Sci-fi in gaming

i wish to start a thread to take a somewhat closer look at some of the more ridiculous aspects of science-fiction in gaming. Note that this thread is not about the titles' quality as a game.

it is understood that good science fiction is the extension and reimagining of the established scientific/cultural/political facts, as is shown by the collective works of the masterful late Crichton. in gaming, however, it seems sci-fi has suffered from this dogma. to be more precise, i think science fiction in gaming is incredibly unimaginative and short-sighted. this is especially true when it comes to military-themed games with a futuristic setting. allow me to show you what i mean with 2 examples.

1. Remember the exciting dog-fighting you have against the Shivans in the Freepsace games? in those life and death situations, it's easy to forget how ridiculous it is that space jets a thousand years later are limited to an engagement range of less than 20 clicks - substantially lower than what modern technology allows today. The battlemechs in Mechwarrior games are similarly primitive compared to modern tanks, which never auto shutdown when overheated. My point is that future technologies and hardwares are vastly underestimated in games. It's hard to imagine how things a thousand year later function like their counterparts in 1970s.

2. You are a marine serving an inter-galactic empire and you are going to drop in hot to clear a LZ - just like what we did in WW2, oorah. forget about the interplanetary bombardment perfected with zero-error accuracy calculated by super-computers. This is an extension from my last point - i argue that with the aid of galactic era technologies, human involvement in frontline action will be greatly reduced. i wouldn't be surprised if in a thousand years' time an entire fleet became fully automated and/or remote controlled, a technology which is currently in development. instead of being wasted on the battlefield as cannon fodder, manpower will be fully utilized in techonological and political pursuits. In short, we don't need Master Chief at all.

These are just some fleeting thoughts i have been having over the years when i was playing games. they do not imply in any way that these games are bad. Many of these settings are made to be so for the sake of balance and fun. but i wager if developers can exercise more imagination - which is naturally crucial to the entertainment industry - gaming can be more than just fun. it can be a platform where ideas are formulated, tested and revised.

i do not profess to be an expert of any sort. please feel free to point out my mistakes.

....how about focusing on bad gameplay mechanics isntead.

For example in crysis every item weapon or ammunation box you pick up is simply turned invisible too, but if you pick a rock or someting metallic it doesnt turn invisible.... I don't think i need to point out that that is wrong, but sometimes they help with the gameplay mechanics.

So id say sci fi games will always be inncorect and weird.

i want to have mechs they will work if done right like battletech mechs

what part of science FICTION do you not get? anyway at the end of the day it is all imagination. heck in The Forever War they would first blow the **** out of the planet then send in their "marines" in special suits to clear up the rest. I think real science fiction is less about getting the science right and more about providing you with a comprehension of the morals and beliefs we exercise in this world. Star Trek did this very well to an extent [no i'm not a trekkie]. too much focus on the science can turn people off, as you see with many science fiction books. but look at something like Hyperion which has so many elements in it that it transcends the science and provides you with a well crafted story with a social consciousness. i don't know how clear all that was but i hope it made sense.

Infantry will always exist, either human or robotic. What use is an orbital bombardment when you fight in cities and need to secure certain important points? Look at Quake 4 - you've got mechs and vehicles, but the infantry and the engineers must infiltrate the Strogg facilities, reprogram them or take control of their weaponry.

Not to mention that the Strogg ass-rape the human fleet with their planetary defenses, so the only chance is to drop thousands of small infantry pods in their capital city to shut them down. And the Strogg have no civilians, while in Starship Troopers (the novel) the Skinnies have civilians and the humans try to avoid unnecessary victims.

Also, destroying entire planets with bombardments is not a good idea.

Even today we have super-duper bombardment accuracy, yet infantry is a must.

Anyway, I don't think humans will ever base on robots to fight for them. That's just the way humans work, we have to be involved in what we do. It's safer to take the matter in your hands rather than leave a robot, no matter how advanced he is, do the job. That's not underestimating, it's just a psychological aspect.

In Supreme Commander, 99% of the units are mechanical, but the key positions are occupied by humans.

Games, films etc are made for entertainment mostly.

In order to do this they need to put the "human" into the core of the action so that the human ego playing the game will identify with it, and therefore spend money on it.

In a 1000 years time I doubt humanity will in any resemble us humans today. Nobody ever takes into consideration Genetic Engineering and Nano-Tech. The idea that humans would need a biosphere and to grow "food" to survive is laughable, more than likely molecules needed for sustenance could be manufactured directly, we may even abandon the idea of the animal like digestive tract we have no in favour of other forms of energy.

I would imagine humans today would be something like apes to people of the future. With Bio-Engineering we may be able to become amphibious, fly, or even exist in space with no suits; its likely our minds would be integrated with other technologies too. However, such "humans" would appear alien to us.

Have you ever noticed how, in the opposite to reality, most Sci-Fi stories cop-out at the end, with humans basic animal nature, instinct espri de-corps, whatever you call it wins out in the end. Again its just so that current humans can identify with it. The REALITY of the future may in fact be *quite frighting and disturbing* to some people; people who won't accept genetic mods etc, will prolly either die out due to global warming or be placed on some sort of reservation for primitives.

I disagree with Baranga. Quake 4, while a great game, is a classic example of what i called short-sighted sci-fi. i fail to see how an intergalactic war is going to be won by dropping a bunch of roughnecks, kamikaze style, onto a hostile planet. it doesn't strike me as particularly smart in an era which most likely will see the service of colossal fleet and WMDs capable of vapourizing an entire continent in an instant. if the hostile's planetary defense system is causing a problem, it will be the fleet command's priority to develop technologies to counter that, not by relying on throwback Vietnam tactics.

my hypothesis is that, should nothing catastrophic happen in the future, mankind will become masters of nanotech, genetics, precision engineering and artificial intelligence, just to name a few, in a matter of centuries. i think it is very likely that the future military will be roughly similar to what i envision - an automated, error-free and unthinkably destructive war machine that is designed to preserve human lifes, not to waste it. our successors are going to be diplomats, engineers, hackers, etc, not some poor fellow jumping out of a dropship with nothing but an assault rifle or a pilot who was trained for 6 months only to be KIA 10 minutes into action.

what part of science FICTION do you not get? anyway at the end of the day it is all imagination. heck in The Forever War they would first blow the **** out of the planet then send in their "marines" in special suits to clear up the rest. I think real science fiction is less about getting the science right and more about providing you with a comprehension of the morals and beliefs we exercise in this world. Star Trek did this very well to an extent [no i'm not a trekkie]. too much focus on the science can turn people off, as you see with many science fiction books. but look at something like Hyperion which has so many elements in it that it transcends the science and provides you with a well crafted story with a social consciousness. i don't know how clear all that was but i hope it made sense.

crazyfist36

i agree with how you define science fiction. it definitely provides us with a testing ground of human culture and moral beliefs. in this respect, sci-fi in gaming falls equally flat. that's my point of starting this thread. gaming is different from other types of entertainment in that it doesn't just visualize, but also interacts. the industry's failure to fully excavate the potential of science fiction - either as a technology forecasting channel or an allusion to human conditions - is a missed opportunity that could have meant alot of things, on top of just being fun.

if the hostile's planetary defense system is causing a problem, it will be the fleet command's priority to develop technologies to counter that, not by relying on throwback Vietnam tactics.

Jinroh_basic

During a war where the Earth is almost conquered?

These "throwback Vietnam tactics" are what helps humans win the war.

In Quake 2, the humans launch a desperate counter-attack on Stroggos to kill their leader, and they succeed precisely because the Strogg aren't used to these guerrilla tactics. They think like a machine - always in the correct terms. Thinking like this is what leads to failure - look at Vietnam or both Afghanistan wars, where superior tactics, intelligence and equipment aren't worth crap. Even Germany vs the rest of Europe is a good example. Their V-2 missiles and all those technological advancements proved to be worthless, not only because of the Allied superior numbers, but also because of old-fashioned sabotage. What would've happened if their nuclear program wasn't sabotaged? Also, Japan didn't surrender just because of the atomic bombs, that was just one of many other factors.

Also, what is this stuff about WMDs capable of blowing up entire continents? Why the hell would you wanna do that, instead of securing the planet and taking advantage of its technology and resources? This is precisely what Quake 4 is about - securing Stroggos and taking control of these aliens, and this is exactly what the Strogg were after when they invaded earth.

This is forward thinking, not the barbaric annihilation you propose, and we need infantry for that.

And then there's the thing about preserving human lives and no human combat in the future...

As we advance, there are less and less soldiers in report to the population, but their role is increasingly important. Today's soldiers aren't just rednecks, they're basically human Swiss knifes, trained for a crapload of situations and roles.

Sure, for conventional wars that seek to cripple economies and technological resources I could see almost no humans involved on the battlefield, only robots and surgical strikes like in SupCom (I'll get to that later). But what about imperial wars, where you conquer the opponent? Once the fighting ends you need garrisons, you need to implement order and control the population. Look at HL2 - the Combine conquers Earth in a matter of hours. Their technology is thousands of years ahead of ours. But how could they control us without some form of infantry? You can say they should send robots to supervise us, but that's not enough. That's thinking like a machine, in binary terms, without taking into account the subtleties of the situation.

There's no way to control the conquered population, or the population under your influence, without having agents from the inside. The Combine is using humans as a peacekeeping force and as a propaganda device. That's exactly what the Soviets and the Nazis were doing during and after WW2. Combat training and infantry are required for these agents. And the only way to oppose such a force is through guerrilla warfare.

You seem to think the future of war only by imagining humans as the aggressors or as more or less equal to the other combatant, and disregarding the idea of a far more advanced race that will squash humanity like a bug, as the Combine does. What use will our mighty fleets and WMDs be if we face such an opponent?

Even further, diplomacy and espionage will need a military arm. The army is a device that is also used to maintain order, as the fascist regimes showed us. The respect and fear of authority is an important part of what keeps a statal community together. How could the military or police of the future not involve humans? Do you really think humans of the future will obey a synthetic authority, regardless of who creates and leads it? I doubt even the creation of the seed AI on a mass scale.

Humans will advance, but their psychology and instincts won't change. We're one of the few species that kill for pleasure. You see so many idiots joining the Army - you think they'll watch the war on TV in the future, and that the leaders won't accept their potential sacrifice? When you're at the top, human lives aren't important at all. And because there are so many arguments against true AI (undoubtedly the only alternative to infantry, because of its potential to learn and adapt), I'm sure humans soldiers will be required. There's no freakin' way to avoid civilian casualties, to adapt to alien or unusual tactics, to hold and secure locations/countries/planets or maintain authority without human combatants.

Sci-fi portraying human cannon fodder is an allusion to human conditions.

If you look at the overall picture, if we keep developing technologies for war and destruction, the future will look like fallout 3 not the aforementioned games. Does it really matter if a sci-fi game is realistic? Was the game fun? Yes, then shut up and have fun.

what part of science FICTION do you not get? anyway at the end of the day it is all imagination. heck in The Forever War they would first blow the **** out of the planet then send in their "marines" in special suits to clear up the rest. I think real science fiction is less about getting the science right and more about providing you with a comprehension of the morals and beliefs we exercise in this world. Star Trek did this very well to an extent [no i'm not a trekkie]. too much focus on the science can turn people off, as you see with many science fiction books. but look at something like Hyperion which has so many elements in it that it transcends the science and provides you with a well crafted story with a social consciousness. i don't know how clear all that was but i hope it made sense.

crazyfist36

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

if the hostile's planetary defense system is causing a problem, it will be the fleet command's priority to develop technologies to counter that, not by relying on throwback Vietnam tactics.

Baranga

During a war where the Earth is almost conquered?

These "throwback Vietnam tactics" are what helps humans win the war.

In Quake 2, the humans launch a desperate counter-attack on Stroggos to kill their leader, and they succeed precisely because the Strogg aren't used to these guerrilla tactics. They think like a machine - always in the correct terms. Thinking like this is what leads to failure - look at Vietnam or both Afghanistan wars, where superior tactics, intelligence and equipment aren't worth crap. Even Germany vs the rest of Europe is a good example. Their V-2 missiles and all those technological advancements proved to be worthless, not only because of the Allied superior numbers, but also because of old-fashioned sabotage. What would've happened if their nuclear program wasn't sabotaged? Also, Japan didn't surrender just because of the atomic bombs, that was just one of many other factors.

Also, what is this stuff about WMDs capable of blowing up entire continents? Why the hell would you wanna do that, instead of securing the planet and taking advantage of its technology and resources? This is precisely what Quake 4 is about - securing Stroggos and taking control of these aliens, and this is exactly what the Strogg were after when they invaded earth.

This is forward thinking, not the barbaric annihilation you propose, and we need infantry for that.

And then there's the thing about preserving human lives and no human combat in the future...

As we advance, there are less and less soldiers in report to the population, but their role is increasingly important. Today's soldiers aren't just rednecks, they're basically human Swiss knifes, trained for a crapload of situations and roles.

Sure, for conventional wars that seek to cripple economies and technological resources I could see almost no humans involved on the battlefield, only robots and surgical strikes like in SupCom (I'll get to that later). But what about imperial wars, where you conquer the opponent? Once the fighting ends you need garrisons, you need to implement order and control the population. Look at HL2 - the Combine conquers Earth in a matter of hours. Their technology is thousands of years ahead of ours. But how could they control us without some form of infantry? You can say they should send robots to supervise us, but that's not enough. That's thinking like a machine, in binary terms, without taking into account the subtleties of the situation.

There's no way to control the conquered population, or the population under your influence, without having agents from the inside. The Combine is using humans as a peacekeeping force and as a propaganda device. That's exactly what the Soviets and the Nazis were doing during and after WW2. Combat training and infantry are required for these agents. And the only way to oppose such a force is through guerrilla warfare.

You seem to think the future of war only by imagining humans as the aggressors or as more or less equal to the other combatant, and disregarding the idea of a far more advanced race that will squash humanity like a bug, as the Combine does. What use will our mighty fleets and WMDs be if we face such an opponent?

Even further, diplomacy and espionage will need a military arm. The army is a device that is also used to maintain order, as the fascist regimes showed us. The respect and fear of authority is an important part of what keeps a statal community together. How could the military or police of the future not involve humans? Do you really think humans of the future will obey a synthetic authority, regardless of who creates and leads it? I doubt even the creation of the seed AI on a mass scale.

Humans will advance, but their psychology and instincts won't change. We're one of the few species that kill for pleasure. You see so many idiots joining the Army - you think they'll watch the war on TV in the future, and that the leaders won't accept their potential sacrifice? When you're at the top, human lives aren't important at all. And because there are so many arguments against true AI (undoubtedly the only alternative to infantry, because of its potential to learn and adapt), I'm sure humans soldiers will be required. There's no freakin' way to avoid civilian casualties, to adapt to alien or unusual tactics, to hold and secure locations/countries/planets or maintain authority without human combatants.

Sci-fi portraying human cannon fodder is an allusion to human conditions.

you've raised quite a few good points there, and i agree with most of them. a military campaign cannot be won solely by total destruction, as is shown by what's happening in Middle East right now. However, i do think game developers are grossly underestimating what human technologies are, and will be, capable of. it is still my belief that in the distant future, war - which i imagine will be avoided at all cost due to the massive destruction future weapons capable of - is nowhere as close as what is being depicted by games. it's going to be MUCH more effective and decisive. the only way for that to happen is to greatly reduce human involvement in direct action, which necessitates a disproportionately high amount of training and resource compared to a often lacklustre performance. we already have a good example, if you take a look at the success of USAF's MQ-1 Predators over the years.

All I know is I found out MechCommander 2 was released for free 3 years ago and I'm just now downloading it, lol. S

ection 8 also has some potential. It is DEFINITELY a sci-fi game. You can build structures, lock-on to enemies, throw proximity grenades, jump in a mech, flick people around in a mech, or countless other sci-fi things. I know you don't think we'd have infantry in the future, but you certainly will. There's always got to be someone to clean up after the artillery. Bombs are also sevearly demoralizing to the civilian population. If you're trying to liberate a planet, you don't want to blast buildings to pieces just because it'd be most efficient.

There's also AvP3, Alien: Colonial Marines, Mechwarrior (5), and Red Faction. All of which I'm looking forward too (also SW:ToR, but I don't have my hopes up too high for that one).

I do wish there were more accurate space simulations, but any sci-fi is a good sci-fi (IMO). I enjoy the genre because it's so unique. You'll usually never see two ideas that are too closely alike. I really enjoyed reading Mass Effect's back story on ship design. It was definitely the most likely outcome of technology in the future. I would suggest EVE online, but I really don't think it's worth $15 to grindfest until you get a decent ship. It requires way too many menial tasks for such a deeply strategic game.

All I know is I found out MechCommander 2 was released for free 3 years ago and I'm just now downloading it, lol. S

ection 8 also has some potential. It is DEFINITELY a sci-fi game. You can build structures, lock-on to enemies, throw proximity grenades, jump in a mech, flick people around in a mech, or countless other sci-fi things. I know you don't think we'd have infantry in the future, but you certainly will. There's always got to be someone to clean up after the artillery. Bombs are also sevearly demoralizing to the civilian population. If you're trying to liberate a planet, you don't want to blast buildings to pieces just because it'd be most efficient.

There's also AvP3, Alien: Colonial Marines, Mechwarrior (5), and Red Faction. All of which I'm looking forward too (also SW:ToR, but I don't have my hopes up too high for that one).

I do wish there were more accurate space simulations, but any sci-fi is a good sci-fi (IMO). I enjoy the genre because it's so unique. You'll usually never see two ideas that are too closely alike. I really enjoyed reading Mass Effect's back story on ship design. It was definitely the most likely outcome of technology in the future. I would suggest EVE online, but I really don't think it's worth $15 to grindfest until you get a decent ship. It requires way too many menial tasks for such a deeply strategic game.

Swiftstrike5

Link plz.

Link plz.

DucksBrains

http://gamestand.net/Downloads/c=6.html

Awesome, definitely gonna get in on this.

I always saw Science fiction as more than simply technology in the future, it's an hypothetical future that resulted from what happened between point A and B.

Its content is defined by morality, politics and a wide range of stuff beside science. We already have the power to modify the genetic code of organisms but make very little use of it on humans because of our ethics and morality, same thing with clonage, artificial intelligence, nuclear weaponry or bio engineering. Politics can also go both forward and backward, it's possible to abolish, look down upon certain practices or even make them disappear from our culture. This is what defines a science fiction world. We as humans can apply all kind of weird rules who make no sense should we decide to do so, i don't see why it should be different in science fiction.

Edit: Also forgot to say, that in gaming, creating a fun experience is what it is about. Playing a game where everyone strike everyone with tactical missiles could get boring really fast. Same with space battle, lauching missiles from kilometers away at each others wouldn't be as nice as a large battle up close with 2 gigantic freighter blasting each others with all kind of weaponry and fighters flying around.

Saad Bin Laden is thought to have been killed by a Predator-launched Hellfire missle. This is what i'm talking about - a single piece of equipment accomplishing something tens of thousands of troops couldn't in years. and this is just the tip of what technologies are, and will be, capable of.

i realize that certain games are designed to be primitive in order to be entertaining. that was never the point. what i wish to point out is that, if this form of entertainment is ever to become something more than just simplistic child's play, it will need to start looking at the possibilities of science properly.