|
|
Post by Bot on Jun 15, 2011 5:25:15 GMT
I'm a huge Star wars fan... but... In some way... I do like 40k's fluff the most. Have actually never played Starcraft, but I know its fluff well enough to say that it is nothing compared to the 40k fluff, IMHO  |
|
|
|
Post by mina on Jun 15, 2011 5:54:46 GMT
My problem with the 40k universe is that there are no good guys, like in the lawful good sense of the word. The closest is the Tau, and even they aren't just pure good. So the shot against star wars being all black and white.. yeah it's easy to pick on when all you are is grey. And in the expanded universe of star wars, yeah grey all over. xP I also think Vader is the wrong choice for star wars, despite being iconic he is not the strongest force user/character from the universe and therefore I would instead say Yoda.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bot on Jun 15, 2011 6:18:08 GMT
My problem with the 40k universe is that there are no good guys, like in the lawful good sense of the word. At least Tyranids are not evil |
|
|
|
Post by mina on Jun 15, 2011 19:07:17 GMT
not in the intentional way, but most people would say and I agree that the Tyranids are evil as much as the borg are from star trek.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geneva on Jun 15, 2011 22:05:17 GMT
Ignoring everything even partially prequel related, Star Wars wins it easily. It just had so much to it and so much quality to back it up. Back before the Anakin=Jedi Jesus fluff, Darth Vadar wasn't even that particularly powerful. I mean, yeah, he kicked ass in single combat and was a force to be reckoned with, but he had limits and was more an aging relic from past era than an ultimate lord of doom. It gave him a lot more character and cemented him as the most iconic villain of my childhood. (I think I still have my handmade red-tape-and-pipe Lightsaber and spraypainted-hardhat-and-pillowcase mask and black cape somewhere in my parent's attic from when I was seven years old.) The Emperor (I still can't bring myself to refer to him as Palpatine without thinking of the bogus "UNLIMITED POWER!" scene from Episode 3) also had so much going for him. He had such a powerful presence to him. I liked how they never fully revealed the extent of his power. It made him something of a personification of the Dark Side itself. Cold, cruel and malicious but also twisted, manipulative and mysterious. The way he worked behind the scenes and even referred to Lightsabers as toys really built on that too. Hell, Vadar practically was his personal Lightsaber anyway. Making him fight Yoda in the prequels ranks extremely high on my top ten gripes with the sequels. It just made him another powerful bad guy. That and I always imagined him as ten times as powerful as Yoda anyway. Looking back at the old movies he stands out the most from the cast of characters. And of course the universe itself was just so vast and varying. The different political elements (suitably underplayed back then) as well as a mountain of different aliens, technologies and histories. Hell, the Force was probably the single greatest use for "magic" in sci-fi I've ever scene. (Screw you and your midichlorians, Lucas.) Maybe it's nostalgia or maybe it's the fact that Star Wars was what opened the world of Sci-Fi up to me but, damn, I've yet to watch or read something that beats it in the genre of dystopian Galactic Empires. Star wars also lacks any element of dystopia, which 40,000 has in abundance. One of my favourite things about 40,000 is that all the factions are evil. Even the tau are genocidal space communists who won't take no for an answer. Actually, the lack of total, over the top, grimdark dystopia is something I've always loved about Star Wars and, incidentally, the Eisenhorn series in 40k. I love how on one side of the galaxy disenfranchised rebels might be risking their lives for freedom and ideals while on the other side a wealthy merchant might be sitting down to a banquet with a glass of wine and not a care in the world. It adds depth and brings a certain empathy to the table that you can share with the rebels of Star Wars or even the humble Guardsman on whatever godforsaken planet he's been sent to. If 40k fluff went more in the way of Abnett's Inquisition series, I'd probably find it a lot more interesting than the "WAR IS FREAKING EVERYWHERE!!" tone it currently has. As for moral ambiguity? Star Wars has plenty of that. The Empire was ruthless but it kept order. The rebels threatened that order and brought strife across an entire galaxy but in the name of a morally justified means. It was Chaotic Good versus Lawful Evil. At that's only at it's most basic elements. It a lot more complex than what you see at first glance. ^God, I'm such a nerd. |
|
|
|
Post by sycopat on Jun 15, 2011 22:40:47 GMT
Personally, of those 3, 40k is my favourite.
Simply because it's darker and grittier. All three settings have corruption(and redemption to an extant) as a central theme but both star wars and star craft are pretty black and white in their morality. I like things grey because life is grey, and in 40k, like in life, good and bad is just a matter of perspective.
Also although all 3 can be pretty ham-fisted in their approach, 40k is capable, on occasion, of subtlety. While I can(and do!) appreciate both star wars and starcraft, I generally find it difficult to empathise with the rather shallow characters (Although admittedly I don't have any experience with the extended background of star wars. In part because the sheer quantity of it makes the idea of sifting it for the few gems I have no doubt exist in there far less appealing then picking up another philip k dick or dan simmons book.)
40k is also probably one of the best "shared settings"(as in for a story or game) because it is so broad. Because it's so large and has so many holes, it's easy for a gamer to insert a campaign or personal army into it without upsetting a lot of people. However as to favourite sci-fi universes, I like the Culture or the Hyperion Cantos as well as many of the others already mentioned.
As for GEOM vs Raynor vs Vader, that would be a bit unfair wouldn't it? Vader was never shown to be anywhere near as powerful as GEOM, especially not the pre-heresy nigh-omnipotent Emperor and either vs Raynor is a massively powerful warrior-magician vs. some dude in a suit. (Although as for which is the best character, it's probably raynor simply because he's just some guy in a suit)
|
|
|
|
Post by Psychichobo on Jun 15, 2011 22:57:23 GMT
Star Wars was alright, but a lot of the recent expansions were all pretty much kid-friendly, and really did make it painfully black and white. Complexity's a good thing, and it's a long time since I've seen a truly complex character in many genres.
40k has so much potential, and some absolutely brilliant stuff in some places (xenology) but it's suffering under the struggle of trying to be dark yet kid-friendly. I've never found Dan Abnett's stuff particularly taxing, that has the problem of trying to just be a cheesy action film in book form, though Steve Lyons does some excellent stuff.
Ward's absolute butchery of anything he touches doesn't help though. The Vanilla Marine dex is excruciating stuff, as it's just Ultramarines kicking ass. It's not even cleverly, it's pretty much just 'they showed up and won'.
I've never played Starcraft though, so I can't comment there.
|
|
|
|
Post by vk on Jun 16, 2011 0:41:05 GMT
To me, 40k shouldn't focus on war is everywhere, but should instead go the path of the Shin Megami way.
Etherway you go, someone dies and something bad happens.
Like in Strange Journey.
Lawful Order = God and Satan teams with the 3 Wisemen and kill Lucifer, enslave humanity, kill BILLIONS, and create a utopia where everyone is enslaved and has no free will. Sure everyone is safe and "happy" but hey.
Neutral Order = God, Satan, The 3 Wisemen, and Lucifer gets killed, humanity continues it's downward spiral into self-destruction.
Chaos Order = The Modern World is destroyed, the planet is healed, Demons, Animals, Spirits, and Human Beings now live in harmony but only the strongest and most intelligent live while the weak and idiotic die.
Now, they should get rid of the whole Ward thing.
Companies that don't listen to their fans usually got bankrupt.
Like 4Kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rakuall on Jun 16, 2011 1:52:13 GMT
While I've never gotten around to the SC fluff, I find both the SW and 40k to be enjoyable, but for completely different reasons.
I find the 40k stuff tends to Broad, in that it skims the surface of many dozens of worlds and factions and races, but ignores the detail that is a little further down. That said, I really ought to grab a novel (I've only read rulebook/codex fluff), but it'll be a while 'till that happens (just started LotR).
Star Wars, on the other hand, could be described as Deep. It is almost always about one of two things: The Jedi, or The Sith. Much of it has great detail and depth of character, but it ignores the larger universe in favour of these two. And it has the glaring issue of Humans being the main race in a galaxy far far away.
P.S. A Note on Humanity:
Generally I am disturbed by any fantasy or si-fi setting that involves humans without a plausible reason. Star Wars: Why? Lord of the Rings: Why? Mantic Kings of War: You were unique; a fantasy realm devoid of humans, now I lost interest (WHFB clone much?). WH40K: fine, It's our own galaxy, far in the future, and Humans are a plague. People say there are situations were only cockroaches would survive, I doubt it. Humanity will be eating radioactive roaches long after we ought to be dust.
Sorry for the rant on humanity. Had to get it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by vk on Jun 16, 2011 1:54:48 GMT
You'll love the Lovecraft Mythos.
It shows how humans are powerless against the universe and it's horrors.
|
|
|
|
Post by mina on Jun 16, 2011 3:00:48 GMT
Uhh Can I like Genevaman's post? Cause he said what I think really really well. :3
|
|
|
|
Post by Bot on Jun 16, 2011 6:44:26 GMT
Its okay Genevaman we are all nerds in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by 1deadcop on Jun 16, 2011 9:04:27 GMT
Uhh Can I like Genevaman's post? Cause he said what I think really really well. :3 YES You'll love the Lovecraft Mythos. It shows how humans are powerless against the universe and it's horrors. and YES! the next RPG ima try and run with my gaming group is Cthulhutech, think...Akira+neon genesis evangelion+Cthulhu+cyberpunk As for "on Topic" I never got into the "fluff" of SC if you can even call it that, its just a video game with some spin off book taped on it. Star wars has a lot to intake but i haven't really pointed at that elephant in the room other than the movies, one or two book and some art books. so i guess my vote is 40k, just because i like grey. |
|
|
|
Post by carnogaunt on Jun 17, 2011 3:29:05 GMT
P.S. A Note on Humanity: Generally I am disturbed by any fantasy or si-fi setting that involves humans without a plausible reason. Star Wars: Why? Lord of the Rings: Why? Mantic Kings of War: You were unique; a fantasy realm devoid of humans, now I lost interest (WHFB clone much?). WH40K: fine, It's our own galaxy, far in the future, and Humans are a plague. People say there are situations were only cockroaches would survive, I doubt it. Humanity will be eating radioactive roaches long after we ought to be dust. Science fiction is about extrapolating the effects of technology (or hypothetical technologies) on society. That's why it almost always has humans. Star Wars isn't really science fiction, it's fantasy/adventure set in space. A lot of movies that are labeled as "sci-fi" are like that, to the point where the term has different meanings depending on if it is referencing film or literature. Other reasons: 1) People generally like to see or read about people. Characters will be more understandable if they are human or close to human. 2) The difference between humans and humanoid races is usually small enough to be attributed entirely to culture (as far as character development goes). So really, I think a bigger argument needs to be made for including non-humans at all. In what percentage of books does the fact that characters are of different species really contribute to the story, any more than adding another cultural group of humans would? |
|
|
|
Post by Psychichobo on Jun 17, 2011 13:59:08 GMT
Problem I find with a lot of sci-fi and fantasy is that writers suffer this mentality that all non-humans have to have identical characteristics. GW's very guilty of this - Dwarves are ALL stubborn, underground-loving drunkards, Elves are ALL haughty, graceful and proud xenophobes, etc.
This is often why humans are required to be relatable to, as they're more diverse in terms of personality. It's also why I like armies like Ogres, Tomb Kings, and Dogs of War - they're quite diverse and portray a variety of personalities in their characters.
|
|
