Jump to content

Mass Effect technology vs. Star Wars technology


gtmach

Recommended Posts

This reminds me of this moron who did a so called 'analysis'

 

Anyone who can argue that a 2km ship that has can withstand a shot from a spacestation that can literally cause planets to explode is either terminally stupid or a disgusting liar.

 

"Death Star Weapons couldnt hit Soverign..."

 

Soverign is LARGER than a Star Destroyer by about 400m. The kind of ships the Death Star defences were designed to defend against. Apparantly a Reaper cant be hit by Star Wars weapons because... the Death Star weapons cant hit fighters.

Soverign =/= Star Wars fighter

 

Anything from a one-man fighter can literally cross the galaxy in hours with a hyperdrive engine. Mass Effect needs big gates to get around or spend ages 'slow-boating'

 

Star Wars will win any conflict hands down for the simple fact the Reapers havent fought a decent war in thousands of years. They keep the galaxy suppressed below a certain point inorder to prevent them becoming too advanced.

 

As far as the Mass Effect games show: The Reapers are now going to get their rear ends kicked because the universe advanced a bit too much for them to handle. Not really a ringing endorsement for their ability to fight an even MORE advanced galaxy which uses a completely different subset of technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others have said, it's unfair to try and compare SW with ME. ME is bound by attempts to at least be realistic. SW is not. SW is basically fantasy with some sci-fi elements mixed in. For all we know, they could just imagine a new technology and it'll just poof into their labs. The technology in SW constantly goes against just about every universal law in existence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others have said, it's unfair to try and compare SW with ME. ME is bound by attempts to at least be realistic. SW is not. SW is basically fantasy with some sci-fi elements mixed in. For all we know, they could just imagine a new technology and it'll just poof into their labs. The technology in SW constantly goes against just about every universal law in existence.

 

so does pretty much everything in ST (paradox free time travel from flying around the sun? Q?) and Mass Effect (Telekinesis? element zero really?)... being sci-fi has absolutely nothing to do with how "realistic" the tech is (not that doesn't include HARD sci-fi which none of the shows we are talking about here are)... it just means the tech is explained (no matter how ridiculous the explanation is according to modern theories) and that it take a forefront in the plots of the story...

 

ST is full Sci-FI because even tho the science is *********** ridiculous and just strings of nonsense techno-babble because the actual science elements are a focal point in the stories and more often than not the MAJOR plot point... (all problems are solved by reversing somethings polarity)

 

Now mass effect is Sci-fi but not as much as ST... it has the sci-fi setting but the tech isn't as major a part of the story as it is in ST... tho it does play an overall large enough part in the story to qualify

 

Star wars not so much... a lot of the technology is explained in technical manuals and such but rarely during the Movies/novels/shows and it is always in the background overshadowed by the other story elements.. SW DOES have a sci-fi setting but the actual storytelling which takes the front stage over the tech is done more in a traditional sense.. I'd say it's more of a space opera like FireFly (which also never ever explains the tech) than space fantasy tho... sci-fi and fantasy as a genre are both fairly close so it's really a matter of opinion...

 

 

in the end anytime you try and use real world logic and physics in anyway other than a very very loose theoretical wishful way in most stories with a sci-fi setting you end up losing

Edited by Liquidacid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so does pretty much everything in ST (paradox free time travel from flying around the sun? Q?) and Mass Effect (Telekinesis? element zero really?)... being sci-fi has absolutely nothing to do with how "realistic" the tech is (not that doesn't include HARD sci-fi which none of the shows we are talking about here are)... it just means the tech is explained (no matter how ridiculous the explanation is according to modern theories) and that it take a forefront in the plots of the story...

 

ST is full Sci-FI because even tho the science is *********** ridiculous and just strings of nonsense techno-babble because the actual science elements are a focal point in the stories and more often than not the MAJOR plot point... (all problems are solved by reversing somethings polarity)

 

Now mass effect is Sci-fi but not as much as ST... it has the sci-fi setting but the tech isn't as major a part of the story as it is in ST... tho it does play an overall large enough part in the story to qualify

 

Star wars not so much... a lot of the technology is explained in technical manuals and such but rarely during the Movies/novels/shows and it is always in the background overshadowed by the other story elements.. SW DOES have a sci-fi setting but the actual storytelling which takes the front stage over the tech is done more in a traditional sense.. I'd say it's more of a space opera like FireFly (which also never ever explains the tech) than space fantasy tho... sci-fi and fantasy as a genre are both fairly close so it's really a matter of opinion...

 

 

in the end anytime you try and use real world logic and physics in anyway other than a very very loose theoretical wishful way in most stories with a sci-fi setting you end up losing

 

You've basically repeated what I was saying. :-)

 

While those shows are impossible as well, they still make more of an attempt to be realistic than Star Wars does. Those shows have limits that are clearly defined within their universes. Star Wars does not. Anything is possible in Star Wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've basically repeated what I was saying. :-)

 

While those shows are impossible as well, they still make more of an attempt to be realistic than Star Wars does. Those shows have limits that are clearly defined within their universes. Star Wars does not. Anything is possible in Star Wars.

 

not really tech wise... ANYTHING is possible in star trek tech wise ... but before they do it they include 10 minutes of techno-babble and people punching random console buttons... anyone who thinks the tech lore from ST is consistent in any way has never really watch a lot of it ... they sometimes literally contradict themselves about it in the same episode about tech and it's limits (we can't go warp 10, wait yes we can, the borg go faster than warp 10 but warp 10 is infinite speed)... but as I said it is always a Focal point in the story and they always explain WHY (even tho the explanation makes no rational sense) it does whatever it does... some of it makes no sense.. like why does everything not come with a "reverse polarity" switch? it seems to answer most problems you'd think it would be a standard feature by now.. or the borg can't adapt to physical weapons so why does no Starfleet vessel ever carry projectile weapons?

 

now in Star wars ANYTHING is possible with the force.. tech is always the same because it's not a focal point and doesn't really matter so long as it works... ships fly faster than light guns shoot plasma and there are plasma swords... none of it is ever really explained in technical details because it simple is not important to the story being told like it is in ST... which is why it is just a story in a sci-fi setting because it has spaceships and whatnot and not a sci-fi story like ST is

 

it's not a bad thing... hell Firefly is doesn't have a sci-fi story either and it is one of my favorite shows in the sci-fi genre

 

you can call SW space fantasy, a space opera or whatever you feel like.. at the end of a day tho it does still fall in the sci-fi genre which is a very very large genre that includes many types

 

but that's enough mindless banter for me... i'm off to get hammered and pass out as I have stuff to do tomorrow

Edited by Liquidacid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not really tech wise... ANYTHING is possible in star trek tech wise ... but before they do it they include 10 minutes of techno-babble and people punching random console buttons... anyone who thinks the tech lore from ST is consistent in any way has never really watch a lot of it ... they sometimes literally contradict themselves about it in the same episode about tech and it's limits (we can't go warp 10, wait yes we can, the borg go faster than warp 10 but warp 10 is infinite speed)... but as I said it is always a Focal point in the story and they always explain WHY (even tho the explanation makes no rational sense) it does whatever it does... some of it makes no sense.. like why does everything not come with a "reverse polarity" switch? it seems to answer most problems you'd think it would be a standard feature by now.. or the borg can't adapt to physical weapons so why does no Starfleet vessel ever carry projectile weapons?

 

now in Star wars ANYTHING is possible with the force.. tech is always the same because it's not a focal point and doesn't really matter so long as it works... ships fly faster than light guns shoot plasma and there are plasma swords... none of it is ever really explained in technical details because it simple is not important to the story being told like it is in ST... which is why it is just a story in a sci-fi setting because it has spaceships and whatnot and not a sci-fi story like ST is

 

it's not a bad thing... hell Firefly is doesn't have a sci-fi story either and it is one of my favorite shows in the sci-fi genre

 

you can call SW space fantasy, a space opera or whatever you feel like.. at the end of a day tho it does still fall in the sci-fi genre which is a very very large genre that includes many types

 

but that's enough mindless banter for me... i'm off to get hammered and pass out as I have stuff to do tomorrow

 

Very well. Just don't get too hammered. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Wars is. However, I find the politics, story, universe and characters richer in Mass Effect over Star Wars.

 

Once we see what the Reapers are capable of in ME3 we will have a better idea of how ridiculously powerful they are and can somewhat gauge them against others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Wars is. However, I find the politics, story, universe and characters richer in Mass Effect over Star Wars.

 

Once we see what the Reapers are capable of in ME3 we will have a better idea of how ridiculously powerful they are and can somewhat gauge them against others.

 

Setting your self up for a fall bub.

 

The Reapers are going to be pathetically weak and stupid inorder for one player to beat them. Remember when Soverign said there were so many it would blot out the sun ?

 

Guess What - They dont even have enough to launch a reasonable attack on Earth.

 

Reapes have awesome weapons - Except they decide to just crawl along the ground rather than nuke planets from orbit which would be extremely effective if your trying to commit galactic genocide.

 

Reapers have awesome intelligence - Hows that working for you Harbringer when you literally brought Shepard to the Project so he can stop it. Pro-stupid right there, nevermind the complete incompetence displayed by Soverign AND Harbringer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering we're dealing with 2 different fictional universes within the same genre of Sci/fi-technology, which do you think looks more advanced?

 

It's hard to tell for me because both of them have really crazy advanced tech but it's mixed with old tech.

 

Let's see...

 

:csw_deathstar:---------------#:csw_alderaan:

 

(And to quote robot chicken: "Alderaan chunks EVERYWHERE! phwoosh!")

 

Pretty sure that cant happen in mass effect... yet :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

um. you can't really compare the two.

 

ME is a (imo nice) mix of Star Trek and Star Wars. But it leans more towards the Star Trek "Sci-Fi" way of using possible realistic ways of explaining their tech.

 

SW is "sci-fantasy" and it's tech is vastly superior to ME's..In ME the races use a tech they found and can't even really reproduce all of it nor understand it completely. SW tech advanced by their own minds and scientists.

 

well you can compare the two. But it's a very short comparison or discussion. ME loses. and loses fast. it's tech is relatively low and new (to the races using them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Wars by default of the story line. Given enough time, time is all that matters.

 

Star Wars, by the end of the latest (chronologically) stuff in the canon is a galatic civilization of atleast 25,000 years age post-hyperspace capability. Mass Effect is still dealing with the emergence of hyperspace technology. Even in the Star Wars universe, the early days of extrastellar travel was ruled by "gate" or "hyperspace cannon" technology ... the self-contained ship hyperdrive doesn't arrive on the scene for a while.

 

Of course, you can bring in the Reapers, who have had the opportunity to assimilate the technology of civilizations prior to wiping them out every 50,000 years or so. They even leave the "gates" behind each time to spur development of civilizations, helping them "ripen" for conquest.

 

Then again, you'd have to bring in the Rakata to balance that. Again, a technology arguably not as advanced as "current" tech, since (1) their hyperspace drives relied on use of the Force and (2) loss of the ability to use the Force was one factor in their downfall. All the same, we have no indication what the "deeps of time" might hold for the Star Wars universe. Given the structure of the known universe, the Star Wars galaxy is a minimum of 7 billion years old*. "Known" history covers about 25,000 of those years. Who knows what technology lies elsewhere?

 

The same can be said for our own universe, of course ... the setting (albeit in the future) for Mass Effect.

 

* My argument here is that to have main sequence stars similar to our own, which we clearly have, and to have organic life, which we apparently do since there's never been a suggestion that it is other than organic, you need a relatively large amount of heavy elements to support that. That means several cycles of stellar birth and death, with supernovae big enough to produce those elements and the resulting dust clouds re-condensing into new stars. That means at least 2 cycles, probably more. The stars with the biggest bangs are the ones with the shortest lives, so a couple billion years there, then tack on another 4.5 billion similar to our own world (what's 25k years compared to a few billion, after all?) to come out with a minimum age for the Star Wars universe. With our universe an estimated 13 billion years old, this still leaves time for the saga to have occurred "a long time ago"....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya, after playing the ME3 demo, for all the Reapers claim to be and how they claim to have done it so many times they don't seem very efficient at wiping out a planet's life and it sure takes a lot of them...

 

That's prolly because they never actually had to do anything to wipe out the galaxy. As explained in ME1 the Reapers always came in through the Citadel, wiped out the leaders and then had their fun killing of the rest of the population without any difficulties whatsoever.

 

Guess What - They dont even have enough to launch a reasonable attack on Earth.

 

 

Yeah, thats why Earth is basically a burning ruin by the time you flee the planet, which is roughly an hour or two after they launched their attack.

Reapes have awesome weapons - Except they decide to just crawl along the ground rather than nuke planets from orbit which would be extremely effective if your trying to commit galactic genocide.

 

 

They are trying to harvest the humans/other races, so a complete annihalation isn't their goal anyway. Also, they don't have weapons that are actually useful for orbital fire. Nor do most of the other star ships in ME, come to think of it.

 

Reapers have awesome intelligence - Hows that working for you Harbringer when you literally brought Shepard to the Project so he can stop it. Pro-stupid right there, nevermind the complete incompetence displayed by Soverign AND Harbringer.

 

Hackett sent Shepard and Kenson led him to the artifact, not Harbinger. Harbinger simply took advantage of the fact that Shepard came to The Project. Also, Sovereign was not only very competent, he very nearly activated the relay in the Citadel, which in turn would've been the end of our story right there. He only failed when his puppet Saren failed due to his weakness and inability to defeat Shep, and he only died because he wasn't prepared for the backlash of Saren's (second) death which stripped his shields and weakened him heavily.

Harbinger doesn't really do anything at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, to stay on topic, SW is prolly > ME in terms of tech and the likes.

In the end, WH40k tops them all anyway :>

Edited by Ticara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mass Effect is a relatively hard piece of Sci-Fi where faster than light travel is difficult and not replicable nor understood by the people who use it and energy weapons are rare, costly, and difficult to maintain.

 

Star Wars is incredibly soft Sci-Fi (Science Fantasy really), where moon sized space stations that could bust planets and traverse the galaxy on demand were the baseline that we started with and then went up from there.

 

Star Wars blows ME away by virtue of not trying to be remotely realistic.

 

Well stated. I always have to object a little bit when I see SW described as 'science fiction'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...