923 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Bionuts wrote...

All this talk of HEROISM,

Her outfit CHARACTERIZATION isn't skimpy deep enough!

[David7204]

It has nothing to do with heroism. Really, do you really find that parroting it to one another is that exciting? The BSN is filled to the brim with whining over how Shepard deserved a better ending and this is the response I get for speaking on behalf of the principle that justifies such a desire.

Luke is obviously a hero. But the rebels as a whole, not really.

Modifié par David7204, 05 août 2013 - 06:33 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David7204 wrote...

It has nothing to do with heroism. Really, do you really find that parroting it to one another is that exciting? The BSN is filled to the brim with whining over how Shepard deserved a better ending and this is the response I get for speaking on behalf of the principle that justifies such a desire.

Oh hush Davey you know we all love you.

Tell us again about how flawless all of the LI's but Miranda are!

[Cainhurst Crow]

I happen to hate the whining of the bsn over shepard, I find it childish and a annoying bore, like watching house flies in their daily routine and having them occasionally buzz near your ear when they say or do something especially stupid.

[David7204]

Miranda and Ashley.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

It has nothing to do with heroism. Really, do you really find that parroting it to one another is that exciting? The BSN is filled to the brim with whining over how Shepard deserved a better ending and this is the response I get for speaking on behalf of the principle that justifies such a desire.

Luke is obviously a hero. But the rebels as a whole, not really.

But luke is more or less their champion, their ace in the hole, and pretty much their top agent. Not to mention he's the one who killed millions of people without ever giving them the chance to surrender or evacuate when he blew up the death star.

He's a typical jedi, he thinks himself and his way is superior, and the casualties from the opposing side are acceptable as long as the light side of the force is upheld. Dark side of the force ain't much better, but than again I always hated portraying them as the light being obviously good and the dakr being obviously sadisticly evil and everyone who accepts it forgets everything about what they're doing and why they are fighting in the first place. I much prefer it to be a ying-yang philisophical idea, where balance is the key, not absolutism of one over the other.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 05 août 2013 - 06:38 .

[David7204]

Pretty much all heroes kill people.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Not to dispute your point Brotarian but I doubt the Death Star had millions of people on it.

[David7204]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

He's a typical jedi, he thinks himself and his way is superior, and the casualties from the opposing side are acceptable as long as the light side of the force is upheld. Dark side of the force ain't much better, but than again I always hated portraying them as the light being obviously good and the dakr being obviously sadisticly evil and everyone who accepts it forgets everything about what they're doing and why they are fighting in the first place. I much prefer it to be a ying-yang philisophical idea, where balance is the key, not absolutism of one over the other.

Then you probably won't find the Star Wars films that great.

I certainly didn't.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

He's a typical jedi, he thinks himself and his way is superior, and the casualties from the opposing side are acceptable as long as the light side of the force is upheld. Dark side of the force ain't much better, but than again I always hated portraying them as the light being obviously good and the dakr being obviously sadisticly evil and everyone who accepts it forgets everything about what they're doing and why they are fighting in the first place. I much prefer it to be a ying-yang philisophical idea, where balance is the key, not absolutism of one over the other.

Then you probably won't find the Star Wars films that great.

I certainly didn't.

I'm not surprised, you probably wouldn't like a game like DAO either

[Inquisitor Recon]

The Empire were really the good guys the whole time, trying to maintain galactic peace.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Not to dispute your point Brotarian but I doubt the Death Star had millions of people on it.

According to one of the only sources avaliabe for death star population, "The Technical Book of Science Fiction Films"
states that the population, given the dimensions of the station and number of floors and habitation areas, was estimated to be 31,622,963. This is roughly the only number capable of producing the number of people we've seen on screen and a crew capable of keeping a station the size of a moon operating regularly. Droids could be assumbed, but I doubt you would have so many of them that a crew of less than at least 4 million was needed for maintanance and security alone. Not to mention the actual fighter pilots, flight prep-crews, medical staff, supply handlers, and technicians.

I doubt the suddeness of the attack, coupled with the abbruptness of destruction, allowed for many to escape before the death start literally was blown to shreds in a matter of seconds.

[TheBlackBaron]

Somebody's already made the "we'll bangeth, is this acceptable?" joke, right?

If not I'm going to be very disappointed in you, BSN.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 05 août 2013 - 06:51 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Inquisitor Recon wrote...

The Empire were really the good guys the whole time, trying to maintain galactic peace.

Those damned rebel scum!

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Not to dispute your point Brotarian but I doubt the Death Star had millions of people on it.

According to one of the only sources avaliabe for death star population, "The Technical Book of Science Fiction Films"
states that the population, given the dimensions of the station and number of floors and habitation areas, was estimated to be 31,622,963. This is roughly the only number capable of producing the number of people we've seen on screen and a crew capable of keeping a station the size of a moon operating regularly. Droids could be assumbed, but I doubt you would have so many of them that a crew of less than at least 4 million was needed for maintanance and security alone. Not to mention the actual fighter pilots, flight prep-crews, medical staff, supply handlers, and technicians.

I doubt the suddeness of the attack, coupled with the abbruptness of destruction, allowed for many to escape before the death start literally was blown to shreds in a matter of seconds.

The only source I could find had each battlestations crew listed as "More than a million" but that would imply more than 1 but less than 2.

They were still a massive waste of money and manpower though.

Just imagine how many super star destroyers they could have built in place of those eyesores!

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 05 août 2013 - 06:49 .

[David7204]

Is there a point to this 'thought experiment'?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Maybe if the empire didn't spend trillions of galactic credits constructing massive structures with obviously exploitable weakpoints one can hit for massive damage, they should have invested in actually stopping the galaxy from entering a technological and educational dark age, as I believe happens.

How else could technology and education regress so much between the prequels and the original trilogy.

Love how everything needs to be negotiated as part of a canon, instead of "the technologies getting a retcon, old films ones are outdated." Or did the big and bulky look come back in a big way and everyone went retro over the sleeker and more efficient models of the past.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

Is there a point to this 'thought experiment'?

I wanted to guage how far a hero could go to not be considered a hero by your standards. You are an interesting little duckling to me tbh. One of a few on the bsn whose mindset eludes and intrigues me.

[David7204]

It's not my standards. It's the films. The film portrays him as a hero, and so he is.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David7204 wrote...

It's not my standards. It's the films. The film portrays him as a hero, and so he is.

Are you unable to apply your own rigorous standards? Or simply unwilling?

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

It's not my standards. It's the films. The film portrays him as a hero, and so he is.

But this is a game, with choices. Not a film, with no choices and significantly shorter gametime.

[David7204]

Unless the work of fiction is overwhelmingly clear and explicit, (which is rare) unable.

Everything we see in fiction depends on perspective. The perspective of the story is everything. Say you have a character doing something big, like perhaps a lawyer breaking the law to convict a killer or something.

Depending on how the story presents it, it could be a righteous and justified action, or an abhorrent and corrupt one. It all depends on how the story decides to treat it. The thing to remember is that nothing actually changes at all for the characters themselves - all actions and dialogue are identical for them.

Of course, that doesn't mean you'll always 'agree' with the story. You might find it outragous that the story treats something as heroic when you find it repulsive or vice-versa. What too many people on the BSN fail to grasp is that that says nothing about the actual ideals at all - it just says something about the story.

Modifié par David7204, 05 août 2013 - 07:02 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

So unless it is literally unambiguously spelled out for you you can't make those judgements yourself?

That's veeeeeeeeeery unfortunate Brah.

[Cainhurst Crow]

But the perspective isn't just up to the creator of the work. The audience needs to agree with the way the story frames it, or else the audience thinks the story made a mistake in it's presentation, and will voice such opinions when allowed.

You cannot force an audience to accept your characters actions as moral or immoral without sounding preachy, they need to agree with you first, and in games, this isn't even a limitation.

The audience is in control of the story and it's progression, as well as it's protaganist. They can decide if a action is moral or immoral on their own and implement it into the work. There's no need for a pre-set perspective to be introduced.

[David7204]

No. Not at all. If a work of fiction has a 'message' I don't like, I don't bother with it. I close the book and read something else.