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

Re: Projectile dysfunction

Postby Soulerous » Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:42 pm

Friendlysociopath wrote:Are you saying even if manga/anime/comic shows something that's dead-on an AK-47, they have to say it's an AK-47 to use it's stats?

Absolutely, because there are actually many different variations of the AK-47, as well as lookalikes, such as the AK-74 and the AKM (and more). A gun that looks like an AK-47 could really be a bunch of different things. Many fictions also have their own made-up guns that are based on real-life ones. The AK-47 is a very iconic gun that has inspired many others, fictional and non-fictional. So unless we're directly told what a gun is, there is no guarantee for what it matches or whether it's supposed to match anything.

An exception would be something like a work of historical fiction set during World War II, where we know which guns they had available. We could probably use appearance quite effectively there. Not really sure what you mean with your question on tracer rounds.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:Anyway, no one is making their own criteria, so whatever. Don't take my silence as concession.

You really confuse me with this. We don't get to make our own criteria. We don't get use our personal ideas of what should count and what shouldn't. We only get to use sound logic. I said I agreed with what you wrote in your first post, because it is sound logic. It's also nothing new; it's the existing criteria we always use. My only objection was regarding firearms in some situations.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:I think a lot of you are missing my point. Numbers don't have any appearance. Numbers are abstract. Meters per second doesn't require assumptions. It's blatantly stated. I don't see how you could be deceived by the appearance of numbers, since abstracta lack physicality and materialism. Try counterfeiting numbers and distance.

My point is that measurements don't mean anything and are completely useless for telling us information unless we assume they stand for the exact same quantities they do in real life. This would be an assumption, as it's entirely possible that meters and seconds stand for something very different in a given fiction. It's possible that all the elements in a fiction are wildly different from those of other fictions and the real world. This is what makes Rule 12 necessary. I don't see what's hard about this.

In other words: You're objecting to making assumptions. I object to that all the time; it's one of my specialties. The assumptions that I do not object to are those that the elements of a fictional setting are exactly like those of the real world until differences are displayed. Rock is rock, gold is gold, stars are stars, English is English, and so on. Without Rule 12 we would need to receive explicit confirmation for all these things and everything else, which virtually never happens and would make debate impossible. It's not often that we get Word of God statements like "Gold in my world is just like gold in the real world."

Do you not see what I'm saying? It's quit simple.
User avatar
Soulerous
Labled Incurable
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Projectile dysfunction

Postby Friendlysociopath » Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:27 pm

Soulerous wrote:An exception would be something like a work of historical fiction set during World War II, where we know which guns they had available. We could probably use appearance quite effectively there. Not really sure what you mean with your question on tracer rounds.


In video games and animation in particular, bullets are frequently shown as blurs of light- similar to how a tracer round looks.
For example- http://www12.soul-anime.us/watch/gunsli ... episode-2/
^Watch about two minutes in, just enough to see the opening song, start at 1:20 if you're short on time. See how the 'bullets' are basically little streaks/blurs of light?
An alternative example- the enemies in Metal Gear Rising Revengeance
https://youtu.be/zDAwFQ_XVmw?t=9m30s
Most animated media, 3D or 2D, use these to show bullets in motion so you can see them.
Now, granted, some of these media will show bullets without the blurry light effect at some point; both of the aforementioned series do- but ignore that for a moment.

If I understand you correctly- you would not be willing to use the stats of a gun even if the model/drawing looks exactly like an existing one in that scenario? Because the bullets are shown differently and not as regular bullets? Furthermore, even if the bullets looked correct, you still would think that too much of an assumption to make if we're not explicitly told the model as opposed to just looking like it?

If I understand that correctly, I find this is true and valid in that you don't want assumptions, but I also find it a horrible debating practice under rule 12- which has the perfectly clear intent of using our world as a base for fictional worlds. If we can draw an objectively good comparison to an existing weapon- we should use it.
Especially when the series wants to show people interacting with said bullets like cutting them out of the air- you need to be able to see the bullets for these actions otherwise you have someone just waving a weapon and sparks appearing on them like this.
https://youtu.be/lAcZxn1DeHs?t=29s
Which, while somewhat accurate (not entirely accurate), is visually not appealing at all and doesn't give a very good sense for the bullet-timer's movements either. Haru (Chris Farley) is just waving his arms and sparks are appearing.
As for why it isn't accurate, the sparks are greatly exaggerated, most videos showing bullets striking metal don't produce fireworks like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPeROTC2zhc
If you try hard enough, you will almost ALWAYS be able to find 'something' that doesn't match up, which is why I would say certain assumptions are okay to be made; the fact that rule 12 even exists would support this premise.

As for where the line is between too few/too many assumptions or whether such assumptions are too great/too small- that would be the debating part- nyet?
User avatar
Friendlysociopath
Voice of the People
 
Posts: 4102
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Projectile dysfunction

Postby Soulerous » Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:35 pm

Friendlysociopath wrote:If I understand you correctly- you would not be willing to use the stats of a gun even if the model/drawing looks exactly like an existing one in that scenario? Because the bullets are shown differently and not as regular bullets?

Nah, it's not about the bullets. You must have misread something I said. What you described is just an artistic style, and that's no issue. The issue is only that we have no proof of what model a gun is if we're not told the model.

Friendlysociopath wrote:Furthermore, even if the bullets looked correct, you still would think that too much of an assumption to make if we're not explicitly told the model as opposed to just looking like it?

Exactly. Take for example a simple black hand gun; it could be any of hundreds of different guns. But even something distinct like the AK-47 does not have a unique look; based on appearance, the gun in question could still be dozens of different things. It could even be a fictional model, as that's not uncommon.

In other words, things in the fiction are assumed to match their real-life counterparts; and so we need proof of exactly what that counterpart is. If we don't know which model the gun is supposed to be then we haven't even invoked Rule 12 yet. Once we know "X gun equals this real gun" then we can say they're the same thing.

Friendlysociopath wrote:the fact that rule 12 even exists would support this premise.

(As a reminder, I wrote Rule 12 word-for-word.) The point of the rule is that fictional elements match their real-life counterparts. The problem remains that we need proof that "Fictional Gun A" and "Real Gun B" are actually the same item. And obviously it would make no sense to say "this lioness is a mountain lion because we're using real life as a base," if you see my point.

There's a difference between saying "these are the same thing so we can assume they have the same properties" and "we're not sure if these are the same thing, but we'll assume they have the same properties anyway."
User avatar
Soulerous
Labled Incurable
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Projectile dysfunction

Postby Friendlysociopath » Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:46 am

Soulerous wrote:
Friendlysociopath wrote:Furthermore, even if the bullets looked correct, you still would think that too much of an assumption to make if we're not explicitly told the model as opposed to just looking like it?

Exactly. Take for example a simple black hand gun; it could be any of hundreds of different guns. But even something distinct like the AK-47 does not have a unique look; based on appearance, the gun in question could still be dozens of different things. It could even be a fictional model, as that's not uncommon.

In other words, things in the fiction are assumed to match their real-life counterparts; and so we need proof of exactly what that counterpart is. If we don't know which model the gun is supposed to be then we haven't even invoked Rule 12 yet. Once we know "X gun equals this real gun" then we can say they're the same thing.


That comes across as odd. You talk about how the Ak-47 could supposedly be many different models but then cite just a regular black hand gun as comparison. What gun looks so close to the AK-47 that the two could be mistaken AND shares vastly different stats?

Soulerous wrote:
Friendlysociopath wrote:the fact that rule 12 even exists would support this premise.

(As a reminder, I wrote Rule 12 word-for-word.) The point of the rule is that fictional elements match their real-life counterparts. The problem remains that we need proof that "Fictional Gun A" and "Real Gun B" are actually the same item. And obviously it would make no sense to say "this lioness is a mountain lion because we're using real life as a base," if you see my point.

There's a difference between saying "these are the same thing so we can assume they have the same properties" and "we're not sure if these are the same thing, but we'll assume they have the same properties anyway."


Isn't that the same difference though? Rarely in fiction will a bat be stated to be made of wood- but we'd still compare it to wooden bats if one was used wouldn't we? Rarely will a car be stated to have a specific type of engine- but we'd still act as though it has such an engine and if we can tell the model- we can compare it.
Either way we end up using the stats- right?
User avatar
Friendlysociopath
Voice of the People
 
Posts: 4102
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Projectile dysfunction

Postby Kitten Lord » Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:14 am

Another interesting question somewhat related to the other thread Mea made is what variables would we look for to confirm it is the real gun if its not stated to be? If appearance of the weapon is not enough, lets say it looks exactly like an AK-47, we still assume the world without further evidence functions under our laws and what not. So is it possible to have a weapon the same size and apparently same shape as an AK-47, (you can probably visibly see most of the action on it besides the mechanisms inside the gun) and still have completely different statistics enough so to matter in a debate?

As in, if it appears to fire ballistic projectiles, has a similar action or sound, and looks exactly the same how different "could" it be?
Image
User avatar
Kitten Lord
Organ Grinder
 
Posts: 2016
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:04 pm

Re: Projectile dysfunction

Postby Soulerous » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:17 am

Friendlysociopath wrote:You talk about how the Ak-47 could supposedly be many different models but then cite just a regular black hand gun as comparison. What gun looks so close to the AK-47 that the two could be mistaken AND shares vastly different stats?

I'm arguing about the principle, not a specific case. The AK-47 and the handgun just serve to illustrate the point. I'd have already brought up the specifics if this was a match with a target gun. And as I hinted at with my World War II example, there may or may not be factors that would allow us to determine the model of a gun (or any other manufactured item) without being explicitly told. I'm not saying we can never conclude the model of a gun without it being stated, but there's usually not enough supplementary information to draw such a conclusion. Apologies if I was unclear about that.

There doesn't need to be a vast difference in stats. If there's any difference at all in the relevant areas then it's worth taking into account so that we might produce more reliable calculations.

Friendlysociopath wrote:Isn't that the same difference though? Rarely in fiction will a bat be stated to be made of wood- but we'd still compare it to wooden bats if one was used wouldn't we? Rarely will a car be stated to have a specific type of engine- but we'd still act as though it has such an engine and if we can tell the model- we can compare it.

I don't know what "same difference" actually means, but we're definitely not excused from having to know the identity of an item before we can say it has the proper attributes. We're not excused from having to prove what something is if it's questionable. We're only excused from having to prove that something has the same attributes in the fiction as it does in real life.

So if a gun in an anime looks like several different real-life guns, obviously it's questionable which one it is. If the wielder works for an agency that is known for making custom tools and weapons, then it's questionable that it's any of the real-life guns. If that's not the case and the gun is distinctive and looks like only one real-world model, then we can say that's what it is.
User avatar
Soulerous
Labled Incurable
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Projectile dysfunction

Postby Friendlysociopath » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:32 am

Soulerous wrote:
Friendlysociopath wrote:You talk about how the Ak-47 could supposedly be many different models but then cite just a regular black hand gun as comparison. What gun looks so close to the AK-47 that the two could be mistaken AND shares vastly different stats?

I'm arguing about the principle, not a specific case. The AK-47 and the handgun just serve to illustrate the point. I'd have already brought up the specifics if this was a match with a target gun. And as I hinted at with my World War II example, there may or may not be factors that would allow us to determine the model of a gun (or any other manufactured item) without being explicitly told. I'm not saying we can never conclude the model of a gun without it being stated, but there's usually not enough supplementary information to draw such a conclusion. Apologies if I was unclear about that.

There doesn't need to be a vast difference in stats. If there's any difference at all in the relevant areas then it's worth taking into account so that we might produce more reliable calculations.


Ah, I see, I understand you clearly now. You're not saying we can't get the exact model- just that such information usually isn't given and the guns usually look somewhat unlike most given guns enough that it's questionable.


Soulerous wrote:
Friendlysociopath wrote:Isn't that the same difference though? Rarely in fiction will a bat be stated to be made of wood- but we'd still compare it to wooden bats if one was used wouldn't we? Rarely will a car be stated to have a specific type of engine- but we'd still act as though it has such an engine and if we can tell the model- we can compare it.

I don't know what "same difference" actually means, but we're definitely not excused from having to know the identity of an item before we can say it has the proper attributes. We're not excused from having to prove what something is if it's questionable. We're only excused from having to prove that something has the same attributes in the fiction as it does in real life.

So if a gun in an anime looks like several different real-life guns, obviously it's questionable which one it is. If the wielder works for an agency that is known for making custom tools and weapons, then it's questionable that it's any of the real-life guns. If that's not the case and the gun is distinctive and looks like only one real-world model, then we can say that's what it is.


I see, we're pretty much of an accord then, the phrasing made it seem as if it were not so; what a wonderful thing communication is.
User avatar
Friendlysociopath
Voice of the People
 
Posts: 4102
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Projectile dysfunction

Postby nahi » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:20 am

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.
nahi
Plebe
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:04 am

Previous

Return to FactPile Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron