Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer

Mass Effect technology vs. Star Wars technology

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > STAR WARS Discussion
Mass Effect technology vs. Star Wars technology

gtmach's Avatar

02.16.2012 , 02:32 PM | #1
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.

Thuggy's Avatar

02.16.2012 , 03:04 PM | #2
Both universe's tech and magic (force/biotics) are as advanced as the plot demands them to be.

ArmiaKrajowa's Avatar

02.16.2012 , 03:06 PM | #3
I'd say SW, if only because they can hyperspace travel without the use of a giant wormhole machine.
Quote: Originally Posted by battlebug View Post
can you make sword in box light sword so sword come out when opened? then if sword is back after sword, use light saber on box, and saber will be boxed after sword is out. (the ever important referral link)

Rayla_Felana's Avatar

02.16.2012 , 03:09 PM | #4
Well the Reaper's technology was immense, they had hundreds of thousands if not millions of years of advancement in technology.

But I think this topic truly cannot be discussed objectively until we really know their power in Mass Effect 3.

Sylriana's Avatar

02.16.2012 , 03:28 PM | #5
Star wars... Hyperdrive gives you much more flexibility in space travel than mass relays ever could (though mass relays might be faster, it's not entirely clear). Star Wars ships are generally much larger in scale too.

Hard to compare a blaster to mass effect's weird way of doing guns though.

Arivael's Avatar

02.16.2012 , 05:12 PM | #6
Ok lets break this down:

Mass effect; only able to block physical impact and disperse the kenetic energy of that impact no use against energy weapons.

Star wars; Blocks both energy and physical impact, also exists in both Ray and partical versions of shields (at least according to EU matirial).

So for shields Starwars would apper to be more advanced.

Mass effect; High velocity low mass kenetic kill weapons, long range, requires ammo.
Directed energy weapons for point defence, short range, no ammo.

Starwars; Pulse energy weapons, no ammo, short to mid range, primery offencive and defencive armameant.
Proton torpedos, penetraites ray shields, guided, requires ammo, mid to short range.

Here it gets diffcult as you have two completly diffrent approches to warfare and weapons to reflect that, Mass effect if more a long range artilery fight and Starwars is a close in brawl, each is better than the other for the type of warfare it is designed for so call it equal.

Sub-light propultion:
Mass effect; High speed and manovrability due to mass effect fields, engins burn fuel

Starwars; Ion drive engins so no "fuel" as such, throw out a large amount of hear and radation providing some protection against fighter attack.

Mass effect; Relies on Mass effect fields, ships can only make short trips under there own power, uses the same engins for sub-light and FTL so cannot escape to FTL if engins are damaged in a fight, long trips need to use a pair of fixed point realys.

Starwars; Hyperdrive, no need of sub-light drive for FTL travel, cannot be used in a gravity well, Ships cannot be tracked at FTL, very un safe to make uncalculated jumps due to the risk of hitting a gravity well.

So for engins I would stay Starwars gets this one as they are not restricted to pairs of Mass realys for travel.

Mass effect; energy weapons as primery armament, sub-ligh speed only.

Starwars; primery armament of energy weapons, can be FTL capable and can have shields.

The combat abilities are about equal but I would say SW has the more advanced ones due to hyperdrive tech again.

Darth_Pernisc's Avatar

02.16.2012 , 05:21 PM | #7
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.

LordMaximum's Avatar

02.16.2012 , 05:28 PM | #8
Me, Star Wars, simply because of Hyperspace
Dark Councilor, Sorcerer of the Dark Side.
Through strength I gain my power.

-Dark Councilor Nox-

Lodril's Avatar

02.16.2012 , 05:35 PM | #9
They're difficult to compare, because you can't see them side by side. For example, perhaps Mass Effect's personal shields render them completely immune to lightsabres! Or perhaps personal deflectors mean that no one in the Star Wars universe would even notice that Shepard was shooting at them.

The only real test you can give it is to compare objective factors.

For example, in Mass Effect, after centuries of studies, the most advanced of the Council races knows how to use the FTL transporters scattered around the galaxy and intended to be used by them. Conversely, in RotS, Anakin is on a remote planet on the outer rim and falls into lava, and the newly named Emperor senses this and rushes from the center of the galaxy in time to save him... meaning he had to get there in mere hours without planning ahead.

The Republic has been a more-or-less stable galactic government for ten thousand years. It's not really a fair comparison for them to be matched up against civilizations that have only been in space for centuries (or in the case of humans, far less). It would be like comparing us to ancient Egyptians. The pyramids at Luxor are impressive, but not nearly as sophisticated as the Luxor Casino in Vegas.

stiksen's Avatar

02.16.2012 , 05:39 PM | #10
star wars no doubt. loads of techonolgy you see in star wars that mass effect cant do (atleast we haven't seen it)