Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by Valkaern

Originally posted by Thillian

Any sci-fi universe which contains aliens with furry or otherwise funny looking heads mounted on humanoid bodies is dated --  including Mass Effect, Star Trek, Star Wars, ...

Really?

While I don't believe anything without indisputable proof, my own imaginings seem to agree that if any species were to develop, especially in an ecosystem very similar to ours somewhere in the millions and millions of miles worth of the unknown galaxies, that evolution dictates they'd progress roughly along the same path and something that I don't think is such a giant leap for science fiction.

Do you realize that even the slightest change in the gravitation force in such planet would mean a huge difference in the skeleton and muscles of a body (anatomy) leading to totally different shapes and builds, and even under the ridiculous assumption that all conditions were the same as on Earth, the probability that the evolution would go the same way again is practically zero. You shouldn't read that much sci-fi and occassionally check what the science has actually got to say on the matter.

This really goes way beyond the scope of this thread but if you think in terms of the universe and its planets then that near zero becomes millions of planets that have exactly those features. So I wouldnt really scratch it off the list just yet, specially cause our notion of known universe is so tiny. We will never know not in our lifetime at least.

Originally posted by geobardi

The people don't seem to understand that the whole Star Wars universe is not sci-fi, and it never was, it's Space Fantasy, that's why we love it so much, you can call it Space Opera too, but never, ever call it sci-fi, there is nothing scientific to sustent the technology, the races and the worlds of Star Wars, that's why it has it's unique aesthetics and feeling, if you want sci-fi, you must look at Star Trek, Stargate, Firefly, Babylon 5, etc...

 Those aren't really  sci-fi either. Andromeda Strain was sci-fi. I robot was Sci-Fi, the book not the movie. Colossus the forbin project was sci-fi. Silent running, not the submarine movie the other one, was sci-fi.

Originally posted by rav3n2

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by Valkaern

Originally posted by Thillian

Any sci-fi universe which contains aliens with furry or otherwise funny looking heads mounted on humanoid bodies is dated --  including Mass Effect, Star Trek, Star Wars, ...

Really?

While I don't believe anything without indisputable proof, my own imaginings seem to agree that if any species were to develop, especially in an ecosystem very similar to ours somewhere in the millions and millions of miles worth of the unknown galaxies, that evolution dictates they'd progress roughly along the same path and something that I don't think is such a giant leap for science fiction.

Do you realize that even the slightest change in the gravitation force in such planet would mean a huge difference in the skeleton and muscles of a body (anatomy) leading to totally different shapes and builds, and even under the ridiculous assumption that all conditions were the same as on Earth, the probability that the evolution would go the same way again is practically zero. You shouldn't read that much sci-fi and occassionally check what the science has actually got to say on the matter.

This really goes way beyond the scope of this thread but if you think in terms of the universe and its planets then that near zero becomes millions of planets that have exactly those features. So I wouldnt really scratch it off the list just yet, specially cause our notion of known universe is so tiny. We will never know not in our lifetime at least.

The probability is still practically zero, if you take that out of 20 aliens, 19 of them would have the same humanoid body with slightly modified head  (furry or with white tubes running out of it or greeny with pointy ears, or whatever), which is the basic setup of those three sci-fi universes I mentioned. 

Originally posted by tyrannis

Originally posted by Verterdegete

Originally posted by tyrannis

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?

Wierd is not the word I would use. Anywho, You answered you own question. "In a gallaxy far far away." In no way was it ever ment to mimic our reality or perception of the future. You're trying to fit a sqaured block into a circle. Mental tramma ensures. However, not becuase Star Wars is some how at fault. 

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with the fact that SW world is long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. OP is talking about a stylistic approach that was typical for SF fiction of that time.

 

There was nothing typical about the Star War Universe back then or even now. he's not talking about that. He said "Visual concept of what is futuristic."  The key word is futuristic here. Star Wars  isn't  / wasn't trying to be  futuristic . Not sure why that concept is hard to understand.

 

I guess it's a matter of perception, but tbh Star Wars was, at least visually, very similar to other Sci Fi fiction of that time.

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, you know that thing about opinions and anus's.  Not everyone likes the same things and personally I don't what people think about my opinion.  So to ask if you're weird, who cares really.  It's like asking in general chat in a game, will I like such and such class.  Then you get all of the opinions of people who their opinions are a dated concept of  fact.  I say do what you want, like what you want, and don't worry about what other people think.  I mean I disagree.  Knights, swords and combat on mounts and with canons all happened a long time ago, before Star Wars.  So what's dated now?

Originally posted by geobardi

The people don't seem to understand that the whole Star Wars universe is not sci-fi, and it never was, it's Space Fantasy, that's why we love it so much, you can call it Space Opera too, but never, ever call it sci-fi, there is nothing scientific to sustent the technology, the races and the worlds of Star Wars, that's why it has it's unique aesthetics and feeling, if you want sci-fi, you must look at Star Trek, Stargate, Firefly, Babylon 5, etc...

It's under sci-fi  ....   if you take out the jedi and the sith... you pretty much have a sci fi genre.

Add them in and you have a sci fi with fantasy elements... but since they tried explaining the force (LOL)  I'd call it more sci fi than fantasy now...

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Mass Effect (..) as a darker, more gritty sci-fi experience. 
 

I really don't understand why do people think that Mass Effect is modern and contemporary futuristic.

Play a Tangerine Dream tune in the background, and take any sci fi magazine/artbook from the late 70' and early 80' and you will know what i'm talking about.

RUBYCON

PS: In the "Making of.." documentary, they said that they actually wanted to avoid that dark, gritty feel of modern Sci Fi.

Originally posted by Relentless02

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

It's kinda meant to "look" dated.  It's pretty much a part of what Lucas dubbed the "used future".  Keep in mind, what he actually wanted to do was do another Flash Gordon movie.  When that wasn't in the cards, he made up his own setting.  So even in the 70's he was looking backward to the 30's and 40's version of the future.

When I saw your thread title, I thought you were gonna be referring to the convenience tech and interfacing.  It can certainly be argued that a touch screen interface is a good ways ahead of the "wall of glowy buttons" interface.  And an astromech?  That would be the least convenient setup imaginable. 

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by rav3n2

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by Valkaern

Originally posted by Thillian

Any sci-fi universe which contains aliens with furry or otherwise funny looking heads mounted on humanoid bodies is dated --  including Mass Effect, Star Trek, Star Wars, ...

Really?

While I don't believe anything without indisputable proof, my own imaginings seem to agree that if any species were to develop, especially in an ecosystem very similar to ours somewhere in the millions and millions of miles worth of the unknown galaxies, that evolution dictates they'd progress roughly along the same path and something that I don't think is such a giant leap for science fiction.

Do you realize that even the slightest change in the gravitation force in such planet would mean a huge difference in the skeleton and muscles of a body (anatomy) leading to totally different shapes and builds, and even under the ridiculous assumption that all conditions were the same as on Earth, the probability that the evolution would go the same way again is practically zero. You shouldn't read that much sci-fi and occassionally check what the science has actually got to say on the matter.

This really goes way beyond the scope of this thread but if you think in terms of the universe and its planets then that near zero becomes millions of planets that have exactly those features. So I wouldnt really scratch it off the list just yet, specially cause our notion of known universe is so tiny. We will never know not in our lifetime at least.

The probability is still practically zero, if you take that out of 20 aliens, 19 of them would have the same humanoid body with slightly modified head  (furry or with white tubes running out of it or greeny with pointy ears, or whatever), which is the basic setup of those three sci-fi universes I mentioned. 

Or the SW humans are really us from a long time ago!!! Ooooo weee oooooo.

---

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?

---

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'm going for option 2.

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?

You completely don't get star wars at all kid. It's not meant to be futuristic at all. It a space opera saga, not science fiction. So yea, I think you are wierd.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by geobardi

The people don't seem to understand that the whole Star Wars universe is not sci-fi, and it never was, it's Space Fantasy, that's why we love it so much, you can call it Space Opera too, but never, ever call it sci-fi, there is nothing scientific to sustent the technology, the races and the worlds of Star Wars, that's why it has it's unique aesthetics and feeling, if you want sci-fi, you must look at Star Trek, Stargate, Firefly, Babylon 5, etc...

 Those aren't really  sci-fi either. Andromeda Strain was sci-fi. I robot was Sci-Fi, the book not the movie. Colossus the forbin project was sci-fi. Silent running, not the submarine movie the other one, was sci-fi.

They are all sci-fi, its a very broad genre.

What he counted down just all fall into different sub-genres:

Star Trek - Space Opera

Stargate - Millitary SciFi (like Starship Troopers)

Firefly - SpaceWestern

Babylon 5 - classic Space Opera

What you counted down is the so called "hard scifi" or "core SciFi".

Star Wars never entirelly fell into the sci fi genre, its a crossbreed between SF and Fantasy, hence the classification of

Sci Fantasy

like Dragonriders Of Pern for example.

Other sub genres of sci-fi are:

steampunk - Trigun in Anime, Mutant Chronicles in PnP

cyberpunk - Deus Ex, Neuromancer, BladeRunner, GITS

biopunk - Bioshock

post apocalyptic retropunk - Fallout

Soft SF - 1984, Atlas Shrugged, Foundation

Superhuman - 90% of Marvel or DC comics

All SF is a sub-genre of speculative fiction.

Originally posted by Angier2758

Originally posted by geobardi

The people don't seem to understand that the whole Star Wars universe is not sci-fi, and it never was, it's Space Fantasy, that's why we love it so much, you can call it Space Opera too, but never, ever call it sci-fi, there is nothing scientific to sustent the technology, the races and the worlds of Star Wars, that's why it has it's unique aesthetics and feeling, if you want sci-fi, you must look at Star Trek, Stargate, Firefly, Babylon 5, etc...

It's under sci-fi  ....   if you take out the jedi and the sith... you pretty much have a sci fi genre.

 

Add them in and you have a sci fi with fantasy elements... but since they tried explaining the force (LOL)  I'd call it more sci fi than fantasy now...

That's like saying if you take all the races out of WoW, you'll have a medieval setting.

Your statement is wrong on two levels.

1.  You can't take one of the main characteristics of a setting away to indicate that it's something else.  I could just as easily say, "Take all the technology out of Star Wars and you have pure fantasy."  This may be true, but it's pointless because the setting is no longer being represented.

2.  I'm stealing this one from another poster from a similar thread.  It fits fantasy MORE than Sci-fi because of the way the story is built and the motivations of the characters.  You could replace Jedi with actual knights and/or wizards, Princess Leia with... a princess, Luke with a young squier, the emperor with an evil wizard, and grab pretty much any fantasy plot out there and it would work.  Or do the opposite.  Make the first Star Wars movie into a fantasy novel.  You have a kinapped princess trapped in the Death Tower of an evil wizard.  And old knight and his squier quest to rescue her.

Try doing that with Star Trek.  The only way it can be done is to actually switch genre's entirely.  That's why you saw gangster episodes, and Picard was made into Robin Hood by Q and sent to a tech free setting.  Because to do it in their standard setting doesn't work.

Sci Fi is  more about exploration, mystery; the unknown.  Encountering obstacles never before seen.  Heck, Asimov's books were basically massive story problems.

Star Wars is fantasy with sci-fi elements.   If it were sci-fi, there would have been more emphasis on the technology; what it's capable of and how it works, even if they use word salad to explain it.   

You have to remember the fictional starwars universe is another galaxy. it's not in the milkyway. the physics are not the same. the force is in every living thing. even tree's and even the rocks and dirt. possibly it holds the fabric of that galaxy together so the whole thing doesn't  fly apart. we have gravity physics in our galaxy.

Also and mainly the technologie never ever changes. the day the first lightsaber was made it pretty much stayed the same for 10's of thousand of years. also 1970's hair do never changes as well. it will never change from when lucas created it. the guy was a man of the 70's. most developers who fell in love with the first starwars movie in 77 agreewith him when they sign the agreement to keep it that way :)

Originally posted by jeremyjodes

You have to remember the fictional starwars universe is another galaxy. it's not in the milkyway. the physics are not the same. the force is in every living thing. even tree's and even the rocks and dirt. possibly it holds the fabric of that galaxy together so the whole thing doesn't  fly apart. we have gravity physics in our galaxy.

Also and mainly the technologie never ever changes. the day the first lightsaber was made it pretty much stayed the same for 10's of thousand of years. also 1970's hair do never changes as well. it will never change from when lucas created it. the guy was a man of the 70's. most developers who fell in love with the first starwars movie in 77 agreewith him when they sign the agreement to keep it that way :)

 

The thing about physics is that they are the same in the whole uinverse not just a galaxy.

Change the crawl text to:

"A long time ago In a universe far far away"

and i will agree with you

It's worst in my opinion. SWTOR several thousands years before the movies but the technology is pretty much the same. 

Honestly the viewpoint that Star Wars is really fantasy not a bad one.

It's space opera, imo.  It has a raft of cliches that keep it far from hard SF or even moderately soft SF.  Example:  Fighter spacecraft  that manuever like biplanes, despite being in space.  Devaronians occur as a race because some of the producer types saw a devil mask at the special effects shop and wanted it added in despite the resistance the effects guys.  

That said, futurism is rarely going to peg loads of things accurately.  Just go back and look at the (now) retro futurists visions.  Big trends may be spotted, but that's pretty much the best you can hope for.   For the OP, the look is 40 years old now.  OF course it's looking a bit dated.   IT will probably cycle around, as these things have a way of doing. 

---

Originally posted by AdamTM

---

Originally posted by jeremyjodes
You have to remember the fictional starwars universe is another galaxy. it's not in the milkyway. the physics are not the same. the force is in every living thing. even tree's and even the rocks and dirt. possibly it holds the fabric of that galaxy together so the whole thing doesn't  fly apart. we have gravity physics in our galaxy.
Also and mainly the technologie never ever changes. the day the first lightsaber was made it pretty much stayed the same for 10's of thousand of years. also 1970's hair do never changes as well. it will never change from when lucas created it. the guy was a man of the 70's. most developers who fell in love with the first starwars movie in 77 agreewith him when they sign the agreement to keep it that way :)
 

---

The thing about physics is that they are the same in the whole uinverse not just a galaxy.
Change the crawl text to:
 
"A long time ago In a universe far far away"
 
and i will agree with you

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by AdamTM

---

Originally posted by jeremyjodes
...

---

That's one of the things that makes it a Science Fantasy, not a Hard SciFi story. The science has nothing to do with...well...science. This is fine because it exists to tell a story. It doesn't need hard science to tell a story.

 

Well there are parts of Star Wars that are very "sciency" for example, just read this description of a TIE fighter:  http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/ln_starfighter .

Here's an excerpt:

The TIE/ln's engine was one of the most precisely manufactured propulsion systems in the galaxy and, with no moving parts, was low-maintenance. Unlike the TIE before it, the TIE/ln sported independent generators for the engine and the weapons. The lack of combat shields, hyperdrive, and life-support systems, in concert with the advanced engine design, reduced the mass of the fighter and conferred exceptional maneuverability.  

That said though, the force as presented in the original trilogy was DEFINITELY science fantasy, no doubt.

However, in the prequels they tried to make it more "sciency" by explaining the force by some BS symbiotic relationship between lifeforms and "midichlorians" (cough...parasite eve...cough).  <Shudders>