In Alien, the realism and vulnerability of the protagonist creates the backdrop for the horror and psychological drama. Whether horror or psychologcial drama must always be accompanied by realism is another question entirely.

 

You could remove the realism from Alien, and end up with the muppet show in space, ie. Alien resurrection.

Edited December 25, 200619 yr by Gorgon

So it's a brand new engine, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can tell you it's certainly not the engine used for NWN2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So it's a brand new engine, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can tell you it's certainly not the engine used for NWN2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

is it the one used in mass effect maybe? (just a wil guess)

The amount of unrealistic content isn't the same, but it isn't real as however you look at it,

thus it's fantasy, just like D&D, White Wolf games, Star Wars, or Bugs Bunny

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's fairly easy to win an argument when you get to dictate the terms. So fine, according to your definition, Sci-Fi = Fantasy. However, since Fantasy is a literary genre, it is more prudent to go with the established definition. In which case, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are two different things entirely, although they frequently intersect.

 

Fantasy is defined as literature (and for this purpose media and games counts as well) that includes a fantastic element. Fantastic as in unreal or make believe. Something that can't be explained scientifically.

 

Science Fiction is quite the opposite. There everything must be scientifically plausible (although not necessarily probable). If the science doesn't hold up, it's not Sci-Fi.

The amount of unrealistic content isn't the same, but it isn't real as however you look at it,

thus it's fantasy, just like D&D, White Wolf games, Star Wars, or Bugs Bunny

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's fairly easy to win an argument when you get to dictate the terms. So fine, according to your definition, Sci-Fi = Fantasy. However, since Fantasy is a literary genre, it is more prudent to go with the established definition. In which case, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are two different things entirely, although they frequently intersect.

 

Fantasy is defined as literature (and for this purpose media and games counts as well) that includes a fantastic element. Fantastic as in unreal or make believe. Something that can't be explained scientifically.

 

Science Fiction is quite the opposite. There everything must be scientifically plausible (although not necessarily probable). If the science doesn't hold up, it's not Sci-Fi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want, I can make the creation of fireballs (the casting) and their use be 'scientifically plausible'. This makes it Sci-fi?

 

The amount of unrealistic content isn't the same, but it isn't real as however you look at it,

thus it's fantasy, just like D&D, White Wolf games, Star Wars, or Bugs Bunny

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's fairly easy to win an argument when you get to dictate the terms. So fine, according to your definition, Sci-Fi = Fantasy. However, since Fantasy is a literary genre, it is more prudent to go with the established definition. In which case, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are two different things entirely, although they frequently intersect.

 

Fantasy is defined as literature (and for this purpose media and games counts as well) that includes a fantastic element. Fantastic as in unreal or make believe. Something that can't be explained scientifically.

 

Science Fiction is quite the opposite. There everything must be scientifically plausible (although not necessarily probable). If the science doesn't hold up, it's not Sci-Fi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want, I can make the creation of fireballs (the casting) and their use be 'scientifically plausible'. This makes it Sci-fi?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the "casting" is induced by a combustion effect not related to arcane/divine magic, then yes.

The amount of unrealistic content isn't the same, but it isn't real as however you look at it,

thus it's fantasy, just like D&D, White Wolf games, Star Wars, or Bugs Bunny

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's fairly easy to win an argument when you get to dictate the terms. So fine, according to your definition, Sci-Fi = Fantasy. However, since Fantasy is a literary genre, it is more prudent to go with the established definition. In which case, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are two different things entirely, although they frequently intersect.

 

Fantasy is defined as literature (and for this purpose media and games counts as well) that includes a fantastic element. Fantastic as in unreal or make believe. Something that can't be explained scientifically.

 

Science Fiction is quite the opposite. There everything must be scientifically plausible (although not necessarily probable). If the science doesn't hold up, it's not Sci-Fi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want, I can make the creation of fireballs (the casting) and their use be 'scientifically plausible'. This makes it Sci-fi?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the "casting" is induced by a combustion effect not related to arcane/divine magic, then yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and what if divine and arcane power are defined scientificly!? HA! GOTCHA!

 

:joy:

The amount of unrealistic content isn't the same, but it isn't real as however you look at it,

thus it's fantasy, just like D&D, White Wolf games, Star Wars, or Bugs Bunny

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's fairly easy to win an argument when you get to dictate the terms. So fine, according to your definition, Sci-Fi = Fantasy. However, since Fantasy is a literary genre, it is more prudent to go with the established definition. In which case, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are two different things entirely, although they frequently intersect.

 

Fantasy is defined as literature (and for this purpose media and games counts as well) that includes a fantastic element. Fantastic as in unreal or make believe. Something that can't be explained scientifically.

 

Science Fiction is quite the opposite. There everything must be scientifically plausible (although not necessarily probable). If the science doesn't hold up, it's not Sci-Fi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want, I can make the creation of fireballs (the casting) and their use be 'scientifically plausible'. This makes it Sci-fi?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the "casting" is induced by a combustion effect not related to arcane/divine magic, then yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and what if divine and arcane power are defined scientificly!? HA! GOTCHA!

 

:joy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In that case the "power" divulges from the realm of fantasy as it ceases to be magic. The nature of that power is mutually exclusive: If it's magic, then it cannot be scientifically explained; similarly the converse is also true - if it can be scientifically explained, then it's not magic.

 

Therefore, if the force which propagates the effect can be scientifically explained, it's Sci-Fi. If it's a result of magic, then it's fantasy.

jaguars4thewin

The amount of unrealistic content isn't the same, but it isn't real as however you look at it,

thus it's fantasy, just like D&D, White Wolf games, Star Wars, or Bugs Bunny

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's fairly easy to win an argument when you get to dictate the terms. So fine, according to your definition, Sci-Fi = Fantasy. However, since Fantasy is a literary genre, it is more prudent to go with the established definition. In which case, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are two different things entirely, although they frequently intersect.

 

Fantasy is defined as literature (and for this purpose media and games counts as well) that includes a fantastic element. Fantastic as in unreal or make believe. Something that can't be explained scientifically.

 

Science Fiction is quite the opposite. There everything must be scientifically plausible (although not necessarily probable). If the science doesn't hold up, it's not Sci-Fi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want, I can make the creation of fireballs (the casting) and their use be 'scientifically plausible'. This makes it Sci-fi?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the "casting" is induced by a combustion effect not related to arcane/divine magic, then yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and what if divine and arcane power are defined scientificly!? HA! GOTCHA!

 

:joy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In that case the "power" divulges from the realm of fantasy as it ceases to be magic. The nature of that power is mutually exclusive: If it's magic, then it cannot be scientifically explained; similarly the converse is also true - if it can be scientifically explained, then it's not magic.

 

Therefore, if the force which propagates the effect can be scientifically explained, it's Sci-Fi. If it's a result of magic, then it's fantasy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This fails again, because as mentioned anything not known (like cloaking devices, warping, or magic) can be explained if you want to.

 

 

Anyway, technomancers for the win! ^_^

 

 

jaguars4thewin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You too, my daughter Bruticia?

Edited December 25, 200619 yr by jorian

B00bies? Robobugs? I'm sold!

So it's a brand new engine, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can tell you it's certainly not the engine used for NWN2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I'm not mistaken Obsidian once licensed the UE3 for PNJ. Does that also apply to this game?

This fails again, because as mentioned anything not known (like cloaking devices, warping, or magic) can be explained if you want to.

And that explanation in turn (and as jags explained previously) automatically demystifies said phenomena, bringing them to the realm of sci-fi.

 

Simple, really.

Edited December 26, 200619 yr by 213374U

This fails again, because as mentioned anything not known (like cloaking devices, warping, or magic) can be explained if you want to.

And that explanation in turn (and as jags explained previously) automatically demystifies said phenomena, bringing them to the realm of sci-fi.

 

Simple, really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

as I said those two are equal, you just say the same too

 

B00bies? Robobugs? I'm sold!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:D

Edited December 26, 200619 yr by jorian

as I said those two are equal, you just say the same too

Um, no. But since you are trapped in an endless loop of volo-logic, it's pointless to derail the discussion any further.

as I said those two are equal, you just say the same too

Um, no. But since you are trapped in an endless loop of volo-logic, it's pointless to derail the discussion any further.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yep, Volourn would agree with me!

 

 

PS: and whatever I say you are all stuborn anyway, so I can't make you understand my opinion if you don't want to

 

 

...uhm...about Aliens...I guess they won't use magic so....erm... ...just back on-topic!

Casting fireball spells in the Alien universe...

 

 

Edit: or would that be Hands of Fire

Edited December 26, 200619 yr by Gorth

Casting fireball spells in the Alien universe...

 

 

Edit: or would that be Hands of Fire

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be Hades with fire "

You could start by looking up the difference between "teleology", and theology. Maybe you got those two confused?

No no, teleology as in the aristotlean study of purpose. A better term for "teleology + the Bible" would have been "thomism". I'm sure I don't have to tell you about that.

 

As far as Canon law goes, you are right (somewhat); canon doesn't come from the Bible. It (originally) came from the Apostles, until what would become known as the Catholic Church was formed. At that point, the ultimate authority on what canon law was (considering that "canon" in its original meanings is just something to go by) was the Pope. He, possessed of his Papal Infallibility (a quality derived from his supposed appointment by God, and which interestingly enough wasn't formally ennunciated until the 19th century), made the rules by which all Christians should live. This is de facto a legal code.

Canon was indeed derived from the Apostles early on, but when Justinian commissioned his Corpus Juris Civilis it became just as vital, if only because the Church saw itself at the time as being an extension of Rome, and the Pope traditionally held the position of Peter as the city's bishop.

 

But I should have made the distinction between a protestant christian pov (in which the bible is the only correct source of truth) and a catholic christian pov (in which the bible in accordance with reason is the correct source of truth) When I speak of such things, I invariably talk about catholicism. I suppose it breaks down otherwise.

 

As for the Bible not being canon, well. That is a contradiction. The Catholic Bible might not be considered canon by the Anglicans for instance, but it is by definition canon for the Catholics. I confess my ignorance in this matter, because I'm not sure what you meant by Timothy's book not being canonical, so please elaborate.

Looking back on the post, the argument about Timothy not being canon didn't make much sense. It's not canon, but it's not in the catholic bible, either. So the bible can still be wholly canon even if Timothy isn't. Saying that the Gospels are all canon would be a mistake. Only the gospels of the Apostles and their first secretaries are considered canon, and thus the book of Timothy is removed. But that's beside the point that is itself wholly beside the point.

 

But we should probably stay on topic.

 

Flamethrowers will in all likelihood be the fallback weapon. They're awesomely effective, but if you're close enough to use one, you'd damn well better get all of them. I'm interested in seeing how they implement weapons.

The amount of unrealistic content isn't the same, but it isn't real as however you look at it,

thus it's fantasy, just like D&D, White Wolf games, Star Wars, or Bugs Bunny

 

 

It's fairly easy to win an argument when you get to dictate the terms. So fine, according to your definition, Sci-Fi = Fantasy. However, since Fantasy is a literary genre, it is more prudent to go with the established definition. In which case, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are two different things entirely, although they frequently intersect.

 

Fantasy is defined as literature (and for this purpose media and games counts as well) that includes a fantastic element. Fantastic as in unreal or make believe. Something that can't be explained scientifically.

 

Science Fiction is quite the opposite. There everything must be scientifically plausible (although not necessarily probable). If the science doesn't hold up, it's not Sci-Fi.

 

Can you actually name a Sci-Fi movie or TV series that fits this definition?

No, the difference is the adherence to realism that is needed to create a believable sci fi setting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

is it reality?

no.

then it's something unrealistic?

yes.

 

ergo: fantasy (and I don't speak of the 'genre')

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sci-Fi clearly follows a scientific approach...

In fact, it's usually an application of axiomatic theory.

You define a set of axioms and from there you deduct all sorts of rules and truths. Some of the axioms may be imagined, but all of the deductive process responds to logic.

If you want, I can make the creation of fireballs (the casting) and their use be 'scientifically plausible'. This makes it Sci-fi? 

 

Go ahead, I want to read that...

The amount of unrealistic content isn't the same, but it isn't real as however you look at it,

thus it's fantasy, just like D&D, White Wolf games, Star Wars, or Bugs Bunny

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's fairly easy to win an argument when you get to dictate the terms. So fine, according to your definition, Sci-Fi = Fantasy. However, since Fantasy is a literary genre, it is more prudent to go with the established definition. In which case, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are two different things entirely, although they frequently intersect.

 

Fantasy is defined as literature (and for this purpose media and games counts as well) that includes a fantastic element. Fantastic as in unreal or make believe. Something that can't be explained scientifically.

 

Science Fiction is quite the opposite. There everything must be scientifically plausible (although not necessarily probable). If the science doesn't hold up, it's not Sci-Fi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you actually name a Sci-Fi movie or TV series that fits this definition?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I, Robot

Science Fiction is quite the opposite. There everything must be scientifically plausible (although not necessarily probable). If the science doesn't hold up, it's not Sci-Fi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you actually name a Sci-Fi movie or TV series that fits this definition?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I, Robot

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Primer would be a better example. )

Science fiction is the plausible if unlikely application of science, Science fantasy is a complete departure of the principles of physics.

 

There really isen't more to be said on the subject.