Jump to content
Gben

Starcraft II

Recommended Posts

Care to explain why it was so cancerous?

Share this post


Link to post

i liked it....mainly the space battles...or maybe just the space battles....yea just the space battles...

Share this post


Link to post
Care to explain why it was so cancerous?

It felt lackluster and unpolished, and felt overly rushed. That and I really don't like Star Wars games.

Share this post


Link to post

pish fail. you had better at LEAST be a trekkie. cos if you're not a trekkie either... >_> yah. if you're not a trekkie or a 'wars fan what on earth are you doing playing sci-fi stuff? seriously GTFO >.< but yah i worship both heavily ^^; as i said in the (vids?) topic on the general discussion board... i worship all proper sci-fi's... and i mean proper stuff. i dun wanna see none of that new battlestar galactica crud >-> sure it was pretty and stuff. but GUH. it failed. it failed HARD. i mean come on, they went from dirk benedict to some lame blonde. DIRK BENEDICT D: you cannot beat the faceman! heck, even galactica 1980 was better then the new galactica series (actually that said, i quite liked '1980 even if it was frowned upon by fans...) but yah there were so many good sci-fi's and they're slowly ruining everything :\ on the plus side i don't think a new buck rogers has been made yet >.> ...oh wait... D:

 

... my childhood cries ; - ;

Share this post


Link to post
pish fail. you had better at LEAST be a trekkie. cos if you're not a trekkie either... >_> yah. if you're not a trekkie or a 'wars fan what on earth are you doing playing sci-fi stuff?
Star Wars is not sci-fi: it is an action-adventure story that happens to be set in space. I'm not saying that it is not good, but it is not sci-fi.

 

Some might reply: if it is set in space, how can it not be sci-fi. My response: sci-fi is short for Science Fiction. Sci-fi is, at its essence, a literary exploration of the consequences of new or hypothetical technologies and scientific concepts: If we could live forever, how would it change us? If we could change the past, what would that mean for the present? If we learned that we were not alone in the universe, how would we react? If would could create machines that think like us, what would it mean to be human?

 

 

That said, I feel compelled to point out that Star Wars is one of my favorite movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Star Wars is not sci-fi: it is an action-adventure story that happens to be set in space. I'm not saying that it is not good, but it is not sci-fi.

 

Some might reply: if it is set in space, how can it not be sci-fi. My response: sci-fi is short for Science Fiction. Sci-fi is, at its essence, a literary exploration of the consequences of new or hypothetical technologies and scientific concepts: If we could live forever, how would it change us? If we could change the past, what would that mean for the present? If we learned that we were not alone in the universe, how would we react? If would could create machines that think like us, what would it mean to be human?

 

 

That said, I feel compelled to point out that Star Wars is one of my favorite movies.

Star Wars is sci-fi: it is an action-adventure subgenre in a sci-fi generic genre. It is good, and it is sci-fi.

 

I will reply: but not with such a weak argument as a space setting. Your precognitive response: sci-fi is short for Science Fiction, is true as anyone with an IQ over 6 already knows. Sci-fi, at its essence, is a story being told in a theoretically possible, but improbable setting: a world where people live forever, a story about going back in time and changing the present, a story involving aliens, a story about artificial intelligence.

 

That said, I feel compelled to point out that Star Wars is sci-fi. If you claim it is not sci-fi, based on its focus of story-telling, how is Star Trek, or basically every other sci-fi work out there, any different?

Share this post


Link to post
It is good, and it is sci-fi.
I agree with half of your statement.

 

 

Your precognitive response: sci-fi is short for Science Fiction, is true as anyone with an IQ over 6 already knows.

They might "know" it, but they don't actually think about what that means: it is Science Fiction, fiction that is in some way related to science. Even if the authors play loose with the actual science behind the story, it is, at the very least, an issue. That is not the case in Star Wars.

 

 

Sci-fi, at its essence, is a story being told in a theoretically possible, but improbable setting: a world where people live forever, a story about going back in time and changing the present, a story involving aliens, a story about artificial intelligence.
That depends on whether you take Science Fiction to be a genre, like Action-Adventure, Romance, Mystery, etc. or a setting, like the Wild West, the Middle Ages, Ancient Rome, New York, etc.

 

As a genre, Science Fiction must be focused on the science and its repercussions, not magical knights with glowing blades.

 

 

That said, I feel compelled to point out that Star Wars is sci-fi. If you claim it is not sci-fi, based on its focus of story-telling, how is Star Trek, or basically every other sci-fi work out there, any different?

Star Trek is "soft" sci-fi, but still somewhat falls into the category of science fiction because it deals with issues such as the rights of artificial intelligence, possible repercussions of nanotechnology, the difficulties of relations with alien civilizations, the dangers of exploring new worlds, etc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
I agree with half of your statement.

The first half is an opinion, the second half is fact.

 

They might "know" it, but they don't actually think about what that means: it is Science Fiction, fiction that is in some way related to science. Even if the authors play loose with the actual science behind the story, it is, at the very least, an issue. That is not the case in Star Wars.

The 'Science' in Science Fiction means that the fictional setting is theoretically possible, it has nothing to do with the pseudoscience involved. If you are trying to cut down to the etymology of it...

 

"Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible." -Rod Serling

 

 

That depends on whether you take Science Fiction to be a genre, like Action-Adventure, Romance, Mystery, etc. or a setting, like the Wild West, the Middle Ages, Ancient Rome, New York, etc.

 

As a genre, Science Fiction must be focused on the science and its repercussions, not magical knights with glowing blades.

No it doesn't.

 

Star Trek is "soft" sci-fi, but still somewhat falls into the category of science fiction because it deals with issues such as the rights of artificial intelligence, possible repercussions of nanotechnology, the difficulties of relations with alien civilizations, the dangers of exploring new worlds, etc.

"Soft" sci-fi is a category of sci-fi, along with several others, including Military Sci-Fi, of which Star Wars falls under.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah he is right, stop now, Nmenth's cognitive processes are far Superior to you own.

Share this post


Link to post
The 'Science' in Science Fiction means that the fictional setting is theoretically possible, it has nothing to do with the pseudoscience involved. If you are trying to cut down to the etymology of it...

Star Wars is not "theoretically possible" and is thus not science fiction, even by your definition.

 

 

"Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible." -Rod Serling

I again cite the case of mystical knights with glowing swords and the ability to move objects via a mystical, unexplained "force."

 

Also, there is the counter definition: "A handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method" (Robert A. Heinlein).

 

Also interesting are the preconditions described by Heinlein here. Note that Star Wars fails condition 5, that any variance from observed fact be plausibly explained.

 

 

"Soft" sci-fi is a category of sci-fi, along with several others, including Military Sci-Fi, of which Star Wars falls under.
You missed my point. "Soft" sci-fi means that it is at the boundary between science fiction and science fantasy: the real rules of science are bent or even, on occasion, completely discarded in favor of telling an interesting story. However, Star Wars goes beyond even that, and does not even try to provide any justification whatsoever.

 

 

Yeah he is right, stop now, Nmenth's cognitive processes are far Superior to you own.

If, in being wrong, I cause others to cease taking such a view for granted, then my error shall not have been made in vain. If, however, I am correct, then to keep silent would be a crime of the greatest order.

Share this post


Link to post
pish fail. you had better at LEAST be a trekkie. cos if you're not a trekkie either... >_> yah. if you're not a trekkie or a 'wars fan what on earth are you doing playing sci-fi stuff? seriously GTFO >.< but yah i worship both heavily ^^; as i said in the (vids?) topic on the general discussion board... i worship all proper sci-fi's... and i mean proper stuff. i dun wanna see none of that new battlestar galactica crud >-> sure it was pretty and stuff. but GUH. it failed. it failed HARD. i mean come on, they went from dirk benedict to some lame blonde. DIRK BENEDICT D: you cannot beat the faceman! heck, even galactica 1980 was better then the new galactica series (actually that said, i quite liked '1980 even if it was frowned upon by fans...) but yah there were so many good sci-fi's and they're slowly ruining everything :\ on the plus side i don't think a new buck rogers has been made yet >.> ...oh wait... D:

 

... my childhood cries ; - ;

I despise most sci-fi in that it usually sucks, is longwinded ******** or spaws an uber cult following that preaches this **** as a goddamn religion. This includes Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, Stargate, etc. I'd list more but you get my meaning. However, I did like the Star Wars films as they were good for their time. Just the original three but the last three marred an otherwise decent trilogy.

 

face... :flame: burned...

Yeah, Nmenth is right. :nod:

Take Nmenth's **** out of your mouths and get your own opinion.

 

I'll make it simple for you clods because Quad likes to be long-winded - Star Wars is fantasy adventure, not science fiction. Why? The fiction is beyond the realm of actual science.

Share this post


Link to post

Ever hear of midichlorians? If they existed, then the force would be possible. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Star Wars is fantasy adventure, not science fiction. Why? The fiction is beyond the realm of actual science.

Alright, I'll clarify its true genre, Star Wars is classified as a 'Space Opera' which is a subgenre of speculative fiction or science fiction.

Personally I say it is a subgenre of science fiction, however, there is no exact definition of science fiction, hence the use of famous individual's quotes rather than dictionary definitions. Therefore, this can be debated for eternity. As being only one of two genres though, I will continue to make my claim that it is science fiction since speculative fiction hasn't been brought up yet.

Share this post


Link to post

You're killing your own argument. Speculative fiction is just that - speculation. It is not science, nor a reasonable extension of it.

Share this post


Link to post
You're killing your own argument. Speculative fiction is just that - speculation. It is not science, nor a reasonable extension of it.

I didn't say it was speculative fiction, I said a Space Opera is either science fiction or speculative fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Science is speculation until proven. ;)

 

(semantics flame war in progress already dont extend it lol)...

 

i understand what you are saying though, nothing is true and every is possible. for all we know midichlorians could be real...(doubt it)

Share this post


Link to post
Science is speculation until proven. ;)

Science is theory until proven and made into scientific law. There is a very distinct difference between speculation and theory.

Share this post


Link to post

:lol: didnt i call it? but yes DD is right with the symantics.

 

i think what was meant was that science isn't set in stone neccessarily. the laws of science are always changing as we discover more, so one could say that science isn't dependable. but thats being unreasonably skeptical.

Edited by rEdaSbLood

Share this post


Link to post

Science is very dependable. Scientific literally never changes. I'd say 96% of all scientific and natural laws have been, so to speak, set in stone so I'd call it very dependable and reliable, even for laws created hundreds of years ago. Many of the more outrageous claims; IE earth being flat is part of the 4% that has been disproved over time. Everything else though, barring Newton's laws at subatomic levels though that doesn't make them false, have stayed true universally throughout rigorous scientific testing.

 

So yeah, science is not dependent, though it can be tuned so to speak. Then again, the laws the universe runs by never change - only our understanding changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Science is theory until proven and made into scientific law.

 

Technically no. A Scientific Theory is an accepted Hypothesis, things are not 'proven' in science.

 

There is a very distinct difference between speculation and theory.

This is right on

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×