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

viewtifuldee's Avatar


viewtifuldee
02.18.2012 , 09:56 PM | #31
Quote: Originally Posted by Liquidacid View Post
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.
█╬╬╬╬╬╬█|{ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀)

Kabloosh's Avatar


Kabloosh
02.18.2012 , 11:25 PM | #32
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.

J-Sheridan's Avatar


J-Sheridan
02.19.2012 , 09:10 AM | #33
Quote: Originally Posted by Kabloosh View Post
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.

Zangaboing's Avatar


Zangaboing
02.19.2012 , 09:39 AM | #34
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?

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...

---------------#

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

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

hyperconduit's Avatar


hyperconduit
03.04.2012 , 02:42 AM | #35
The Sun Crusher.

Star Wars wins.

Suromir's Avatar


Suromir
03.04.2012 , 12:17 PM | #36
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)

TJBartlemus's Avatar


TJBartlemus
03.04.2012 , 05:39 PM | #37
Honestly you can't compare the two cause we have yet to see ME3 and what new tech and weapons the reapers will bring into play.
Qui-Gon Jinn
The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent.

finelinebob's Avatar


finelinebob
03.04.2012 , 10:01 PM | #38
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"....
Jedi Guardian JonBonJovi'wan
"Wanted: Dead or Alive"
Defenders of Monkeys - Prophecy of the Five
DatacronHunter's Video Guides to Datacrons | Datacron Spreadsheet

Ticara's Avatar


Ticara
03.04.2012 , 10:29 PM | #39
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 :>

IlexGlabra's Avatar


IlexGlabra
03.05.2012 , 06:30 AM | #40
Quote: Originally Posted by Darth_Pernisc View Post
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'.