Development Info InXile consults academics to create Wasteland authenticity

[Infinitron]

I'd really rather that they wouldn't think about everything, and leave some room for imagination instead. Otherwise in a setting like this, you're most probably just going into midichlorian territory.

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

 

[ironyuri]

But who the fuck cares about that ?

I do. I'm a verisimilitude-fag. I like a game that makes me think "Wow, they really thought of everything here!".
I'd really rather that they wouldn't think about everything, and leave some room for imagination instead. Otherwise in a setting like this, you're most probably just going into midichlorian territory.

I find your lack of midiclorians... disturbing.

 

[DragoFireheart]

But who the fuck cares about that ?

I do. I'm a verisimilitude-fag. I like a game that makes me think "Wow, they really thought of everything here!".

- So does that mean I can't take a shit in a toilet or drink from one? Damn, I was hoping this game would be Fallout 3 amazing.

















Just kidding you moron.

 

[ironyuri]

I'd really rather that they wouldn't think about everything, and leave some room for imagination instead. Otherwise in a setting like this, you're most probably just going into midichlorian territory.

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

No, idiot.

Midiclorians sucked because they were an attempt to explain something supposedly inexplicable. The Force in Star Wars is supposed to be some all encompassing transcendental element of the human soul, a universalist web of fate which can be manipulated by those attuned to it. Midiclorians sucked because they tried to pinpoint its source in biology, and they sucked harder because after one mention, Lucas dropped them from further outings in SWII & SWIII, which made them seem even more invalid and unimportant.

The Force is basically what Lyric Suite calls the transcendental, he can't fucking explain that, so how could you expect Lucas to explain the Force? If you try, you just get a pile of turd.

 

[Infinitron]

Midiclorians sucked because they were an attempt to explain something supposedly inexplicable. The Force in Star Wars is supposed to be some all encompassing transcendental element of the human soul, a universalist web of fate which can be manipulated by those attuned to it. Midiclorians sucked because they tried to pinpoint its source in biology, and they sucked harder because after one mention, Lucas dropped them from further outings in SWII & SWIII, which made them seem even more invalid and unimportant.

Define "explain". In KOTOR2, Kreia offers her own explanation of the Force which is quite popular here on the Codex.

There can be good explanations and bad, banal, uninteresting explanations.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You faggots are still talking about this? Bunch of science-hating jocks invaded my Codex.

Which one of these people looks like a man of science to you?

"We've already brought in unique perspectives from entomologists, nuclear engineers, and geologists (soil erosion is in! yay!). We plan on using these insights to shape a world capable of capturing the imagination and offering relevant and immersive experience".

Same text, different emphasis. Selectively using the insights of scientists does not mean designing the world in a scientific manner. The scientists are not the ones designing the world!

You've highlighted the obvious. They are scientists, so obviously they will be using these insights, instead of taking peyote to gain new ones.

The scientists already said that they will be designing creatures, so that's half the task of designing the world right there. Plus they will be doing logs - another world designing tasks, so it looks like they will have plenty of work there and since they are not professional designers, the scientific insights are the only one they have.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No, idiot.

Midiclorians sucked because they were an attempt to explain something supposedly inexplicable. The Force in Star Wars is supposed to be some all encompassing transcendental element of the human soul, a universalist web of fate which can be manipulated by those attuned to it. Midiclorians sucked because they tried to pinpoint its source in biology...

Exactly. They made the Force seem like a fucking cell parasite, which ruined the whole thing right there, even if it's the most plausible answer.

 

[Johannes]

I'd really rather that they wouldn't think about everything, and leave some room for imagination instead. Otherwise in a setting like this, you're most probably just going into midichlorian territory.

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

The problem here is the same as with Star Wars. You've already got a setting with unexplained things, and must find explanations that don't conflict with the existing canon. How much cool stuff can you really fit in in that context?
Or can you come up with a cool, detailed explanation for Force, then... Or do you think a biologist would be better qualified?
Or something like later Wizardries. There's spaceships, computers, etc., yet people still fight with swords and muskets. You may try to explain that but please, don't. I can easily deal with it making no sense, as long as you don't try to pretend otherwise.


It'd be different if you'd be building a new world from scratch, then you establish that this world differs from ours in this and that way, and this unexplained realworld thing works this way, then try to come up with the logical consequences of that in a possibly outlandish but consistent manner.
Then the made-up details would be essential to understanding the gameworld, instead of just an attempt to de-mystify the world.


And just how much would your rangers be concerned with theoretical scientific details?

 

[Vault Dweller]

But who the fuck cares about that ?

I do. I'm a verisimilitude-fag. I like a game that makes me think "Wow, they really thought of everything here!".

I'd really rather that they wouldn't think about everything, and leave some room for imagination instead. Otherwise in a setting like this, you're most probably just going into midichlorian territory.

Exactly. Not only there is nothing wrong with leaving some room for imagination and interpretation, it's often a good idea to involve the player by letting him figure some things out.

 

[Infinitron]

The scientists already said that they will be designing creatures, so that's half the task of designing the world right there.

Half the task? Really?

Repeating my earlier post:

This isn't about "research". This isn't about "science talk". This isn't about "realism".

This is about having a science nerd standing behind your writers' shoulders, maybe occasionally telling them, "Hey, that's cool guys, but you might wanna add this detail". And of course whether they heed that advice is entirely up to them.

You know that if you ask Brian Fargo which one of us two is closer to the truth, he'll say that I am.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Or something like later Wizardries. There's spaceships, computers, etc., yet people still fight with swords and muskets. You may try to explain that but please, don't. I can easily accept that it makes no sense, as long as you don't try to pretend otherwise.

This.

 

[Infinitron]

The problem here is the same as with Star Wars. You've already got a setting with unexplained things, and must find explanations that don't conflict with the existing canon. How much cool stuff can you really fit in in that context?

Correct, Star Wars is a fantasy setting and therefore it shouldn't have scientific explanations for something as fundamental as the Force. But it can have other, non-science based explanations. For example, Kreia's metaphysical understanding of the Force in KOTOR2.

 

[Vault Dweller]

This isn't about "research". This isn't about "science talk". This isn't about "realism".

This is about having a science nerd standing behind your writers' shoulders, maybe occasionally telling them, "Hey, that's cool guys, but you might wanna add this detail". And of course whether they heed that advice is entirely up to them.

You know that if you ask Brian Fargo which one of us two is closer to the truth, he'll say that I am.[/quote]
How the fuck should I know it, especially since the scientists seem to be under the impression that they will be doing a lot more: creatures, logs, etc. Not just "fact-checking" or suggesting to add some details, but the actual design work.

Read the interviews.

 

[ironyuri]

Midiclorians sucked because they were an attempt to explain something supposedly inexplicable. The Force in Star Wars is supposed to be some all encompassing transcendental element of the human soul, a universalist web of fate which can be manipulated by those attuned to it. Midiclorians sucked because they tried to pinpoint its source in biology, and they sucked harder because after one mention, Lucas dropped them from further outings in SWII & SWIII, which made them seem even more invalid and unimportant.

Define "explain". In KOTOR2, Kreia offers her own explanation of the Force which is quite popular here on the Codex.

There can be good explanations and bad, banal, uninteresting explanations.

And is Kreia's explanation considered canon? Kreia's explanation was qualitative, not quantitative. You cannot compare hers to Qui-Gon-Faggot's.

The explanation offered by Kreia was a philosophical one, and it was written because of Avellone's distaste/disgust with the Star Wars universe. It is a deconstruction of the force and the emptiness of "The Force" as a signifier. The idea being that if the force is alive, that it ca die. That if it is all encompassing then it can also be all consuming. That if it can fill an individual like a vessel, than an individual can be emptied or voided of it. MCA explored the plot holes and loose ends of the force and didn't seek to explain them empirically, but to highlight the fact that they are exactly that: plot holes.

The midiclorians was an attempt to empirically categorise The Force as a material/biological element of the universe, which manifested as some kind of quantifiable organism inhabiting specific individuals, the proliferation of which resulted in said individual being attuned to "The Force". The fact midicilorians were a shit explanation was because it was an attempt to explain the existence of the Force, which was incredibly disconnected from the actual presence of the Force in the Universe and its use by the inhabitants of that Universe. How can the Force be the web of fate, as well as a "super power" but it comes about by micro-organism. That made even less sense than leaving the force unexplained.

Kreia never explains the Force. She gives the player an insight into what Avellone understands the Force to be and what the Force is not. She also follows to their logical conclusions every descriptive term applied to the Force in the original film trilogy and some of the expanded universe. There is a difference between qualitative explanation and quantitative.

Kreia is the former, midiclorians are the latter. The Force, as it exists in the Universe is unquantifiable. Lucas attempted to change that and failed. It was not a poor explanation it was an unnecessary explanation and a completely ignorant attempt to bypass the Universe he constructed, by disconnecting one of its major elements from its own function.

Edit: Just to clarify: The reason Kreia's "explanation" (lolherpderp) is interesting and even compelling is because it raises more questions than it answers about The Force. As would any philosophical analysis of some transcendental universal power, lol hai hegel.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Stop "this"-ing every single post you agree with, you insecure old man.

It's not my fault that Johannes makes a lot of sense and produces arguments and examples I didn't think of, but agree with completely.

 

[ironyuri]

Where is Serious_Business he once wrote an excellent breakdown of Kotor II and how exactly it deconstructs the Star Wars Universe.

 

[Infinitron]

Here's the difference between me and my opponents in this thread:

They see "science" in the sense of the scientific method, used as a design methodology for scientifically developing realistic worlds.

I see "science" in the sense of the accumulated pool of knowledge generated using the scientific method in real life. This accumulated pool of knowledge is a rich source of lore and detail which can be used, selectively, to flesh out and polish the game world.

 

[Infinitron]

And is Kreia's explanation considered canon? Kreia's explanation was qualitative, not quantitative. You cannot compare hers to Qui-Gon-Faggot's.

I just did.

This isn't an argument about science. It's an argument for more detail. Fact is, Kreia added more detail to our understanding of the Force.

Good details are good. Bad details are bad.

 

[ironyuri]

Here's the difference between me and my opponents in this thread:

They see "science" in the sense of the scientific method, used as a design methodology for scientifically developing realistic worlds.

I see "science" in the sense of the accumulated pool of knowledge generated using the scientific method in real life. This accumulated pool of knowledge is a rich source of lore and detail which can be used, selectively, to flesh out and polish the game world.

Thank you for pointing out the differences as you see them between you and your "opponents".

 

[ironyuri]

And is Kreia's explanation considered canon? Kreia's explanation was qualitative, not quantitative. You cannot compare hers to Qui-Gon-Faggot's.

I just did.

This isn't an argument about science. It's an argument for more detail. Fact is, Kreia added more detail to our understanding of the Force.

Good details are good. Bad details are bad.

So now you've moved on from explanation to detail.

Is it just me or did you just go full LyricSuite on the goalposts here by moving them into the realm of transcendental dumbfuckery?

 

[Infinitron]

So now you've moved on from explanation to detail.

What's the difference? These are details that add to our understanding of something, hence they explain.

 

[ironyuri]

So now you've moved on from explanation to detail.

What's the difference? These are details that add to our understanding of something, hence they explain.

Details in themselves do not explain. Details, like facts, must be interpreted or interpolated through narrative in order to explain anything.

A random collection of details or facts explains nothing. They would just be meaningless signifiers hanging in space.

Additional details might allow us to re-interpret something based on a current understanding, but they do not explain themselves.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Here's the difference between me and my opponents in this thread:

They see "science" in the sense of the scientific method, used as a design methodology for scientifically developing realistic worlds.

I see "science" in the sense of the accumulated pool of knowledge generated using the scientific method in real life. This accumulated pool of knowledge is a rich source of lore and detail which can be used, selectively, to flesh out and polish the game world.

Obviously, everyone sees "science" (in the context of this discussion), as the accumulated pool of knowledge, learned at universities and such.

"I was midway into graduate studies at McGill and had the opportunity to visit the studio of a developer here in Montreal. As I walked through their studio, I saw a member of their team Wikipedia-ing “DNA.” Having dedicated my career to studying DNA, I realized that the knowledge that we take for granted in academia could be very useful for the entertainment business. To me, that incident emphasized the huge gap between legitimate research and public knowledge."

​

​

​

 

[Infinitron]

A random collection of details or facts explains nothing. They would just be meaningless signifiers hanging in space.

Luckily, they aren't. They don't hang in space, they add to our understanding of something. They hold explanatory power.

Not every explanation needs to be a scientific one built on a fundamental understanding of the universe's workings. And of course, in practice, for most people, even scientific explanations are full of handwaving and inaccurate assumptions.

Why are we having this discussion?

 

[ironyuri]

A random collection of details or facts explains nothing. They would just be meaningless signifiers hanging in space.

Luckily, they aren't. They don't hang in space, they add to our understanding of something. They hold explanatory power.

Not every explanation needs to be a scientific one built on a fundamental understanding of the universe's workings. And of course, in practice, for most people, even scientific explanations are full of handwaving and inaccurate assumptions.

Why are we having this discussion?

Alright. Here are some details, let's see if they explain themselves and don't hang in space:

Those certainly hold explanatory power, and need no contextualisation whatsoever. Just like any other set of details. These present themselves as completely comprehensible and accessible without a narrative structuring.