Lucas's story was really punched up by his screenwriting co-horts.   Once he got too big to have anyone tell him he was being a doofus, things went downhill fast.

 Luke Starkiller, anyone?

So if we toss a bunch of pretty blue screens and shiney lighting on the floor that's futuristic.

As it has been said it's space opera.

Alot of the problem is you view analog as not futuristic and instead see Digital as futuristic.

Well... I'd like you to check out a aircraft carrier's* internals and you'll find analog is not a "out dated" thing. It's only percieved as such because we just like shiney screens.

The Clone Wars are a good example of the merger of the two.

Digital does not equate futuristic to me in the least bit.. It sometimes is a regression.

I'm going to bottom line it here.

You really want to be in the deep dark cold depths of space and have your vid control screen go BSOD your entire...

See>Xeno Gears.

I'd rather have back up nobs and gizmo's thank you very much.

I also think way too much on this crap.

*Though not in the future please review the next gen carriers, they still rock analog, as do all space craft we currently have been able to use, as our concept of sci-fi is based on these very things it stands to reason. Analog is still in.

You can't forget that Roddenberry sold Star Trek as a "wagon train to the stars", and the heavy Western influence on the original series.

Han Solo appears, and we've got Western elements all over Star Wars too.  Lucas described the orignal movie as "space western" many times.  Gunfights, horse races, outlaws hiding in the badlands, it's all there.

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 :)

 

See>Underlined:

Actually as a super hardcore starwars nerd.

The light saber has changed dramatically.

The first series are like that of "No more heroes" As that saber is actually a shout out to the old concept of the saber.

Pre-Republic (True republic) those bastards had such a huge energy pack on them you'd have to have the force just to carry them.

They looked like Giga counters. It's pretty neat actually.

The light saber definitely became elegant later on but before ? It was impractical and was mainly used as a traditional side arm and really had no true identity to Jedi until the first Sith came.

---

Originally posted by Creslin321

---

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>

---

---

Originally posted by Arglebargle
Lucas's story was really punched up by his screenwriting co-horts.   Once he got too big to have anyone tell him he was being a doofus, things went downhill fast.
 
 Luke Starkiller, anyone?

---

+1 for Analog Synthesizers!

And their analog interfaces....

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Creslin321

---

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.
 

---

 

---

The description of the TIE fighter is very technical, but it's not really based on science. It's one thing to say there are no moving parts, but it's another to describe how they managed to create propulsion without any moving parts. It's one thing to say it has independent generators for 'energy', but another thing entirely to describe how those generators actually work, and how the systems convert that energy into offensive weapons and propulsion. One is more fantasy, dressed in science fiction clothes, and the other is more science fiction.

I totally agree about the midichlorians...that was one of the single stupidest things that Lucas has added to the story. He probably figured that having real magic in science fiction was unbelievable. Hopefully they'll just ignore that in every other Star Wars related thing in the future.

 

He should have let the mystery be....

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

I totally agree about the midichlorians...that was one of the single stupidest things that Lucas has added to the story. He probably figured that having real magic in science fiction was unbelievable.

 

How I wish I could unhear that bit of Ep. 1... that was just the stupidest thing ever.  How did we get from "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter..." to "little microspobic buggy things let you use the force!"???

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Creslin321

---

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). 

---

The description of the TIE fighter is very technical, but it's not really based on science. It's one thing to say there are no moving parts, but it's another to describe how they managed to create propulsion without any moving parts. It's one thing to say it has independent generators for 'energy', but another thing entirely to describe how those generators actually work, and how the systems convert that energy into offensive weapons and propulsion. One is more fantasy, dressed in science fiction clothes, and the other is more science fiction.

I totally agree about the midichlorians...that was one of the single stupidest things that Lucas has added to the story. He probably figured that having real magic in science fiction was unbelievable. Hopefully they'll just ignore that in every other Star Wars related thing in the future.

 

 Ion Propulsion.

It explains how the engine operates as much as it can.

It uses Ions. The same way we use them on our swiffer sweepers (lol tis truth) it's just propulsion versus some other sciencey crap I am not qaulified to preach on.

Originally posted by Robsolf

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

I totally agree about the midichlorians...that was one of the single stupidest things that Lucas has added to the story. He probably figured that having real magic in science fiction was unbelievable.

 

How I wish I could unhear that bit of Ep. 1... that was just the stupidest thing ever.  How did we get from "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter..." to "little microspobic buggy things let you use the force!"???

Mitocondria yall.

That's what he was trying to do. Which sort of makes sense if you ponder it.

They are our power cells in real life, without them we're just hunks of goop with no magnetic structure.

Yoda was spiritual. All things he said were spiritual. A Buddhist monk.

Where as it was a science to others. Like in the real world different entities interpret the data differently.

I sort of liked that, as it kind of made sense when you think about it. What makes one "Chosen" in the force?

It didn't discredit the "Force" it only explained how a fat blue kid could fling a starship at a bounty hunter.

Edit: Removed hypothetical smaller than mitocondrial power houses due to lack of true evidence past a few research papers in 1993

Originally posted by Astropuyo

Originally posted by Robsolf

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

I totally agree about the midichlorians...that was one of the single stupidest things that Lucas has added to the story. He probably figured that having real magic in science fiction was unbelievable.

 

How I wish I could unhear that bit of Ep. 1... that was just the stupidest thing ever.  How did we get from "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter..." to "little microspobic buggy things let you use the force!"???

 

They are our power cells in real life, without them we're just hunks of goop with no magnetic structure.

 

 

But I AM just a hunk of goop with no magnetic structure! 

Good points, though.  Especially the bit on the different perspectives.

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 really never put star wars in the futuristic setting of the sci-fi genre as it really was not ment to be out side of having what would be quite advanced technology like personal bea-based weaponry, nterstellar travel, and also self-aware robots. To me it alwayys seemed more like a sci-fi variation of the standard fantasy mythos with warriors, mages, theives, and such all in a epic story. The same way with Firefly in it's settingg it is sci-fi yet it is not futuristic in many ways, but really s more of a desolet type furture setting with stark contrasts between people and standing in the setting. Now you look at star trek, babylon 5, and such those are furturistic sci-fi setting ment to appear many eras of technologic advancement ahead of us.But to me that is the issue too many people look at sc-fi settings as being somethign like having to be futuristic and advanced, even in my favorite rpg Phatasy star on the sega genisis it was not a trully furturistic setting, nor in many other such settings. I think you might have thought it was high sci-fi like many see many of the fantasy setting and find them underwelming when they play, not relising many settings are based on these trully idealised high-status versions of the setting which is not common for all of the setting. So not never felt that way, but are you weird? No you are mis-informed or just placing the wrong defination on a setting that is not build  to that setting you are attributing to it.

---

Originally posted by Astropuyo

---

Originally posted by Robsolf

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

---

I totally agree about the midichlorians...that was one of the single stupidest things that Lucas has added to the story. He probably figured that having real magic in science fiction was unbelievable.

 

---

How I wish I could unhear that bit of Ep. 1... that was just the stupidest thing ever.  How did we get from "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter..." to "little microspobic buggy things let you use the force!"???

---

Mitocondria yall.
 
That's what he was trying to do. Which sort of makes sense if you ponder it.
They are our power cells in real life, without them we're just hunks of goop with no magnetic structure.
 
Yoda was spiritual. All things he said were spiritual. A Buddhist monk.
Where as it was a science to others. Like in the real world different entities interpret the data differently.
I sort of liked that, as it kind of made sense when you think about it. What makes one "Chosen" in the force?
 
It didn't discredit the "Force" it only explained how a fat blue kid could fling a starship at a bounty hunter.
 
Edit: Removed hypothetical smaller than mitocondrial power houses due to lack of true evidence past a few research papers in 1993

---

It's a non argument.  The goal is to capture the feel of the Star Wars universe, not try to accurrately depict the future.

Originally posted by Astropuyo

 It explains how the engine operates as much as it can.

 It uses Ions. The same way we use them on our swiffer sweepers (lol tis truth) it's just propulsion versus some other sciencey crap I am not qaulified to preach on.

It's built with Unobtanium, yah. 

That's not science, it's what writers used to fill in with <tech> in the script.  Plausible-sounding gibberish some writer invented to fill in the gaps, a.k.a. Piller Filler. 

Originally posted by Relentless02

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

I think the Star Wars concept completely went over your head. I am sorry that its basic idea doesn't make sense to you. However with you continued responses through out this post it is clear you are attempting to illicit responses and troll other people. (As a general rule) Enjoy playing the games you understand and not the ones you don't.

Soooo  you expect a story that starts with the line  "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." and you expect it to look more futuristic than now???  Does that even make sense??   It happened a long time ago..... so it should look dated... it's like viewing a society which was advanced that existed a long time ago.... 

I mean really?? you are going to open with this...

starwars is a fantasy story like a knights wizard story.. with technology udated from horses carriages and metal swords.. added ligth swords, lazers space ships and aliens.  

when i first saw star wars i was like wow a long time ago they had some pretty cool stuff.. when we get advance it is going to look way better..... minus the magic stuff.  ie force.

Let me illustrate my point a little better, looking at Star Wars after being exposed to more modern Sci-Fi is kind of like looking at a Camry from the 70's right next to the newer 2012 model, they function the same way but one definitely LOOKS older. you can't be like "Oh they look the same." because they don't and I think majority of people if they were given a choice between the two they would choose the 2012 because it looks better.

PS. I have no other issues with Star Wars I too enjoy it from time to time and I think I might buy this game I just find it dificult to get immersed because it looks like it was made in the 70's and it was.

Ok...we have no idea how the future will look like, people try and try over and over, but always end up wrong. I don't see how Star Wars is any less legit than any other Sci-Fi or Space Fantasy.