Quote from: trechriron;897253Fair enough! And I agree 100%.

Thanks. For all it's worth, I've seen a few games that were made - and author admitted it - "just for laughs" or "for my buddies & myself" that were actually fun to play.

Quote from: dragoner;897266I didn't see it specifically mention D&D clones in your OP, though it could be assumed, or I haven't read every post. D&D clones aren't of high interest to me however.

I counted on people saying "but my game ISN'T D&D", to which I could answer "by gods, that's exactly what I want to hear" and unfold more of my sinister plan, pardon, "great idea".

QuoteSeen a lot of sci-fi games use the very same Batty quote (which was a total ad lib by Hauer, btw), it sets a very high bar which few games can meet. One of my favorite movies, it is a very subtle nuanced film, such as lot of people don't get that Decker was supposed to be a Replicant, and humanity was slowly degenerating/dying in the toxic hell of what the Earth had become, I think it was dialed back a bit, being a little too grim. If you can pull it off, write that good, cool. I'd probably buy it too.

Same here, same here.
To be honest, I still think that  in comparison to Dick's original story, Scott's future Earth is "too bright". I mean, "Blade Runner" seems to take place in some dirty, cheap part of otherwise highly developed mega-city, or in "below", while true life happens "above", but it doesn't tell much about how the rest of the world looks like. They have flying cars, Androids, travel to space - it can't be that bad, right?

I think I don't have to say that, but Dick's vision seems way more grim. There was the underlying theme of hopelessness, people living without greater purpose, chasing material awards, not bothering about the world around them. In a way, it's more post-apocalyptic than the majority of settings featuring global cataclysm-type event and humanity slowly crawling out of anti-nuke shelters and other gutters. I'm not sure whether there's a RPG setting mixing such hopelessness and high-tech in such a skillful way. Perhaps old CP20xx (at least in hands of capable Game Masters)?

QuoteHard sci-fi is sort of a weasel word too, so I just use the very simple definition of trying to remain plausible, and to maintain some internal consistency. Such as if you are going to have anti-gravity (not too implausible) but then have grav plates for interior gravity, and the spacecraft uses a "gravity drive" for thrust, do not suddenly add that the drive interacts with another gravity source as how it works, and then forget that the grav plates for spacecraft's internal gravity interact with nothing. Or tell me that there is no interstellar communication ala subspace or ansible, but that you can do a real time sensor sweep of a star system a 3.26 light years away in real time. That snaps my suspenders of disbelief. Just do the homework, not shovel stuff in because it sounds cool, reality has a cool quality of its own.

Old masters of SF - writers of hard SF and/or futurologists often took an idea and thought about how does it fit in the Big Picture. Crapton of stories were written for this specific purpose: as a background for the discussion concerning some invention or an event. Such stories were usually very almost "bulletproof", there was hardly any big mistake or a plot hole, what unfortunately can't be said about modern works of fiction, be it movies, stories or RPGs. Sure, there are elements of hard SF, sure, they are often very well written, but it takes little time to ask a question "oh yeah? If they are so advanced then how come they didn't..." And there goes the immersion.

This reminds me - some people like him, some hate with unparalleled passion, but Michio Kaku wrote a book that specifically deals with SF themes. I'm not sure what's the title, but I think it's something along the lines of "The Physics of improbable things" or something. He took a few iconic elements (like laser weaponry or forcefields) and speculated whether they are probable, or what would it take to achieve similar functionality according to laws of physics and technologies we know today.

At times it's a bit dull book, but there are a few interesting observations and I think it might be interesting for SF writers and players alike.

Quote...and "Space Empires", honestly, if I have to read about another space empire, I'm going to throw up and go blind.

Ah yes, it's old, powerful, conflicted, led by aging Emperor Parpatino. Oh, and there's a rebellion. And it's unlike Star Wars, of course. :rolleyes:

QuoteI think a lot of us are working on games precisely because what we want isn't out there.

A lot of fantasy is just Tolkien rip-offs though, like D&D, I'd much rather see the Dying Earth or something. CS Lewis, when reading Tolkien's unpublished manuscript was heard to say: "Not another elf!" In frustration.

Precisely.

I'm not sure what percentage of writers it makes, but each time I read another world that's pretty much Forgotten Realms (only with- and/or without-), I'm asking myself what was its author's agenda? Why to multiply same stories ad nausea if there are so many original works of fiction, hardly ever used, just waiting to be re-discovered? And if all they want is "typical fantasy" then why not use one of settings/mechanics/games already well developed, full of interesting options and simply add what you miss without lying that you've developed something new and original?

Heck, it takes no genius to observe that it's almost impossible to draw the line separating "THIS" and "DEFINITELY NOT THIS", but in many cases people don't even try - you could literally point at something, some element of their allegedly original game and say "it's exactly like it happened during the Time of Strife in Forgotten Realms" or something.

Quote from: rawma;897296I haven't written a game, so redirect your requests elsewhere.

Remind me, what's the title of this thread? Exactly.

See, I'm exactly where I want to be. It's you, who came here and decided to share your opinion even if you weren't asked to and aren't the recipient of the initial message.

This thread is specifically "targeting" all soon-to-be RPG designers. If you ain't one, don't bother answering and if you choose to, then don't complain about not being one. And frankly, since you ain't qualified to discuss the matter, then your opinion... Look, I don't know you, you might be quite a nice guy, helpful & stuff, but ask yourself this: who would you rather choose to discuss the matter of customer's experience in medical facilities? A guy who does, or at least plans to work there, or a random stranger who admits he does not and doesn't plan to in any foreseeable future?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;897337Old masters of SF - writers of hard SF and/or futurologists often took an idea and thought about how does it fit in the Big Picture. Crapton of stories were written for this specific purpose: as a background for the discussion concerning some invention or an event. Such stories were usually very almost "bulletproof", there was hardly any big mistake or a plot hole, what unfortunately can't be said about modern works of fiction, be it movies, stories or RPGs.

I can't remember who it was - probably Stross - that wrote a column about golden age SF quoting Sturgeon as saying that in SF, the audience would grant you one Outrageous Assumption.  Sentient aliens, perhaps, or FTL Travel, or extraterrestrial colonies.  One.  And so you could explore that.  The column then goes on to note that today you have all sorts of SF tropes that the audience will grant you for free - lightsabers, replicators, FTL travel, psychic powers, bug-eyed aliens and Lensmen, etc., etc.  What the column didn't note is that when you throw all those things together you either go the Star Wars route and use it as colour rather than try to make a coherent universe out of it, or else accept the fact that you're going to get unusual combinations of things that will create Unfortunate Implications once readers start thinking too hard about them.

QuoteI'm not sure what percentage of writers it makes, but each time I read another world that's pretty much Forgotten Realms (only with- and/or without-), I'm asking myself what was its author's agenda? Why to multiply same stories ad nausea if there are so many original works of fiction, hardly ever used, just waiting to be re-discovered?

Accessibility.  In a book or film, you can introduce the audience slowly to a completely alien setting (nearly universally through the vehicle of a character the audience can immediately understand and identify with being thrust into a setting that's alien to them, as well).  This doesn't work in RPGs unless you start every single campaign with "you're a bunch of college students and you've been sucked through a dimensional rift..."

Quote from: daniel_ream;897380I can't remember who it was - probably Stross (...)

I find it very interesting and substantial observation, and I'd like to read the source article. Unfortunately, quick Googling provide no results. Could you help me finding it?

QuoteAccessibility.  In a book or film, you can introduce the audience slowly to a completely alien setting (nearly universally through the vehicle of a character the audience can immediately understand and identify with being thrust into a setting that's alien to them, as well).  This doesn't work in RPGs unless you start every single campaign with "you're a bunch of college students and you've been sucked through a dimensional rift..."

I agree that certain settings might feel too massive to swallow for new players and GMs alike, no question about that. Still, I don't think that clones are the best solution to that problem. I might be wrong here, but I think that if you don't have any experience with fantasy settings, then Forgotten Realms' clone/variation is as alien to you as Forgotten Realms themselves and that they are 50% shorter doesn't make them "short" either. And if you already know FR, then why to waste time on a setting that's hardly any original?

(Of course, feel free to replace FR with anything else what might resemble "fantasy: the default setting (tm)"  ).

Besides, what's your opinion concerning general understanding of fantasy? I'd risk a statement that nowadays, in post-Jackson era people usually understand basic concepts - I feel I wouldn't have that much trouble introducing a band of newbies to fantasy RPG with a description along the lines of "guys, remember "The Hobbit" movie? That part where people arrive at lake-city? So, imagine that you're band of live-by-the-sword mercenaries, but you were chased by a horde of wild wolves, you lost your way and found yourself in such a dump of a place..."

Quote from: JesterRaiin;897401I find it very interesting and substantial observation, and I'd like to read the source article. Unfortunately, quick Googling provide no results. Could you help me finding it?

The best I can find is the book On Writing Science Fiction: The Editors Strike Back, but I can't find the author of the chapter where this point is made.

QuoteBesides, what's your opinion concerning general understanding of fantasy? I'd risk a statement that nowadays, in post-Jackson era people usually understand basic concepts - I feel I wouldn't have that much trouble introducing a band of newbies [...]

Oh, I think you're absolutely right.  Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones and other big budget blockbuster movies have brought these tropes into the mainstream.  You could very easily do an "It's Like X But Y" elevator pitch for any of them.  I think one reason more RPG authors don't do that is precisely because RPG writers tend to read other RPG products rather than source literature, and even fantasy lit in general has been up until recently badly degenerated by the popularity of RPG tropes (this has changed with Game of Thrones being the New Hotness; now it's all brutal, grimdark historical fiction with tits and dragons).

Much like people who have never played anything but Milton Bradley and Parker Brothers family board games as children can't get their heads easily around things like Settlers of Catan, game designers who have never seen any setting that isn't a Tolkienesque subcreation with D&D tropes have trouble coming up with anything that isn't a Tolkienesque subcreation with D&D tropes.  But since that's all they know, they're convinced that the trivial differences between their Tolkienesque subcreation and everyone else's are huge and justify an entire new book dedicated to them.  Oh, so your world has enslaved dwarves and organized hobgoblins? Well, good for you, I guess?  Hey, you know what's over here?  Majipoor.

Quote from: daniel_ream;897409The best I can find is the book On Writing Science Fiction: The Editors Strike Back, but I can't find the author of the chapter where this point is made.

It's a start. Thanks.

QuoteBut since that's all they know, they're convinced that the trivial differences between their Tolkienesque subcreation and everyone else's are huge and justify an entire new book dedicated to them.

So, you're betting on people being oblivious to the Big Picture, being blinded by their lack of knowledge & perspective rather than attempting to steal money from clueless customers, eh? Seems reasonable.

Damn you, Mr. Hanlon, damn you and your razor for being right once again.

QuoteMajipoor

Jesus Christ... Didn't see it since decades.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;897337I counted on people saying "but my game ISN'T D&D", to which I could answer "by gods, that's exactly what I want to hear" and unfold more of my sinister plan, pardon, "great idea".

Sinister plans can be interesting.

QuoteTo be honest, I still think that  in comparison to Dick's original story, Scott's future Earth is "too bright". I mean, "Blade Runner" seems to take place in some dirty, cheap part of otherwise highly developed mega-city, or in "below", while true life happens "above", but it doesn't tell much about how the rest of the world looks like. They have flying cars, Androids, travel to space - it can't be that bad, right?

I think I don't have to say that, but Dick's vision seems way more grim. There was the underlying theme of hopelessness, people living without greater purpose, chasing material awards, not bothering about the world around them. In a way, it's more post-apocalyptic than the majority of settings featuring global cataclysm-type event and humanity slowly crawling out of anti-nuke shelters and other gutters. I'm not sure whether there's a RPG setting mixing such hopelessness and high-tech in such a skillful way. Perhaps old CP20xx (at least in hands of capable Game Masters)?

Now I want to go re-read the book, mostly I remember about Mercerism, Dick Cavett style TV shows and all that. The movie had the Androids following the five-fold path of righteousness to freedom. "How did you know?", "You are so perfect", tortured and enslaved by the physical, social and morally degenerate humans, "You did a man's job, sir." Zen witness to the apocalypse. It's almost fantasy, definitely allegory, and the perfect Philip K Dick move. I seem to recall Dick writing that he thought the movie had a darker tone as well. In Tyrell's office, the air was dirty, the sun red, so even then the wealthy seem to have no escape.

QuoteOld masters of SF - writers of hard SF and/or futurologists often took an idea and thought about how does it fit in the Big Picture. Crapton of stories were written for this specific purpose: as a background for the discussion concerning some invention or an event. Such stories were usually very almost "bulletproof", there was hardly any big mistake or a plot hole, what unfortunately can't be said about modern works of fiction, be it movies, stories or RPGs. Sure, there are elements of hard SF, sure, they are often very well written, but it takes little time to ask a question "oh yeah? If they are so advanced then how come they didn't..." And there goes the immersion.

"The idea was the hero", Dick's philosophy on short stories. Asimov, Clarke, etc. were STEM people, so even if they got it wrong, they tried for internal consistency, and none were afraid to dream. Analog I believe had in their vision statement that the technology was to be a central feature in the story. Gone are the days of that sitting in the supermarket checkout.

QuoteThis reminds me - some people like him, some hate with unparalleled passion, but Michio Kaku wrote a book that specifically deals with SF themes. I'm not sure what's the title, but I think it's something along the lines of "The Physics of improbable things" or something. He took a few iconic elements (like laser weaponry or forcefields) and speculated whether they are probable, or what would it take to achieve similar functionality according to laws of physics and technologies we know today.

At times it's a bit dull book, but there are a few interesting observations and I think it might be interesting for SF writers and players alike.

I'll look for it. Stross wrote a similar thing in a blog post. The biggest change in the sci-fi market is that UK writers have cornered Space Opera, while Hard SF has fallen to fist pumping jingoistic military SF from the US.

Quote from: dragoner;897415Now I want to go re-read the book, mostly I remember about Mercerism, Dick Cavett style TV shows and all that. The movie had the Androids following the five-fold path of righteousness to freedom. "How did you know?", "You are so perfect", tortured and enslaved by the physical, social and morally degenerate humans, "You did a man's job, sir." Zen witness to the apocalypse. It's almost fantasy, definitely allegory, and the perfect Philip K Dick move. I seem to recall Dick writing that he thought the movie had a darker tone as well. In Tyrell's office, the air was dirty, the sun red, so even then the wealthy seem to have no escape.

What's your opinion regarding the state of Earth and the Mankind in Scott's "Blade Runner"? I mean, for a moment let's pretend that "Do Androids..." doesn't exist, that the movie is a definite, full story not tied to the original work of fiction. What the movie tells us about the future world?

It is kind of Scott's trademarks - the majority (if not all of them) of his SF movies are a matter of interpretation. Plenty of questions are left unanswered, there are gaps and holes ready to be filled by curious minds. It's like you don't get either a bucket of LEGO pieces, or finished product, but something inbetween - an unfinished construction that might become something more, providing you're willing to spend time adding a block here and there.

...and damn me if I won't watch the latest "cut" version tonight. I already hear the music, even though only silent humming of computers might be heard in that little shithole of a server room I'm currently in.

Quote"The idea was the hero", Dick's philosophy on short stories. Asimov, Clarke, etc. were STEM people, so even if they got it wrong, they tried for internal consistency, and none were afraid to dream. Analog I believe had in their vision statement that the technology was to be a central feature in the story. Gone are the days of that sitting in the supermarket checkout.

I'll look for it. Stross wrote a similar thing in a blog post. The biggest change in the sci-fi market is that UK writers have cornered Space Opera, while Hard SF has fallen to fist pumping jingoistic military SF from the US.

Ain't that the truth, ain't that the truth...

We had very heavy censorship around here back then, so it wasn't uncommon for a SF story - too hard, too complicated, or simply too weird for a mind of a commoner - to serve as a camouflage to express disgust with the government, or the reality behind the Iron Curtain in general. (Sometimes I wonder what our masters would write about if they had as much freedom as Dick, Ellison, or Bradbury, who sometimes didn't shy from openly criticizing certain aspects of the society, or challenging its customs - something out of question while we were living "under the dome").

After the Iron Curtain's disintegration, we kind of lost that one, quite crucial motivation to write allegoric stories, and SF became more and more underground, less and less hard, to the point it resembles a dick of a porn actor who forgot his potency pills. Great loss (SF that is - male porn actors are obsolete, as far as I'm concerned). Only Russians seem to produce anything worthy of reading in these parts of the world, but they too gravitate towards "fiction" aspect of SF abandoning "science" behind.

BTW, It's sixth time somebody mentions Stross' articles this week. I recall him mainly from "Laundry" series, but it seems the guy isn't afraid to share his other thoughts. I usually avoid it - sometimes the disproportion between author's personal life and real-world ideas and his stories is so massive, that the former influences the process of digesting the latter, usually in negative way, unfortunately. Still, a few SF-centered articles couldn't hurt, I guess.

Thanks.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;897475What's your opinion regarding the state of Earth and the Mankind in Scott's "Blade Runner"? I mean, for a moment let's pretend that "Do Androids..." doesn't exist, that the movie is a definite, full story not tied to the original work of fiction. What the movie tells us about the future world?

It is kind of Scott's trademarks - the majority (if not all of them) of his SF movies are a matter of interpretation. Plenty of questions are left unanswered, there are gaps and holes ready to be filled by curious minds. It's like you don't get either a bucket of LEGO pieces, or finished product, but something inbetween - an unfinished construction that might become something more, providing you're willing to spend time adding a block here and there.

...and damn me if I won't watch the latest "cut" version tonight. I already hear the music, even though only silent humming of computers might be heard in that little shithole of a server room I'm currently in.

Judging by the trip north at the end, it does seem there is some nature left? Hard to say if it was meant to say anything though. I remember Scott saying the movie just all fell together without him knowing what he was doing. Which makes me think that Dick as creative consultant was doing more of the content while Scott just framed the scenes, then you have so many excellent performances across the board from the actors, and the background is drawn from just hiring a bunch of punk rockers off of Melrose Avenue. It does appear like glorious chaos that gelled. IIRC that Dick said that it bought his condo in Orange County, something he writes about in "Strange Memories of Death". This seems to be a lot of Scott's movies, they either hit the target dead on or miss entirely.

QuoteAin't that the truth, ain't that the truth...

We had very heavy censorship around here back then, so it wasn't uncommon for a SF story - too hard, too complicated, or simply too weird for a mind of a commoner - to serve as a camouflage to express disgust with the government, or the reality behind the Iron Curtain in general. (Sometimes I wonder what our masters would write about if they had as much freedom as Dick, Ellison, or Bradbury, who sometimes didn't shy from openly criticizing certain aspects of the society, or challenging its customs - something out of question while we were living "under the dome").

After the Iron Curtain's disintegration, we kind of lost that one, quite crucial motivation to write allegoric stories, and SF became more and more underground, less and less hard, to the point it resembles a dick of a porn actor who forgot his potency pills. Great loss (SF that is - male porn actors are obsolete, as far as I'm concerned). Only Russians seem to produce anything worthy of reading in these parts of the world, but they too gravitate towards "fiction" aspect of SF abandoning "science" behind.

BTW, It's sixth time somebody mentions Stross' articles this week. I recall him mainly from "Laundry" series, but it seems the guy isn't afraid to share his other thoughts. I usually avoid it - sometimes the disproportion between author's personal life and real-world ideas and his stories is so massive, that the former influences the process of digesting the latter, usually in negative way, unfortunately. Still, a few SF-centered articles couldn't hurt, I guess.

Thanks.

This is terribly complicated. I don't feel like I engage in Ost-stalgia, but I have some fond memories of the old days, such as my chess club being greeted by a chorus from the Free German Youth in Karl-Marx Stadt. What happened? I'm not sure, but it is probably best to give your local artists public support least they drown in the inundation from western media corporations. On the whole, I think Eastern Europe sells itself way too short, and way too cheap. The old ideologies are dead, capitalism is best framed in the idea of enlightened self interest.

There is a strong wave of anti-science in the US, I think that is one reason that science fiction is getting shoved out of the tent it created, the other is that now with anime, star wars and super-heroes inhabiting the same space, it seems the ugly sister. Many of us still find it attractive, however, I couldn't think of my life without it's principles.

I haven't really read much Stross for the reasons you describe, I remember some blog post that wound up on all the sci-fi groups, that is all.

Quote from: dragoner;897669Judging by the trip north at the end, it does seem there is some nature left? Hard to say if it was meant to say anything though. I remember Scott saying the movie just all fell together without him knowing what he was doing. Which makes me think that Dick as creative consultant was doing more of the content while Scott just framed the scenes, then you have so many excellent performances across the board from the actors, and the background is drawn from just hiring a bunch of punk rockers off of Melrose Avenue. It does appear like glorious chaos that gelled. IIRC that Dick said that it bought his condo in Orange County, something he writes about in "Strange Memories of Death". This seems to be a lot of Scott's movies, they either hit the target dead on or miss entirely.

Yep, Scott apparently allows for his creations to sporadically take the lead, rather than force them to follow his vision all the time. that's probably why some of his movies are considered absolute masterpieces for all who like to see past the first layer, to sink in that story of his, enjoy its details and implications.

Anyway, once I had this discussion about "Blade Runner" and argued that aside of a few scenes (intro, and depending on the edition also ending) we have no clear perspective of the future world. Sure, things happen in filthy, dark alleys, but it might be explained that it's where Replicants chose to hide. Sure, there's darkness or night, but it might be that Deckard is a night person, prefers to work when it's dark, or simply it's when something, coincidentally, happens. It's also worth noting, that the story of Blade Runner spans across a few days only, not enough for seasons to change, etc, etc. The discussion didn't produce anything useful, aside of half-assed fan-theory, but I like to give it the thought every now and then.

QuoteThis is terribly complicated. I don't feel like I engage in Ost-stalgia, but I have some fond memories of the old days, such as my chess club being greeted by a chorus from the Free German Youth in Karl-Marx Stadt. What happened? I'm not sure, but it is probably best to give your local artists public support least they drown in the inundation from western media corporations. On the whole, I think Eastern Europe sells itself way too short, and way too cheap. The old ideologies are dead, capitalism is best framed in the idea of enlightened self interest.

There is a strong wave of anti-science in the US, I think that is one reason that science fiction is getting shoved out of the tent it created, the other is that now with anime, star wars and super-heroes inhabiting the same space, it seems the ugly sister. Many of us still find it attractive, however, I couldn't think of my life without it's principles.

I haven't really read much Stross for the reasons you describe, I remember some blog post that wound up on all the sci-fi groups, that is all.

Well, world became much different place, and it's nowhere near jetpacks and flying cars. Perhaps it why we don't want to predict the future anymore and don't bother with new inventions. After all, no matter what it seems that everything paves the way for the scenario we didn't bother to entertain. Not catastrophic, but hopeless. So, we crave for dreams and illusions instead - fairy tales that allow us to think about anything else than what future will be, because we already see it and it's not a bright picture.

This, or it's just that I'm too sober.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;897741Yep, Scott apparently allows for his creations to sporadically take the lead, rather than force them to follow his vision all the time. that's probably why some of his movies are considered absolute masterpieces for all who like to see past the first layer, to sink in that story of his, enjoy its details and implications.

Anyway, once I had this discussion about "Blade Runner" and argued that aside of a few scenes (intro, and depending on the edition also ending) we have no clear perspective of the future world. Sure, things happen in filthy, dark alleys, but it might be explained that it's where Replicants chose to hide. Sure, there's darkness or night, but it might be that Deckard is a night person, prefers to work when it's dark, or simply it's when something, coincidentally, happens. It's also worth noting, that the story of Blade Runner spans across a few days only, not enough for seasons to change, etc, etc. The discussion didn't produce anything useful, aside of half-assed fan-theory, but I like to give it the thought every now and then.

It's true, one never sees the wider world, I mean, however, the impact of the blue sky after Batty's famous monologue would be lessened if it was just the rainy season. What I am amazed at is that it created the Zeitgeist for a generation of movies and cyberpunk literature. Dick also pre-figured "Virtual Reality" in both a "Strange Maze of Death" and "I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon", inadvertently. He really seemed to have his finger on the pulse of humanity, which is why his stories do have the impact they have had, and why he has been one of the science fiction writers who have had more of their stories made into films.

QuoteWell, world became much different place, and it's nowhere near jetpacks and flying cars. Perhaps it why we don't want to predict the future anymore and don't bother with new inventions. After all, no matter what it seems that everything paves the way for the scenario we didn't bother to entertain. Not catastrophic, but hopeless. So, we crave for dreams and illusions instead - fairy tales that allow us to think about anything else than what future will be, because we already see it and it's not a bright picture.

This, or it's just that I'm too sober.

Sobriety is probably it. The US is dying, Bellum Se Ipsum Alet or whatever, which the current forever war isn't, and the Americans don't know why. I was sitting at a café owned by a Palestinian I know, and I pointed out to a group of them that Saddam is a hero in the middle east, like the Arab George Washington, then I left the cafe's owner explain. Which he did pragmatically about pre-war deaths and post war ones. Reinforced by yesterday's bombing in Sadr City, and the first thing the residents said was "where was the government?" In old Iraq, you only had to worry about him, just don't talk about politics, that was the only rule. Four trillion and counting? Easy come, easy go.

There are jet packs and flying cars, most cities aren't made for a 3D environment, esp with the delta v that vehicles like that need, it won't be done without an advanced traffic control grid, in order so that someone's accident doesn't fall down through your roof. The future is bright enough, both for China and India, very fast growing economies now, and I deal with up and coming engineers from those countries all the time. For the west? To quote the Habsburgs: "The situation is hopeless, but not serious."

We've had flying cars for fifty years.  They're called helicopters.

Quote from: dragoner;897778It's true, one never sees the wider world, I mean, however, the impact of the blue sky after Batty's famous monologue would be lessened if it was just the rainy season. What I am amazed at is that it created the Zeitgeist for a generation of movies and cyberpunk literature. Dick also pre-figured "Virtual Reality" in both a "Strange Maze of Death" and "I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon", inadvertently. He really seemed to have his finger on the pulse of humanity, which is why his stories do have the impact they have had, and why he has been one of the science fiction writers who have had more of their stories made into films.

Well, there's mystical aspect of Dick's existence. He claimed for at least a few of his visions to be true (Valis, being probably the most important one). Seeing how certain themes prevalent in many of his works seem to come true, one can't but wonder whether it's complete bullcrap. It would be actually kind of ironic for Dick to be true herald of upcoming future, touched by "divine" (or simply accessing the script for future, courtesy of drugs and high luck). Ironic, because his predictions, actually accurate, are still nothing more than SF stories in the eyes of the mainstream, while there are cases of people starting conflicts (and bloody ones!) because of some ancient, religious fairy tales.

QuoteSobriety is probably it. The US is dying, Bellum Se Ipsum Alet or whatever, which the current forever war isn't, and the Americans don't know why. I was sitting at a café owned by a Palestinian I know, and I pointed out to a group of them that Saddam is a hero in the middle east, like the Arab George Washington, then I left the cafe's owner explain. Which he did pragmatically about pre-war deaths and post war ones. Reinforced by yesterday's bombing in Sadr City, and the first thing the residents said was "where was the government?" In old Iraq, you only had to worry about him, just don't talk about politics, that was the only rule. Four trillion and counting? Easy come, easy go.

I traveled across Africa and Asia. Not that I visited each country and spent there enough time to fully understand local situation and learn its history, but what I've seen taught me one thing: each place is an ecosystem. It works the way it works, with all its flaws, limitations and abuse, because that's how it has to work that way. Dictatorship, violence, atrocities - they aren't pretty, but they are, apparently, stages that certain place has to go through, and it has to deal with that, surpass it, evolve past that. Still, there's probably no other way and forcing those people to accept different way, one that didn't evolve locally, won't do much good.

Saddam? Kaddafi? People like them? They are inevitable. Bad guys, with plenty of stuff to answer for before the deity of their choice, and their people, but inevitable. Removing them "too early" and attempting to share the gift of democracy (or whatever passes for the best among worst governing styles) would prove to be a disaster.

I expressed my opinion years prior to Arab Spring and seeing how those countries look like now, how people live, I think I wasn't wrong.

By the way, why do you think that US is dying? Judging from the distance it's going to face some cleansing in upcoming future, along the lines of "we need to review some of our choices and find different solutions", but dying?

QuoteThere are jet packs and flying cars, most cities aren't made for a 3D environment, esp with the delta v that vehicles like that need, it won't be done without an advanced traffic control grid, in order so that someone's accident doesn't fall down through your roof. The future is bright enough, both for China and India, very fast growing economies now, and I deal with up and coming engineers from those countries all the time. For the west? To quote the Habsburgs: "The situation is hopeless, but not serious."

Good quote.

Jet packs and flying cars are merely an allegory - once assumed to be typical ways of transportation of our times by our ancestors. Truth is, we're far more advanced than it seems, but it seems that better doesn't always walk hand in hand with "profit" and that's why we aren't where we could've been (should we?) if not the artificially implemented barrier that stands between us and possibilities.

Quote from: daniel_ream;897800We've had flying cars for fifty years.  They're called helicopters.

Hahaha, sir, that was a good one! Next thing you're gonna say is that we already possess some technology allowing us to connect and discuss things in real time with people across whole globe, or something. By the way, you... You wouldn't be one of those followers of certain Jules Verne, infamous drunkard and a fairy tales writer?

Just joking. It's like above - flying cars are merely an allegory, not an actual representative of progress.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;897930Well, there's mystical aspect of Dick's existence. He claimed for at least a few of his visions to be true (Valis, being probably the most important one). Seeing how certain themes prevalent in many of his works seem to come true, one can't but wonder whether it's complete bullcrap. It would be actually kind of ironic for Dick to be true herald of upcoming future, touched by "divine" (or simply accessing the script for future, courtesy of drugs and high luck). Ironic, because his predictions, actually accurate, are still nothing more than SF stories in the eyes of the mainstream, while there are cases of people starting conflicts (and bloody ones!) because of some ancient, religious fairy tales.

He was a tortured soul, undiagnosed schizophrenia most likely, one aspect being religious persecution complex or mania. He writes about it extensively, I think he didn't often know what was real or not, the drugs and harassment by the FBI over his writings didn't help. He did also have very lucid moments. One reason he was right so often, is that he wrote so much, so the statistical probability of being correct becomes higher. He was also living in California, attentive to the counter culture happenings around him, and to be able to extrapolate those into the future.

QuoteI traveled across Africa and Asia. Not that I visited each country and spent there enough time to fully understand local situation and learn its history, but what I've seen taught me one thing: each place is an ecosystem. It works the way it works, with all its flaws, limitations and abuse, because that's how it has to work that way. Dictatorship, violence, atrocities - they aren't pretty, but they are, apparently, stages that certain place has to go through, and it has to deal with that, surpass it, evolve past that. Still, there's probably no other way and forcing those people to accept different way, one that didn't evolve locally, won't do much good.

Saddam? Kaddafi? People like them? They are inevitable. Bad guys, with plenty of stuff to answer for before the deity of their choice, and their people, but inevitable. Removing them "too early" and attempting to share the gift of democracy (or whatever passes for the best among worst governing styles) would prove to be a disaster.

I expressed my opinion years prior to Arab Spring and seeing how those countries look like now, how people live, I think I wasn't wrong.

By the way, why do you think that US is dying? Judging from the distance it's going to face some cleansing in upcoming future, along the lines of "we need to review some of our choices and find different solutions", but dying?

Bellum Se Ipsum Alet - War must pay for itself, no country can survive spending 55% of it's discretionary budget on military spending forever, it's unsustainable. Plus being a police state, the middle class disappearing ... sounds like another militaristic police state in 1992. When it fell over, people were quite surprised. A giant with feet of clay and all that, I even notice the leadership class seems intellectually bankrupt (similar shades to the fall of the Soviets). Clinton II is unlikely to stem the 4-6 trillion being spent in the mid-east.

Saddam and Kaddafi, they kept the peace, for what it was worth. Democracy is a middle class thing, people taking power to their own responsibility, of course it won't take where none exists, it has no soil to take root in. Looking at the situation now, the areas controlled by the Islamic State, will become Sunni ghettoes, where they don't even have the soil to feed themselves, much less any other wealth. It's fight now or fall forever. Any government lives by the faith of it's people, the corrupt dictatorships couldn't withstand a 50% rise in food costs, I don't think the western democracies could withstand it either. Hindsight is 20/20 vision, now it seems obvious why the Arab spring happened.

QuoteGood quote.

Jet packs and flying cars are merely an allegory - once assumed to be typical ways of transportation of our times by our ancestors. Truth is, we're far more advanced than it seems, but it seems that better doesn't always walk hand in hand with "profit" and that's why we aren't where we could've been (should we?) if not the artificially implemented barrier that stands between us and possibilities.

If the old monarchy left anything behind, it was pithy sayings, Voltaire being correct in the estimation of their value, all of it true though. The phone is definitely the better form of transportation. As far as our being held back, it is infrastructure, I went to a conference of electrical engineers in Chicago, which concentrated on the fact that a smart grid could save 40% of electricity generated over the current grid of which major parts date back to the 1920's, and that includes the financial infrastructure involved. The barrier is very real, both physical, financial, and political. Then again we live in a world where people starve for lack of money, not food, if you have the money, it would be delivered to your door. It is reported that 25% of food in the US is wasted, maybe even more, and that is with massive subsidies to farmers. It is what it is.