All I am going to say is Star Trek tech is not as advanced as it first appears.
Star Wars vs. Star Trek arguments so don't work.
The problem with trying to compare anything with Star Trek is that 90% of the time Star Trek ignores Star Trek. For example, those numbers make no sense with what we see on-screen. It's virtually impossible to point to anything but the most basic things without there being contradicting sources.
And yes, a full comparison doesn't really make sense anyways.
Typical fanboy. You can't argue the numbers are false, so you try to discredit them. One, Star Trek has not ignored Star Trek. Yes, there are inconsistencies, but all long lasting series have those, and Star Trek, with five different shows and eleven movies, definitely fits the bill for a long series. Star Wars, however, only has six movies, and in those six movies, everything in Star Wars is turned on its head.
Nonono. I like Star Trek quite a lot. But those numbers open up a lot of holes within Star Trek. Such as... how the hell do the Borg start losing to Species 8472 when they have weaponry like that? Or why would a photon torpedo ever be needed against an unshielded target, let alone not vaporize it?
And how is Star Wars turned on it's head?
The Cricket gun would tear apart TIE Fighters rather nicely, though.
Edit: I'm really long past caring on this myself, too...
Hull integrity is reinforced by artificial gravity fields, and the alloys used for construction are imaginary metal of massive strength that we don't actually have. While a torpedo would vaporize a steel structure, something 20 times harder than diamond with artificially reinforced molecular bonding isn't subject to the same vulnerability.
How does Star Wars turn itself on it's head? The Millennium Falcon is one of the fastest ships in the galaxy, capable of traveling at .5 past the speed of light. Later exercises in absurdity have attempted to obfuscate this blindingly brilliant show of stupidity by Lucas, but basically his brain dribbled out his ass long before writing the script and he had not the foggiest idea how big a galaxy was, thinking them to be a few light years across. I'll stack the velocity changes in Trek(all over the map, they are) against that any day.
How has Star Wars turned itself on its head? Let's have some fun with this. List inconsistencies IN THE STAR WARS MOVIES knowing what their technology is capable of.
...The Force, originally, was an energy field that the vast majority of people could learn how to manipulate. Then it turned into needing a certain high level of mediclorians, so they became rare.
...the military superpower, the Empire, didn't advance it's technology much. Ion engines propel star destroyers, we've got ion engine prototypes now.
...Palpatine underestimates the rebellion given his history that singlehandedly overthrew the Republic. He, above all others, should know the power of a single, determined man, let alone a full blown rebellion full of determined people.
...an army of Ewoks with arrows defeated an elite force of stormtroopers with blasters and AT-STs.
...fighters in Phantom Menace had shielding, but TIE Fighters don't. (Empire went BACKWARDS in fighter design? Really?)
...rebellion fighters were better than Imperial fighters. They had shields, missiles, AND lasers. The Empire, being the superpower it was supposed to be, apparently didn't have the money to buy those fighters from the company that made them, but an underfunded rebellion did. Nor does it sanction or shut down said company.
...stormtroopers were accurate enough to be identifiable at having attacked jawas by blast patterns, yet couldn't hit anything else without spray and pray. I'm told it's a helmet on, helmet off thing, but that DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
...in the Clone Wars, the Republic's Clone Troopers proved that a better trained, better equipped force will RAPE a massive, untrained force. Palpatine, having seen this, promptly forgets this in training his Starfleet and Stormtroopers.
...C-3PO had his memory wiped, R2 didn't. He then DOESN'T TELL Luke that his dad is Vader. Also, R2 has some pretty badass stuff in 1, 2, and 3, but looses it after the Clone Wars end.
...Starkiller?
...Cloud City? (Open Air city in a gas giant with orange clouds, enough said)
...Vader lets Luke fall, instead of using the Force in cloud city to lift him up after he tries to fall.
...no missile launchers, no rocket launchers, no mortars, only one instance of field artillery, and very little anti-aircraft weaponry in the movies.
...what happened to the mobile shield generators in episode 1?
...Vader survives being caught on fire, having his skin burned off, laying next to a lava flow, after having both his legs and remaining arm cut off. Evidently Sith are immune to shock.
...lightsaber cutting off arm in cantina=blood puddle next to cut off arm on the ground. Lightsaber cutting off arms, legs, and other body parts outside of cantina=burn closed wounds.
...where did the blaster miniguns go?
..."Sir, the ship has gone into an asteroid field..." Why do you CARE? Vader asked the exact same thing.
...Lack of Stormtrooper camoflauge
...Planets that have only ONE KIND OF ECOSYSTEM
...Naboo? Porous core filled with water...how does it have enough mass to have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere, much less let people walk around on it?
...Death Star? Why not just show up with the fleet of Star Destroyers you could have built at the same price as the Death Star? That's A LOT more intimidating AND deadly! That rebel force on Yavin wouldn't have stood a chance.
...Death Star design? Bad engineering or blatant plot device? First it was a small hole they could shoot a missile down. Next edition, it turned into a large hole the fighters could fly down through, blow up the reactor directly, then follow on out the other side.
These are just a few, anyone else have any? Or are you ready to disregard inconsistencies and plot holes from the debate?
If you read all 23 pages of this thread I'm sure you could find many more thing already mentioned wrong with Star Trek, but anyways. As mentioned Whiskey is for some reason not being drawn back to this thread like a shark to a bleeding cow like he usually is, thus no one is having a serious debate with you. Honestly if this site had moderators this thread would have been locked long ago as most of it has nothing to do with the mod it was intended to be discussing. As that mod is apparently dead, this thread has no more reason to exist. The ideal place to have this discussion would be the Movies & TV forum, where people from all the Stardock forums can see it, and thus you can find an audience less jaded about the subject than we are.
There's more then six movies. There's six main movies, but there are others. For example, the Ewoks had 2 movies, and there was a couple of full length animated movies, as well as a couple animated TV series. So your count is a little off.
Also you must consider the hundreds if not thousands of books and comics and short stories wrote for both series... All from authorized sources no less. So really, the only thing Star trek has on Star Wars where long lasting is concerned is it started about 10 years earlier... That's if you believe what pop culture for both series say. Roddenberry started in about '61, whereas Lucas started in about '71.
Just saying...
It really isn't that difficult to understand, being Force-sensitive has always been a rare thing.
What are they supposed to have?
Palpatine is as Luke put it, "overconfidence is your weakness."
The Ewoks had help from Solo's strike team.
The Empire's use of the TIE fighter was based on their perceptions from the Clone Wars, they ended up developing elite TIE series fighters like the TIE avenger and the TIE defender that actually have shields.
Quantity over quality was the Empire's philosophy based on the Clone Wars, this goes back to my answer to the previous point, the development of the TIE avenger and the TIE defender.
Ever heard of the Stormtrooper Effect?
The Imperial Military relies on Battle Meditation, not their own skill, just one more example of Palpatine's overconfidence.
It takes a while for that to come out but it does, protecting the stolen Death Star plans, surviving laser bolts from Vader's TIE advanced x1, and finding out about the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive aren't impressive achievements?
Not one of their brilliant ideas.
Do you have an imagination, and the clouds are orange, pink, and white.
Vader chose to let him fall, because he wouldn't join them.
Who says the movies have to tell you everything about the universe?
They are Gungan technology.
He was sure in a lot of pain, does that count?
It was a mistake, happens to the best of us.
The Stormtroopers are meant to represent the lose of individuality.
Plenty of planets have one type of ecosystem, it happens in almost every sci-fi story, and there are other planets that have a diverse ecosystem.
Do you have an imagination?
Tarkin was arrogant.
The Death Star was bad engineering, and the Death Star II was incomplete and protected by a shield, it wouldn't of had that weakness had it been finished.
I was out of town. That said, I've ceased caring about this thread. Could somebody ask one of the mods to lock it? I'm short on time ATM.
Star Trek will simply invent a radiation that kills midachlorians, thus rendering all Star Wars universe life forms extinct. Simultaneously, it will learn to manipulate and detect the Force with technology, rendering Jedi and Sith useless.
Now quick--lock the thread!
Good to hear. Why don't you ask the Star Wars Requiem team and the Sacrifice of Angels 2 team for some of their textures and give them full credit in your own credits? Both mods have excellent models and textures.
As for Zeta, half of your answers don't even come close to covering over the holes in plot or consistency and must, therefore, be ignored.
Also, for those asking the mods to lock the thread, it is a lively discussion here, yes, but it hasn't turned into a flame war yet, and the mod is active. We're just blowing time until the first version of the mod comes out. Then we'll start arguing over that instead!
At least that's my take on all this based on experience.
A Monkey's guide to adding ships to X3 also tells you how to pull ships out of X3 but does require 3ds max which you can get a free trial.
ROFL at locking the thread because you gave up on the thread.
@myfist0
Hey mate. how you doing?
I did give up on the thread, because i couldn't sort out the mod related stuff from all the other posts.
I know i need to set up a new post, but ive been working on the mod, which takes up all my time.
For my first ever mod its been a mammoth task.........
A total conversion mod with 6 races, Ive been adding extra capital ships and cruisers per race aswell, Star Wars and Star Trek are almost done. CIS remmenants have joined the fray on the Empire side , along with a Dominion Expeditionary Force sent into the Alpha quadrant to bolster the Federation. Stargate command have a few allied Wraith Super Hive ships that are powered by ZPM's to call on.
Ive re-sized some of the ships and added them as fighters and bombers, basically to get as many ship types into the game.
Getting the code right has been the biggest challenge.
Are you in a position for some alpha testing?
edit- The X3 ships are in.xsp format. Can the Softimage/XSI load these?
Theo
If you are a student you can get 3ds max and softimage for free non-commercial usage.
I don't even know how to express the stupidity of this.
It's not "gave up->plz lock". It's "I gave up. This thread should be locked [because it is a discussion wherein neither party will reach agreement]".
FOR ALL PRO-TREK DEBATERS- I'll link this site. Literally every argument you can come up with has been addressed on the main site or on its forums.
It's also a great place to debate general science fiction.
Not even going to start on that site except to say it's a waste of time going there. Invalid numbers, unbacked conjecture, and partial, biased information. There is a site devoted to star trek vs. star wars, but I lost the link. I remember laughing to some of the arguments on there, tho. Most posters couldn't keep things from turning into a flame war.
Star Trek vs Star Wars is something no fan base will ever agree to an end result on. Its sole purpose for existing is just a massive waste of time, and people only argue it to either work themselves up into a rage or blow off time until something more interesting comes around. I happen to belong to the second part until the new version of Requiem comes out, since I don't want to play the Sacrifice of Angels 2 mod right now.
*sigh*
Do you not realize that the guy who owns and maintains that site is actually scientifically qualified to do what he does on the site?
I'll append this with the notation that, if you link a certain "st-v-sw.com" (or something similar), I will laugh at you, due to the fact that that site's maintainer is acknowledged by both pro-Trek and pro-Wars debaters as being a dishonest dirtbag.
The fanbases might not be able to agree on it, but intelligent, rational, and reasonable debaters can reach a consensus agreement based on the evidence. Unfortunately for Trek, it happens to bite the dust when it comes to a hypothetical versus scenario against Wars.
There are series/settings in science fiction that Trek could, and would, dominate- Mass Effect for example.
So...hard....not...to post. Help me Obiwan, Heeeelp!
I couldn't agree more, I thought I did a good job of countering his complaints. I guess some people just don't understand how to conduct a debate, because one isn't supposed to ignore the opposing argument, one is supposed to counter the argument while not resorting to attacking the presenter of the opposing argument.
Both universes are good entertainment in their own way, that is all that really matters in the grand scheme of things. Which is why I will never try to arrogantly pick sides in an argument, where the other side refuses to actually debate the way one is supposed to. Some people are such devoted fanboys to one universe or the other that they can't even respect the other universe.
Indeed, an unfortunate problem for Trek, the numbers don't lie. Trek, according to the numbers given in its material, verse the numbers given in Wars material, shows that Trek simply can't compete with Wars, but Trek fanboys flatly refuse to accept it because they can't fathom it.
Any numbers we can conceive off don't measure up in either universe. To claim one is "more scientific" is really hard not to post about.
Star Trek throws numbers about so randomly that it's not compatible with any uniformity or within its own reality while Star Wars presents energy and matter (seemingly pseudo-based on things we know about now) that would require whole new classes of "matter" and "energy" as well as redefining gravity and thermal constants.
Both are bollix.
What I mean is that he's scientifically qualified to produce credible analyses of the visual evidence of either series.......not that either series is scientifically credible.
I do consider both settings to be entertaining........though less so with the Rodenberry-heavy Trek (i.e. TNG) as I don't agree with his humanistic/atheistic views, which were heavily seasoned into the show.
WRT "versus debate", well, I have fun with it as an intellectual exercise. It's also great basis for fanfiction.........which, for me at least, is great practice for professional writing.
I'm iffy about this, as this is exactly what Curtis Saxton, the author of the Star Wars ICS's, does, AFAIK. And the ICS books are canonical for Star Wars, no matter what any fanboys say. Further, as mentioned at the beginning, the "scientificality" is more a function of the analysis method rather than any inherent scientific accuracy.
The unfortunate thing, though, is that Star Trek has a lot of self-contradictory stuff.......more so than Star Wars, at any rate, which tends towards greater internal self-consistency.
Then you have Warhammer 40,000 (as an example), which has very little internal consistency in numerous matters..........but considering the background and the fluff of 40K, it makes perfect sense that there's such inconsistency.
For the armor and accelerations presented by Star Wars, you'd need new types of a matter--not just "stronger" as you'd need several orders of exponentially stronger--just to contain the energy and to physically andle the stresses imposed by moving so much mass. If Star Wars ships were built of anything remotely resembling currently known substances the larger ships would have significant gravity fields of their own.
You can harmonize Star Wars constants more as they tend to be much more constant and fewer in incidences but it isn't real science--it's more akin to balancing game rules with consistent internal rationales for their basis.
So from that standpoint, Star Wars is a better rationalized "game" than Star Trek but to mix both of them together (in an actual game) they would both have to be re-rationalized.
I take issue with this, because it's a very well known fact that SW vessels are built with the advantages conferred by magitech materials science.
Though I do wish to ask, what basis do you have for the "significant gravity fields of their own" WRT SW ships being built using materials/substances resembling anything currently known?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
