Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • *music*

  • As you may recall, writing a Deux Ex episode

  • sort of sent James on a bit of a sci-fi kick .

  • So, this week we're gonna be doing some more of that.

  • I'll be up front with you, today's topic doesn't

  • have much to do with games, but it is something

  • that shows up in games a lot. Especially the sci-fi ones

  • Today's topic is Technobabble.

  • It's sort of the hallmark of mediocre science fiction in

  • any medium, and it's something we should be

  • able to avoid when making games, mostly because it's never necessary.

  • When we use scientific terms wrong, all it does is misinform

  • the portion of our audience that doesn't know what those terms mean,

  • and creates cringe-worthy moments for the people who do.

  • This violates the main principles of design, all of your decision should serve your audience.

  • So let's talk about sci-fi for a minute. There are two main camps for what we now call sci-fi.

  • Science fiction and future fantasy.

  • Science fiction is an attempt to deliver a view of a possible future.

  • One vauguely rooted in fact with an internally consistent logic.

  • It takes what we know of the universe today, and uses it to explore

  • concepts that fall out of that understanding.

  • Star trek, at least up through next generations,

  • was a great example of this. They didn't always use things perfectly,

  • but they tried to have a grounding in science, and used that to help them examine

  • societal structure in a humanity with faster-than-light capability.

  • Star Trek gives a rosy view. It's clearly born of a '70s ideology,

  • but they attempted to keep it grounded within the vaguely possible.

  • Going so far as to create subspace, to invent a realm where they could break

  • the physical laws, as they needed to.

  • Better examples would probably be some of Aurthur C Clarke's work,

  • or the work of Jeffery Landis,

  • but that's harder to put side-by-side with Star Wars, so yeah.

  • The other type of sci-fi is future fantasy.

  • In this type of science fiction, advanced technology stands in for magic,

  • and allows the characters to do whatever is necessary in order to move them through

  • an interesting plot, or explore the more nebulous, social,

  • and philosophical ideas the designer wants the player to explore

  • The original Star Wars films are great examples.

  • They rarely bother with the technological explanation for what's going on,

  • because it doesn't serve the core purpose of the piece.

  • Taking time to explain all that might kill the story's pacing,

  • and would do nothing to further our emersion in the world, so they

  • don't even bother. And when some explanation is necessary, they give a vague,

  • "umm... because technology! That's why!" and move on.

  • The explanation rarely has anything to do with science, but it doesn't need to.

  • That's not he point of the story or the world they are trying to present to us.

  • When creating sci-fi, both of these approaches are totally valid.

  • They can both lead to exciting stories and provide us a canvas to explore

  • things relevant to our real lives today. The danger only comes in when a creator can't commit,

  • and tries to layer vague, "sciencey" terms over their work, because they don't feel

  • their audience will be able to maintain the suspension of disbelief otherwise.

  • Here's an example, "midichlorian counts". For all it's importance to the series,

  • the Force was never fully explained in the original trilogy.

  • Now I ask you, "did you care?" Of course not.

  • Believing in the force is sort of the price of entry into the Star Wars universe.

  • If you're participating in something Star Wars, and you can't invest in the Force,

  • you're either pretty much saying that you don't want to be there,

  • or that the creator hasn't adequately framed the Force within their work.

  • They haven't given enough reason to buy it.

  • No amount of "sciencey" rationalizing is going to help that suspension of disbelief,

  • so tying it to something that the audience vaugely understands as science saying,

  • "Oh, it's in the blood". And linking it to our modern understanding of

  • genetics isn't going to solve the fundamental, underlying

  • suspension of disbelief problem.

  • What I'm saying is that you can't lend credibility to your story just by using science words.

  • Using real science, and allowing that to be the floor that helps you ground your universe in

  • an internal logical constancy. That's why science fiction works, not just because it sounds "sciency".

  • Once you've got that underpinning, you can explore all of the interesting things that shake out of it.

  • Which is what makes science fiction so great, and on the flip side,

  • the limitless freedom that technology provides future fantasy

  • is what allows it to deliver compelling stories and explore such a wealth of ideas.

  • Don't hamstring it by entangling it in a web of pseudo-jargon.

  • So yes, that is why technobabble sucks.

  • Now we got a few more minutes here, so lets do something a little,

  • *snicker*

  • Extra.

  • It seems to me that relativistic physics is the branch of science most often abused in sci-fi.

  • Now this may be because relativity was the first time physics radically departed

  • from our perceptual reality, and thus is, sort of, semi-mystic to a lot of people anyway.

  • Or, it may be because Einstein was really the last guy to capture the public imagination with physics,

  • and so, much of the terminology from relativity has trickled down and is sort of recognizable

  • to a sci-fi audience. Even if many of us don't actually understand it.

  • So, to wrap things up today, we're going to give a brief run-down of

  • relativistic terms that come up a lot. Now, I should start by saying,

  • none of us are physicists. We got help from some in writing this, but it's still

  • likely that some of you know this stuff better than we do.

  • The explanations I'm about to give barely skim the surface, and are extremely over-simplified in a lot

  • of places. Still, for anyone watching who is not a physicist, Hopefully this will begin

  • to clear up what some of these terms actually mean. So when a game or movie tries to throw

  • one of these at you, you can call them on it.

  • First up, "quantum". "Quantum" just means "a discreet amount".

  • You can think of it as "an indivisible quantity."

  • The reason why we call it "quantum mechanics" is because it's a branch of physics that treats light both

  • as continuous wave and as coming in discreet definable packets, or

  • 'quanta' of energy.

  • Look up the photoelectric effect if you wanna dig more into that "quanta" of light idea.

  • Next, "Brownian motion".

  • In the 19th century, a fellow by the name of Brown

  • noticed that pollen particles floating in water would move erratically.

  • Later it was discovered that this macroscopic movement was the result of the

  • microscopic forces from the collision of atoms and molecules within the pollen.

  • Brownian motion is simply the seemingly random movement of particles in liquid.

  • But it's often used to describe any random-seeming event that's actually

  • controlled by a large number of rational micro-events.

  • "Spacetime". This one's tough to sum up,

  • but it really just boils down to linking space and time mathematically.

  • Once you accept that relative velocity can affect relative expereiecne of time

  • that an atomic clock running on a fast-moving spaceship

  • will run slower than an atomic clock here on Earth.

  • Then that means how you travel through time is effected by how you travel through space.

  • So they need to be mathematically, directly connected somehow.

  • You have to have some way to equate the two, at least interrelate them.

  • Which is where we get, "spacetime".

  • Next, inertial mass.

  • Once you get to relativity, you need to stop thinking of mass being a quantity of stuff, and

  • start thinking about it as, simply meaning, resistance to being accelerated, or, inertia.

  • Thus, inertial mass.

  • And finally, "curvature of spacetime".

  • For most of human history, we thought of a plane as a flat surface.

  • If you go back to Euclid, who set out the cornerstone logic that would define all

  • of our mathematics up through calculus, you'll find that's essentially how he defined

  • a plane with postulate 5, so that how we've always seen it.

  • And that makes sense. After all, that's how we experience the world.

  • But much in the same way that thinking about the world being flat is wrong,

  • even though for the majority of our daily lives, it might as well be.

  • Thinking of reality existing in flat planes is also wrong.

  • The spacetime plane of reality is often curved by the gravitational force of massive bodies

  • In fact, the curvature of spacetime is really a way to just stop

  • conceiving of gravity as its own, unique force.

  • And rather,think of massive bodies distorting the plane of reality.

  • If we think in terms of our flat geometry, we percieve the sun to be exerting a

  • gravitational force that makes the Earth orbit in a curve

  • but in curved spacetime, the Earth actually traves in a straight line

  • Which is defined by the distorted spacetime, created by the massive sun.

  • This is useful, as it helps us understand why even massless things like

  • light are still affected by this distortion.

  • All this really means in a sci-fi sense is that we can't rely

  • on our traditional geometry to understand how things work

  • in these sections. We have to use a more advanced,

  • non-euclidean geometry to calculate the stuff accurately

  • So, for example, traveling in a straight line, through

  • such a distortion might still result in a curved trajectory.

  • Even though you never altered your course.

  • I'm probably starting to lose some of you now,

  • so I'll go ahead and stop here. Thanks again to all of

  • the physicists who helped us fact-check this.

  • You made it abundantly clear how much deeper the rabbit hole goes.

  • If nothing else, I hope this is at least shown how much

  • digging and research can be done before you can start

  • throwing these terms around.

  • Either way, I hope you all enjoyed the science.

  • We'll be back to our regular thing next week.

  • See you then.

  • *music*

*music*

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

余分なクレジット。テクノバブル (Extra Credits: Technobabble)

  • 138 7
    張哲豫 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語