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

Malastare's Avatar


Malastare
02.17.2012 , 11:55 AM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by gtmach View Post
Considering we're dealing with 2 different fictional universes within the same genre of Sci/fi-technology, which do you think looks more advanced?
Star Wars isn't (technically) Sci-Fi. It's Fantasy.

As stated before many times, in a battle between Fantasy and Sci-Fi, Fantasy wins because Sci-Fi is always at least distracted by the desire to appear realistic.

A Star Destroyer would easily destroy any ship in Mass Effect for a few simple reasons:
  1. It has weapons that can blow up asteroids
  2. It has shields that can stop weapons capable of blowing up asteroids
  3. It can continue to fight for hours without overheating
Assault troops might be more balanced, but the "magic" isn't really balanced either. Sure, the Mass Effect can create mini-singularities, but they are only barely capable of picking up large creatures. The Force can redirect entire starships from miles away. You can stun people with the Mass Effect. With the Force you can make them believe arbitrary things. The Mass Effect can allow you to fly. The Force can allow you to see the future.

wrong_turn's Avatar


wrong_turn
02.17.2012 , 02:08 PM | #22
I don't know that SW technology is very good to measure against. If anything I think this is a pretty fair comparison given a lot of the similarities. But SW isnt really based in science. Its fantasy first. In that sense I'd give the edge to SW only because the logic of the universe is such that technology doesn't need a scientific basis. Anything can kinda be made to do anything.
ịị◚◚◚◚ịịịị7▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀) A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind. -Master Yoda CE

Darth_Malevolent's Avatar


Darth_Malevolent
02.17.2012 , 05:14 PM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by Malastare View Post
Star Wars isn't (technically) Sci-Fi. It's Fantasy.

As stated before many times, in a battle between Fantasy and Sci-Fi, Fantasy wins because Sci-Fi is always at least distracted by the desire to appear realistic.

A Star Destroyer would easily destroy any ship in Mass Effect for a few simple reasons:
  1. It has weapons that can blow up asteroids
  2. It has shields that can stop weapons capable of blowing up asteroids
  3. It can continue to fight for hours without overheating
Assault troops might be more balanced, but the "magic" isn't really balanced either. Sure, the Mass Effect can create mini-singularities, but they are only barely capable of picking up large creatures. The Force can redirect entire starships from miles away. You can stun people with the Mass Effect. With the Force you can make them believe arbitrary things. The Mass Effect can allow you to fly. The Force can allow you to see the future.
I agree with him.. they never take the time to explain any of the Star Wars technology in how it's constructed or how it works, it just does, isn't fair; if you could, Star Wars uses lasers... and plasma based melee weapons; technologically maybe Star Wars is superior, but I'd like to see a jedi deflect 1000 projectile rounds per minute flying towards different parts of their body... And dont say he'll just use a force push or something, if it was that simple, in comparison they would also be able to just crush the blaster in their enemy's hand that's firing the laser, opposed to deflecting it
The Dark Side is Omnipotent in this one

Arivael's Avatar


Arivael
02.18.2012 , 05:08 PM | #24
Quote: Originally Posted by origional View Post
Ion drives require fuel just ike any other engine, especially for the purpose of quick accelartion and maneuvering
"No fuel as such"

Yes they require Ionised partical to accelerate but space is not empty and is filled with said particals that can be drawn in to provide that fuel, and yes ship would likely have a "reserve" store if for use if they need a quick increase in the speed or have few particals to take in.

Liquidacid's Avatar


Liquidacid
02.18.2012 , 06:00 PM | #25
Quote: Originally Posted by Arivael View Post
"No fuel as such"

Yes they require Ionised partical to accelerate but space is not empty and is filled with said particals that can be drawn in to provide that fuel, and yes ship would likely have a "reserve" store if for use if they need a quick increase in the speed or have few particals to take in.
as far as lore is concerned Ion engines require power and fuel just like any normal type of engine..... like Turbolasers, which lore-wise aren't really lasers, the names are misnomers...
"bibo ergo sum" ( I drink, therefore I am)

Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.

J-Sheridan's Avatar


J-Sheridan
02.18.2012 , 07:40 PM | #26
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.

viewtifuldee's Avatar


viewtifuldee
02.18.2012 , 08:07 PM | #27
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.
█╬╬╬╬╬╬█|{ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀)

Liquidacid's Avatar


Liquidacid
02.18.2012 , 08:35 PM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by viewtifuldee View Post
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
"bibo ergo sum" ( I drink, therefore I am)

Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.

viewtifuldee's Avatar


viewtifuldee
02.18.2012 , 09:00 PM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by Liquidacid View Post
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.
█╬╬╬╬╬╬█|{ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀)

Liquidacid's Avatar


Liquidacid
02.18.2012 , 09:14 PM | #30
Quote: Originally Posted by viewtifuldee View Post
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
"bibo ergo sum" ( I drink, therefore I am)

Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.