Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > The Art of Star Trek Online

Thread Tools Display Modes
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,903
# 21
04-24-2013, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
I suppose it would be, but in the game, we are looking at space from a third person view, not from the ships' view-screens.
And? An ingame mechanic needs little explanation story wise. The game tends to treat you, the player as the ship. So logically you should be able to see anything the ship sees. Besides, throughout the show we saw that viewscreens were capable of displaying a third-person view of the ship. ("Galaxy's Child comes to mind)

Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
In addition, there seems no easier way to date something than to try to use cutting edge scientific discoveries. Going back and watching the original series is a painful experience because of how they integrated science into the show, like stopping to observe "quasars".
That's a problem how? You describe it as a painful experience, but science is very much a part of our history. Going back and looking at things like The Original Series, Buck Rodgers, Valerian, and other old Sci-Fi series shows what we thought back then, and how we viewed the world around us.

Fiction is the modern equivalent of Myths, Legends, and Oral Tradition. The stories a culture tells is a good indicator of what they believed in and respected. Who knows, maybe some day in the far flung future they'll be studying Game of Thrones and Star Trek alongside the Iliad, and the works of Shakespeare.

Including modern science in our fiction, shows our respect for the medium rather than our immature disregard. And besides, everyone throws realism out the door when it comes to science fiction. Including real stuff in our stuff would really set this game (and franchise) very far apart from the rest of it's peers.

Sci-Fi has been really starved of late, but realistic Sci-Fi in particular. To the point I can't even think of truly a Hard Sci-Fi film that came out in the mainstream within the past 10 years. I fail to see any downside to this.

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 867
# 22
04-24-2013, 11:05 PM
Including modern science is not the problem.

Including modern science that the writers do not properly understand is the problem.

The quasars in TOS is a perfect example. At the time, Astronomers probably were not certain what quasars were and it was unclear exactly how far away they were. Kirk stops to ship to investigate quasars. That presents two major problems.

1) It assumes (quite arrogantly) that quasars would still be a mystery worth investigating 300 years in the future (it only took astronomers about 30 years to solve the mystery). [A perfect example in TNG of this is Picard puzzling over Fermat's last theorem].

2) It assumes that the scientists who thought that quasars might be in the Milky Way were correct when in fact nobody could say for certain (I am assuming) at the time. The truth is that quasars are located far outside our galaxy and you can see them just as well from one place as another.

The key for medium-soft scifi like Star Trek is to mix in some solid science but not to speculate too much and throw in some made-up technology or natural principles when you don't know how the science would work.

So I think putting in real astronomical phenomena like nebulae and black holes is a fantastic idea. I think putting in specific astronomical bodies like the Orion nebula or Sagittarius A* is not because in the (possibly very near) future, that may seem very dated.

Also, I have no idea what the background is of the Cryptic staff, but I would wager that there is good chance that none of them have any degrees or professional experience in astronomy or astrophysics and probably do not want to have to hire a consultant to make sure that their fictional map of the galaxy matches up with our real understanding of the position of various astronomical bodies.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,903
# 23
04-25-2013, 11:06 AM
I bet they could easily find a couple of astronomers would would die inorder to help them out.

(Star Trek and Astronomers tend to go hand in hand)

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 763
# 24
04-26-2013, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by tacofangs View Post
The main problem I have with putting in the celestial objects seen in iconic images like the all too familiar Pillars of Creation, The Horsehead Nebula, The Hourglass Nebula, etc., is that they're all false color images. They usually assign certain colors to certain elements, or wavelengths which are invisible to the human eye.

The argument I hear in my head when I say that is, "But there are a billion brightly colored nebulae in the game already, what about those?" And while I partially agree, it can be argued that those are invented, and thus, who's to say those, fictitious nebulae, do not give off such visible light.
Excuses...excuses... just put them in and I'll set my visor for those frequencies...


What's Star Trek Online without Exploration? Star Wars! (War zones and STFs)
Are you sure it isn't time for a "colourful metaphor"? --Spock in 'The Voyage Home'
Star Trek Battles Channel - Play STO more like Star Trek with challenge, teamwork and FUN!
Career Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 873
# 25
05-03-2013, 05:00 AM
Hmm... makes me wonder if astronomers on a distant planet see our solar system as being in a nebula we can't detect.

Porthos is not amused.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:36 AM.