[NGTM-1R]

There are times where technology porn is acceptable. Sometimes you must impress upon the reader that things are radically different from what they understand for a reason; sometimes it can be used for intimidation (have you perhaps ever seen the full chemical name of a nerve toxin?) or to provide a certain detachment (I recall an extremely beautiful passage from a work I read once that was describing in minute detail how and why naplam weapons work, and then you wake up and realize you just read about someone burning to death); sometimes, as Zacam observed, to demonstrate a character's own brilliance or improvisational skills; and very rarely (hopefully) because it matters to the plot that things work in a specific fashion.

[z64555]

There are times where technology porn is acceptable. Sometimes you must impress upon the reader that things are radically different from what they understand for a reason; sometimes it can be used for intimidation (have you perhaps ever seen the full chemical name of a nerve toxin?) or to provide a certain detachment (I recall an extremely beautiful passage from a work I read once that was describing in minute detail how and why naplam weapons work, and then you wake up and realize you just read about someone burning to death); sometimes, as Zacam observed, to demonstrate a character's own brilliance or improvisational skills; and very rarely (hopefully) because it matters to the plot that things work in a specific fashion.

+1

[IronBeer]

@NGTM-1R, agreed. Just saying that the tech porn's gotta be done right.

[Mongoose]

As excellent as all of that advice is, a part of me still can't help but love Voyager's inane technobabble spew.

[headdie]

Star trek in general is the exception that proves the rule in mass audience, especially TNG onwards, thought the later into the franchises development the more frequently technobable is used.  I suppose someone has to be different.  Generally I would stick with NGTM-1R's advice though I often fall into the Star Trek trap

[NGTM-1R]

As excellent as all of that advice is, a part of me still can't help but love Voyager's inane technobabble spew.

The thing is, Star Trek isn't using technobabble to explain anything. It's just using technobabble to babble.

[Mongoose]

Well yeah, obviously.  That's the fun of it.

[FSW]

You know, I think you may be right. I should focus on story and less on technological reasonings for it. I think everyone kinda has an idea of how jump nodes operatate and don't need the explaination for how they work. I've been playing a lot of Mass Effect lately and the Codex in that game goes way into detail about how everything works... I don't think that's necissary for Freespace. I'm just a scientifically minded person, so I think I had to put reason to everything for myself. :-)

I liked your writeup.

Some other posters have said that you are somehow 'writing yourself into a corner', but I don't see how that is the case; what you've done is provide a feasible explanation for events we've already seen in Freespace, and laid the groundwork for further story developments. You're fleshing out your version of the Freespace universe; making it more cohesive, believable, and internally consistent.

I, too, enjoyed the depth and complexity displayed in Mass Effect's codex. This is my kind of sci-fi.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, but the groundwork used tachyons. Mass Effect's codex was mostly believable physics, with a smattering of phlebotinum and a few straight-up goofs or intentional violations like the quantum entanglement communication in ME2.

[z64555]

New Sci-Fi entertainment has it rough nowadays... especially since there's more and more people out there that actually KNOW a thing or two about physics and chemistry, and a little help from the monolithic internet.

Best thing to shoot for is to have enough physics/chemistry phenomenon that correlates with the real deal. Just how far you can get away from reality really depends on the setting of the game, TV, movie, etc.

'Course the "Just plain wrong" phenomenon is an element for turning off a potential fanbase. I can't tell you how irked I get on how many FPS games use laser-beams ballistics for a 9mm bullet .


That being said, I think for the most part the subspace explanations proposed here are within acceptance... I haven't seen any feuding over specifics... yet.

[Kopachris]

(scientifically known as a Tachyonic Deflection Barrier of an Active Stellar Subpace node)

Tachyonic Deflection Barrier of an ASS?  Yeah, well... your mum!

(Also, I think you mixed up "intergalactic" and "intra-galactic," as interstellar nodes would all be "intra-galactic.")

[Riptide572]

(scientifically known as a Tachyonic Deflection Barrier of an Active Stellar Subpace node)

Tachyonic Deflection Barrier of an ASS?  Yeah, well... your mum!

(Also, I think you mixed up "intergalactic" and "intra-galactic," as interstellar nodes would all be "intra-galactic.")

I fixed it. I've been getting flak for that.

[IronBeer]

(scientifically known as a Tachyonic Deflection Barrier of an Active Stellar Subpace node)

Tachyonic Deflection Barrier of an ASS?  Yeah, well... your mum!

(Also, I think you mixed up "intergalactic" and "intra-galactic," as interstellar nodes would all be "intra-galactic.")

I fixed it. I've been getting flak for that.

Hey, it's the only gripe I've got with your write-up, so I think it's otherwise really good.