FACTPILE IS BACK!!!
CLICK HERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF
Take a Tour of the Admin's Mancave

Projectile dysfunction

Designated Debating Area! As Well As Expanded Mayhem!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Authors

Projectile dysfunction

Postby Mea quidem sententia » Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:11 am

We need to establish criteria for projectiles in fiction. We should be critical of all projectiles if we're critical of particular kinds. Since we cannot use empirical evidence as that requires methods outside of our ability to do so for fiction, we may need to use two other forms of evidence that are appropriate in legal terms. These are direct and circumstantial (indirect) evidence. Direct evidence is not objectable. Circumstantial evidence is subject to inference. The appropriate interpretation is one in which it makes the fewest assumptions.

Words that are used, such as sonic, subsonic, supersonic, hypersonic, light speed, speed of light, or FTL are to be understood in their plainest, literal sense. Mach x or c are to be understood literally. If exact numbers are given, they are direct evidence. If a laser, for example, is not portrayed accurately, even if its description says "299,792,458 m/s" or some variation, such as "300,000 km/s", then it is literal. This includes bullets. If no information is given, even if the firearm looks like a real-world firearm, this won't be regarded with the same speed as the real-world counterpart.

Fictional settings can assist in corroborating evidence. This means if there are other real-world events or objects, then it can support circumstantial evidence. Genres may make things more probable. Genres that have tropes don't necessarily make the reality of projectiles probable.

Alternatively, to avoid unnecessary bickering, all projectiles in media travel at the speed they are portrayed unless otherwise stated or inferred.
Last edited by Mea quidem sententia on Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mea quidem sententia
Ready For Action
 
Posts: 1635
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Establishing criteria for lasers

Postby Friendlysociopath » Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:22 am

Mea quidem sententia wrote:In spite of similarities, one is sooner to accept sonic attacks over photonic attacks. This is a common bias and I suspect the underlying reason is because some are afraid of the idea that the character they're defending will lose.


I would disagree immensely with this on grounds of your own confirmation bias. You noted the opponent that most strongly disagreed with what you want to use for lasers (Aelfinn and myself, though he outdid me by leaps and bounds judging by the essays you guys were writing) were also proponents for the opposing character to win- this is correlation- not causation. I imagine this thread stems from your dislike of how I argued about Izayoi and Goku and I'm going to point out that Izayoi is from a novel, which is very restricted in how you can prove and disprove feats and is another argument entirely with its own issues. A brief example:
Spoiler
Bob threw a baseball at Harold, who dodged it before it could reach him.
Bob fired a supersonic bullet at Harold, who dodged it before it could reach him.
Bob threw a hypersonic lightning bolt at Harold, who dodged it before it could reach him.
Bob fired a lightspeed laser at Harold, who dodged it before it could reach him.


We don't have visuals to correspond to any of these, nor audio clues nor usually any background information. We have no more data than what we're given as text. So either you can agree that 3rd person narration holds true in all cases unless contradicted, such as exaggeration, hyperbole, etc- or you can agree to the opposite in that it isn't. The latter effectively means you cannot ever prove anything about a novel character since the argument of, "The novel states this occurred- therefor it is true." is not accepted by the opposition. Saying the last statement is false is effectively no different than saying the first statement is false- despite the first being in the realm of reason. I cannot prove Bob dodged a baseball anymore than I can prove he dodged a laser, bullet, or lightning bolt- not with text alone.
If, however, the argument of, 'Bob doesn't show superhuman speeds at any other point, therefor it can't be assumed he's capable of superhuman speeds.' is used, this at least provides reasoning beyond text alone. But if the argument of, 'Bob shows superhuman speeds at other points, therefor it can't be assumed he's limited to only human speeds.' is used, this then opens up all three of the latter ones simultaneously. And from there it's just a matter of gauging the other speed feats and determining whether any of the above statements is an outlier or the other contradictions.
However, the original premise of them being true because they're written is still required to be accepted on both sides for these arguments or debates to occur at all. If you know of an alternative for novels in particular I'd love to hear it but the lack of any additional data restricts how you can both prove and disprove novel feats.


However, in regards to lasers, my concern has been, and will presumably be well into the future, that the term can convey only part of the meaning and not all of it.
It's not about making a side lose or win, it's about the undeniable uncertainty that any time the term 'laser' is used that it's being used to mean a lightspeed attack. The uncertainty, coupled with the massive potential for outliers that this brings, means that it should be viewed much more harshly than slower speeds and effects that use them. I can show you entries from the official strategy guide of Metal Gear Revengeance that refer to Excelsus and RAY possessing lasers mind you- I never brought them up though. Why? Because I firmly believe the term isn't used to mean lightspeed. I can, and will, make this distinction for laser alone and am not hypocritical for doing so. Deciding on an exception does not inherently make one biased.

Could you apply the first part of this, the idea of a word only conveying part of the meaning, to 'sonic' attacks or 'bullets'? Yes actually, which has been done at least once for sure in recent history with the RWBY bullets, we don't know the speed of the bullets because: they do not use gunpowder, are fired from magical weapons, the bullets themselves hold magic, and more than once we see the bullets exhibit odd behavior such as propelling Ruby herself through the air. As such I did raise the point that we can't be certain about the bullets in terms of speed and power and should look at them more closely than normal. Lowk also raised this issue with Nier Automata bullets but the game is so large I've not yet managed to get far enough to answer some of his questions. I did eat a poison fish though and got the "death by fish" ending.


Mea quidem sententia wrote:If my suspicion is correct, I'd say such a fear is almost religious and unwarranted.


Gonna take this moment to call you out for attacking religion, I understand it's popular for atheists to bitch about it but that's not in any way required or relevant and is beneath you.


Mea quidem sententia wrote:
The idea of characters being bullet-timers is hardly given as much criticism as those who dodge lasers is most telling of this bias. Even dodging lightning doesn't receive this much criticism.
If we're going to be critical about lasers and light, we need to apply the same for bullets, sonic attacks, and lightning. I don't care if we can compare fictional firearms or bullets. The fact that bullets vary in speed should make us immediately doubt the reliability of supersonic bullets. At least lighting and light maintain a constant speed. (The speed of light in air is so negligible, it's not worth thinking about.)


What you call 'bias' I call 'different standards for different things'.
Saying a laser is lightspeed in one case but in the exact same scenario saying a different laser isn't would be bias.
Saying a bullet is a supersonic in one case but in the exact same scenario saying a different bullet isn't would be bias.
Saying either of those is a certain speed in one case but in a different scenario with different data and different projectile saying it isn't is not bias.
Saying a laser isn't lightspeed and then bringing the laser criteria for the bullet to prove it isn't supersonic would require the two to be similar enough for such a criteria to still work- which I would disagree with both because the criteria is different and also because we have additional means to judge bullets that we do not have for the others.

And dodging lightning absolutely receives criticism, I've yet to see an example of lightning-dodging that wasn't nitpicked just as much as lasers and I challenge you to provide such a case. The main instances that come to mind as of right now are:
Rand Al'Thor, disputed in possibly the longest dispute of Factpile history.
Cloud, disputed for effects not adding up plus magical theory.
Tidus, disputed for effects not adding up.
Link, disputed for effects not adding up plus magical theory.
Of those four, Rand is a novel character and has the issues I listed above, the others were all visual discrepancies of one or another; Link now with yet another dispute in addition to his previous ones.
Sonic attacks are rarely brought up because being able to see the attacks at all causes us to enter an unprecedented realm where you're not working with correct visuals in the slightest. If a character fires a 'sonic' attack and you see any sort of light come at you instead- that's blatantly altering visuals. I don't recall ever actually arguing about sonic attacks though so perhaps Aelfinn will show up to debate that one with you.

Bullets are their own animal and have their own set of challenges, entirely separate from light, which is why the criteria and ways of gauging them are different. I will tell you now- you cannot show bullets traveling the correct speed in real-time. That cannot happen- I know because I tried as an animation experiment. I didn't use these exact numbers but the principle is the same. You cannot show any of those other things in real-time either but I'm going on a bullet tangent for this bit since it's going to apply to the others even more so.
For instance, let's say you're working in 60 FPS, this is a relatively recent speed in the history of visual media but follow me now.
60 FPS means 1 frame every 0.0166 seconds.
So, the speed of sound is 340.29 meters per second.
340.29 x 0.0166 = 5.648814 meters, or 18.5 feet. Point-blank in real-life, but used somewhat often in movies. If a gun is fired within this range at supersonic speeds, you literally cannot show the bullet in real-time and 60FPS. From the bullet firing to the bullet reaching the person will be less than a frame. Not only can you not show the bullet- you cannot show movement to block or dodge it since those movements require more than a single frame. And don't forget this is 60FPS, we've been using far less than that for a long period of time across all media, which only escalates the problem. Movies for example were shot in 48 FPS (well, the equivalent anyways) for some time and are still filmed in that speed in some cases.

How then do you gauge the speed of a bullet? You could use the real-time data, yes, but perhaps 99% of the time bullets will not be shown going straight from the gun to the person reacting to them in one real-time shot anyways. Frequently there will be cuts- which makes gauging speed effectively impossible since the cuts could overlap either direction or have an unmeasured duration between them. Slow-motion was also favored once developed due to being able to actually show the bullets in-flight. So real-time is out for an overwhelming majority of the media. Another solution is needed that can be uniformly worked upon (so as to avoid bias) that doesn't rely on real-time showings.

However, when you remove speed for the bullets, what else do you have to look at? A valid route is to look at the gun they're firing. If you can find the model of the gun, you can find the speed of the bullets it should fire. The speed of the bullet will then be a direct result of the gun being shown- measuring the speed of the bullet itself becomes secondary. The only counters to this are that, "It looks slower", which as noted above, is impossible to avoid; and the occasional, "It's a blur of light", which would possibly disprove bullets if has not become very common across all media to portray them in such a fashion for them to be visible since bullets are tiny. You're not judging the bullets based on their speed or appearance- instead you're looking at the gun. This is technically the opposite of what you said is done. It's not assumed, "Bullets are supersonic", it's assumed, "This gun fires bullets at this speed, therefor the bullets are this speed". There have, in fact, been occasions where this exact method had resulted in subsonic bullets such as certain kinds of pistols or shotguns.

How does this correspond to lightning, light, and lasers? Simple- you look for ways it can or can not be accurate to the real thing.
Lightning conjured from the hands is frequently regarded as 'magic lightning' and not considered true lightning speed since you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt it's intended to be so. Lightning from the sky is regarded as 'natural lightning' and is considered true lightning speed since, for all intents and purposes beyond speed since it's not possible for real-time, is acting exactly like normal lightning. Despite this- there are still instances where it's argued to be wrong.
Light has its own issue (as I mentioned before, using the same criteria for them all isn't going to work unless you grossly simplify the argument and ignore the finer points) in that it can be used in magic-using fictions to mean a sort of elemental nature in the likes of: fire, water, earth, air, light, dark to mean a certain kind of magic, usually akin to 'holy'. As such, attacks that are mentioned to be 'light' do not inherently mean the attack is literally the physical light in the sense of photons moving around.

Lasers do not have a series of existing models to work from like guns. They (I realize now the somewhat ironic relationship) are akin to 'light' in that the words used to describe them do not have only one definition that applies when used. Does that mean every laser is or is not lightspeed? No. But it's not beyond possibility for the laser to not be lightspeed and as such just the term 'laser' isn't enough to suppose it is so to me. It's entirely possible the term is used only in the partial sense- which I admit bullets can fall into as well and have even argued in favor of in the past in regards to RWBY and briefly Yu Yu Hakusho. But bullets have additional criteria that can be used while lasers don't and proportionate to other feats (which is what we use to gauge outliers remember) will not be so far away as moving around regarding lasers or lightning. Not to mention bullet-timing tends to be a fairly repeated thing when it is shown in the first place. It's rare to see someone react to a single bullet only once.
User avatar
Friendlysociopath
Voice of the People
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Establishing criteria for lasers

Postby Mea quidem sententia » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:48 am

@Friendlysociopath
Since you brought up Aelfinn, his problem was so great, he practically nitpicked down to even the color of Samus' plasma beam. That is blatantly absurd. I'll admit that I'm positive I have biases, but then again, I don't deny this and then proceed to be biased like the aforementioned individual. I think it's uncharitable that you'll disagree with me on "grounds of [my own] confirmation bias", but won't address Aelfinn's or your own, or anyone else's. This thread is needed because we all need to come to an agreement.

If anyone used the word "laser", you wouldn't immediately think, "He doesn't actually mean a beam of light traveling 299,792,458 m/s", would you? You would accept it for what it is without question, I bet. Yet, you treat lasers differently when it comes to a bunch of males debating about two or more characters. I didn't realize "laser" was treated differently in the same way "soul", or "gods", or "free will", or "mind" would be when it came to metaphysics or philosophy in general. Even if your career was engineering or some other field of science, you would understand laser to mean light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.

I don't know what "potential outliers" you're referring to. This isn't statistics. Deciding on exceptions makes one questionable, however. As for the term "religious", this case has nothing to do with religion. Come on, Friendlysociopath, learn to be charitable. (Also realize atheists are the most distrusted minority in the U.S. last I checked.) If I said you religiously play Skyrim, it would mean you devote a lot of your time playing Skyrim. In this case, when it comes to lasers, people here have this unwavering conviction that "laser" doesn't mean "laser".

The problem is that if you go by standards, then you need to realize lasers have a constant speed of 299,792,458 m/s. Bullets don't. So the two are clearly different, but of the two, only one remains constant. If a laser passes through water or another liquid, fine. We can address that, but in what debate is water going to be an issue? What is biased is assuming bullets are moving supersonic, but doubting a laser is a laser.

Cloud has never dealt with lightning as far as I'm aware. I don't know about Tidus. Link dodging lightning has never been demonstrated. Simple. As for sonic attacks, my point is that these and lasers are similar in many ways, yet no one will dispute (or perhaps very rarely anyone will dispute) sonic attacks being made of sound or traveling 343 m/s.

Your example of bullets in media is like that of lasers. I have brought this up before. I said a laser in media would never be accurately portrayed in terms of speed because a frame wouldn't be enough. One could say, "It's not lightspeed because it too 16.67 ms to travel the distance we can only observe." In other words, in 1 frame, if we had the opportunity to see the laser travel 299,792,458 m., then we would see a slight FTL. However, if we do this and can only observe it traveling 10 m., then it only can be seen traveling Mach 1.75. Aelfinn thought we should rely on imperceptibility, but even that is a problem because ifwe applied it to bullets and missiles in fiction, then these weapons would be subsonic.

If you need to go through a variety of methods to determine the speed of a bullet, then I'd say lasers are simpler and require fewer assumptions for the simple fact that lasers travel at c in a vacuum and the air only makes it insignificantly slower to the point it wouldn't matter. I wish I could find a way for the speed of electricity, but I haven't been able to find what I've been looking for. Light elements aren't regarded the same because the focus is magical, not scientific.
Mea quidem sententia
Ready For Action
 
Posts: 1635
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Establishing criteria for lasers

Postby Friendlysociopath » Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:51 pm

At work so sniping a bit

Mea quidem sententia wrote:@Friendlysociopath
Since you brought up Aelfinn, his problem was so great, he practically nitpicked down to even the color of Samus' plasma beam. That is blatantly absurd. I'll admit that I'm positive I have biases, but then again, I don't deny this and then proceed to be biased like the aforementioned individual. I think it's uncharitable that you'll disagree with me on "grounds of [my own] confirmation bias", but won't address Aelfinn's or your own, or anyone else's. This thread is needed because we all need to come to an agreement.


I defended why I do not have a confirmation bias in regards to lasers and addressed yours in regards to myself at least. I cannot speak for Aelfinn one way or the other. Evveryone wasn't exactly top-form in that thread.
Confirmation bias is also very hard to find in the first place.


Mea quidem sententia wrote:If anyone used the word "laser", you wouldn't immediately think, "He doesn't actually mean a beam of light traveling 299,792,458 m/s", would you? You would accept it for what it is without question, I bet.


You would owe me money then- I would question it.
If I were reading a research paper then yes, I would believe it with little question.
If I were listening to a random person I would be skeptical and question it.
This skepticism is only increased when the subject matter has a high percentage of incorrect or misleading usage of the word- such as fiction.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:Yet, you treat lasers differently when it comes to a bunch of males debating about two or more characters. I didn't realize "laser" was treated differently in the same way "soul", or "gods", or "free will", or "mind" would be when it came to metaphysics or philosophy in general. Even if your career was engineering or some other field of science, you would understand laser to mean light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.


Each thing you just mentioned HAS seen scrutiny on Factpile. God in particular has such varying returns that the word is just about dismissed out of hand when used. Souls had such a debate that Admin stepped in for an official decision.
And in essence the issue with "laser" is you seem to refuse to accept the term is not used to mean lightspeed attacks all of the time while Aelfinn and myself acknowledge it is not so simple.
Fiction in general does not hold up well to blanket rules and statements.
User avatar
Friendlysociopath
Voice of the People
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Establishing criteria for lasers

Postby Mea quidem sententia » Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:48 pm

@Friendlysociopath
I don't recall you doing so. Where did you show that you aren't biased when it comes to lasers?

You must be fun at parties. I understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but lasers are an established fact and rather ordinary. If you were talking to someone about quantum theory, then I'd say sure, be more than willing to be skeptical because even physicists aren't exactly in agreement with the interpretations provided.

Well, yeah. Gods, souls, free will, the mind are all not concrete in their definitions. Lasers aren't like that, probably due to the factt that photons are necessary to see things, photons can be observed, photons can be spatially coherent, &c. And photons actually have a specific definition in science, just like lasers. I don't have any reason to reject lasers being lasers, especially when they're plainly called lasers. This is why I'd like to establish some criteria.
Mea quidem sententia
Ready For Action
 
Posts: 1635
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Establishing criteria for lasers

Postby Soulerous » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:45 pm

Looks like the crux of this issue is when we can say the word "laser" is being used correctly. Lasers are a definite thing, yet it is reasonably common for beams that aren't actually lasers to be called lasers.

Should we then say we can never be sure the word is being applied correctly? Of course not. There must be precedent within the specific fiction. Even one example of a "laser" not behaving as a true laser does would cast doubt by showing the author/fiction in question does not make sure lasers are always really lasers. Outside of that we should not be doubtful. It's the same with any constant. A black hole is a black hole and a sonic boom is a sonic boom, until the specific fiction shows that they aren't.

Although in those cases it's usually due to a simple lack of realism, and not someone misusing the terminology. The latter is substantially more common with lasers, which makes the matter a little more frustrating, but the same basic principle applies: The precedent must be set with proof.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you two are arguing. Then again, I wasn't there for the original debates.
User avatar
Soulerous
Labled Incurable
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Establishing criteria for lasers

Postby Friendlysociopath » Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:55 am

Mea quidem sententia wrote:@Friendlysociopath
I don't recall you doing so. Where did you show that you aren't biased when it comes to lasers?


You said I had a confirmation bias:
the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
Except I repeatedly jumped between both sides in that debate. You're saying I interpreted new evidence to confirm my 'existing belief' when I clearly didn't have an 'existing belief' since said belief was actively being formed and changed during that exact debate.
On the other hand, you very much were willing to brush off game-given evidence where a 'laser' in Metroid functioned very realistically to a 'laser' including an instant hit-box but another weapon still called a laser was notably slower- which is one of the primary reasons I eventually stuck to Aelfinn's side since pointing out 'laser' could be a variable term allowed both objects to still be called lasers and have different speeds.

I then also pointed out (in an odd way I suppose) that I have applied the same rules to characters I like and dislike equally- by citing Tidus and Cloud. I imagine if you were to ask a given member of the site what character I defended the most or considered my favorite, they would respond to the first with Cloud and the latter with possibly a Sengoku Basara character since that's my signature. Cloud actually IS in my top 10 list (which I made a Youtube video of) but he's not my favorite. That said-
Cloud, when facing Kadaj for the final time in Advent Children, dodges a series of electrical attacks that Kadaj throws at him. The official script you get from buying certain editions of the movie specifically states these are 'lightning bolts'. But it was argued that the physics of the lightning didn't act properly and so the feat shouldn't count as moving fast enough to dodge lightning.
Tidus, when traveling across the thunder plains, HAS to dodge lightning. Specifically you MUST wait until the screen flashes and then press the prompt to dodge the bolt that strikes where you are standing. Fail and you will be knocked on your ass and lose health. Doing this enough times will earn you a new weapon I believe. But when I argued this was undeniable proof Tidus could dodge lightning and move at high speeds- it was dismissed because Tidus' animation to dodge the lightning wouldn't start until after the bolt had hit the ground.
Despite my like of Cloud and dislike of Tidus, I still gauged both the same because the verdict I'd been given was that if lightning didn't act correctly, you couldn't assume it was using lightning speed.


Mea quidem sententia wrote:You must be fun at parties. I understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but lasers are an established fact and rather ordinary. If you were talking to someone about quantum theory, then I'd say sure, be more than willing to be skeptical because even physicists aren't exactly in agreement with the interpretations provided.


Lasers in reality are an established fact. I'll even give you ordinary since I use them at my job. I'll give you one further and say people enjoy me at parties too.
However, your argument originally was that lasers were given undo suspicion and cited a series of other options that "one is sooner to accept" and are "hardly given as much criticism". I responded by pointing our every given example you gave had situations where they were reviewed more closely.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:Well, yeah. Gods, souls, free will, the mind are all not concrete in their definitions. Lasers aren't like that, probably due to the factt that photons are necessary to see things, photons can be observed, photons can be spatially coherent, &c. And photons actually have a specific definition in science, just like lasers. I don't have any reason to reject lasers being lasers, especially when they're plainly called lasers. This is why I'd like to establish some criteria.


Now see, you're explaining lasers in reality, which are possibly how lasers work in fiction and if they do work that way- they have a fixed speed due to the principles of how lasers work. However, to say all 'lasers' in fiction function that way is an assumption, furthermore, an assumption that can be proven incorrect very easily. You do, in fact, have reasons to reject lasers being lasers- you specifically cited Kingdom Hearts and Fairy Tail instances as not being lasers despite using the exact word. Your reasoning at the time was, "They're not sci-fi". I distinctly recall chiding you that KH could qualify as sci-fi since it has many of the tropes related and the conversation (rapidly) degenerated from there.
If lasers in fiction functioned as they did in reality, we could not have 'lasers' that bend through the air, be stored in a mirror and reflected out as a pair of 'lasers', 'lasers' that can be grabbed and thrown through the air, or 'lasers' that explode when touched, or two 'lasers' in the same fiction traveling at massively different speeds. These things happen, therefor we have to have a stricter criteria than "It's called a laser".

As for what criteria that should be, I happened to like Aelfinn's, the signature point must be the immediacy of the laser, the speed, the instance nature that is the first thing that comes to mind when 'laser' is mentioned. Does it have to be the actual speed? No. I never said that and Aelfinn said so as well. But the important feature was to be how it was to be very fast. You guys never got to discuss this point in detail because, IIRC, you did not like this approach. However, I'll message him and see if he'll find time from his school to drop by because I do not enjoy trying to secondhand explain other people.
User avatar
Friendlysociopath
Voice of the People
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Establishing criteria for lasers

Postby Mea quidem sententia » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:47 am

Oh, fuck me! Stupid post didn't go through because I got kicked out! I don't have time for this shit. Do whatever.
Mea quidem sententia
Ready For Action
 
Posts: 1635
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Establishing criteria for lasers

Postby Alpha or Omega » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:21 pm

Friendlysociopath wrote:On the other hand, you very much were willing to brush off game-given evidence where a 'laser' in Metroid functioned very realistically to a 'laser' including an instant hit-box but another weapon still called a laser was notably slower- which is one of the primary reasons I eventually stuck to Aelfinn's side since pointing out 'laser' could be a variable term allowed both objects to still be called lasers and have different speeds.

And, I pointed out that the imperialist isn't even in the same game as the light beam, plasma beam, and so on. It's not really comparable unless they're in the same game.
Image
"Darn-sung, dang-busted, horse-thievin', alien control panel which can't nobody work proper!" - Vigilante
User avatar
Alpha or Omega
Zombie Eater
 
Posts: 4608
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:33 am
Location: On the Move

Re: Establishing criteria for lasers

Postby Friendlysociopath » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:44 pm

Alpha or Omega wrote:
Friendlysociopath wrote:On the other hand, you very much were willing to brush off game-given evidence where a 'laser' in Metroid functioned very realistically to a 'laser' including an instant hit-box but another weapon still called a laser was notably slower- which is one of the primary reasons I eventually stuck to Aelfinn's side since pointing out 'laser' could be a variable term allowed both objects to still be called lasers and have different speeds.

And, I pointed out that the imperialist isn't even in the same game as the light beam, plasma beam, and so on. It's not really comparable unless they're in the same game.


I don't see why not. It's the same series, same makers, and same character- why wouldn't this be something important to note between games? The weapon is still canon to the Metroid-verse and visually it wasn't remotely close to those other things. I fail to see why the two cannot be compared since the correlation isn't even needed. If 'laser' was only restricted to one definition and method of use- they'd not make two weapons with the same description such as that and then have them wildly be different.

Course, laser being a variable term WOULD allow for that.
User avatar
Friendlysociopath
Voice of the People
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Next

Return to FactPile Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest