What are the point of Vibroblades?

[jaguars4ever]

Ok, other then gameplay wise, let's just assume this:

 

Blaster Rifles are like bullets, they are usually one hit kill or if some soldier has nice armou a couple hits (even the stormtroopers had armour, they got knocked out/killed in one hit).

 

Now in the game it makes sense that a non-Jedi character has a sword because so they can defend themselves close range, but other than fighting against Jedi, why do they carry around Vibroblades? It doesn't make sense. If Blaster Rifles are like bullets, then why in RL don't we see people carrying swords either?

 

Now you might say it's to counter Jedi, but aren't Jedi mostly extinct now? and even BEFORE, why would ordinary thugs carry them to fight a group of a few thousand?

 

Now, some of the swords like maybe those short short stun sticks are realistic, but other then Hanharr who can "shrug" away a blaster fire, what are the point of Vibroblades?

 

The biggest thing I don't understand, is why do ordinary soldiers have them? Hey it's POSSIBLE that some thug would want a Vibroblade, maybe, but a soldier?

 

I mean, using the era's logic, in RL the soldiers should all have back-up medieval swords in close quarters(yeah they have bayonets and knives, but thats WAY different).

 

So other than for gameplay sake (and I'm NOT arguing there! perfectly realistic for gameplay sake) can anyone explain to me, using the SW Era why they would use Vibroblades when a blaster, just like a pistol in real life, can still work in close quarters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the first KotOR there's a Twi'lek merchant (outside your Tarisian apartment), who interestingly enough addresses this issue. His explanation was akin to one side (of the Republic or Sith), employing the energy shield in abundance during the forefront of the war, thereby giving them great advantage. Eventually the other side was able to develop energy shields of their own, thus nullifying this comparitive advantage. Hence, the swordplay of vibroblades was reintroduced due to their innate nature of circumventing energy shields.

[jedipodo]

Edit:  Well bloody H.    I could have just linked to the wikipedia article on science fiction.  I've just read the first section and it looks good, and I think the last paragraph of the first section addresses one of your points, jedipodo. 

 

Science Fiction (wikipedia)

 

There's lots of pessimistic sci-fi, and yet there's lots that isn't.  Personally I'd have trouble justifying the characterization that sci-fi is "very pessimistic".  (I'm also not sure just how that's supposed to relate to failing to forsee future technologies.  Optimism certainly isn't equivilent to good foresight)  And (see below) the degree of accuracy in crafting a future-world isn't as important as the methods used.  No one is going to anticipate every technical innovation or implication, but what's important is how the author does handle those that do crop up in the story. (...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The people at Wikipedia wrote: "Writers are actually as likely to write of a future that they hope will not happen."

In my opinion science fiction mostly has a "pessimistic" undertone.

 

The discussion began with my statement that "realistic" and "sci-fi" is a contradiction in terms.

 

I've been aware of this definition of science fiction, but I don't fully agree with the "hardliner" definition of it. Yes, they are mainly concerned about the technology itself, but why do they arrogantly claim the term "realistic" for themselves and only leave "fantasy" to the others?

Certainly, hard science fiction writers are trying to separate themselves from other forms in this genre.

 

Hard science fiction often has become fantasy faster than the writer could imagine (some examples for this are given at wikipedia).

 

(...) It's a more elusive factor, but I also look to how much the fictional technologies matter to the story. I'm tempted to just call SW "fantasy" because the Force is the only fictional "technology" that really matters to the story. Based on my far less-than-complete knowledge of SW fiction the rest is essentially window dressing. (Hmm... except maybe the Deathstar. Though if the SW setting was say, a fictional 1600-1800s, the DS could be a big ship with an enormous "sci fi" cannon.) (...)

Regarding the issue whether SW is science fiction or not, I agree with you that Star Wars is fantasy, but in my opinion, as well, a sort of science fiction.

 

"There are, additionally, numerous works falling into neither of the above categories, but instead telling more conventional stories in a futuristic or technologically advanced setting; this category, space opera, which includes Star Wars, arguably Star Trek, and most other works that come to mind when one refers to "science fiction," is considered to be a variety of fantasy by some science-fiction diehards. The general public, of course, doesn't make such a distinction, and places Star Wars and the like in the category of SF."(quote from wikipedia.com)

 

IMO the main core of Star Wars is that it is a galactic adventure in a technologically advanced society *with* space ships and droids (R2D2,C3PO).

 

What would be Star Wars and Star Trek without futuristic technologies? Middle Earth Wars and Hobbit Trek?

[Tarquelne]

I've been aware of this definition of science fiction, but I don't fully agree with the "hardliner" definition of it. Yes, they are mainly concerned about the technology itself, but why do they arrogantly claim the term "realistic" for themselves and only leave "fantasy" to the others?

 

Because they make an effort to create a realistic setting - one that is at least possible, and hopefully plausible - while fantasy authors don't. OTOH, I think the best fantasy authors do make a big effort in making their settings as realistic as possible given whatever fantastic elements they include. I think it'd be correct to call such fantasy "realistic"... as long as you supply the needed caveats.

 

Hard science fiction often has become fantasy faster than the writer could imagine (some examples for this are given at wikipedia).

 

Hard sci-fi is about possibilities more than it's about prediction. IIRC the wiki page even described the concern you seem to have as a "semantic trap." Sure, new knowledge may reveal that a hard sci-fi story is impossible, but that means the science with in the "hard science fiction" story is wrong. It's the same with actual science - if a scientist is proven wrong that doesn't mean he's been a "fantasist" - he's just wrong. The method and approach are what's essential.

 

I think "shown to be innactuate hard sci-fi" or simply "dated hard sci fi" is far closer to the truth than "fantasy that was formerly hard sci fi."

 

If it turns out the future ends up looking just like the SW universe that doesn't make GL a "hard science fiction author" - it just makes him lukcy.

 

Regarding the issue whether SW is science fiction or not, I agree with you that Star Wars is fantasy, but in my opinion, as well, a sort of science fiction.

 

Sure. I'd call anything with spaceships OR energy weapons OR droids or any of that other stuff included in SW a "sort" of science fiction, no matter what else it did or didn't contain.

 

IMO the main core of Star Wars is that it is a galactic adventure in a technologically advanced society *with* space ships and droids (R2D2,C3PO).

 

What would be Star Wars and Star Trek without futuristic technologies? Middle Earth Wars and Hobbit Trek?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure.

 

For you it seems the high-tech "feel" of SW is of central importance. Just as - if not more? - important as the events or characters. I can understand that - especially if you really like the setting. Me, I wonder about things like the RoF of blaster weapons, why the Deathstar was such a big deal, how those 3D holograms are supposed to work, and the mechanics of starfighter combat. (Not to mention the sound things make in space....) The setting is a little hard on my suspension of disbelief. (Most espeically whenever Anikin says anything...)

 

I'm glad SW has an at least "sort of science fiction" sci-fi setting. I think it's fun, in spite of that disbelief problem. But if you made it Middle Earth Wars I think you'd just have to change the superfical stuff with regard to character and action. IMO the high-tech setting is incidental to the story.

 

Hmm... given that, I guess it'd be most accurate to say SW is a fantasy story (for example: It'd take magic for me to think anyone would go to the Dark Side for N. Portman's Princess A.) set in a "soft" sci-fi world.

 

Or, simply put: Science fantasy.

 

(I'm reminded of the 1996 Keneth Branagh production of Hamlet. I thought the "Age of Empire" setting was a great choice. That setting was as modern as you could get and NOT need any signficant changes to make the play fit it's world.)

[jedipodo]

Because they make an effort to create a realistic setting - one that is at least possible, and hopefully plausible - while fantasy authors don't.  OTOH, I think the best fantasy authors do make a big effort in making their settings as realistic as possible given whatever fantastic elements they include.  I think it'd be correct to call such fantasy "realistic"... as long as you supply the needed caveats.

"These distinctions attempt to differentiate science fiction from fantasy, using science as the demarcation point. It can also be argued that science fiction is simply a modern form of fantasy, which developed alongside of the rise of science and technology as driving factors in modern society. In this view, the elements that would previously have been presented as fantasy (magic, transformations, divination, mind-reading, fabulous beasts, new civilizations, higher beings, etc.) are rationalized or supported through scientific or quasiscientific rationales (psychic abilities such as telekinesis and precognition, aliens and their civilizations, etc.). This definition also has the benefit of avoiding semantic traps over science fiction which is overtaken by events, such as the science in the story is disproven or events predicted in the story do not happen or happen in radically different ways. It also reflects the substantial overlap between the audiences of science fiction and fantasy literature, the fact that many (if not most) science fiction authors have also written works of fantasy, and that many fantasy novels have won Hugo and Nebula awards."

 

I think the above quote from Wikipedia explains my opinion better.

 

if a scientist is proven wrong that doesn't mean he's been a "fantasist" - he's just wrong.  The method and approach are what's essential.

Yes, if a scientist is mistaken he's just wrong, but a fiction author is a "fantasist" in any case.

 

If it turns out the future ends up looking just like the SW universe that doesn't make GL a "hard science fiction author" - it just makes him lukcy.

 

For you it seems the high-tech "feel" of SW is of central importance.  Just as - if not more? - important as the events or characters.

Not more, but it's a great deal.

 

Me, I wonder about things like the RoF of blaster weapons, why the Deathstar was such a big deal, how those 3D holograms are supposed to work, and the mechanics of starfighter combat.  (Not to mention the sound things make in space....)  The setting is a little hard on my suspension of disbelief.  (Most espeically whenever Anikin says anything...)

Ok, it's just a film - 3D holograms are just given, and some plot points aren't made as clear as in the respective novel (where is also no sound in space).

 

Or, simply put:  Science fantasy. 

For my part, I really like the compromise: Replacing "science fiction" and "science fantasy" with another term.

 

"Speculative fiction" would be a term used to refer to both science fiction and fantasy together. It can also include literary fiction that uses science fictional or fantastic elements.

[metadigital]

I like Science Fiction. I like Science. I like Non-Fiction.

 

Fantasy is not my favourite genre. I can read it if I see some outstanding benefit, some acerbic political observation or clever insight on society. But I would rather poke my eyes out with a blunt bookmark than read a lot of tales about elves and orcs.

 

Arguing the semantics is almost pointless, but let me try.

 

Epistomologically speaking, knowledge is a proveable belief (Plato). So Science Fiction is writing about some scenario where science is a facilitator.

 

Fantasy, on the other hand, uses any type of magical plot device to facilitate the author's ideas.

 

While I can accept this for reasons I stated above, much as I can read Lord of the Rings; I prefer to read Isaac Asimov's Nightfall / I Robot / Caves of Steel / Foundation.

 

Using our epistomological definition, this is a (speculative) provable essay, dealing with Knowledge.

 

Star Wars is a very poor science story. It is a space opera. (And, yes, I am so sick of sound in space.) Yes, I can see how Star Trek can be tarred with that brush, too. It is often far too obvious where the writers have given general instructions like: "insert some reason why communications are down and the transporter is non-functioning" because they want the characters to be isolated, and then some scientific-sounding jargon is added to the plot.

 

I would contrast that with, say the TNG penultimate story in series 3 (I think), where an away team led by Picard is returning to the Enterprise and time has stopped due to an incident involving her and a Romulan Warbird, their warp engines and the ramifications of the quantum mechanics, and some pan-dimensional beings. (Without going into the plot -- which the captain actually jokes at the end of the show is non-trivial to explain -- that is the best I shall do.)

 

Finally, perhaps it is better to use a spectrum instead of a polarity; Non-Fiction Science leads to Science Fiction leads to Science Fantasy leads to Fantasy: a nice one-dimensional gradient.

:cool:

[jedipodo]

Finally, perhaps it is better to use a spectrum instead of a polarity; Non-Fiction Science leads to Science Fiction leads to Science Fantasy leads to Fantasy: a nice one-dimensional gradient.

:cool:

 

I like this idea... but only with the slight modification that - with the exception of the first transition - this gradient is anything but steep. "

[Tarquelne]

Arguing the semantics is almost pointless...

 

Depends on what you mean by "semantics".

 

While I can accept this for reasons I stated above, much as I can read Lord of the Rings; I prefer to read Isaac Asimov's Nightfall / I Robot / Caves of Steel / Foundation.

 

Speaking of space opera, and Foundation: Have you read the novel "Psychohistorical Crisis" by Donald Kingsbury? Set in a somewhat revamped "Foundation" universe, IMO it makes Foundation look like space opera. (And I did enjoy "Foundation.") It's set a while after the foundation of the 2nd empire. The most significant change revolves around the removal of the Mule from "history". He's replaced with a "neural tuner", or some such. A device that allowed the warlord known as (IIRC) "Cloun the Stubborn" ( " ) to create a widespread alteration to the Plan. (And, as one would expect from good sci-fi, much of the story revolves around the implications and social/technological reaction to such a powerful piece of kit.)

[jaguars4ever]

Arguing the semantics is almost pointless...

 

Depends on what you mean by "semantics".

Depends on what he means by "pointless".

[metadigital]

Speaking of space opera, and Foundation:  Have you read the novel "Psychohistorical Crisis" by Donald Kingsbury?  Set in a somewhat revamped "Foundation" universe, IMO it makes Foundation look like space opera.  (And I did enjoy "Foundation.")  It's set a while after the foundation of the 2nd empire.  The most significant change revolves around the removal of the Mule from "history".  He's replaced with  a "neural tuner", or some such.  A device that allowed the warlord known as (IIRC) "Cloun the Stubborn" ( " ) to create a widespread alteration to the Plan.  (And, as one would expect from good sci-fi, much of the story revolves around the implications and social/technological reaction to such a powerful piece of kit.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, can't say I have. I must also admit that I never finished the Foundation series, either. I got a little bored after Foundation and Earth (I think it was), when Daneel Olivaw turned up. (Not that I don't like Daneel, he's a dude -- for a robot. :D )

I really liked the whole psychohistory concept: of all the soft sciences this strikes me as the best candidate to yeild "hard" scientific results. After all, the mob mentality seems to be quite constant. I think anyone who hasn't read Nightfall should do so now (even if it is the short story that gave Asimov his big break, not the novel made from it, recently). Other than that, I really liked the Robot novels because they were (again, pertinent to this discussion) genre-spanning; combining SF with mystery writing. I wonder if I will ever create a sub-genre? :cool: