Author: Sergio Mascarenhas (---.70.194)
Date: 06-08-2004 06:06
I have basically two comments, the first to reinforce your approach to weapons. I always considered that Space Opera weapons are no sci-fi. They are just funny looking contemporary weapons, something like water pistols that kill. In fact the same applies to a great extent to vehicles and other technology.
From a hard Sci-fi POV the most likely development in weapons will be in terms of precision, automation and pro-activity. If we take this thread too far to the future, there will be no weapons as we know it by our contemporary standards, of course. When you have a technology that is able to stop someone from doing something that is considered harmful, does this before that harmful act is carried forward, and does not harm the wrongdoer, you no longer have a weapon.
The other issue concerns the narrow concept of sciences usually considered in terms of hard sci-fi. I mean, are all sciences technological sciences? What about social sciences? These are never considered (except in authors that are not considered as sci-fi... even if they are, authors like Orwell or Huxley). Since technology follows to a great extent social trends (think bio-tech or clonning here), social sciences sci-fi seems to be a lot more relevant than tech sci-fi if one wants to build a likeable scenario for the future.
This is not to say that sci-fi games don't consider social issues. The point is that don't usually do it from a grounded base on social sciences developments. In what concerns social issues they stay at the Soap Opera level (I mean, Space Opera level). That's why we are usually fead the boring Nazi/CCCP look-a-likes, medieval look-a-likes and other minimum denominator of infantile understanding of social movements.
Sergio
|
|
