Durakken
-
Posts
2381 -
Joined
-
Quote:Sephiroth is an excellent villain...just sucks as a game boss.Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
For the whole Sephiroth thing, I have never understood the love FFVII gets. The story is all over and convoluted, completely lacking focus. Frankly, it feels like most of the Final Fantasies since then. Big, sprawling, unfocused, and altogether emo.
FFIV and VI aren't perfect, but they're much more focused and better put together. -
Quote:... Technically yes, but from the point of view of how one views it and what one brings to the table, probably not.Originally Posted by Scythus
Did we watch the same show? Because I frankly saw nothing of the sort.
You probably saw farscape when it first came out and watched over the course of several years and probably haven't seen it since.
I saw farscape less than 12 months ago over the course of a few days.
Without including anything else like age, this means that when I saw it i developed my impression of the show and then saw how it changed almost instantly while you were less sensitive to the changes and more accepting because you created extra story in your head between viewings since each episode was a week or more apart and told over the span of several years.
Now if I assume you're around the same age as I am we likely had very different points of view since I saw this in my mid 20s and you in your mid to late teens. And not to mention we probably have very different world views, knowledge bases, and life experiences in general so even if we saw this at the same time over the same amount of time we'd likely see different things in the same series.
So whether we saw the same show or not... that's quite a hard question to answer. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Scythus
Ugh... Farscape at only number 8 and lower than the X-Files of all the shows they chose or omitted? Farscape was a million times better than the X-Files, which was frankly just making stuff up as it went along and had no distinct direction. The last few seasons of the X-Files were frankly unwatchable as you became more and more aware of this fact. Farscape, on the other hand had the whole brilliant concept of a beautiful, wandering journey to escape forces of evil that pursued the main characters while they discovered the strange secrets of wormholes and how they could be used as utterly devastating weapons and clear progression and destination with excellent character development.
I call shenanigans.
Actually, Farscape pretty much just made stuff up as they went along and a lot of it is readily apparent. There are a lot of continuity errors and characterization problems throughout.
I guess if you are saying X-Files is the same way then the real difference between the two is that X-files didn't have an over arching plotline that made those particular problems less noticeable. That plotline being that John wants to get home / fix what has happened -
Well then we should start with some things that we all agree on...
Dr. Who, Star Trek, and StarGate are definitely Sci-Fi and all definitely belong on a list of top 10 Sci-Fi shows
What are characteristics these all have in common and what makes them worthy of those spots regardless of whatever else we base it on?
Also we should be clear on whether it is Star Trek the universe or a particular series that is in that universe. This is important in all of these because...
SGU has almost nothing in common with SG-1
Dr Who of 2005 relaunch, while similar to the pre-relaunch Dr Who is not altogether the same and it is not the same as when it first launched or the movie based on it
Similarly Star Trek TOS isn't the same as TNG nor are any of the movies the same as the series nor are either of those like DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise.
As a matter of opinion as this is. I would not place TOS the series in the category of top 10 as a whole, however when we consider the greatness of certain episode I would allow that to slide. You don't need to watch all of TOS to get why it should be consider top 10 or that it is, on the other hand DS9 is in my opinion the most epic story ever told in the film media with each episode adding to the over all series and without every episode you lose why it is great. Then there is TNG which each episode is great, but they each stand on their own and that combined in one package makes it a great series. Voyager combines the adventure of TOS, the stand alone for the most part episodes of TNG, while still having certain episodes that without there'd be no over arching story which that makes it great in it's own right. Enterprise, as much as I like it, a series that was canceled before it's time with some many lose ends makes it fall from any individualized top 10 list.
So in a sense by exploring Star Trek we can see that the way in the story is told is not a defining factor, but rather that the entire story is complete and without any loose ends in it's package is a necessity to be considered top 10.
What about SG-1 vs SGA? They're essentially the same show, but I would say that SGA is not as good as SG-1... why? Maybe it has to do with chemistry or they just have a better over arching story...I certainly don't think longevity is the key difference as that would be kinda a crappy measurement and show a bit of shallowness, but i am sure it is in some people's decision. I also wouldn't put it so much as overarching story, but rather that is an effect of the world around them just seems more alive and interesting, but that boils back down to it's just the universe that makes it so, but we're talking the difference between SG-1 and SGA... It can't be the universe that makes a series good because then these would be equal. Maybe it's not so much the universe but rather how the series relates that universe to the viewers.
And this relates to the Star Trek series and the Dr Who series as well... I would say that what makes a great sci-fi series based on what I think about all theses series is not so much whether i like them or not or whether their story is the best or not but rather their stories and characters seem to make their universe more relate able to me the watcher...
But what makes each Sci-Fi?
Why is StarGate sci-fi?
Why is Dr Who sci-fi?
Why is Star Trek sci-fi?
Why is it that these series are sci-fi definitely in our heads while I'd never call something like James Bond, Flubber, or Kate and Leopold Sci-fi?
With James Bond it's because the gadgets are more or less magic items. They work. They aren't really explained. It's not why anyone watches James Bond.
Flubber explains how flubber works and while it is the main star of the movie...I don't really see how it can be considered sci-fi... perhaps someone else can explain it?
Kate and Leopold uses science and explains how a worm hole travels through time and gives all this explanation of how it works, but it's not the star of the movie. The star of the movie is that characters love each other and blah blah blah... The time travel just facilitates x thing to happen, but plays little role beyond that.
It seems that the key thing in science fiction is
It Involves Technology or aliens
Technology is Explained
That technology or aliens are important
I think those three things if I look into just about everything i consider sci-fi will at least have those 3 things... -
Quote:I have, just not many...Originally Posted by BlackSun17
I...am not sure you have ever read a 616 Marvel book. Have you?
-
Did you guys know that the novelization of the movie has Megatron forging a peace with Optimus instead of Megatron and Sentinel being killed by a psycho Optimus. The peace would have been better even if there was going to be a part 4 because part 4 Megatron could comeback and be like, just kidding..I was being a Decepticon morons!
-
Quote:Not themes. Explanations...Originally Posted by MentalMaden
ARG! Stupid forums ate my last reply. I'll try and recap.
My point about Dharma was that it wasn't a religious or mystical group as you implied. Yes the word Dharma comes from religion, but it was actually a play on words and stood for Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications and was very much a science based group of researchers with a hippy bent, thus the use of Dharma. And their experiments did delve into science fiction themes.
For example in I know that in Star Trek warp travel allows FTL by compressing space in front of a bubble and expanding it in back of the bubble causing space to bend and the ship to "fall" through space
Or in Slider a slide is done by opening a bridge between universes by grabbing a micro wormhole and expanding it, stabilizing it, and making it visible to humans so that they can then "slide" through it.
Or in EvE Online a ships fly at FTL speeds by creating a field of 0 inertia around their ship
Or in Mass Effect a ship is able to reach FTL speeds by lowering it's mass
You could go on and on about how things works in these series. This is Science Fiction.
What you are describing is that they are saying it's done by science but don't actually explain how it works. This is Science Fantasy. -
Quote:Or you could stop imagining me to be condescending and arrogant because I'm not and have never been.Originally Posted by Rylas
Part of the problem could be that I'm responding more to the tone Dur is notorious for having, (Condescending and Arrogant) more so than to what he is saying. If he'd lose that part of his posting habits, he'd probably get a lot more accomplished.
-
Quote:Just because something has time travel in it does not make it science fiction. Unless you are going to argue Kate and Leopold is Science Fiction and A Kid in King Arthur's Court is as well.Originally Posted by Rock_Crag
I'll just leave this here.
The both have Time travel in them and Kate and Leopold's is scientific but it is at best science fantasy and A kid in king Arthur's court is fantasy.
Mental Maiden, saying scientific research is being done also doesn't make it sci-fi. One of the major things in Sci-Fi is to give reason as to why and how this fantastical thing occured.
let's take Stargate... this is science fiction. leave out that the gate way works via wormholes and it becomes science fantasy.
At best... very thing you describe about Lost is Science Fantasy.
Basically the difference between Science Fantasy and Science Fiction is that Science Fiction explains things and stuff is technology based where as Science Fantasy doesn't explain anything, but says it is technology based.
This is also the case with Star Wars... It is Science Fantasy, not Science Fiction. -
Quote:Nothing of what you posted is science fiction.Originally Posted by MentalMaden
There are plenty of science fiction elements outside of the time travel. The Dharma Initiative and its studies alone is science fiction.
Time travel happened several times on the show. Your lack of any knowledge of the show is showing through on your lack of perspective and misunderstanding of what actually happened on the show.
This is but a very small portion of time travel in Lost. An entire season was devoted to members of the cast going to the 70s...not some new agey "what if...." storyline.
Dharma is a hindu word that is related to religious beliefs while the time travel events you are talking about are more akin to magic items than technological devices -
Quote:time travel does not make a show science fiction.Originally Posted by MentalMaden
Maybe you should watch something before you become the expert. The time travel DID happen on the show. Was there mysticism as well, sure. But saying there is no science fiction or it's elements on the show is false.
Also, stating that something didn't happen in a show even though a number of sources say that is exactly what happened is a bit dishonest. -
Quote:except it's not and after a brief read in wikipedia's article it seems that even though the final episode pretty much states what i did exactly the creators deny that that is what happened and every other interpretation people have put forth. Therefor more than likely it is what happened and the creative team simply are being mysterious to try to get people to have continued interest in a series that claims to be more clever than they actually are.Originally Posted by MentalMaden
Almost everything in that paragraph is false or inaccurate. Whoever is telling you this stuff is wrong.
Also the reason I haven't watched it is because the few clips i have seen of it simply bored me out of mind and was completely uninteresting. My lack of enthusiasm for the show also increased with the ******** mysteries that fans like and the constant annoyance of people bringing it up. The show is obviously full of plot holes that have no real explanation and are just there to make you think they are important and make you watch the show to get the answer which never came which most intelligent people predicted long long long before the final season so yeah... i stand by Lost being garbage and not Sci-Fi -
Quote:Again. I am responding to what you said. I explained why the problem isn't as such in my view. If my explanation isn't good enough to answer that criticism then please explain.Originally Posted by Rylas
Dur, if you don't want constructive critism, and if you're going to get in a fluster over it, then don't come to the internet. I've only pointed out one thing you may want to watch out for. Look at Darksiders. Some critics called out it's use of mechanics and weapons a blatant rip off of many Legend of Zelda ideas. While it certainly paid homage to those kind of mechanics and gameplay styles, it had a story far too different to be called a copy-cat game.
I'm only suggesting you make sure you do the same. Your player experience certainly sounds different enough from what you see in SG content, but your history is very similar (even if more elaborate) to what the show established*. I'm not call it a hack job on your part, just that you're better off pushing that back story and flushing it out even more. Because people will call it out if you don't.
*By similar, I mean there is a previous civilization that created gates for traveling the stars, and eventually left their technology behind, and this technology allowed following civilizations to populate the stars as well. It may not be enough in your book, but it will turn somoene's head.
Also you might note that when you brought up the Jotnar and the time it takes to build their gates I stated information that isn't anywhere else. That is because it is in my head, not written down, and an assumed thing. I often do that and it isn't until someone asks me or I ask myself about such things that I ever put down, and often that unwritten info tends to help when written down ^.^
When someone can say...Quote:Originally Posted by starphoenix
The number of movies, books, video games, and TV shows that use the ancient civilization creating interstellar networks is too prevalent for there to be any type of blatant ripping off. Some people will say that Durakken is ripping off Stargate while others will say that he is ripping off Mass Effect. It is not ripping off if a common idea is being used.
You're ripping off EvE Online
You're ripping off Mass Effect
You're ripping off Star Gate
You're ripping off Babylon 5
You're ripping off Freelancer
You're ripping off Lost in Space
You're ripping off Transformers
And a host of others... saying "You're ripping off ..." loses all meaning
Also, notice that I freely admit that there are similarities with Mass Effect, Babylon 5, and Farscape, but as much of a fan of StarGate I am I don't claim that as an inspirational point?
You are seeing names used in mythology that were used in StarGate and claiming they are similar in story/plot to what I've got. Taken from a pure plot/story pov they have nothing in common save a very common thing in a lot of sci-fi...
btw...I notice that the wiki article doesn't mention Star Trek: TNG having star gates created by an ancient civilization... It's in there too ^.^ -
On the subject of Lost not being Sci-Fi...
The term sci-fi is pretty much the same to movies as the term RPG is to games. If you take RPG at it's face terminology every game ever is a ROLE PLAYING game. What we mean is more akin to an epic adventure quest/story game where the player improves their avatars via equipment, exp, and reach various goals with a setting that is expansive even if the story itself is linear.
Sci-Fi similarly taken at face value applies to just about every thing there is especially because we are learning more and we are now more capable of saying that could scientifically consider that plausible or that has some sort of basis in science... Like LotR. We classify that as fantasy even though one could make the argument that because there is a theory that argues that there is an inner world and there were "hobbit"-esque humans that it is Sci-fi.
So we cannot take the term as face value and I'd have to argue that sci-fi means a show more or less about the future, alternate dimensions, space, or aliens.
Now Lost I have no watched but from what I understand (possible spoiler) according to the final episode or whatever the island is Limbo and all the people on the island are on the verge of death. The time travel is not time travel but rather showing the characters what was and what may have been. All the other "sci-fi"-ish elements are explained in other similar ways either as metaphor or some such religious mumbo-jumbo so as far as I can tell from what I know it is not sci-fi AND even if it was I'd view it as very bad sci-fi. -
Quote:Probably because I explained why the criticized parts are the way they are currently. If anyone wants to point out something bad about those explanations i'd be more than happy to talk about those.Originally Posted by Clouded
How about just saying...
'Thanks for your concern Rylas, I will take that into consideration.'
?
Oh wait, this is the internet...carry on.
The copyright thing is what Rylas chose to respond to and I explained why it is ridiculous. Also it is kinda stupid to say "I will take something into consideration" when a post explaining your thoughts on the subject shows you are taking it into consideration. -
Why would they ever reboot a franchise that critically and by most standards are the worst films ever produced yet still make more money than probably the top 100 best movies ever made?
-
No particular order
Doctor who
Star Gate (all series)
Star Trek (all series)
Babylon 5
Farscape
Sliders
Futurama
Ghost in the Shell
Gundam Wing 0
Chobits
That's my list ^.^
Firefly while decent is not that good...
X-Files is meh to me >.>
The Prisoner... really?
Lost is not sci-fi
Twilight Zone/Outer Limits are not a "series" imo and they were more fantasy than fiction.
Battle Star Galactica is boooooorrrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnggggg
Quantum Leap is an ok show. I like what little i've seen of it, but not top 10 when you include animated stuff
If we were going to take and break up the Series that take place in the same universe the entire list would be SG, ST, and Dr Who.
Also before QL, X-Files, or Firefly ever made it to my list I'd put Lexx and Noein and Elfen Lied and Gantz and a number of others that are just way better...
And if The Prisoner and Lost are "science fiction" then so is Death Note and as such the still don't get a place on the list -
Quote:I'm not being defensive. I'm saying that the notion that there could be a copyright conflict is ridiculous as the the similarities are either based on actual mythology or "theories" or they are surface and not real similar.Originally Posted by Rylas
Fixed that for you.
You're splitting hairs between the two. They're the same thing. Even the SG series shows gates built for armadas. Either way, you're talking about worm holes. And I'm not bashing your idea, so there's no need to get in a twist over it. I'm simply pointing out that it has strong similarities to a known franchise, and it would behoove you to make sure you develop, and highlight, some strong contrast. Not because your idea is weak, but other people are out there zealously gaurding franchises and looking to squeeze out anyone they can make a decent case against. It's just in your better interest to make sure you don't give them that case.
Seriously, I like your idea. I know I usually point out your flawed arguments and poor reasoning skills in other threads, but I genuinely think your idea has potential (yes, that's a bit of a backhanded compliment). Don't let constructive critisism make you defensive, that's a good way to shoot yourself in the foot. Just look at the majority of self-published books.
Also wikipedia is wrong on what a jump gate is on a number of points...
EvE jump gates use a 0 inertia pitcher/catcher field
Mass Effect uses a mass lowering field
These are not portals or worm holes... the defining factor is designed for a ship and is external. The "jump" part comes from "jumping" from one tier to another of travel thus facilitating high speed travel of some magnitude above the norm of those ships.
Like wise it calls a Boom Tubes and stargates jump gates when they're not.
the term Star Gate comes from the idea of a gateway to the stars and even if i wished to use them they are public domain. The term has existed for thousands of years so >.> Where do you think the concept comes from? I could probably track a lot of the early themes to be taken from various ancient astronaut things...
If I were to make a 4 man military team based on earth who uses a gate to access alien planets you might say it's too close, but im fairly sure even with that im still copyright safe and far enough away from star gate to not be considered a rip off as those are all tropes too... -
life sentence is not your entire life... it is i think 90 years
Also as technology advances and our acceptance of technology speeds up over the next century a decade in prison will make anyone pretty useless in the world -
Quote:Again, it's not so much a 5000 years later so much "by this time this has occurred." There could be lots of reasons as to why there's only these 18 and they've only been established as of now... One explanation could be that they did use a type of these hubs for military advantage but they just never were built to last as they were used for warring and at some point after they stabilized their control they decided to build these highly durable long lasting, well placed jump gates.Originally Posted by Rylas
A couple of comments for a more natural timeline progression:
While I can understand that warring civilizations can take up resources, times of war are also some of the most innovative. In 5,000 years of war (which could be comparable to human history now) do you think another 5,000 is needed to advance to the point of making these gates?
In this case it is a matter of a few things... The Jotnar are first and for most destroyers. They don't get along with themselves. They also don't care for exploration and science and don't see the point of expending too much on such endeavors. It's also a matter of figuring out how something works isn't the same as making it as good as the original model. You could probably figure out how a gun works from seeing it and you might even know the ingredients for gun powder, but just because you do, if you don't care too much, it doesn't mean you are going to figure out how to mix the gun powder to get the same level of power nor does it mean you'll understand rifling. On top of that the Jotnar Civilization that arose is one that stagnates and stagnates others. Their goal is more so like he Hutts of Star Wars. They like the power and the ability to crush people and they divided up the galaxy between them. They don't see any reason to advance further... the gates that they do build are based on convenience of liking to terrorize those planets, liking living there and the number of gates around each of the main 18 has to do with them not having the resources or engineering capabilities...Quote:Ok, having it take 10,000 years for the first set of civilizations to advance enough to make Star Gates is acceptable if that's the time line you want to go with. BUT, if the Jotnar are advanced enough to know how to operate the gate, then it's not going to take 9,000 years to reverse engineer it. Especially when the Jotnar were advanced enough to operate if for a 1,000 years before that. This part of the timeline could be drastically reduced.
And again... everything in that time line is meant to mean "by this time" not "at this time" So that 9,000 year date is just telling what happened between the last date and the current date...not that it happened that year.
[/quote]Quote:A comment on the material itself:
It sounds like you've put a lot of deep thought into this, and in my opinion, if you pay attention to detail and continuity, you could have a very epic story background for your game. Kudos! That said, this reminds me too much of Stargate, and for purposes of not being sued, you'd be better off making some plot point changes to help really separate the two. For starters, get rid of anything named Atlantis. Best of luck, though!
That is ridiculous to say. Stargate uses the name and some very poorly research ancient alien stuff. Even if it wasn't Atlantis is public domain as is Mu and several other ancient mythological civilizations. There is very little that is even remotely close to StarGate lore. The only places they could say it was similar was in that Atlantians are the good guys and the Atlantians were in an alliance with the asgardians in SG. In this the Atlantians are only good relative to humans and could be seen on the overall as not and the atlantians don't have an alliance with the asgardians they are known as asgardians.
StarGate is based on Ancient Alien theory and has "star gates"
This is based on Ancient Alien theory and has "jump gates"
Ancient Alien theory is used in a ton of stuff. Can't think of any off he top of my head but i know there is a ton.
Jump gates... Jump gates are used in many sci-fi things and are not star gates even though hypothetically they are the same concept. A jump gate is a space based device that allows access to some form of travel that allows quicker than normal space flight via one of the four FTL methods for ships. Star Gates are devices that are for individuals to travel between planets via worm hole or a form of teleportation without the aid of a spaceship and are generally ground based.
They work differently due to the whole individual vs ship thing. -
I think people go too far.
All you need to do is put in a date code and stick with it.
The problem with DC and Marvel is that they don't keep things straight and they keep on making up BS about how they want to make the origins modern rather than just letting people assume that they take place in a period setting... or they want to work on a single character rather than expanding the universe and characters. -
Quote:It has nothing to do with that. America produces 4 times what the world needs in food. The problem has not ever been the ability to create food, but rather that countries that are starving have horrible infrastructure and governments that prevent much of the aid people would provide.Originally Posted by Zortel
It's more of a case of not having the current resources to feed the excess population/provide water/provide work than not having a place to put them.
There'll have to be some big, big changes in the ways of farming, power production and water/waste processing soon. And you need stable conditions to do so as well. A certain breadbasket isn't one any more due to soil mismanagement, and in America you can look at the Dust Bowl for what kind of damage can be done. On a global scale.
Basically think about it like this
Do we have the food to ships to where ever?
Do we have the ship/plane to carry it over?
Does the place that we wish to send it have a way to receive it?
Once that place receives it can it distribute it, ie do they have good roads?
If all of the above is yes is the government that runs these countries corrupt?
Is this country in the middle of a war?
Are there bandits that will take the food before it reaches it's destination?
That's why sending food to Africa is more or less a waste of time. The countries with the problems are the countries that to help you need to go to war with to oust the governments, send convoys of soldiers on the road to protect the food, and have to actually build the roads and distribution centers.
Or in the most simplistic terms. The most important thing in improving the lives of people is infrastructure. If you can't build that infrastructure all the aid in the world isn't going to help.
The average American family and most "civilized" countries have more along the lines of 1 child and have that child in their 30s or are moving towards that. Countries that are less "civilized" and people that are less educated more or less tend to have more children due to need or some weird want...Quote:Originally Posted by mousedroid
Yeah, but some of those big areas of nothingness serve a purpose - rainforests for example are the planet's lungs, and places like the Great Plains would need to remain empty of people to grow food.
As for talk of people having fewer children in general - while that may be true, think about it like this:
If the average American family today has two kids at age 25, and each of those kids have two kids at age 25, and so on, by the time the original two parents die at age 75, they will be partly responsible for fourteen decendants.
Now, in the future, lets say each family only has one child at age 25. By the time the original two parents die at say, age 1000, they will be partly responsible for 40 decendants.
But anyways you are not taking into account a very simple thing. As we as a civilization figure out how to live longer we have other methods of baring children and those methods tend to make it so that our natural instinct to have kids is pushed back.
So if we live via rejuvenation or stopped aging then our bio chemistry more or less ever reaches the point where it tells us "HAVE A KID NOW!!" or it is a long time before it does and because of this this 1 kid by 40 will shift to something like 1 kid by say age 400 or we may even have it so that some people choose to have children postmortem via egg and sperm samples collected ages ago.
That's looking at it from a biological stand point and not taking into consideration various methods of immortality and technologies that will make having a child more along the lines of a civilization decision more than a biological decision. We also don't know how our space faring future will be. We may find we have an infinity of space to populate.
Overpopulation is a simplistic term for the masses. It focuses on the wrong problem and makes you think in the wrong direction. When someone says "overpopulation" they mean that we don't have the resources to sustain a population over x, but that's BS because we do have the resources to sustain x. It's not about resources or population. It is about management of those resources. -
i think a lot of people will eventually get bored and commit suicide...
I think those people are limited and will miss out on a lot
And while some of them may be able to appreciate infinity they are unworthy for having gotten bored of life. -
population estimate predictions place total world pop will even out at 9bil so no "over population"
also this is old news. -
Quote:depends... there have been some reports that the 3D is blurry... but some say its fine so it might be because of the theatre or the movie or a combination...Originally Posted by SuperOz
So, quick question....is it worth seeing in 3D at all? Sounds like there's not a lot being done with it there, and it's the difference between a 10 and a 20 buck ticket for me here in Australia.
S.
There is also the fact that according to Spoony and another critic the best 3D in the movie where the asian dude picks up guns which lasts like 3 seconds so... i'd say no.