details as your typical hard SF writers, but he did care a lot and he predicted a lot of stuff long before it was actually invented.

3. Quite a few of his work have science, scientists, technology or scientific method figuring prominently in them at some point.

4. Lem actually hated a lot of western Sci-Fi due to it being unscientific, low-brow, wish fulfilment, akshun popamole for morons.


So, yeah.

 

[FeelTheRads]

3. Reality is a goldmine of weird, awesome and consistent stuff.

But reality is boring, when you know everything there is know like these people do. And if you don't know something you google "reality" and you find about it.

 

[DraQ]

3. Reality is a goldmine of weird, awesome and consistent stuff.

But reality is boring, when you know everything there is know like these people do. And if you don't know something you google "reality" and you find about it.