Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Star Wars and a dated concept of futuristic.

13»

Comments

  • RobsolfRobsolf Grand Rapids, MIPosts: 4,247Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Astropuyo

    Originally posted by Robsolf


    Originally posted by lizardbones







    I totally agree about the midichlorians...that was one of the single stupidest things that Lucas has added to the story. He probably figured that having real magic in science fiction was unbelievable.

     

    How I wish I could unhear that bit of Ep. 1... that was just the stupidest thing ever.  How did we get from "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter..." to "little microspobic buggy things let you use the force!"???

     

    They are our power cells in real life, without them we're just hunks of goop with no magnetic structure.

     

     

    But I AM just a hunk of goop with no magnetic structure!  image

    Good points, though.  Especially the bit on the different perspectives.

  • ElricmerrenElricmerren White Bear Lake, MNPosts: 295Member

    Originally posted by Relentless02

    Now I am about to say some things which people might consider trolling but I assure you I am not, just pointing out something that turns me off to the entire Star Wars universe. Star Wars was made way back in the 70s and it's visual concept of what is futurisitc is kind of dated by today's standards. Now I know Star Wars is not the future but a galaxy far far away but you get what I mean. These days I would consider Mass Effect futuristic in it's visual style. The fact Star Wars looks so dated makes it dificult to enjoy anything from that universe including this game. Anybody else feel this way or am I just wierd?

     I really never put star wars in the futuristic setting of the sci-fi genre as it really was not ment to be out side of having what would be quite advanced technology like personal bea-based weaponry, nterstellar travel, and also self-aware robots. To me it alwayys seemed more like a sci-fi variation of the standard fantasy mythos with warriors, mages, theives, and such all in a epic story. The same way with Firefly in it's settingg it is sci-fi yet it is not futuristic in many ways, but really s more of a desolet type furture setting with stark contrasts between people and standing in the setting. Now you look at star trek, babylon 5, and such those are furturistic sci-fi setting ment to appear many eras of technologic advancement ahead of us.But to me that is the issue too many people look at sc-fi settings as being somethign like having to be futuristic and advanced, even in my favorite rpg Phatasy star on the sega genisis it was not a trully furturistic setting, nor in many other such settings. I think you might have thought it was high sci-fi like many see many of the fantasy setting and find them underwelming when they play, not relising many settings are based on these trully idealised high-status versions of the setting which is not common for all of the setting. So not never felt that way, but are you weird? No you are mis-informed or just placing the wrong defination on a setting that is not build  to that setting you are attributing to it.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Astropuyo

    Originally posted by Robsolf

    Originally posted by lizardbones




    I totally agree about the midichlorians...that was one of the single stupidest things that Lucas has added to the story. He probably figured that having real magic in science fiction was unbelievable.

     


    How I wish I could unhear that bit of Ep. 1... that was just the stupidest thing ever.  How did we get from "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter..." to "little microspobic buggy things let you use the force!"???


    Mitocondria yall.
     
    That's what he was trying to do. Which sort of makes sense if you ponder it.
    They are our power cells in real life, without them we're just hunks of goop with no magnetic structure.
     
    Yoda was spiritual. All things he said were spiritual. A Buddhist monk.
    Where as it was a science to others. Like in the real world different entities interpret the data differently.
    I sort of liked that, as it kind of made sense when you think about it. What makes one "Chosen" in the force?
     
    It didn't discredit the "Force" it only explained how a fat blue kid could fling a starship at a bounty hunter.
     
    Edit: Removed hypothetical smaller than mitocondrial power houses due to lack of true evidence past a few research papers in 1993



    It's an example of what makes Star Wars a Fantasy with Science Fiction dressing and not a Science Fiction story though. Lucas just made up and added something that doesn't exist and that will never exist. It's magic, but with a convenient hand held scanner and some technical jargon.

    It also ignores a lot of what would happen if midichlorians actually existed. Jedi children would be harvested for their midichlorians so people like General Grievous could inject them in his remaining organic bits. For that matter, they wouldn't even both with harvesting children when they could just harvest clones. Some enterprising group would have an entire army composed of nothing but future seeing, force using cyborgs and they would take over the entire galaxy from both the Empire and the Republic. Their leader would be puffy from all the midichlorians stuffed into his cells.

    Star Wars is Science Fiction, but only in appearance. All the science is just set dressing for telling the story (which is fine with me, btw).

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Manchester, NHPosts: 2,926Member Uncommon

    It's a non argument.  The goal is to capture the feel of the Star Wars universe, not try to accurrately depict the future.

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member

    Originally posted by Astropuyo

     It explains how the engine operates as much as it can.

     It uses Ions. The same way we use them on our swiffer sweepers (lol tis truth) it's just propulsion versus some other sciencey crap I am not qaulified to preach on.

    It's built with Unobtanium, yah. 

    That's not science, it's what writers used to fill in with <tech> in the script.  Plausible-sounding gibberish some writer invented to fill in the gaps, a.k.a. Piller Filler. 

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.


  • Originally posted by Relentless02

    I should clarify, it's concept of advanced technology looks dated.

    I think the Star Wars concept completely went over your head. I am sorry that its basic idea doesn't make sense to you. However with you continued responses through out this post it is clear you are attempting to illicit responses and troll other people. (As a general rule) Enjoy playing the games you understand and not the ones you don't.

  • citan79citan79 fort wayne, INPosts: 85Member

    Soooo  you expect a story that starts with the line  "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." and you expect it to look more futuristic than now???  Does that even make sense??   It happened a long time ago..... so it should look dated... it's like viewing a society which was advanced that existed a long time ago.... 

    I mean really?? you are going to open with this...

    starwars is a fantasy story like a knights wizard story.. with technology udated from horses carriages and metal swords.. added ligth swords, lazers space ships and aliens.  

     

    when i first saw star wars i was like wow a long time ago they had some pretty cool stuff.. when we get advance it is going to look way better..... minus the magic stuff.  ie force.

  • Relentless02Relentless02 Vancouver, WAPosts: 126Member

    Let me illustrate my point a little better, looking at Star Wars after being exposed to more modern Sci-Fi is kind of like looking at a Camry from the 70's right next to the newer 2012 model, they function the same way but one definitely LOOKS older. you can't be like "Oh they look the same." because they don't and I think majority of people if they were given a choice between the two they would choose the 2012 because it looks better.

     

    PS. I have no other issues with Star Wars I too enjoy it from time to time and I think I might buy this game I just find it dificult to get immersed because it looks like it was made in the 70's and it was.

  • Drekker17Drekker17 Highlands Ranch, COPosts: 296Member

    Ok...we have no idea how the future will look like, people try and try over and over, but always end up wrong. I don't see how Star Wars is any less legit than any other Sci-Fi or Space Fantasy.

    "Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, and small minds talk about people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
    "Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security." -Norman Vincent Peale

  • AdamTMAdamTM Frankfurt Am MainPosts: 1,376Member

    Originally posted by Relentless02

    Let me illustrate my point a little better, looking at Star Wars after being exposed to more modern Sci-Fi is kind of like looking at a Camry from the 70's right next to the newer 2012 model, they function the same way but one definitely LOOKS older. you can't be like "Oh they look the same." because they don't and I think majority of people if they were given a choice between the two they would choose the 2012 because it looks better.

     

    PS. I have no other issues with Star Wars I too enjoy it from time to time and I think I might buy this game I just find it dificult to get immersed because it looks like it was made in the 70's and it was.

    Arguing that any style or aesthetic is "outdated" is silly.

    Retro sci-fi 50s look isn't outdated, its just different.

     

    What I would have given if for example Star Trek 2009 would have used the old TOS sets instead of the lens-flare/chrome garbage.

     

    Its a question of preference. Its not "dated". You just don't like it.

     

    If i wanted to make a buddy-cop movie reminiscent of the 80s, id use an earlier 70s camry, not a 2012 one, even if its set in present day.

    image
  • Relentless02Relentless02 Vancouver, WAPosts: 126Member

    Originally posted by citan79

    Soooo  you expect a story that starts with the line  "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." and you expect it to look more futuristic than now???  Does that even make sense??   It happened a long time ago..... so it should look dated... it's like viewing a society which was advanced that existed a long time ago.... 

    I mean really?? you are going to open with this...

    starwars is a fantasy story like a knights wizard story.. with technology udated from horses carriages and metal swords.. added ligth swords, lazers space ships and aliens.  

     

    when i first saw star wars i was like wow a long time ago they had some pretty cool stuff.. when we get advance it is going to look way better..... minus the magic stuff.  ie force.

    It doesen't matter when it happened what matters is how long the society has had to advance their technology, the argument that it looks old is because it was "a long long time ago" makes no sense since that society has had milenia to advance. But we're arguing semantics right now of a made up society. Im not arguing what the poeple in the Star Wars universe are doing im arguing what the people that made the Star Wars movies did at their time, but honestly I think it would be pointless to comtinue to debate this because anything made 30 years ago will always look dated by modern standards.

  • EthianEthian Montreal, QCPosts: 1,216Member

    Originally posted by Relentless02

    Now I am about to say some things which people might consider trolling but I assure you I am not, just pointing out something that turns me off to the entire Star Wars universe. Star Wars was made way back in the 70s and it's visual concept of what is futurisitc is kind of dated by today's standards. Now I know Star Wars is not the future but a galaxy far far away but you get what I mean. These days I would consider Mass Effect futuristic in it's visual style. The fact Star Wars looks so dated makes it dificult to enjoy anything from that universe including this game. Anybody else feel this way or am I just wierd?

    Nah your right on. Big part of the reason I'm not playing TOR is because of the world itself. I've no interest in playing a jedi or any of the odd looking characters in the game. We're way past the Star Wars phase but of course Bioware picked it to bring in the cash. EA and Biowares actions are see through...its no wonder both companys are rolling in bling

    "I play Tera for the gameplay"

  • twodayslatetwodayslate Almost Mexico, CAPosts: 724Member

    Originally posted by Relentless02

    Now I am about to say some things which people might consider trolling but I assure you I am not, just pointing out something that turns me off to the entire Star Wars universe. Star Wars was made way back in the 70s and it's visual concept of what is futurisitc is kind of dated by today's standards. Now I know Star Wars is not the future but a galaxy far far away but you get what I mean. These days I would consider Mass Effect futuristic in it's visual style. The fact Star Wars looks so dated makes it dificult to enjoy anything from that universe including this game. Anybody else feel this way or am I just wierd?

    Well yeah the technology concepts are dated, a lot of things in the originals were based off of burgeoning physics concepts at the time.  The idea of plasma being a viable form of projectile weaponry - presumably the technology behind blasters, seeing as they are fueled by Tibanna gas - has since been found to be largely impractical, particularly in space where physical projectiles are preferable.  Ion engines (TIE fighter propulsion) was thought of back then to be the next big thing.  Come to find out that it is only useful for incredibly long, sustained trips that don't require a lot of speed or maneuverability, because the force produced by the ionization reaction is very low.

    There are a number of others that I can't think of at the moment, but the specifics on the impracticality of lightsabers is another one.  That doesn't detract from the universe though, it is still a fun fantasy world with a lot of room for flavoring.

  • gaeanprayergaeanprayer Somewhere Out There, PAPosts: 2,320Member Uncommon

    While I'm not a fan of SWTOR, I don't know how logical a complaint this is. You can't have a dated concept of something that was never real to begin with, the game is based on a story which was based on an idea of future technology at the time. If they re-engineered the entire Star Wars world to fit into modern ideals of future technology, fans of the IP would be bitching up a storm, and they would be justified in that. They're not going by what actually is, they're going by a fantasy world that was pulled out of someone's ass. "Dated" is not a concept that fits here.

    "Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."

  • DubhlaithDubhlaith EnnisPosts: 1,012Member

    You are right that it is dated, but I like it. I like retro sci-fi like Star Wars and Dune. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is a distinct visual and thematic style.

    "Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true — you know it, and they know it." —Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007

    WTF? No subscription fee?

  • VhalnVhaln Chicago, ILPosts: 3,159Member
    Ive noticed a lot of the hairstyles, environments (nar shadaa) and even clothing has a sorta 70s vibe to it. Almost reminds me of Buck Rogers more than Star Wars. Not sure why they went this way with it.. cant be the most popular way they could have gone..

    When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  • rounnerrounner CanberraPosts: 602Member Uncommon

    Suprised at how others are struggling with the concept behind the OP's observation. SciFi is a guess at what could be, influenced by the culture, beliefs and technology of the author. Aesthetics is a different matter, a futuristic artist may do some concept work and the author follows that.  I think the OP was talking about the former which wasn't an attack on the game merely an observation about using an old IP for a modern game.

  • twodayslatetwodayslate Almost Mexico, CAPosts: 724Member

    Originally posted by gaeanprayer

    While I'm not a fan of SWTOR, I don't know how logical a complaint this is. You can't have a dated concept of something that was never real to begin with, the game is based on a story which was based on an idea of future technology at the time. If they re-engineered the entire Star Wars world to fit into modern ideals of future technology, fans of the IP would be bitching up a storm, and they would be justified in that. They're not going by what actually is, they're going by a fantasy world that was pulled out of someone's ass. "Dated" is not a concept that fits here.

    They kind of already did re-engineer it to fit in with modern ideals of future technology, they just had the craftiness to change it enough so that the vast majority of Star Wars fans wouldn't notice, and (most of) those that did wouldn't take offense to it.  That has always been my impression of Mass Effect: the storytelling feel of Star Wars, with the aesthetics of Blade Runner, and a modern interpretation of what technology would be like in the future.

    Discounting the glaring fantasy elements like Eezo of course, and the assumption that humanity will actually endure to ~2150.

  • AdamantineAdamantine NowherePosts: 3,514Member

    I have frankly no idea what the OP is talking about.

    Star Wars is fantasy sf, or space opera. Not even theoretically it is supposed to be a realistic view of our future.

    And SW isnt more "retro" than any other SF and SF-like material I know : Star Trek, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Farscape, The Matrix, maybe even Terminator, Stargate ... each of them is very different and, in their way, unrealistic.

    I havent played Mass Effect (too shooter-like, I'm a roleplayer), so I dont know about that one, but what little I know of it isnt substantly different.

    Nobody for example has forseen the internet before it was there. In that respect, many current time material is already more futuristic than older series.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,657Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by citan79

    Soooo  you expect a story that starts with the line  "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." and you expect it to look more futuristic than now??? 

    Y'know I never actually thought about that. LOL!

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.