Avatar Vs Mass Effect

[Elim Garak]

For those familiar with both of them, which one would you say gives us a more realistic future, from a scientific perspective?

Cases in point:

In both, a sharp divide exists between rich and poor, corporations still place profit above social responsibility. In Avatar, the MC is a paraplegic largely because he cannot afford the treatment to restore his legs. In ME, people on Citadel Station are presumably able to afford medical treatment they need, doesn't really dwell on this a lot. It's difficult to discern whether the medical technology is more advanced in one or the other, because of how expensive medical coverage is in Avatar.

The Earth in both is definiately "not" green. In Avatar, they've pretty much ran out of resources, likely due to greed and a stubborn disregard for the carrying capacity. In ME, Earth still consists of autonomous nation states, richer areas are described as green paradises. Poorer sections are gang-ridden slums, with smog so thick it blocks out the sun.

Space technology is more NASA than Starfleet (the Stanford Torus in ME is something we could build now, we just don't have the money), though Avatar doesn't feature FTL travel. FTL tech in ME is similar to Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot/Contact.

In Avatar, we have yet to encounter any technologically advanced alien species. In ME we have, and that is partially why space travel and medical technology is more advanced.

Please avoid film school elitist comments about ME being unworthy of comparison to Avatar because it's a VG. New media can have relevance nowadays.

 

[Shurik]

Avatar does not feature FTL travel. The big ship in the beginning travels at sublight speed, it takes ~6 years to travel 4.3 LY to Alpha Centauri.

I'd say Avatar is more realistic.

 

[David cgc]

Speaking of, I've been wondering. Is that six years on the ship, or six years from the perspective or Earth or Panora? I'd think that speed would be great enough that there'd be a noticeable difference.

 

[Shurik]

Speaking of, I've been wondering. Is that six years on the ship, or six years from the perspective or Earth or Panora? I'd think that speed would be great enough that there'd be a noticeable difference.

As far as I understood, it was 6 years on the ship.

 

[David cgc]

Since I suddenly decided I was feeling industrious, I googled up this time dilation calculator. After plugging in some values by trial and error (since it didn't let me calculate arbitrary fields) are some interesting guesstamates about the ISV Venture Star.

Assuming the engines were active the whole way, she traveled at a constant acceleration of .4 Gs, turning around halfway there to decelerate. About 7 and 3/4ths years passed on Earth during the ship's six year journey (probably about the same on Pandora, though I have no idea how to convert that into local years...). The ship's maximum speed at turnaround was 85% of the speed of light. If the ship hit anything at that point, the kinetic energy would've been some 80 billion megajoules per kilogram.

(The Avatar wiki quotes a top speed of .7 c, which would mean the ship doesn't travel under constant acceleration and thus actually goes at more than .4 Gs, but coasts for a while before turnaround)

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

You're forgetting the biggest difference here. The Citadel and Mass Effect relays, basically what all of our technology has stemmed from and what boosted our capabilities forward so dramatically, are alien.

Our tech isn't our own, we didn't make it there by our own ingenuity and intelligence. Sort of what makes Avatar and Star Trek, etc, so cool. That was us, on our own.

Therefore Avatar wins as being the most realistic.

 

[Skywalker]

As far as Earth and humanity are concerned, I think both universes have Star Trek beat in the realism department.

Our tech isn't our own, we didn't make it there by our own ingenuity and intelligence. Sort of what makes Avatar and Star Trek, etc, so cool. That was us, on our own.

If it's any consolation, none of the other major races in the galaxy made it "on their own," either. We're all a bunch of piggybacking slackers in Mass Effect!

On the other hand, humans did invent medi-gel, which went on to become standard medical equipment throughout the civilized galaxy. So at least they've got one up over the other species on something.

 

[Manticore]

As far as Earth and humanity are concerned, I think both universes have Star Trek beat in the realism department.

Our tech isn't our own, we didn't make it there by our own ingenuity and intelligence. Sort of what makes Avatar and Star Trek, etc, so cool. That was us, on our own.

If it's any consolation, none of the other major races in the galaxy made it "on their own," either. We're all a bunch of piggybacking slackers in Mass Effect!

On the other hand, humans did invent medi-gel, which went on to become standard medical equipment throughout the civilized galaxy. So at least they've got one up over the other species on something.

And don't discount our carriers as well. Not an "invention" perhaps in the strictest sense of the word, but definitely a significant innovation that had a significant impact on space combat.

 

[Lookingglassman]

I know I liked Avatar the game better than Mass Effect the game.

 

[The Doctor]

I know I liked Avatar the game better than Mass Effect the game.

Mass Effect was far and away the better story, had better characters and a much better final confrontation. The game was brilliant.

 

[-Brett-]

Haven't seen Avatar yet, so I can't comment on it.

Although Mass Effect does better in the realism department than some big name sci-fi like Trek and Wars, I still wouldn't hold it up as any kind of standard in realism.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Avatar has more realistic tech, but - Mass Effect makes better use of its tech.

Like, Avatar is all like - let's extrapolate from real science and use it in the most action movie butch way possible. And Mass Effect is like - let's use completley bullshit technology, but deploy it in an organized and extremely thought-out fashion.

That's my 3 Credits.

 

[Elim Garak]

I know I liked Avatar the game better than Mass Effect the game.

Mass Effect was far and away the better story, had better characters and a much better final confrontation.

And the villain in ME had more fleshed out motives, as opposed to "he's a jerk." I was actually supposed to see Avatar today, but my wife has a cold, so it'll have to wait until she's well enough to leave the house. My brother found it enjoyable, but from what he described, the villain is like a brute version of Caledon Hockley (Titanic).

Saren is every bit a jerk as Hockley and Quaritch, and on top of that, he was also a racist and a sociopath. But when you look at it his motivations, you could almost put him in the same category of Gul Dukat or Kai Winn (who also spend their final moments as sad tragic figures manipulated by a force they didn't understand).

Re: the science of Mass Effect, it's definiately not bullshit technology, they've use real scientific theories, albeit some that would probably take 500 years for us to put into practice. Here's some references:

Dark Energy

Stanford Torus

Island 3 Habitat

Contact

 

[Brandonv]

Avatar has more realistic tech, but - Mass Effect makes better use of its tech.

Like, Avatar is all like - let's extrapolate from real science and use it in the most action movie butch way possible. And Mass Effect is like - let's use completley bullshit technology, but deploy it in an organized and extremely thought-out fashion.

That's my 3 Credits.

I agree that Mass Effect is more consistent. I remember being shocked and impressed when I started reading through the codex and discovering how well thought out the universe and technology of ME is. I wonder if they hired a science-fiction writer?

I would say that ME and Avatar are both equally unrealistic in thier own ways.

Re: the science of Mass Effect, it's definiately not bullshit technology, they've use real scientific theories, albeit some that would probably take 500 years for us to put into practice. Here's some references:

Dark Energy

Stanford Torus

Island 3 Habitat

Contact

Well, I don't think that the mass effect field (Mass Effect Wiki) as described in the game is something that can be extrapolated from current physics, but I do think that it's a well thought out plot device.

Although, scientist have actually predicted that the speed of light will slightly increase between two closely (very closely) placed parallel plates. It is called the Scharnhorst effect (Wikipedia). Maybe if we could find a better way to manipulate the quantum vacuum we could come up with something similar to a mass effect field?

 

[Ryan]

Avatar has more realistic tech, but - Mass Effect makes better use of its tech.

Like, Avatar is all like - let's extrapolate from real science and use it in the most action movie butch way possible.

Floating mountains and symbiotic space dragons struck you as "real science"?

 

[Ryan]

Saren is every bit a jerk as Hockley and Quaritch, and on top of that, he was also a racist and a sociopath.

According to Captain Anderson he had little regard for alien life (especially if it stood between Saren and his goals) but we didn't really see enough to label him a racist and sociopath. By his own twisted (and manipulated) logic Saren was doing the right thing, after all.

Spoiler: Mass Effect ending

Plus you can talk Saren into killing himself at the end of the game. He even thanks you for it.

 

[Reverend]

^That was my solution.

I really don't see as either "world" being more or less credible than the other, they both have made-up plot device tech that serve to advance the story, just applied differently. I honestly thought ME had more in common with B5 (suspiciously so in some instances) while Avatar was more along the lines of 2001 and (not surprisingly) Aliens. So much so in fact, that I was looking to see if Cameron snuck a Weyland-Yutani logo in there somewhere.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Avatar has more realistic tech, but - Mass Effect makes better use of its tech.

Like, Avatar is all like - let's extrapolate from real science and use it in the most action movie butch way possible.

Floating mountains and symbiotic space dragons struck you as "real science"?

Interestingly, almost everything that had to do with the humans in "Avatar" belonged into the realm of hard sci-fi, while almost everything about Pandora was fantasy.