Or they could just give them all a huge array of skimpy outfits and music-related attacks. Kinda like how the awesomeness of the Aeons was dropped to be replaced with slutty outfits and pop music.
If they do make an FF6-2, which could be awesome, then I'd like them to tie those loose ends and I'd like to see a battle system that doesn't suck. Yes, as DJ said, have something that looks and acts like magic but isn't.
An FF7-2 would also be cool. Of course, we're already getting Advent Children... eventually... and some game with Vincent as the main character, so... I guess we don't really need anymore FF7 for now.
Yeah, I hope they put some FF4, FF6, and FF9 characters in KH2. That'd be sweet.
They have made 7-2! Aren't there a couple of FFVII cellphone games? :)
That's actually more like 7-0, because it takes place before the game.
I wonder if they'll bother releasing that game on the DS or the PSP? There's online support potential anyway, just not an existing system.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Oh don't worry, they would end up coming up with a new battle system and all :D. It would certainly involve a lot of stuff that looks and acts just LIKE magic, but... it wouldn't be :D.
Oh, you won't need anything new for that. After all, magic had supposedly 'vanished' from the world after the War of the Magi, yet practically every enemy in the game has some kind of magical attack.
Magical effect sure :D, like the rino monsters that can generate lightning. Like midway into the first world though, every enemy manages to cast actual magic spells like you can cast. But, you get what I mean. Anyway, a new battle system would sort of be needed. They kinda need to be able to compete with current day games.
Well, the ignorant populace thought that magic had vanished after the War of the Magi. They were wrong though. Now that the Statues have been destroyed, however, magic really has ceased to exist. Unless they do make a sequal, in which case magic will probably make some sort of comeback somehow, proving the ignorant populace wrong again. :D
Ignorant of what? Magic was pretty much gone until the espers were rediscovered. Those were needed for magic. But anyway, if they actually bring back magic, it would suck. There's no point in saying "um, let's just UNDO the entire storyline". I HATE undoing major plot points, because they never do it right, because the original plot was made that way for a reason. For that matter, undo all the character development and make all the main characters "realize" the same lessons over and over again :D. Hey, comic books do it all the time.
Or, Clarke's Law could come into play. It's arguable that it did right from the beginning of FFVI, though. Magitek Armor certainly would fit. There was a definite shift from technology to magic as FFVI unfolded. In the beginning, Narshe, Figaro and Vector were the technology centers of the world, and quite dominant for it. By the WoR, Narshe is abandoned, Vector is eliminated and absorbed into Kefka's Playhouse, and Figaro is essentially a non-factor, reduced solely to a means of transportation.
What the heck is "Clarke's Law"?
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
And what is the evidence of this apparent law? I have in fact heard the quote, but I was under the impression it was just a silly thing tossed into bad sci-fi movies and books.
But yeah, if they went and made a scientific explanation for magic, I'd hate them for that too.
It's just a fact. Take an airplane into the 1200s and it's magic, pure and simple...
Who needs evidence? Think about this.
Imagine it's 1862, the Civil War is in full swing. Imagine that instead of going up against the Army of the Potomac, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia encounters U.S. troops from the present day, and they engage in combat.
The modern-day American troops have automatic weaponry, night-vision, stun-grenades, flamethrowers, mines, radio, and vehicles of war. The ANVA has nothing but cannon, artillery, rifles and smooth-bore muskets. 100 American troops open fire on 10,000 Confederates, each firing several rounds per second. The Condederates can fire their rifles perhaps twice a minute. One American officer can use radio to coordinate hundreds of men who may be miles apart. One Confederate officer must rely on subordinates, using nothing but their voice or paper dispatches. The Americans roll through the Confederate lines with heavily-armored Abrams M-51 tanks, monstrous behemoths that the Confederate soldiers are powerless to stop. Air Support is called in. Apache gunships hover in the air and spray thousands of bullets per second from wing-mounted mini-guns. F-18 jets fire missiles and Stealth bombers drop bunkerbusters of incredible power directly into masses of enemy soldiers and fortifications, against which the Confederate army has no chance of defending. Finally, in the middle of the night, the American infantry, using night-vision and radio, move quickly and stealthily using armored convoys that can move three times as fast as any horse and hold a dozen times as many men, totally catching the enemy unprepared and unable to fight back.
The concepts for all of these technologies were totally unknown in 1862. The common Confederate soldier, faced with such advanced technology, would have no logical concept of what he was facing. He would attribute it to magic, for nothing known to them could explain tanks, nightvision, radio, etc. That is what the law means. If someone someday develops technology that allows man to wave his hand and create lightning storms and cure wounds, we today might call it magic.
A few Confederates would have rifled muskets. :) They've existed since at least the 1700s, after all. But yes, not many... and they'd have no idea of how to handle a modern force.
As for the night vision, in the Civil War most people would probably consider night attacks at least somewhat unfair and unsporting... you don't do such things. You fight battles that kill hundreds of thousands over a period of years, but you don't fight at night very often...
Unsporting, but for whom? Being taken surprise at night is easy, unless you lack a sufficient capacity to stage an attack at night. I think nighttime battles were rare not because of fairness, but because it was simply too hard to do successfully.
Anyway, you're right about their ability to handle a modern foe, but that's an aside. My point is that they might think such a force is a spawn of hell. Enemies that see in total darkness, that can talk to each other without being anywhere near another human being, that can absorb bullets with flak jackets, and best of all, that can fly... and rain destruction from the heavens. Such abilities, people of that time period would consider supernatural. Thus, Clarke's Third Law.
But do you have EVIDENCE that the culture would assume it's magic? In such a scenario, is it not possible they might also want to examine the weapons logically? Look, anything that is going to be stated as law has to have some PROOF. You can't just state "well of COURSE they would think it's magic" without it. The English ran into the Native Americans with amazing technology, and they didn't immediatly drop to their knees and worship us. Rather, pretty quickly, they adapted their firearms and such into their own strategy.
People today still use magic tricks that can amaze people. Some people DO assume it to be magic, but there are others for whom logic dictates their interpretation of events. They prefer to assume mundane explanations over the magical. Since humans are pretty much the same now as they ever were, I should think such people have always been around.
Native Americans did worship the Europeans at first. Once they had the ability to examine European technology, however, they weren't as awed by it. I don't buy the "law" either as it is impossible to prove, which wouldn't make it a law anyway.
With time, yes, they might realize it's just technology, not magic, but who knows how long that would take, depending on the starting society...
The law makes sense to me, at least.
In FF6 though, magic seems to be a concept all its own, not just a fancy word used to describe something we don't understand because it's so technilogically advanced.
And I, too, don't think FF6's ending should be tampered with just to make a sequal. I'm sure the reason they got rid of magic, a key factor in the game, was so that they could prevent a sequal from being possible. They knew sequals sucked. With FFX, on the other hand, the ending (from what I hear) left the series wide open for a sequal. Too bad they had to make the sequal to that as shitty as they possibly could. It's like they didn't even try.
Actually the ending of FFX really didn't leave it wide open for a sequel at all. The storyline of FFX-2 was something they just had to more or less make up on the spot. I still haven't bothered playing more of FFX-2. It just doesn't interest me that much...
And yes, I'd say that the whole "law" thing is a bit of a stretch. Some cultures DID worship newcomers with advanced tech, a few did not. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that sufficiently advanced technology is easily confused for magic by the layperson. Imagine if aliens invaded tomorrow with ridiculously advanced tech, I'm talking ships constructed of light with halos spinning around them stuff (if that wasn't physically impossible I'm saying). Are we likely to assume it must be magic? Well, in today's culture, probably not. I'm sure a lot of superstitious people would think it is, but there's plenty of people who would not think so.
I will say this, any sufficiently advanced technology is bound to make someone upon first seeing it say "WHOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!" at first.
Quote:Perhaps it is more accurate to say that sufficiently advanced technology is easily confused for magic by the layperson.
That's the whole POINT...
By "layperson" I mean those who thing of things magically rather than logical analysis.
Also, by easily confused, I mean that one who thinks more logically might merely assume it to be a piece of technology from the start. It's not as though such people are unheard of in the old world.
Quote:By "layperson" I mean those who thing of things magically rather than logical analysis.
Like 98 or 99% of the population for most of human history?
Quote:Imagine if aliens invaded tomorrow with ridiculously advanced tech, I'm talking ships constructed of light with halos spinning around them stuff (if that wasn't physically impossible I'm saying). Are we likely to assume it must be magic? Well, in today's culture, probably not. I'm sure a lot of superstitious people would think it is, but there's plenty of people who would not think so.
That sort of technology would not be sufficiently advanced. We don't know how to make flying saucers and death rays, but the concept has been a part of cultural mythos for decades. The law would be harder to impress upon advanced cultures. But who on earth could have imagined a hundred and fifty years ago that man could fly, or go to the moon, or could create a weapon that could annihilate a whole city in less than a second? These sort of ideas were nothing but fantasy in 1860, the technology needed to create them decades away from even being thought of. Most people thought flight was impossible. They didn't have rapid-fire technology advances and science fiction like we do to help fill in the gaps. The smartest genius of 1860 could look at a DVD player, examine it every way he knows how, and could likely not even begin to guess how it works. A light that can read a grooved disc, and produce moving color photography? Magic.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:I still haven't bothered playing more of FFX-2. It just doesn't interest me that much...
Same here. I got it for Christmas in 2003 and I played it once for maybe 20 minutes at the very most. I haven't touched it since.
Well if you want that, I'll point this out. More than that long ago, a certain fellow by the name of Leonardo Devinci was a frickin' genius that imagined just that. People have been ATTEMPTING to make flying machines for a long time before we actually did it. Sure, a harrier jet may not have been what they pictured :D... Also, Leo happened to come up with the idea of scuba, and the tank. A certain group long ago happened to have access to "greek fire" as it was called. Basically, pumping a substance similar to napalm out hoses mounted on boats to spray fire from them. The enemy didn't exactly worship them, but they sure were afraid. And again, you seem to really NEED for the people of the past to be idiots. How do you know that the smartest person would not be able to figure out a DVD player? Give them everything that is needed to make one work, and let them work at it. These people DID give us the foundation of what we have, and all things considered, most people today don't have the slightest idea how the stuff they use works :D. All I'm saying is it might take time, but with a logical mindset and properly using scientific method, I should think they would be able to figure it out. Sci-fi isn't exactly a new concept either. People have often looked into the future wondering exactly what new technology might emerge. It took a while for books to be written based entirely on that, but people have been doing that for a long time. That is sort of how invention works.
Besides that, I really don't think this is an established law or theory at all. Seems more like a common sci-fi hypothesis. I would like to know the history of this, and what sort of proofs were used to establish that this is the case. I really don't see how this could be fact, especially when it seems more like poetry than some real law.
And Geno, I must say that I played it for a bit, and when it opened up allowing me free travel anywhere, hey I liked that. The story though... It's just a painful thing so far... I mean, they even have a "Team Rocket" in there it seems. I MAY just play more of it eventually, I do own it after all, but not for a while.
I might pick it up again... someday. Or not.
A Team Rocket, eh? You mean comic relief villains who appear far too often and get very annoying? Like Ultros in FF6? (Except he doesn't appear that often and he stops harassing you after a while, whereas to my knowledge, Team Rocket still pops up in every episode of Pokémon.)
Today, Ash and the gang stop by some random town on their way to a town that has a gym so that Ash can compete for another badge in another Pokémon league which he's going to lose in anyway! Uh oh! Something of great value was stolen from the town! The townsfolk describe the thieves as a woman with long red hair, a man with short blue hair, and a talking Meowth!
Ash: Who do we know that fits that description? I can't think of anybody!
Brock: I don't know, but that girl is pretty!!!!!!!!!!
Later, Ash and the gang discovers who the villains are!
Team Rocket: *gives their motto*
Ash: *waits until they're done* Team Rocket! We should've known it was you!
Team Rocket attacks from within a giant machine and Pikachu shocks it, but it has no effect!
Meowth: Ha ha, we made it shock proof!
Some other Pokémon, usually the one that belongs to the most vocal trainer in town: *uses an attack that sends Team Rocket BLASTING OFF AGAAAAAAAAAIN!*
Trainer: Thanks for your help!
Ash: Aww, it was nothing! I can't wait to meet you again!
Everybody says goodbye for ten minutes, the narrator explains the moral of the episode, and the character that they're supposed to meet again someday is never seen again.
Narrator: Meanwhile...
Team Rocket: *sulks over their loss*
To be continued...
Don't go away, some really ghey Pokémon song is next!
After a point, they started making fun of their own redundancy. However, I stopped watching the show years ago when even their jokes on how old the jokes are getting got old (you know, like the Simpsons). Really, when they decided that keeping the status quo was more important than any sort of, shallow as it may have been, story progression, you just can't put up with it.
And I was actually specifically talking about that woman with the fat man and the tall man that comes along to steal your identity or orbs or whatever. I don't know much more because I couldn't really tolerate it much longer.
DJ, you seem to think that most people in the past thought scientifically. They most definitely did not. The person is the very rare exception like Leonardo Da Vinci... he might not look at modern technology and say "magic". But virtually everyone else on earth in the years he was alive would have done exactly that. Without any other explanation, magic is to blame. Think about it for a second! Would an oh so logical society believe in witch trials ("if you die, you were probably innocent. If you live, you lived because of your magic and are guilty as a witch and will be killed.")
As for greek fire, that's exactly the kind of thing that a lot of people in that time would have called magic. There's no other explanation, right? Certainly none they could think of! Water does not burn.
As for sci-fi... that didn't really exist before the 1800s in a form we would recongize... people cannot concieve of what comes in the future. They can only guess based on what they know in the present. So people could not guess about future technology without having a basis for that... this is still true, we just know more now (look at the history of scifi -- H. G. Wells or Jules Verne in the 1800s (people opening the windows in their spaceship during their voyage to the moon in a ship shot out of a giant cannon) to 1930s-50s rocket ships (powered by nuclear power, in the '50s... also, stories like ones about people living on Venus (and not under domes), etc...) and giant computers to now... we can't really know what will come. So can anyone blame a medieval person for having absolutely no conception of modern technology?
To get someone in the middle ages to understand a DVD player you cannot just explain the DVD player. You'd first have to explain the concept of electrical power, power generation methods, power lines, AC/DC current, lights, plastic, the television, the laser, the concept of being able to encode something onto a disk by burning invisible holes onto a "plastic" disc (this one might take a while!), etc... and even then, lots of people will be stubborn and continue to say "magic" because that's human nature (like how it's harder for older people to understand newer technology).
A few people would be able to understand. The human race now is the same genetically, after all. But the majority of the people... no way. Especially once you consider that before the past 100, 150 years almost no one below the top few percent of the population got an education...
I'm not saying "most" here. But, that was said in absolutes, no? I'm only disputing that not EVERYONE would assume magic.
Greek fire was not assumed to BE magic though, that's the important thing. It was assumed a terrible weapon, and feared, but not magic.
And as for the DVD player... Yes, explaining it to them would be just like explaining one to a child, but I'm talking analysis. I did state that a logic-minded person would have to be the one to grab it.
If a DVD player were explained to someone, there might be a person in the middle ages who would at least understand that it isn't just magical forces bringing Saving Private Ryan into your living room in Dolby Digital. But even this person would never even begin to have the slightest idea how it works. The most basic concepts of such a device are so terribly far beyond anything that existed back then. Magic would BE the logical explanation to such people.
Need I point out that to a baby, not a single thing they see is understood at at. Eventually though, they figure out how it works, partly from their own investigations and partly from others explaining things to them as well as the evidence that shows it. I'm fairly certain that the concepts we understand aren't "way beyond" their comprehension. We do both live in the same physical universe, with the same laws, so our experiences, while different in many respects, are going to share a lot of similarities based simply on that fact. As a result, there is going to be some common ground on which to explain it all. They'll understand so long as they are willing to learn, because they are human.
Quote:I'm not saying "most" here. But, that was said in absolutes, no? I'm only disputing that not EVERYONE would assume magic.
Sorry, only 999,998 or 999,999 out of a million.
Quote:Greek fire was not assumed to BE magic though, that's the important thing. It was assumed a terrible weapon, and feared, but not magic.
How do you know this?
Quote:And as for the DVD player... Yes, explaining it to them would be just like explaining one to a child, but I'm talking analysis. I did state that a logic-minded person would have to be the one to grab it.
No, it wouldn't. A child has the advantage of a blank slate: they have no preconceptions about how things work, so they can learn easily. I said that in my post... children learn easily. Adults do not. Like languages -- it is far, far easier to learn foreign languages as a child than it is as an adult. Once you've learned things it's very hard to learn different things... so no, it wouldn't be like teaching a child. It'd be teaching someone who has learned a complete world view that their world view is hopelessly wrong. It's a significantly harder challenge. As for 'analysis' and 'logic-minded', your problem there is finding such people in most of history. Even if someone was predisposed towards it, in most human cultures they'd be trained to act differently -- to follow orders from above (God/the gods, their priests, nobility above them, etc), to not think much, definitely to not question what is known... the scientific theory, the idea of science being something that requires experimentation... those are recent things, DJ! Even in the 1700s it was acceptable for scientists to base theories on no experimentation...
I'm just saying that our modern society prepares people for the possibilities of modern life and modern ideas. Without that basis, people won't be thinking that way and humanity isn't predisposed towards high technology... yes, we do have large brains, but it took hundreds of thousands of years to get beyond the basics... only in the last 10,000 years or so has humanity really advanced.
How is someone with no education, no concept of technology above perhaps agriculture, domesticated animals, the wheel, the plow, and maybe some kind of forging (bronze or iron; otherwise, just stone carving) supposed to have even the faintest idea of how to respond to a DVD player? They know how the world works (as I said, unlike a child) and this does not work in that view... yes, a few probably would understand that it's not magic, but explaining it to them... wow, as I said, it'd take a long time. "It's a machine... it works somehow"? That's what a lot of people who live today would say -- they don't really know how it works, exactly, they just know it does... the science-minded are now, as ever, a minority. So you are probably one who would be able to understand "magic" technology. So? This says nothing about society as a whole... and this law is about a society as a whole. Saying 'a tiny number might not' does not in any way disprove it. Actually, I'd say it does the opposite... 98 or 99% accuracy is pretty darn good. :)
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Need I point out that to a baby, not a single thing they see is understood at at. Eventually though, they figure out how it works, partly from their own investigations and partly from others explaining things to them as well as the evidence that shows it. I'm fairly certain that the concepts we understand aren't "way beyond" their comprehension. We do both live in the same physical universe, with the same laws, so our experiences, while different in many respects, are going to share a lot of similarities based simply on that fact. As a result, there is going to be some common ground on which to explain it all. They'll understand so long as they are willing to learn, because they are human.
A child, or a baby, can learn anything. A baby is little more than an empty vessel, equipped with only necessary physical functions, basic emotion, reaction, and communication. Anything a child experiences is learned, and they can learn anything, because a child is born with no preconceptions or expectations. An adult does not have this luxury. An adult of the middle ages has a firm set of what he believes. He knows that the world is flat and is the center of the universe. He knows that insects spontaneously appear from rot, he may know that the body is made of humours, and that everything from the Plague to the preen of a swan is an act of God, without having the slightest idea that there are many, many more involved processes going on. Even if he could force himself to accept the fact that such a device as a DVD player could exist, there is no possible parallel you could make him find to anything he could possibly know. An explanation that could satisfy my six year old nephew would be totally alien to the most learned scholars of Charlemagne's empire. Every process involved in the operation of a DVD player, from how it harnesses electricity to how the motor operates, to how a concentrated beam of light is formed and focused, to how it is able to read microscopic pits in a disc made of materials no 10th century man could even fathom... they would undoubtedly consider it magic, no matter how you explained it to them.
Then, they'd burn you at the stake for possessing such an item of witchcraft. :D
You said a lot of the same things I did, Weltall. :)
And do you have evidence of this? Look, as I pointed out, the native americans actually learned, even though they had no idea of the processes beforehand, how to build and operate fire arms. They eventually were able to figure it out.
The idea that a culture, simply due to preconceptions, is simply incapable of changing at all no matter the data is to say that humans are not capable of change. That's simply not true. Over the course of a century, my great grandmother has gone from a childhood of complete ignorance of anything close to a computer to playing computer solitaire when bored.
Lots of people in the past in today's world have grown up believing in one thing, having no idea of the possibilities otherwise, but presented with the right information, they have managed to completely and totally change their mindsets. Take the layperson who has dedicated their future success to the daily lottery, who eventually is able to learn the truth about odds and accept that it is foolish and actually completely change their life outlook. The advancement of technology is irrelevent in this case. The point is humans CAN change. Keep in mind I'm aware that MOST obsessed gamblers will not change their viewpoint, but it IS possible.
Sure, people back then would have a hard time understanding it. It is likely that during the witch hunt eras you would simply be burned at the stake. However, there are certainly some people, as there always are (or we wouldn't progress) that would willingly look for a logical explanation. A baby is not truly an "empty vessel". You suggest that at a certain age we become "immutible", completely unchangeble. I submit this is NOT the case as people, even those reaching 50 or so years of age, can and have completely changed their views on life.
Further, science and logic are not bound by culture, because the universe, despite views, is the same as ever. Certain things observed by both are going to be the same, so there is a workable framework at all times. Both today and then, one will notice that a rock is hard, and that things fall. From there it's only repetition and testing away from showing what is and is not true. Culture is irrelevent.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela...ality.html
And in the end, I must say this last thing. Explanations and such aside, that's not proof. I still need some sort of reference. Who is "clarK" and why should I care? When did he prove this, and by what methods? What on earth does "indistinguishable from magic" even really MEAN aside from sounding poetic?
Alright, I looked it up myself. Turns out this Clarke is actually Arthur C Clarke. Well, no wonder you were hesitant to tell me who it was or the proofs, he's a science fiction author and these are his odd views on reality! The other 2 laws, which are basically to the effect of saying "everything is possible" more or less fly in the face of science, which very often lists what is and is not possible. He seems to like it when a scientist says something can happen, but seems to be fundamentally opposed to anyone saying that something can't happen. More than that, he offers no real evidence of any of it. They are just his personal views on the world, as a sci-fi author.
Why are you making this so hard? It's a very simple principle which is obviously true. Bring a gun to the 1200s and the people will think you use magic. Give them a month and a box of rifles and they'll realize it's technology, of course, but that's not the point of the principle... you're over-analyzing it, and trying to go beyond the point where it ends (that is, the point where you explain it all to them carefully or give them a lot of time to figure everything out -- if they can! (imagine medieval alchemists (because that was their only vague analog to "scientists") with some modern scientific equipment. How in the world would they ever figure it out? They probably wouldn't, that's the answer... not without someone to explain it all to them. Of course, the level of technology is important here -- in the case of Indians with guns (and horses!), once the indians got past the initial 'They are gods!' and figured out that they were indeed human (this happened too late for the Aztec empire to survive, anyway...), they slowly began to use those tools. But at the initial contact... wow, they were in awe. These are gods come to life. (this is historical fact, DJ.)
Quote:And do you have evidence of this? Look, as I pointed out, the native americans actually learned, even though they had no idea of the processes beforehand, how to build and operate fire arms. They eventually were able to figure it out.
True. And equally true is the fact that at first they thought it was magic. Of course over time people will become acclimated with it and realize it's not magic, but for a while there... magic! This will last longer if you keep the facts of how it really works secret.
Quote:The idea that a culture, simply due to preconceptions, is simply incapable of changing at all no matter the data is to say that humans are not capable of change. That's simply not true. Over the course of a century, my great grandmother has gone from a childhood of complete ignorance of anything close to a computer to playing computer solitaire when bored.
I didn't say 'at all'. This makes your point here irrelevant -- sure, some older people can understand computers. But it's a scientific fact that the older you are, the harder it is for you to learn new things. You can't argue THAT. It's weird, actually... you know science, and there are so many articles out there about how older people don't understand technology that younger people do, so why are you arguing this point? You should know it's true! You even admit it, mostly... you're just trying to argue that there are exceptions. Well yes. But the exceptions are just that -- exceptions. They aren't the rule, not by a longshot.
Quote:Alright, I looked it up myself. Turns out this Clarke is actually Arthur C Clarke. Well, no wonder you were hesitant to tell me who it was or the proofs, he's a science fiction author and these are his odd views on reality! The other 2 laws, which are basically to the effect of saying "everything is possible" more or less fly in the face of science, which very often lists what is and is not possible. He seems to like it when a scientist says something can happen, but seems to be fundamentally opposed to anyone saying that something can't happen. More than that, he offers no real evidence of any of it. They are just his personal views on the world, as a sci-fi author.
I didn't know who said it or the name of the law before someone else said it... I'd just heard the law and recognized it for the obvious truth that it is.
Well, as I said before, "magic" seems to be an actual concept in the FF6 world. It's not just some fancy word people use to describe technology they don't understand. It's an actual force brought on by the Statues and used by the Espers. Through technology, however, the Empire was able to manipulate the magic of the Espers (once they figured out that you had to kill the Espers and use their Magicite) and make Magitek weapons and armor. (Thus, the "magic" that Vicks and Wedge used at the beginning of the game was a mix between technology and magic, whereas the magic that Terra and Celes use, as well as the rest of the characters once you obtain Magicite, is actual magic from an Esper. In Terra's case, some of it is her own magic, being that she is half-Esper, while Celes was infused with an Esper and thus learns some magic attacks without Magicite herself.)
But I'm sure that magic is not just mere 'magic'. There is likely a physical explanation for its workings. The magic of Robert Jordan's universe is explained almost in a scientific way and is never referred to as magic.
Look ABF, I don't care at this point. Now that I know those "laws" are just the ramblings of some sci-fi author I really don't care. There's no point debating something that has no proof. Some cultures might, some might not. And besides, if it's not 100% accurate, it can't be a law.
But anyway, Weltall moved on and so will I.
Magic, I really don't think it NEEDS any more explanation than it is magic. It works by using MP. Some authors like going into fully detailed explanations for how it works, but I really do NOT want ALL stories with magic to have explanations. It's just not magic unless it's simply magic :D. In FF6's case, magic is just a magical force with no real explanation. What is it? Well, as far as I can tell, "true magic" in most people's minds is being able to literally break the laws of physics. Not just find out a new way the laws of physics work, but have an established method by which the universe works, and totally contradict it at random in a way that can't be explained due to the fact that most of the time the universe can't possibly behave like that. For example, casting a cure spell that causes flowers to randomly sprout from the ground which somehow cures you, even though actually GROWING flowers around you would produce no beneficial effect, ever. Anyway, from what I can tell magic is a secondary set of laws that preempts the normal physical universe's laws, and also contradicts them.
Oh yeah, I really wish Star Wars didn't try to scientifically explain the force. Stupid medichlorines or whatever... Leave it unexplained! It's not magic if it's explained!
And um, if Robert's universe never calls it magic and it is fully explained by scientific law, then um, how exactly is that magic at all? No thanks, leave that to those stories, but not ALL of them should be like that if you ask me.
So, when the gods and Kefka were destroyed, magic can and should be gone forever, and physically impossible for any mortal to ever bring back. Perhaps someone could be obsessed with bringing it back and go about something else. It would be "pseudomagic" or something, but it would be understood by all that it wasn't REAL magic, just something that has similar effects, I dunno...
Quote:Look ABF, I don't care at this point. Now that I know those "laws" are just the ramblings of some sci-fi author I really don't care. There's no point debating something that has no proof. Some cultures might, some might not. And besides, if it's not 100% accurate, it can't be a law.
You're disagreeing with something you've admitted is true within the limits that the law covers, you know. :)
Quote:But I'm sure that magic is not just mere 'magic'. There is likely a physical explanation for its workings. The magic of Robert Jordan's universe is explained almost in a scientific way and is never referred to as magic.
Yes, it does. All good magic systems should work this way, because that's what "magic" is... like Feist's stuff too, where magic and science are essentially one... everyone calls it magic, except for the two or three people who actually understand how it works. They know it's... stuff. :D
Quote:Oh yeah, I really wish Star Wars didn't try to scientifically explain the force. Stupid medichlorines or whatever... Leave it unexplained! It's not magic if it's explained!
Absolutely not! It definitely was a good thing to explain it... I don't like them leaving it as some kind of mystical force. I'd rather get an explanation. Like sound in space -- it was eventually explained in the books as 'sound generators in the ships', and that was a good thing. Midichlorions are a good explanation for the force, and are still suitably mystical to make religious types happy... (I mean, that little organism can do all that? :))
Why would it be a good thing to have no explanation for how magic works? "Magic" is an illogical idea! To have this 'magic' make sense you must explain it. Jordan and Feist do that just about perfectly: this is clearly not something possible in this world, but the rules of their universes are different and these things are possible there under the specific laws they outline. As it should be.
Well that's rather limiting... So ALL fiction should be like that?
Oh yeah, the sound generator thing? Yeah I heard about that. Stupid... It was stupid before, but that explanation is even worse. Better the other way, the sound is just for people watching the movies to get into the scene. Now THAT is a proper explanation. I should think that if an onboard computer was going to analyze ship positions it would present them in a much better way like, I dunno, TELLING them what's happening?
And um, this "law" doesn't specify any limits. It's not properly constructed to be a law. Nothing is defined.
Quote:Well that's rather limiting... So ALL fiction should be like that?
Magic systems, you mean (DJ, QUOTES! They are your friend! And are very easy to use!)? No. You don't understand at all, which is understandable given that you haven't read any of the books in question... it's not hard to make a magic system make sense and be believable by any standards. Now, I would say that not everything needs a perfect definition of their world's magic... so many things do not have much of a definition that I'm quite used to that. I'm just saying that when it's there, it's well appreciated and definitely makes the world in question feel more realistic and 'possible'. Just like a good explanation of hyperspace in a scifi show, for instance. :)
Quote:And um, this "law" doesn't specify any limits. It's not properly constructed to be a law. Nothing is defined.
It's just one sentence, how much can you expect?
I definitely prefer to have an explanation for magic in a story, unless, for story purposes, it is essential that I remain ignorant (and even then, revelation is usually somewhere down the line anyway). By having an idea of how it works, my mind's eye can better visualize the action. Jordan explains in exquisite detail how 'magic' in his story works (Note that in WoT, the use of the One Power is never referred to as 'magic', because it is understood so well by those who practice it). In fact, for WoT, understanding how the Power operates is very essential to understanding many facets of the story, as there are two sides to the Power, and one of them until recently has been tainted, in such a way that those who tap its power inexorably descend into madness. There are many, many other facets of the One Power that exist, such as the Ways, The Land of Dreams, Ogier Groves, and the entire complex and sordid past and present of the Aes Sedai. I think that Jordan can really overdo character expositions (to an extent unrivalled by any other author I've read), but you can't fault him for lacking detail: He obviously was very meticulate when he created his universe. Feist doesn't do this so much. He explains some of how his magic works, but everyone still calls it magic, and none but the best have any real idea how it works.
That's true... but Feist actually is trying to finish his stories. :D Jordan seems content to add fifteen new plot points in a book that solves five old ones... at this rate, I'm wondering if the series will EVER be finished... oh, it's a really, really good series that I like a lot. But I wonder.
Wow, what a bunch of nerds we are, debating what "magic" is by using different forms of fiction as our grounds. :D
It's an interesting discussion, let's continue it!
No, let's not. Look, you need for magic to have a full explanation. I believe you have mentioned in the past that leaving certain things unexplained is not something you like at all. You want a full expose on every single aspect of a story. I'm not the OPPOSITE, oh no, I can appreciate explanations as well. However, leaving things fuzzy does have it's advantages. I'm talking about leaving things PERMANENTLY unexplained too. Lord of the Rings, for example, leaves the nature of magic very much in the dark. I think it's better that way. It's hard to think of it as mysterious if there is no mystery. I think that it is perfectly acceptable for authors to leave thigns unexplained if they believe that either it's not important, or that it IS important that the reader really have no idea how it works, just that it does and is mysterious. All I'm saying is that authors should have that freedom and the lack of an explanation for everything does NOT make a story inherently worse. Sometimes it is better. In a comedy, for example, sometimes the joke is funniest when there is no explanation at all of what just happened, or any attempt at all to make sense of it. Like, if someone keeps showing up RIGHT where you least expect them to. Now, sometimes an explanation is funny too, but not ALL the time. I like the idea of a "you were there, but now you are here" thing having NO explanation sometimes, like in cartoons. This applies to serious stuff too, but in a different way.
All I'm saying is permanent mystery can be a good thing. I'm not saying ALL authors should do it. I'm only saying that using it CAN be a good thing and should not be looked down upon. A fully explained magic system is not ALWAYS better than not, just sometimes, depending on what the author is trying to do.
Well, let me just leave you with this. In a story where humans are set up as ones who can't comprehend certain things, any explanation of all the strange higher plane stuff could only hurt such a mood. The Q in Star Trek have a lot of pretty confusing stuff in their reality. None of what is in it makes any sense, and they make no apology for it at all. And, I think it's better that way. If I could fully understand how it all worked, then the Q really wouldn't be all that amazing to me.
I say let authors write how they want to write. If you don't like it, don't read it. FF6's writers apparently felt no need to explain magic as anything more than... well, magic.