- ROBERTO jh
- |
- Fabled Heroic Member
Posted by: PLUT0NIUM 235
Really? they consider that a viable super-weapon? Wow, Star Wars is more far gone than I thought! That is what gets silly about these debates, how this sort of thing gets dragged into it and ruins the debate, always ends up destroying planets and what not.
That is one of the charming things about Mass Effect, that makes it one of the better science fiction universes, because it never resorts to insane weapons that can destroy planets and galaxies, the ships aren't massive, hundred kilometre long things with guns putting out ridiculous amounts of power that total urinate all over the laws of the universe as we know it. Though granted the whole Mass Effect thing in itself, with element Zero is a stretch, its not on the level of most other science fiction in the way that it is still believable and all of the technology is based on this novel concept.
Also the Reapers are an interesting enemy that again don't resort to insane, pointless and unbelievable 'planet killing' levels of fire-power or such, just rather mysterious vessels that appear without motive and start killing things. Halo was one of these universes with believable weapons and technologies until one brings the Forerunner into the debate, because they defy convention, where-as the other powers in the Halo universe conform to the normal sort of rules of science within reason, shields are a stretch again but not to the extent of lasers that have thousands of times more power than out sun puts out in a second for example. Glassing planets with high energy plasma isn't really hard to believe, would take time but its believable since it doesn't physically destroy the planet which takes one into the realms of ridiculous.
So to conclude, it is pointless to debate if common ground cannot be found between the respective universes. The Covenant and the United Nations Space Command are two more grounded science fiction factions, don't really possess any preposterous levels of fire-power with the exception of things like the NOVA bomb, but even that is just a rather large nuclear device. So comparing them to things like the Empire, from a universe where tiny, puny looking lasers on small fighters have a ridiculous power output of something like forty trillion watts! and bigger warships sporting 'lasers' that can produce shots with more than a thousand times the output of a main sequence star, one starts to realise how a comparison is both stupid and frankly impossible. Halo is believable (with exception of Forerunner), Star Wars is simply not believable, not unless people realise there is no conceivable way that the weapons are that powerful.
So going to list what races in science fiction I would consider 'plausible' for comparison, based on believability:
Terrans (Starcraft), Zerg (Starcraft), UNSC (Halo), Covenant (Halo), Colonial Fleet (Battlestar Galactica), Cylons (Battlestar Galactica), Reapers (Mass Effect), Alliance (Mass Effect), plus any others that fit the description.
The things all these have in common is they don't go too far beyond the realms of possibility, don't have planet destroying weapons and such things as 'magical' creatures like Force Sensitive in Star Wars. Though there are a number of psionic Terrans there is no need to include their psionic abilities into a discussion since the Terrans don't rely on them in a debate, though Terran Ghost cloaking is still valid as it is a suit technology rather than an 'ability'.
I don't mind rediculous weapons in a universe, TBH, so long as they actually friggin' do what they are said to do .
The outlandish numbers in some universes can make for stories that would otherwise be impossible. Sometimes, the numbers are there to deliberately show superior force, like how the Forerunners' power is so extreme so as to show that they were the unquestioned rulers over the galaxy. In turn, the Precursors made the Forerunners look like ants to show what enlightened super beings they were.
Outrageous weapons can be a plot device in of themselves, there's nothing wrong with them, unless you look at weapons as only to be considered in a vs debate, which isn't correct.