Posted by: bean
« on: May 25, 2016, 09:48:45 AM »Categorization doesn't always come from ideal definitions though, but also forms naturally as a way to describe our world how it actually is, because language is meant to be used practically as means of understanding.I agree. But I'm trying to quantify my intuitions about this, and this attempt has gone better than most I've made.
Quote
If you imagine a scale of soft to hard where you can mark points for every (board-/)game, movie, or novel, then most would probably land to the left, but enough more to right still. As soon as something goes over the middle, you would consider it "more hard", even though the dictionary might suggest they have to be at least 90% up there. (btw.: that dealing also leaves a definition gap of new unspoken of "mid-grade" sci-fi probably, unless you really want to throw Aurora or Star Trek together with Star Wars or Galactic Civilizations)Well, that depends on where the 'middle' is. Without a firm points scale, you can't simply say 'score of 50%'. I'd agree that Star Trek and Star Wars don't really fit in the same category, but I'm not sure I'd call Star Wars 'softer'. The difference is orthogonal to the hard-soft axis.
Quote
This is I guess the natural emergent soft/hard understanding that you see when people talk about it. It is like that because the phrase "hard sci-fi" wouldn't otherwise be used much, making the whole idea of discerning hard and soft superfluous for common communication.(..if the strict definition was ever there, this would be why it died out/changed to practical speech)Yes, but while it's not a meaningless term, we can and should try to ground it more firmly.
Quote
The weeping angels are a cult for sure (christianity? )
I'd suggest that you may need to find out more about Christianity if you think that. C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity would be my recommendation.
Quote
That is not the core problem I meant by the way. The inverse is the problem, that people watch Star Trek, or semi-accurate movies, or even scientists talking, and then they also think it's all just gibberish, and "these people just be crazy". Yeah, screw that.Those people are also dumb. My objection is more from the other side, where people equate real science and Star Trek, giving Trek realism and ignoring how hard real science is.
Quote
Yes, but I still stand to that little breaks, like sound in space, or somewhat longer ranged lasers are permissible if it serves the fun, if otherwise much real science, or/and some science-grade mechanical complexity has been woven into the medium as well.I find 'sound in space' annoying from an aesthetic point of view. Longer laser range isn't really a problem. It's relatively easy to justify light-second ranges from a very hard standpoint, and beyond that, dodging is too easy.
Quote
I am still not quite sure then as to where you would see the fiction permissible. Can you also take on fiction which is in the realms of things we have not figured out? (as long as they don't backtrackingly attack things we do know already that is)Let me see if I can generate another analogy. Let's take Hunt for Red October. The tunnel drive/MHD is pure fiction, but it's necessary for the plot, and the rest of the bits work realistically. Unlike, say, Transformers, where nuclear attack submarines appear to spend most of their time on the surface.
Quote
Is it actually just "sound in space" and similar ones that you object with?Not really. I don't like people not treating science with respect in their SF. Apply the same standards as you would to military or historical fiction. It doesn't have to be perfect, but you should at least be aware of where you're ignoring reality.
Quote
That I do see the same, even though it gives problems with warp drives (not star trek ones), which I like to invoke as example for good hard sci-fi usually.Fixed wormhole networks are closer to reality, actually.
Quote
The problem with the yet unreached, but 'visible' tech is always that none of that is sufficient to make space fast lived enough to become interesting in most forms of any medium. The physical reality we understand so far makes the universe lonesome, and there are very good reasons to believe that this might never change.That's why FTL is usually given a pass in hard sci-fi, provided it's done well. It's possible to tell great stories without it, but there are also stories which demand it, and I don't begrudge them it.
Quote
I actually agree with that all, though only as "indicators", like voters for a certain site. Have too much of the first, its soft. Have more of the second, it is hard.Note that my definition of hard SF doesn't even remotely prevent someone from sacrificing science for story. It just requires that they be conscious of what they're doing, and the tradeoffs they're making. I seriously doubt that the writers of Star Trek ever dropped an idea because it wasn't scientifically accurate. Someone from a hard SF would be expected to make at least some changes because of science, even if it's only to fluff.
I must project again, but you might be feeling like one or two breaks of the first kind already plunge a medium into the abyss of softness. So our disagreement would then just be in severity, like with the soft-hard scale from above.
Quote
Huh, I guess I give it extra points in the second category of indicators just because it attempts to come up with sane mechanics. Introducing math, even when made up, is also some indicator for hardness on me, which you might not agree with.Thinking it over, I have a double standard here. Math would get a writer a lot of points. (The first example that comes to mind here is the Honorverse novels. Lots of math, mostly only loosely related to real physics.) For a game developer doing a space combat game, not so much. It's impossible to make one of those run on pure narrative, so math will have to get involved.
Quote
I simply cannot see Aurora been thrown in together with the likes of recent Stellaris for this. It is clearly on another level in some way.I haven't played Stellaris, so I can't comment directly. I will agree that the math we have is internally consistent and creates a believable world. On the other hand, that's an artifact of creating a playable game in Aurora's niche. If the math didn't line up well, the game wouldn't work. But this is true of all games, be it Stellaris, Civilization, or World of Warcraft. What makes Aurora different is that none of the math is hidden, and it still works. A counterexample would be games with specialized fighter weapons which are significantly more powerful than normal weapons and appear to exist for the purpose of making fighters make sense in the visible math. If fighters were forced to use the same weapons rules as normal ships, they wouldn't be viable. Steve has generally avoided that, for which I do salute him.