anubite Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Well... bronies exist. And so does Dragon Age 2. Only things such as these could come to pass if magic were involved, at least by proxy. Perhaps that's not sufficiently scientific, but you'd be hard pressed to apply the scientific method to events caused by mind control, hexes and witch craft. I made a 2 hour rant video about dragon age 2. It's not the greatest... but if you want to watch it, here ya go: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C2B Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) See, now you're just making deliberately, overly broad claims because you had no foundational claim to begin with. "There are humans in this game" does not mean "there is realistic science in this game." By your fallacious standards, every fantasy game with humans is a game rooted in real world science, when in fact the truth is quite to the contrary. Will you follow this up with claims that magic is a scientifically confirmed phenomenon? No, but it very much implies there is *some real* science in the game. *some* Some. And these aren't claims. How are these claims? What? It's broad because the word *science* has a really broad definition. It does not only refer to physics etc. Picking up one of my points. - Do the people in the game speak englisch? If yes... - How is that not some real science? Again, this is a NITPICK on the wording in the title. Nothing else! I'm not even remotly arguing that games or narratives in general are *realistic*. Hell, I agree generally with your opinion and on the space fantasy thing (Which wording you probably *took* from George Ziets formspring, right?) Edited November 10, 2012 by C2B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C2B Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) But just to take something up you said. Every game IS rooted in real world science. Like every narrative. Like pretty much anything humans ever did. It doesn't follow it exactly, of course. But, it's close to impossible to not be. All fantasy world's social, cultural, technological and so on development is at least somewhat based on human history. It's the only template we have. Also, again. I know what you mean. It's a nitpick on the wording. Not what you initially meant. Edited November 10, 2012 by C2B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted November 10, 2012 Author Share Posted November 10, 2012 See, now you're just making deliberately, overly broad claims because you had no foundational claim to begin with. "There are humans in this game" does not mean "there is realistic science in this game." By your fallacious standards, every fantasy game with humans is a game rooted in real world science, when in fact the truth is quite to the contrary. Will you follow this up with claims that magic is a scientifically confirmed phenomenon? No, but it very much implies there is *some real* science in the game. *some* Some. And these aren't claims. How are these claims? What? It's broad because the word *science* has a really broad definition. It does not only refer to physics etc. How is the englisch language used in the game not *real* especially since this isn't a fantasy world with made up words? How? Again, this is a NITPICK on the wording in the title. Nothing else! I'm not even remotly arguing that games or narratives in general are *realistic*. Hell, I agree generally with your opinion and on the space fantasy thing (Which wording you probably *took* from George Ziets formspring, right?) I'm interested, whats your reason for nitpicking? Just so you have something to say for the sake of saying it? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C2B Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Third post in a row. Sorry.^^ Just to be clear. It's a nitpick. I do not demand it to be changed as everyone can figure out what BruceVc actually meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C2B Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) I'm interested, whats your reason for nitpicking? Just so you have something to say for the sake of saying it? As with every nitpick, no real one. Just give a small information/ minimal constructive critisism. Certainly nothing worth the argument here. Though, I'm quick to defend myself. Edit: To get back on topic: Apart from science- and historical fiction, what gernes would probably profit from more realism? Edited November 10, 2012 by C2B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted November 10, 2012 Author Share Posted November 10, 2012 I'm interested, whats your reason for nitpicking? Just so you have something to say for the sake of saying it? As with every nitpick, no real one. Just give a small information/ minimal constructive critisism. Certainly nothing worth the argument here. Though, I'm quick to defend myself. Imagine a world where we all felt the need to question the accuracy of headings on forums based on our opinions of that accuracy, personally I prefer just commenting or not on the topic. But please you carry on nitpicking. "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C2B Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) Imagine a world where we all felt the need to question the accuracy of headings on forums based on our opinions of that accuracy, personally I prefer just commenting or not on the topic. But please you carry on nitpicking. I stopped with my very first post. The rest were defensive (and pointless in retrospect) posts when I was called up to provide some basis for it (which I did). Imagine a world where people weren't allowed to provide comments to topics. At most (and I didn't expect that in the least) I wanted to be helpful. Sorry, if that offended you. Again. Edited November 10, 2012 by C2B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted November 10, 2012 Author Share Posted November 10, 2012 Imagine a world where we all felt the need to question the accuracy of headings on forums based on our opinions of that accuracy, personally I prefer just commenting or not on the topic. But please you carry on nitpicking. I stopped with my very first post. The rest were defensive (and pointless in retrospect) posts when I was called up to provide some basis for it (which I did). Imagine a world where people weren't allowed to provide comments to topics. At most (and I didn't expect that in the least) I wanted to be helpful. Sorry, if that offended you. Again. I am not offended at all, but thanks for the apology. I am also trying to help you see that nitpicking the heading of a topic isn't what a forum discussion is about. Its not constructive. We should be discussing the topic and in this case the link. I absolutely support discussion and debate but surly it should relevant to the topic "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGX-17 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) See, now you're just making deliberately, overly broad claims because you had no foundational claim to begin with. "There are humans in this game" does not mean "there is realistic science in this game." By your fallacious standards, every fantasy game with humans is a game rooted in real world science, when in fact the truth is quite to the contrary. Will you follow this up with claims that magic is a scientifically confirmed phenomenon? No, but it very much implies there is *some real* science in the game. *some* Some. And these aren't claims. How are these claims? What? It's broad because the word *science* has a really broad definition. It does not only refer to physics etc. Picking up one of my points. - Do the people in the game speak englisch? If yes... - How is that not some real science? Again, this is a NITPICK on the wording in the title. Nothing else! I'm not even remotly arguing that games or narratives in general are *realistic*. Hell, I agree generally with your opinion and on the space fantasy thing (Which wording you probably *took* from George Ziets formspring, right?) Boy, you don't know when to put down that shovel, do you? Down and down you go, where this hole will end, nobody knows. The presence of English in a game developed by English speakers does not make "obvious" the presence of accurate real-world science. Nor does it constitute any form of science in itself. It is not a question of science that English-speaking people speak English. A common-sense use of language by a business in a product for communicative/narrative purposes is not in any way scientific. Edited November 11, 2012 by AGX-17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C2B Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) The presence of English in a game developed by English speakers does not make "obvious" the presence of accurate real-world science. Nor does it constitute any form of science in itself. It is not a question of science that English-speaking people speak English. A common-sense use of language by a business in a product for communicative/narrative purposes is not in any way scientific. I don't really see this hole, but well..... Also I get the feeling you have not really an idea of everything the word "science" entails. It's not just the pursuit of knowdlege. That's one way to use science, but it's not everything. Science is part of the everyday world and is with us any time any place. Anyway, hope we can bury this now. The initial intention is not worth the argument. Edit for definition: sci·ence [sahy-uhns] physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. Edited November 12, 2012 by C2B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now