| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Except we hear the sound and see the bolts even in the wide shots where our point of view is not in the cockpit or even with a specific character. [/quote]
But we aren' really "there". So we only have to rationilize what the characters see and hear. Each movie opens up with a scolling marquee that give the audience a nice intro and update on the storyline. Yet no one has even commnenbted on those in the films, or crashed into some scorlling letters.
| Quote: |
Personally I am fine with just going with "looks and sounds better" as an explanation. I take it as just part of the genre. The technology emulates E.E. "Doc" Smith Lensman series or the Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials.* It's not supposed to be hard Sci-Fi. Just like if I were playing a game based Battletech I wouldn't get too worked up about the plausibility of heat as the major resource constraint for Mechs or if I was playing a superhero game I wouldn't get too worked up about the fact that when the superstrong guy tosses a bus half a mile the opposite newtonian force should shatter the pavement and pile drive his feet a meter or more into the ground. |
Yeah, Star Wars doesn't hold up well to scientist scrutiny.
But hey, enjoy the exercise if you like it. 
* I guess we should also include Nictzin Dyalhis' When the Green Star Waned from 1925 since he/she apparently coined the term "blastor" [sic].[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | jmanski wrote: | | I think the most likely explanation is that realistic combat in space would be very boring to watch. It's cinema, folks, not realism. |
Which we should also keep in mind when determining the speed of plaster bolts from the movies..
It would be very boring if the blast travelled so fast we almost couldnt see them, in fact it would just be a blink. |
I disagree. Bullets travel faster than we can see, and yet firefights in films can be uite exicitng. I don7t think thrills/excitment is the issue here. It is verisimilitude.
When something departs from what the audiences consdiers normal, extra effort is ofen made on the part of the creators/producers to make that item seem and feel realistic to the audience. How the object should really work is secondary to the audiences expectations. Thus blasters have a "kick", blaster bolts can be seen and so forth.
But hat apporach causes problems for gamers. We try to extraportate info on tech based upoon what we see and logic and we are screwed from the start, as such items are not sensible to begin with. But it helps to have sort sort of rational behind the game stats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | I disagree. Bullets travel faster than we can see, and yet firefights in films can be uite exicitng. |
So you deny that the Star Wars movies without any visible blaster shots zipping across the battlefield wouldnt lose anything of its 'space opera' feel?
I feel theres a big difference to the firefights of Star Wars and, for example, Starship Troopers.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And to add to the sound debate... at what point does one of the characters complain about the loud music blaring while they are shooting at other starships?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | And to add to the sound debate... at what point does one of the characters complain about the loud music blaring while they are shooting at other starships? |
That's why Luke and Han put on the headsets in ANH. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | | I disagree. Bullets travel faster than we can see, and yet firefights in films can be uite exicitng. |
So you deny that the Star Wars movies without any visible blaster shots zipping across the battlefield wouldnt lose anything of its 'space opera' feel? |
Nope. I deny that invisbile blaster blts would be "boring".The visible bolts are there specfically for that "space opera feel".
| Quote: |
I feel theres a big difference to the firefights of Star Wars and, for example, Starship Troopers. |
Yup. So what? Your orngial point was that it would be boring if we didn't see the shots. That's not true. Visible shots just help to give it a sci-fi feel.'But Star Wars (or any other sci-fi show) would not become boring if the shots weren7t visible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I gotta side with ZzaphodD here. The space opera feel - along with John Williams' amazing music - is what makes it exciting for me. Absent blasters or rayguns I might as well be playing original slug throwing Traveller. I want to see a ray gun, death ray, beam gun, blaster, laser gun, phaser, or powergun take effect. Having a blaster fire without seeing a bolt would be like watching a pirate movie where the cannons and flintlocks fire without seeing any smoke. Boring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | I gotta side with ZzaphodD here. The space opera feel - along with John Williams' amazing music - is what makes it exciting for me. Absent blasters or rayguns I might as well be playing original slug throwing Traveller. I want to see a ray gun, death ray, beam gun, blaster, laser gun, phaser, or powergun take effect. Having a blaster fire without seeing a bolt would be like watching a pirate movie where the cannons and flintlocks fire without seeing any smoke. Boring. |
But you don't "see" the bolt in play. Or does ILM do special effects around your gaming table?
Lots of exciting films, TV shows, bokks, and more have had many exciting scenes without any special death ray, blaster bolt or similar effect. So the lack of such does not make something "boring".
There is more to excitement than visual effects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
But you don't "see" the bolt in play. Or does ILM do special effects around your gaming table?
|
Get your head out now please... 
So, basically nothing visual is important as long as you dont recreate it at the gaming table? We might as well all fly around in big potatoes, have all the scenery look like eastern-bloc suburbs and shoot with banans? As we dont 'see' anything of those at the gaming table, the choice of design does not influence the gaming experience? 
| Quote: | | Your orngial point was that it would be boring if we didn't see the shots. That's not true. |
And now you should really read up on the difference between true/false and opinions/preferences. My opinion is still that the movies without visible blaster shots would not have had the same impact as they had... Its not a coincidence Lucas choose visible bolts over just gunfire.. 
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: |
But you don't "see" the bolt in play. Or does ILM do special effects around your gaming table?
|
Get your head out now please... |
That was uncalled for.
Tell, me, how do you "see" blaster bolts around the gaming table? Bren saidthat he wanted to "see" the bolts, amd I pointed out that we never do see the bolts when we game. So the visual effect is non-existent.
| Quote: |
So, basically nothing visual is important as long as you dont recreate it at the gaming table? We might as well all fly around in big potatoes, have all the scenery look like eastern-bloc suburbs and shoot with banans? As we dont 'see' anything of those at the gaming table, the choice of design does not influence the gaming experience? |
You are confusing verismilitude with excitement.
As far as game mechanics go, it doesn't matter what you call things. Weapons have a damage stat and that determines the effect. We never "see" bolts in play, and frankly, it makes little difference in how we play. Weather a PC runs across a yard avoiding a series of visible bolts or non-visible bullets makes absolutely no difference in terms of game play or excitement. The excitement (and drama) are caused by the situation.
| Quote: |
And now you should really read up on the difference between true/false and opinions/preferences. |
There are many films that are exiciting that don7t have blaster bolts zipping acorss the screen. Or are you saying all those films are boring?
| Quote: |
My opinion is still that the movies without visible blaster shots would not have had the same impact as they had... |
Well, that is your opinion, but I disagree. They are many movies with "impact" that don't have visible blaster shots.
[/quote]
Its not a coincidence Lucas choose visible bolts over just gunfire.. [/quote]
Coincidence? What is it coinciding with?
If you are saying that the visible bolts were a conscious decsion, I agree. But I dont think it was for exceiment purposes but for the genre. As Star Wars is a Sci-Fi series it needed Sci-Fi weapons. And SF weapons always have visible effects to make them more beliable/accpetable to the audience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
As far as game mechanics go, it doesn't matter what you call things. Weapons have a damage stat and that determines the effect. We never "see" bolts in play, and frankly, it makes little difference in how we play. Weather a PC runs across a yard avoiding a series of visible bolts or non-visible bullets makes absolutely no difference in terms of game play or excitement. The excitement (and drama) are caused by the situation. |
Game mechanics are not the be all end all of an RPG, though...
Bullets:Looking across the snowy gap between the two buildings, Jorgan sets himself, and makes a run for it. The night is not dark enough to protect him from sight. Rapid cracking alerts him to incoming fire from multiple rifles. He runs at top speed, motivated by the snapping of the supersonic bullets as the pass by him. Making one final effort, he dives behind the building, landing hard on his chest. He stands slowly, as the little girl climbs off his back and runs to her mother. Jorgan then turns back towards the other building, and the other two children waiting in it's shadow
Blasters:Looking across the snowy gap between the two buildings, Jorgan sets himself, and makes a run for it. The night is not dark enough to protect him from sight. The sharp screeches of blaster rifles alert him to danger, just as the volcanic red light fills the white and frozen gap. He runs at top speed, watching bright red death bracket his body as he runs. His shadow darts from right to left again and again and again. Light and shadow dazzle him, confusing his vision in the slick snow. Making one final effort, he dives. His body arcs inches over a bolt, which he can clearly see would have skewered him with light, had he continued on foot. He lands on his chest, protecting the girl on his back, and then stands slowly. Jorgan turns back to the other building, the sharp smell of ozone in his nostrils the only vestige of the terror that exists in that snowy gap, and sets his determined gaze on the other two children hiding in the shadow of the building.
That's the same story, governed by the same mechanics, with different weapons. The blaster version is more interesting and more exciting because the blasters make a strong impression on more senses, provide more powerful imagery, and give the GM more storytelling capital to work with.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | Well, that is your opinion, but I disagree. They are many movies with "impact" that don't have visible blaster shots.
|
Sure, but its not Star Wars, which is the game we are currently discussing, in which blaster bolts (and 'laser swords') are part of the impact.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | Well, that is your opinion, but I disagree. They are many movies with "impact" that don't have visible blaster shots.
|
Sure, but its not Star Wars, which is the game we are currently discussing, in which blaster bolts (and 'laser swords') are part of the impact. |
Yeah. I wasn't arguing that. I was just pointing out that lack of blaster bolts doesn't mean that it would have been boring. If Lucas had gone with a differerrnt effect, I doubt it wouldhave ruined the films. I can only think of two problems from that. The intial scene wher CP0 and R2 run through the the firefight, and lightsaber parries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Yeah. I wasn't arguing that. I was just pointing out that lack of blaster bolts doesn't mean that it would have been boring. If Lucas had gone with a differerrnt effect, I doubt it wouldhave ruined the films. I can only think of two problems from that. The intial scene wher CP0 and R2 run through the the firefight, and lightsaber parries. |
Obviously it would depend on the effect.
Ruined without colorful blaster bolts - probably not ruined, but I suspect it would have been less exciting. Imagine the iconic initial scene with the the Tantive IV being pursued by the Star Destroyer. Lasercannon and turbolaser bolts firing back and forth until the Tantive IV is visibly hit and has to shut down or overload. Now imagine that with no sound (its in space after all) and no visible bolts. Just a flash from the cannon muzzles as the weapons fire until we see the final shot that actually hits the Tantive IV. I think that rather than exciting visual action that sets a classic space opera scene you would have something more like the silent movement of a space ship docking to the Blue Danube waltz in 2001.
The visual impact of the bolts connects the fleeing Tantive IV to the pursuing Star Destroyer and pulls you (the audience) immediately into the action. That is then follow by the chaos of the boarding action where, as you mentioned, we see 3P0 and R2. In fact I think the colored bolts do two things in this scene. They make it visually more interesting and allow us to see the danger to the droids. But by using colored light rather than bullets it makes the danger just a bit more abstract or comic-book like which may make it easier to suspend our disbelief when the two droids are able to walk unscathed thru the hail of blaster fire. The colored lights, combined with the visible impact and smoke from the hits makes for a an exciting, visually interesting, genre appropriate, action without making it too realistic or gory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
