A 'realistic' sci-fi FPS?
by Daniel Buckmaster · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 12/18/2006 (8:19 am) · 35 replies
Beware, this may be quite disorganised. I'm just throwing ideas around at this stage...
I just want to put this idea out there: how would a 'realistic' science-fiction first person shooter go down? Actually, I think I'd better explain my vision first.
My idea was spawned from questions. Questions about other sci-fi FPSs. A few examples pertaining to the Halo games:
Why haven't humans developed better weapons yet? Wht haven't they thought of better tactics for their ground troops instead of going back to a WWII level? How the hell does Covenant plasma not evaporate in the atmosphere? Why are Covenant troops so incompetent? Why haven't we banned smoking yet?
The simple answer is because Halo is a game, and it has to appeal to the market to sell. Thus, things that are cool, even if they're not scientifically accurate or they're completely against common sense.
I had the idea for a game even as I was playing through Halo, and after reading some excelent science fiction (Peter F. Hamilton anyone?), I've got some ideas of my own.
Ground combat
Right, I'll start here because it's easiest. The standard weapon of the human military is the coilgun, a weapon that uses magnetism to fire a projectile very fast, and with very little noise. Other weapons include lasers/masers, Fermi weapons (they ignite the atmosphere in a controlled way), advanced missiles (heat-seeking, electromagnetism-seeking, loitering, and lots of different explosive types) and a whole host of coilgun variants. Individual troopers are a formidable opponent, wearing reactive armour that hardens to absorb impacts and softens to allow freedom of movement.
Tactics play a big role, as does recon and intelligence. If you locate an enemy, there are a plethora of ways to take him out. You have to keep moving to avoid the enemy becoming similarly aware of you.
Space travel and combat
Spaceships run off on-board fusion reactors. These can push an automated combat ship at accelerations of up to 30g. This is limited to 15g when humans are on board. At these speeds, armour matters little, and electronic warfare is very important. Some ships are geared towards this and nothing else, to protect ships that carry armaments. The typical combat ship is only the size of a house and carries a crew of around five. Weapons include laser/maser canon, demi-nukes (nuclear weapons detonated with antimatter), enhanced radiaton bombs (similar to today's neutron bomb), energetic explosives (antimatter is an example), kinetic shot spreaders (like a giant freakin' shotgun), and strafe-drones (tiny craft that get up close and slash an enemy fighter with lasers/masers). Munitions are launched at huge speeds.
The human domain
Humans live throughout the Solar system, and have colonised Alpha Centauri using a type of FTL technology (I had to include it, come on). AC has two planets with breathable atmosphere, and five without. Orbital stations have been constructed over Jupiter, and the Moon is settled. Marsh did have setlements, but a disaster destroyed them. Interest was lost in colonising the Solar system when AC was discovered and reached.
The aliens
Yes, there will be aliens. Simply because it's more interesting and makes a better story. Only one race, however. They are vaguely humanoid and create their own food through thermosynthesis (think of photosynthesis, but with heat instead of light). They have one planet in their home system with air breathable to them, and there are some interesting reasons why they invade Alpha Centauri (which I'm not telling).
Well, that's really all I wanted to say. So here's my question(s): how does it sound? Could it make a good game?
I can answer pretty much any question about it that I haven't included here.
I just want to put this idea out there: how would a 'realistic' science-fiction first person shooter go down? Actually, I think I'd better explain my vision first.
My idea was spawned from questions. Questions about other sci-fi FPSs. A few examples pertaining to the Halo games:
Why haven't humans developed better weapons yet? Wht haven't they thought of better tactics for their ground troops instead of going back to a WWII level? How the hell does Covenant plasma not evaporate in the atmosphere? Why are Covenant troops so incompetent? Why haven't we banned smoking yet?
The simple answer is because Halo is a game, and it has to appeal to the market to sell. Thus, things that are cool, even if they're not scientifically accurate or they're completely against common sense.
I had the idea for a game even as I was playing through Halo, and after reading some excelent science fiction (Peter F. Hamilton anyone?), I've got some ideas of my own.
Ground combat
Right, I'll start here because it's easiest. The standard weapon of the human military is the coilgun, a weapon that uses magnetism to fire a projectile very fast, and with very little noise. Other weapons include lasers/masers, Fermi weapons (they ignite the atmosphere in a controlled way), advanced missiles (heat-seeking, electromagnetism-seeking, loitering, and lots of different explosive types) and a whole host of coilgun variants. Individual troopers are a formidable opponent, wearing reactive armour that hardens to absorb impacts and softens to allow freedom of movement.
Tactics play a big role, as does recon and intelligence. If you locate an enemy, there are a plethora of ways to take him out. You have to keep moving to avoid the enemy becoming similarly aware of you.
Space travel and combat
Spaceships run off on-board fusion reactors. These can push an automated combat ship at accelerations of up to 30g. This is limited to 15g when humans are on board. At these speeds, armour matters little, and electronic warfare is very important. Some ships are geared towards this and nothing else, to protect ships that carry armaments. The typical combat ship is only the size of a house and carries a crew of around five. Weapons include laser/maser canon, demi-nukes (nuclear weapons detonated with antimatter), enhanced radiaton bombs (similar to today's neutron bomb), energetic explosives (antimatter is an example), kinetic shot spreaders (like a giant freakin' shotgun), and strafe-drones (tiny craft that get up close and slash an enemy fighter with lasers/masers). Munitions are launched at huge speeds.
The human domain
Humans live throughout the Solar system, and have colonised Alpha Centauri using a type of FTL technology (I had to include it, come on). AC has two planets with breathable atmosphere, and five without. Orbital stations have been constructed over Jupiter, and the Moon is settled. Marsh did have setlements, but a disaster destroyed them. Interest was lost in colonising the Solar system when AC was discovered and reached.
The aliens
Yes, there will be aliens. Simply because it's more interesting and makes a better story. Only one race, however. They are vaguely humanoid and create their own food through thermosynthesis (think of photosynthesis, but with heat instead of light). They have one planet in their home system with air breathable to them, and there are some interesting reasons why they invade Alpha Centauri (which I'm not telling).
Well, that's really all I wanted to say. So here's my question(s): how does it sound? Could it make a good game?
I can answer pretty much any question about it that I haven't included here.
About the author
Studying mechatronic engineering and computer science at the University of Sydney. Game development is probably my most time-consuming hobby!
#22
Also when we start to awaken to the world around us (2-3 years old) we already understand high level concepts that would have eluded generations before. We understand what a DVD player does and take it for granted, we understand what a car does, and do not fear it. These are the things that make us much more intelligent than anyone that walked before us.
We all understand Newton and Einstein to a limited degree so we have that inherant intelligence as well.
I think intellect can be quantified by analysing how it is applied.
01/09/2007 (2:27 pm)
As far as I know our cognitive brain is passed on via genes. That is to say that our comprehension and understanding capabilities are a cumulative adaptation of previous generations. So our ability to learn is much more developed than any generation before us.Also when we start to awaken to the world around us (2-3 years old) we already understand high level concepts that would have eluded generations before. We understand what a DVD player does and take it for granted, we understand what a car does, and do not fear it. These are the things that make us much more intelligent than anyone that walked before us.
We all understand Newton and Einstein to a limited degree so we have that inherant intelligence as well.
I think intellect can be quantified by analysing how it is applied.
#23
But um... does anyone have any feedback on the actual game idea? I'm enjoying the discussion, but it's really not helping me gauge how much people would like playing a shooter with no bloodsport, no plasma weapons, and competent enemies.
01/11/2007 (9:11 am)
A bit of a belated answer to something:Quote:As far a weapons, soldier-carried weapons are not likely to change much any time soon. Why? The current method of operation is damn near perfect. You have a really simple machine that requires very little maintenance and almost never breaks with an ammunition that combines its energy source and its projectile in a small, stable, weatherproof, easy-to-carry container.But is it 'near perfect'? There have to be ways of improving upon the design, and weapons makers are constantly doing this. No doubt cavemen thought the rock was perfect weapon, then later the spear, then the bow and arrow, then the flintlock. Looking back, these weapons are nothing compared to what we have now.
Quote:Take a geometry class. Every other chapter they'll tell you about some Greek guy from a couple thousand years ago who used the math that you're just only learning.Those Greek guys from a couple thousand years ago were the greatest thinkers of their times, and we're learning their rules, theories and formulae in school.
Quote:Most ancient civilizations had a better understanding of space than I do.You are not a civilisation. How many individuals within that civilisation do you think understood more than you do?
Quote:We've got toilet paper, so we must be smarter.I like your thinking ;)
But um... does anyone have any feedback on the actual game idea? I'm enjoying the discussion, but it's really not helping me gauge how much people would like playing a shooter with no bloodsport, no plasma weapons, and competent enemies.
#24
Or more appropriately, "make it so!"
01/11/2007 (2:32 pm)
Oh yeah... sorry about that. Look, as long as it's got aliens, space, stars, ships, a racing Williams-esque sound track and a buxom counterpart I'll play anything sci-fi ... Bring it on!!!! Warp factor 10 or whatever...Or more appropriately, "make it so!"
#25
01/11/2007 (8:46 pm)
The best part about Sci-fi guns (in my opinion) is how much cooler they are than guns we have now. As long as your guns are cool and your aliens aren't cheesy, I think I'd probably like it too. 
#26
Think of the hit you'd take sending that across the network ;p
My rather belabored point is that in order to make that interesting each property should have a balancing factor.
E.g. you could switch your weapon to targeted jamming mode, in effect a sniper rifle that jams the electronic signal on a weapon it is aimed and fired at, or EMP mines/grenades that take out all systems in a certain radius. This brings an interesting overlap of RTS/MMO style grouping where teams have specific roles of attack and countermeasure, etc.
So in essence the weapons can be realistic and quite interesting but so should the balancing factors.
01/12/2007 (1:34 am)
Well bullet technology is already more advanced than most people think. There are already smart bullets that can shoot around corners, detonate at exact ranges etc. For example you could fire a fragmentation bullet at a target hunched behind a low wall and it would detonate at the exact range in a downward direction hitting the target. There are bullets that can be fired at a rate of a million rounds a minute. A MILLION.Think of the hit you'd take sending that across the network ;p
My rather belabored point is that in order to make that interesting each property should have a balancing factor.
E.g. you could switch your weapon to targeted jamming mode, in effect a sniper rifle that jams the electronic signal on a weapon it is aimed and fired at, or EMP mines/grenades that take out all systems in a certain radius. This brings an interesting overlap of RTS/MMO style grouping where teams have specific roles of attack and countermeasure, etc.
So in essence the weapons can be realistic and quite interesting but so should the balancing factors.
#27
So yeah, there'll have to be ways to get around this issue. Electronic warfare and EMP was one of my first ideas. EMP would be really effective as there's so much electronics on battlefields, so I may have to research some counters for it. Electronic warfare I only wanted as a last resort - it should be something going on in the background. Suddenly enemy blips drop off your sensors or a dozen more appear, stuff like that, but it's an ongiong battle fought by your equipment, so you don't really take part in it.
But on the other hand, that'd add a lot of frustration to the game, as the player would have no control over that side of things.
EDIT: One thing I forgot is that chemical weapons (i.e. what we have today) haven't been totally superceded. It's mainly rhwe military and police who use magnetic rifles. I should probably bring that aspect of it in, as well - 'traditional' guns would be immune to EMP, which may make them a good choice sometimes. But they're not as powerful or efficient as coilguns, and they make a loud noise.
I also want to add as much functionality as possible to the GUI. Lots of things that you can choose not to use (no missions that say "use your quantum-distortion-capuccino-dispenser in this way at this time to take out those bad guys, or else their bottom armour will dispel anything you try and shoot at them!"). For example, your usual zoom function (built into the helmet, so not weapon-specific), range-finder for the crosshair position, active gear that seeks enemies and displays markers on them with information (you can control how much information), team status displays and remote cameras (think Tribes), tactical and strategic maps (satellite images with optional topography lines) and an integrated waypoint/beacon system (displays points with information tags directly on the maps).
One of the features I hesitated over was auto-aim. If you've red Night's Dawn (Peter F. Hamilton), the Kulu Kingdom 'Marines' in it use programs that control their muscles, guiding them in incredibly accurate fire-patterns, actually moving for them. I had a similar idea, since I'd already established artificially advanced muscles. You select a waypoint or enemy beacon, and when you hold down a certain key, you automatically aim at it. It seems a likely feature with the technology the setting has, but I don't know whether it would break the game or not.
01/12/2007 (7:59 am)
That was one of my main problems with the idea - balancing. Because I wanted to make it plausible, I can't just say "Um... yeah, you can have heavy armourl, but it's slow as hell." The military wouldn't stand for it, and it'd be fixed. "We have developed a totally new pwnz0rizzing laser beam gun, but if it overheats it'll explode." Nobody in real life would use it without some sort of safety systems.So yeah, there'll have to be ways to get around this issue. Electronic warfare and EMP was one of my first ideas. EMP would be really effective as there's so much electronics on battlefields, so I may have to research some counters for it. Electronic warfare I only wanted as a last resort - it should be something going on in the background. Suddenly enemy blips drop off your sensors or a dozen more appear, stuff like that, but it's an ongiong battle fought by your equipment, so you don't really take part in it.
But on the other hand, that'd add a lot of frustration to the game, as the player would have no control over that side of things.
EDIT: One thing I forgot is that chemical weapons (i.e. what we have today) haven't been totally superceded. It's mainly rhwe military and police who use magnetic rifles. I should probably bring that aspect of it in, as well - 'traditional' guns would be immune to EMP, which may make them a good choice sometimes. But they're not as powerful or efficient as coilguns, and they make a loud noise.
Quote:This brings an interesting overlap of RTS/MMO style grouping where teams have specific roles of attack and countermeasure, etc.I really don't like that system, but I guess it is what goes on in an effective military force. Some people train more with different things, etc. Maybe something more like a character customiser when you start the game, which lets you assign different points to different types of weapons, representing how much you've trained with them. Then as you play, those skills are constantly being upgraded, depending on the weapons you use and how well you use them.
Quote:For example you could fire a fragmentation bullet at a target hunched behind a low wall and it would detonate at the exact range in a downward direction hitting the target.I was aware of weapons like this, but it'd be a lot of work to get them functioning in a game. Mighty sweet, though.
I also want to add as much functionality as possible to the GUI. Lots of things that you can choose not to use (no missions that say "use your quantum-distortion-capuccino-dispenser in this way at this time to take out those bad guys, or else their bottom armour will dispel anything you try and shoot at them!"). For example, your usual zoom function (built into the helmet, so not weapon-specific), range-finder for the crosshair position, active gear that seeks enemies and displays markers on them with information (you can control how much information), team status displays and remote cameras (think Tribes), tactical and strategic maps (satellite images with optional topography lines) and an integrated waypoint/beacon system (displays points with information tags directly on the maps).
One of the features I hesitated over was auto-aim. If you've red Night's Dawn (Peter F. Hamilton), the Kulu Kingdom 'Marines' in it use programs that control their muscles, guiding them in incredibly accurate fire-patterns, actually moving for them. I had a similar idea, since I'd already established artificially advanced muscles. You select a waypoint or enemy beacon, and when you hold down a certain key, you automatically aim at it. It seems a likely feature with the technology the setting has, but I don't know whether it would break the game or not.
Quote:As long as your guns are cool and your aliens aren't cheesy, I think I'd probably like it too.That was another thing I worked hard on, not having cheesy aliens. And not giving them a cheesy part in the story. So many stories (Halo springs to mind) feature the aliens attacking just so that there's conflict. I mean, sure, it makes a good game, but a crappy story. That's why I worked in so much complicated backstory, so that the aliens would have a justified reason to attack a race they hadn't even made contact with yet.
#28
Your Halo example is absolutely true. Halo is a great game, but I think that most of the things I dislike or don't understand about it involve the aliens. Like you said, they attack just so there's conflict. The sci-fi that I've read tends to go in two seperate directions (sometimes both in the same book). Some say that aliens would be logical and think similar to us, using the notion that they must be more or at least as 'evolved' scientifically and economically as we are.
Others say that the chances of their being similar to us is pretty slim (Read Sphere for a good explanation). They say that everything about them, from sensory perception to society structure to understanding of anything not absolute, would be so totally, well, alien from our understanding of life, the universe, and everything that we wouldn't be able to communicate any thoughts. Sphere says that the most probable sucessful first contact would be a back and forth of mathmatical equations, since math is an absolute science.
I tend to agree more with the second opinion. If you were to go that route in your game, you wouldn't have to explain their motivations, because they'd be too alien for us to understand anyways. That might make for a weak story, however.
Perhaps they're gifted at tool building, but not social structure. I don't know. It's all a bit abstract in my head. I think I've got a bit of snow blindness...
01/12/2007 (5:36 pm)
Again, this is just opinion. I don't think I'd like to play a game that had an automatic aim on it. That's a large part of the skill required in an FPS. I've got friends that work very hard at a game, conditioning their fingers and the way they react to enemies, until they get head shots every time. It's a pride thing, and it's one of the most fun parts of a good FPS. Thats a part of their appeal. Automatic aiming would take that away. Unless it's more of a general thing...Your Halo example is absolutely true. Halo is a great game, but I think that most of the things I dislike or don't understand about it involve the aliens. Like you said, they attack just so there's conflict. The sci-fi that I've read tends to go in two seperate directions (sometimes both in the same book). Some say that aliens would be logical and think similar to us, using the notion that they must be more or at least as 'evolved' scientifically and economically as we are.
Others say that the chances of their being similar to us is pretty slim (Read Sphere for a good explanation). They say that everything about them, from sensory perception to society structure to understanding of anything not absolute, would be so totally, well, alien from our understanding of life, the universe, and everything that we wouldn't be able to communicate any thoughts. Sphere says that the most probable sucessful first contact would be a back and forth of mathmatical equations, since math is an absolute science.
I tend to agree more with the second opinion. If you were to go that route in your game, you wouldn't have to explain their motivations, because they'd be too alien for us to understand anyways. That might make for a weak story, however.
Perhaps they're gifted at tool building, but not social structure. I don't know. It's all a bit abstract in my head. I think I've got a bit of snow blindness...
#29
I dont know, that sounds like the basis of a pretty engaging puzzle game.
01/12/2007 (5:43 pm)
Quote:Sphere says that the most probable sucessful first contact would be a back and forth of mathmatical equations, since math is an absolute science.
I tend to agree more with the second opinion. If you were to go that route in your game, you wouldn't have to explain their motivations, because they'd be too alien for us to understand anyways. That might make for a weak story, however.
I dont know, that sounds like the basis of a pretty engaging puzzle game.
#30
01/13/2007 (2:06 am)
Quote:Others say that the chances of their being similar to us is pretty slim (Read Sphere for a good explanation). They say that everything about them, from sensory perception to society structure to understanding of anything not absolute, would be so totally, well, alien from our understanding of life, the universe, and everything that we wouldn't be able to communicate any thoughts. Sphere says that the most probable sucessful first contact would be a back and forth of mathmatical equations, since math is an absolute science.Hmm, sort of like Contact. Great movie. But one reason I didn't want to go that way was because then even I wouldn't understand what was happening in my story ;)
Quote:Again, this is just opinion. I don't think I'd like to play a game that had an automatic aim on it. That's a large part of the skill required in an FPS. I've got friends that work very hard at a game, conditioning their fingers and the way they react to enemies, until they get head shots every time. It's a pride thing, and it's one of the most fun parts of a good FPS. Thats a part of their appeal. Automatic aiming would take that away. Unless it's more of a general thing...That's what I was worried about. But what do you mean by 'more of a general thing'? I may have to bring in some other aids - instead of just aiming for you, it makes it easier by displaying markers that show you where to aim to account for speed of the target, curve of the projectile, etc.
#31
I imagined that the 'alien alien' idea would make a weaker story, though it probably would work more towards your goal of a 'realistic sci-fi FPS'.
Try not to force your complicated backstory into the foreground of the game. Games should first and foremost be about gameplay. However, if you think about it, gameplay IS story. Gameplay is interaction, as is story. Perhaps you could try to tell some, if not most of, your story through the gameplay. Just a thought...
01/13/2007 (1:41 pm)
I like those ideas better. What I meant by 'general' was, rather than aiming directly at the target, you were just sort of homed in on the target, so that you still had to do a bit of the aiming. I doubt that makes much sense, as I am out of my head right now, but at least I tried...I imagined that the 'alien alien' idea would make a weaker story, though it probably would work more towards your goal of a 'realistic sci-fi FPS'.
Try not to force your complicated backstory into the foreground of the game. Games should first and foremost be about gameplay. However, if you think about it, gameplay IS story. Gameplay is interaction, as is story. Perhaps you could try to tell some, if not most of, your story through the gameplay. Just a thought...
#32
Traditional Fantasy Races
every game studio out there is trying to snatch up a fantasy or sci-fi based IP. Games like Star Trek, Stargate, Warhammer, and Age of Conan all have very established races and worlds that work within the IP, this way your lore is already written for you. You don't have to create an entire new set of game mechanics to achieve balance in a lore that already exists.
In saying that, I would still love to see a game that creates an entire new set of ideas, history, races, and lore which distances itself from the humanoid mindset.
01/13/2007 (3:47 pm)
@Daniel : Check this article out - you may become a pioneer if you consider changing your aliens to not be humanoid ...Traditional Fantasy Races
every game studio out there is trying to snatch up a fantasy or sci-fi based IP. Games like Star Trek, Stargate, Warhammer, and Age of Conan all have very established races and worlds that work within the IP, this way your lore is already written for you. You don't have to create an entire new set of game mechanics to achieve balance in a lore that already exists.
In saying that, I would still love to see a game that creates an entire new set of ideas, history, races, and lore which distances itself from the humanoid mindset.
#33
I totally agree with that article, that always having the same racial templates is getting boring. Also (using Halo again as an example - which I don't like to do, 'cause I liked that game, despite its faults), I don't like the idea of giving aliens qualities that make them deliberately scary. For example, the Elites in Halo. Shark-tooth grins all the time, you know what I mean. It does make better gameplay, but what are th odds that an alien race just happens to have features that humans find scary?
01/13/2007 (11:53 pm)
That was one of my first considerstions ;) I was originally considering a basically humanoid formation - two arms, two legs, and a head (oh, and a tail!) - but with a rather different posture, etc., but now I think I'll change that, too. I just need some good ideas.I totally agree with that article, that always having the same racial templates is getting boring. Also (using Halo again as an example - which I don't like to do, 'cause I liked that game, despite its faults), I don't like the idea of giving aliens qualities that make them deliberately scary. For example, the Elites in Halo. Shark-tooth grins all the time, you know what I mean. It does make better gameplay, but what are th odds that an alien race just happens to have features that humans find scary?
Quote:What I meant by 'general' was, rather than aiming directly at the target, you were just sort of homed in on the target, so that you still had to do a bit of the aiming.Yeah, that could work... I may have to see what will happen when I get a prototype made (don't anyone hold their breath - this is gonna be a while in the future...).
Quote:Try not to force your complicated backstory into the foreground of the game. Games should first and foremost be about gameplay. However, if you think about it, gameplay IS story. Gameplay is interaction, as is story. Perhaps you could try to tell some, if not most of, your story through the gameplay. Just a thought...Well, the point of the game is that you play out the story. There's little 'backstory' to absorb, except the usual things such as setting. As you play through the game, you're following one (or more) of the main characters in the story.
#34
"Science fiction is the most important literature in the history of the world, because it's the history of ideas, the history of our civilization birthing itself. ...Science fiction is central to everything we've ever done, and people who make fun of science fiction writers don't know what they're talking about."
"Anything you dream is fiction, and anything you accomplish is science, the whole history of mankind is nothing but science fiction."
"Science fiction is a depiction of the real. Fantasy is a depiction of the unreal."
Those are from the great Ray Bradbury, and they're all true. He used sci-fi to tell stories about what was happening at the time he wrote them, not about things that would happen hundreds of years from now. When sci-fi deals with common problems, it is a far more powerful tool than any other form of storytelling. The very nature of science fiction is to take what we have now and magnify it, blow it up, make it grow until it's as if we're looking at ourselves.
Perhaps that is not the purpose of your story, but if it is true sci-fi, it will accompolish that.
I'm done with my rant. Perhaps there's some truth in it. Or at very least, some truthiness.
01/17/2007 (12:38 pm)
It's so nice to hear that there are people who appreciate the importance of story in games. I'm sort of working on a sci-fi FPS story too. It's important to understand just how much sci-fi means. It's important to understand how important it is."Science fiction is the most important literature in the history of the world, because it's the history of ideas, the history of our civilization birthing itself. ...Science fiction is central to everything we've ever done, and people who make fun of science fiction writers don't know what they're talking about."
"Anything you dream is fiction, and anything you accomplish is science, the whole history of mankind is nothing but science fiction."
"Science fiction is a depiction of the real. Fantasy is a depiction of the unreal."
Those are from the great Ray Bradbury, and they're all true. He used sci-fi to tell stories about what was happening at the time he wrote them, not about things that would happen hundreds of years from now. When sci-fi deals with common problems, it is a far more powerful tool than any other form of storytelling. The very nature of science fiction is to take what we have now and magnify it, blow it up, make it grow until it's as if we're looking at ourselves.
Perhaps that is not the purpose of your story, but if it is true sci-fi, it will accompolish that.
I'm done with my rant. Perhaps there's some truth in it. Or at very least, some truthiness.
#35
01/18/2007 (9:44 am)
I totally agree. And I'm a little disappointed that I'm not thrusting at any fundamental element of human nature with my story - I write for the plot, for now. I'm just not at a level to be making commentaries on the human race. Just yet. ;) 
Vitreous Humor
Ummmm...
The Egypt metaphor doesn't apply on all levels... They had a completely different society structure, but if you want to go that route, I'll follow.
They didn't need organizations like Unicef. The very fact that we need organizations like that is enough to prove that we are no more advanced than they were. Oh, and back then people followed their leaders, no matter what. Looks a bit different for Mr. Bush, doesn't it? You must be civilized to have a civilization, and a heavy part of civilization is government. Our governemt today is far weaker and more full of lies than ever before. No one is happy with it. A weak government makes for a weak civilization.
I seriously doubt that I'm more intellectually intelligent than an Egyptian of my age. Do some research before you imagine that the time period makes them ignorant. Heck, look up the Dogon. They knew about Sirius B hundreds of years before it was discovered. Most ancient civilizations had a better understanding of space than I do.
As for there being 'really no will to just build something impressive for the sake of it.' Can I direct your attention to say, the Statue Of Liberty. Ok. So that was a while ago. What about that bridge to nowhere in Alaska? Why are we constantly trying to build longer skyscrapers? It's not as if we need them. We build monuments all the time. The pyramids stood, and still do stand, for something, just like any of our modern day monuments.
The conclusion: We are not any more civilized than the great civilizations before us. We've only built upon their knowledge. Take a geometry class. Every other chapter they'll tell you about some Greek guy from a couple thousand years ago who used the math that you're just only learning.
But no. We've got toilet paper, so we must be smarter.