Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Recently it's become a point of contention, so Peach and I have decided to open a poll thread to settle this once and for all.

For those who haven't been paying attention, "Toonforce" is a claim made by some members that particular characters' feats cannot be reasonably used for debate, as they ignore physics for the sake of funny or cool. The reasoning is that these "toonforce" feats are not intended to portray a character's true ability, but are over-exaggerating for that particular scene. By the claim of toonforce, these feats would have to be thrown out for the sake of reasoned debate.

Others think that characters should be presented in the vs. threads precisely as they are portrayed in the games. They argue that the "toonforce" feats are realistic for the game's universe, and so should be preserved as each characters' feats even in vs. threads, so that characters are fairly discussed to their fullest ability as portrayed in their respective games.

So, fair members, I give the decision to you. This poll will remain up for at least a week, unless there is reason to keep it up longer. After that period, the poll will be locked, and the majority decision will be held up as official rule for VG VS.

Members may, if they like, post reasons to support their decision, for others to read. However, trolling will not be tolerated in this thread. Any reports of trolling will, if valid, be dealt with severely. There will be no namecalling, flaming, baiting, etc. at all. Civil discussion is allowed, I want viewpoints to be reasoned as much as possible. But do not allow it to go farther than reasonable debate.

Let's settle this issue once and for all.

EDIT - My current working definition of toonforce, and what will be used as the base if the ruling is in favor, is an event or feat that occurs with no reasonable explanation or precedent, does not occur again (occurring twice causes itself to be precedent), and was clearly used as a storytelling device for the purposes of entertainment.

It may be altered as necessary, if the majority decide toonforce is a legitimate claim.

Are we actually meant to discuss this?

Edit: Toonforce going to follow the Rule of Funny for this as well?

Civil discussion is allowed, I want viewpoints to be reasoned as much as possible. But do not allow it to go farther than reasonable debate.

And I'm going to stress the "no trolling". If discussion in here ever becomes hostile in any way, those who were involved will get their asses handed to them.

I suggest unrealistic, illogical and sometimes ungaugable feats should not be allowed. Simply because debating with such rules game vs game is nigh impossible. I think it makes things a whole lot harder to debate between two characters if something unrealistic/illogical is being argued against something logically possible.

Therefore toonforce should not be allowed, it may be a depiction of the games character but in a debate where logic is easier to use and to comprehend a pair when compared adding something completly illogical counters the point of debate in general imo. A logical conclusion cannot be brought together if illogical means are used to bring about that conclusion.

If toonforce were to be established (as I think it should under certain circumstances.) how would it be determined whether a certain feat is toonforce? Because if there's no way to decide it I could imagine threads to devolve into petty arguments about whether a certain characters feats are toonforce rather than being about a comparison for the characters.

Alternatively the rule could be that one has to explain what one considers toonforce and what they think the fight would be like under those circumstances, or a thread starter should specify it in their opening post.

When I say toonforce I mean anything physically unviable. Something unrealistic physically. I guess all arguments, including toonforce devolve into "petty arguments" unfortunatly. Even if toonforce was agreed on, or not there will still be arguments on what actually is toonforce.

I like the "thread starter specify" idea.

Originally posted by Burning thought
When I say toonforce I mean anything physically unviable. Something unrealistic physically. I guess all arguments, including toonforce devolve into "petty arguments" unfortunatly. Even if toonforce was agreed on, or not there will still be arguments on what actually is toonforce.

I like the "thread starter specify" idea.

I know what you mean, what you mean is unrealistic and pointless imo, as most superhuman characters feats are unrealistic physically.

However extraordinary feats out of character for plot or humour's sake should not be involved in a debate.

And I agree with you, without further rules and oversight allowing something called "toonforce" will not be for the good of civil and fluid debate.

Though I agree with BT that this can't be an unbiased way of determining it, as obviously a large amount of users hate him (whether for valid or not valid reasons) and would likely rather vote against him than consider the pros and cons.

I dont think this a good way to determine anything. For your reason, and for the fact anyone can get a friend or someone who does not even visit this area of the forum to simply tick "no". Without explaining or making any view or argument.

Not that this is any way "against" or "for" me, I think if anyone presses "no" because of me rather than their own views then they completly misunderstand what this threads decision means.

I suggest that unreal actions are not seen as discardable. We are talking about fictions in video games.

Illogical I do have a problem with. But the things that we've been discussing as toonforce are not illogical. We can clearly see Link lift and balance his pillar on his own strength. The only way it is illogical is that it breaks physics by allowing a non-massive character to produce more force than possible by the laws of physics. And pretty much every character in fiction with super strength breaks physics in the same way.

The real problem here is that toonforce is being used to say that math can't be used on that pillar in order to calculate it's weight. But whether or not Link lifting it is toonforce cannot take away from the clear composition and size of it. With the claim of toonforce, all that would be reasoned is that the character does not really have the ability and the action was performed for the sake of being funny. But that also presents a problem, this action isn't funny.

The other serious point of discussion is Dangoro. BT argues that because Dangoro bounces on the lava when tossed (The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess), the entire fight is tossed out as toonforce. I've before suggested that only Dangoro bouncing qualifies as toonforce, because it's funny. Link stopping and tossing him, does not, because that's the part that isn't funny.

Toonforce doesn't actually have any bearing on Zelda.

Well even if you have a "toonforce" what counts as toonforce? The only instances of toonforce I can think of from any game I've played to date (and it's a lot of them) are from Wind Waker, and those toonforce "feats" are not even feats because later on he's involved in serious feats that put the "toonforce" ones to shame.

I don't think it should be implemented, there hasn't been a single legitimate accusation of toonforce on this forum since I registered.

So your not argueing what this thread is outling, your argueing a point thats part of your game. Most of your post is directed towards Link. This is not what this thread is for, the Razie lvs Link thread is for that.

This is a "Zelda is not toonforce" argument imo rather than "toonforce feats should or should not be allowed in a debate"

The things being called "toonforce" by BT are not actually "toonforce", which is an exception from the rest of their feats for the rule of funny, as opposed to an impressive and non-humourous crowning moment of awesome when Link tosses a pillar.

Whther they are or not toonforce, their still illogical but as I said, this is not what this thread is for...

Yeah. But it does actually have bearing on this thread. Because anything else that would receive an accusation of toonforce would end up having to follow the same rules.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I suggest that unreal actions are not seen as discardable. We are talking about fictions in video games.

Illogical I do have a problem with. But the things that we've been discussing as toonforce are not illogical. We can clearly see Link lift and balance his pillar on his own strength. The only way it is illogical is that it breaks physics by allowing a non-massive character to produce more force than possible by the laws of physics. And pretty much every character in fiction with super strength breaks physics in the same way.

The real problem here is that toonforce is being used to say that math can't be used on that pillar in order to calculate it's weight. But whether or not Link lifting it is toonforce cannot take away from the clear composition and size of it. With the claim of toonforce, all that would be reasoned is that the character does not really have the ability and the action was performed for the sake of being funny. But that also presents a problem, this action isn't funny.

The other serious point of discussion is Dangoro. BT argues that because Dangoro bounces on the lava when tossed (The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess), the entire fight is tossed out as toonforce. I've before suggested that only Dangoro bouncing qualifies as toonforce, because it's funny. Link stopping and tossing him, does not, because that's the part that isn't funny.

Toonforce doesn't actually have any bearing on Zelda.

I do agree with that, meaning no offense to BT, it seems to me that he uses "toonforce" at times to discard feats of characters he would not want to win.

Personally I don't see a problem with it, I'd just concede that if we discard those feats Link may lose, and if we don't he wins, which may be something BT would agree with (this is hypothetical of course, I never played Zelda beyond the first one and I don't even know that opponent he's fighting so I can't, in good conscience, cast a vote myself ...)

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Yeah. But it does actually have bearing on this thread. Because anything else that would receive an accusation of toonforce would end up having to follow the same rules.

No it doesnt, because whether Toonforce is accepted here or not, the arguments will still excist around what is actually toonforce or not. This thread is just to argue whether "toonforce" should even excist. If you think this means you can claim my arguments against you as false automatically then you would be wrong, thats not what this thread is for.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do agree with that, meaning no offense to BT, it seems to me that he uses "toonforce" at times to discard feats of characters he would not want to win.



This is not actually true, rarely if ever do I use strength for a reason for characters to lose in a thread. Strength/durability are certainly for the characters I debate quite irrelevant. I just argue for truth over something illogical.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Whther they are or not toonforce, their still illogical but as I said, this is not what this thread is for... It's worth taking note of your definition of toonforce not being the true definition so it does not skew debate in this thread.

I can understand their problem though, if "toonforce" was validated here the first thing you'd do is use that as an argument in one of the threads it's used, wouldn't you?

Like I said I think the word "toonforce" is too little, it should be explained in a specific manner so that objective review of a claim can be made against it.

My defintion is the same as the real one, just without the "humour" part. Thing is, you and Moocow are argueing my defintion so that sounds hypocritical.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I can understand their problem though, if "toonforce" was validated here the first thing you'd do is use that as an argument in one of the threads it's used, wouldn't you?

Like I said I think the word "toonforce" is too little, it should be explained in a specific manner so that objective review of a claim can be made against it.

Whatever its fate as a theme, my argument is against whats "illogical" which cannot be invalidated here since something illogical is what I argue against. If toonforce was validated to disregard feats then I would not really be any further in an argument, neither would they if it was invalidated because what is actually toonforce or not is what the argument is usually about.

Wups double post

Originally posted by Bardock42

Alternatively the rule could be that one has to explain what one considers toonforce and what they think the fight would be like under those circumstances, or a thread starter should specify it in their opening post.

If enough 'yes' votes are gathered that it's allowed, then yes, this is how it'll be - it'll be something that has to be specified in the first post by the thread starter.

Same as the 'army' rule, and feats that are considered non-canon here.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No it doesnt, because whether Toonforce is accepted here or not, the arguments will still excist around what is actually toonforce or not. This thread is just to argue whether "toonforce" should even excist. If you think this means you can claim my arguments against you as false automatically then you would be wrong, thats not what this thread is for.

Exactly. However, I did discuss the supposed requirements.

Physics break: Almost every character in fiction breaks physics. As I've said, physics breaks basically define super powers. This falls in with the requirement that it must be illogical.

Unreal: It's fiction.

The rest of it includes that it must be humorous. A point easily manipulated simply to fit someone's needs. This discussion has also been had before. Humor is objective.

A lot of my post is geared towards Link and Zelda issues, yeah. But that's just the way I wrote it. It does actually include positions, they are vaguely discussed.

Toonforce shouldn't count as any kind of argument. When a character does something, they've done it. It's within their abilities.

I dont know about that, i think some characters written by their developers who move very fast, or who are very strong actually take some note of the environment to enough of a degree to suggest its physically viable assuming they have the power to do so, e.g. divine power--->Strength--->Kratos.

A good example is Doctor manhattan, where on the special features DVD it is discussed that assuming a person were given the ability to control matter like he can, everything Manhattan is or does is typically viable, assuming he had said power. I think thats a big difference between whats logical and illogical, or physical or against physics.

It counts as an argument, not against the feat but on a whole against how that feat is percieved on a logical basis.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Toonforce shouldn't count as any kind of argument. When a character does something, they've done it. It's within their abilities.

That's not necessarily smart though. I'm not sure if it's important in games, but in general there may be feats that a character pulls out of their ass to beat a baddy or fullfil some plot point the author wants to make that are not ever in their range before or after...as a sort of deus ex culus

If it's continuous character development or explained with certain power ups, then fair enough.

Originally posted by Bardock42

If it's continuous character development or explained with certain power ups, then fair enough.

Another major example, this is why toonforce is important to be applied. We cant just grab random feats a character may simply do to get past a plot event without any powerup, any reason for said power.

If I was playing a Call of duty game, and a mission involved beating a tank back with pistol whips to move it out of the way so I can progress through the mission. I would not use it as a feat to suggest humans in CoH are super human. It seems 4 people on the forum think thats something that should be left in as part of a debate, as "logical"

Yeah, TOONFORCE happens and it's real thing to consider. I gotta say, the name "TOONFORCE" sounds pretty damn lame though. Sure there's gotta be another name. Some things are just not meant to be taken seriously, the name Toonforce is infact an example of Toonforce.

The real problem here BT is that you argue toonforce against a character who shows strength feats consistently. This would be like claiming Kratos uses toonforce in all his showings.

I agree with the notion that the OP should be able to specify whether his interpretation of Toonforce is allowed or not. If I understood Peach correctly, I should vote for the second option, then?

Well, like I said, the reasonable application of this is called SvFL (Spiderman vs. Firelord) in the Comic Book Vs. Forum, though someone earlier claimed that there isn't any of that in any game they can think of, I can't either atm, but I didn't think about it too much yet.

Again, your argueing against me, not the use of toonforce. Toonforce is nothing to do with my argument, I just happen to use "toonforce" in place of "illogical bs!".

And I use Kratos as an example of what is not toonforce, I call "illogical" against characters who are not portrayed, or developed as a character with super strength. Kratos happens to be a golden example of someone who is, portrayed and developed as one.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I agree with the notion that the OP should be able to specify whether his interpretation of Toonforce is allowed or not. If I understood Peach correctly, I should vote for the second option, then?


The first option is for what you just said.

The second option elminates "barring" of toonforce. Toonforce is simply not allowed.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I agree with the notion that the OP should be able to specify whether his interpretation of Toonforce is allowed or not. If I understood Peach correctly, I should vote for the second option, then?

I think if you vote for the second "toonforce" will be completely discounted, so if you want the option of it to be usable you'd have to vote the first.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not necessarily smart though. I'm not sure if it's important in games, but in general there may be feats that a character pulls out of their ass to beat a baddy or fullfil some plot point the author wants to make that are not ever in their range before or after...as a sort of deus ex culus

If it's continuous character development or explained with certain power ups, then fair enough.

This sounds like it would take established abilities away from characters. For example, Squirrel Girl's ability to beat any badguy.

That is probably a bad example. And I may simply have misunderstood. So, if you wouldn't mind dumbing it down a little more for me I'd appreciate it.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont know about that, i think some characters written by their developers who move very fast, or who are very strong actually take some note of the environment to enough of a degree to suggest its physically viable assuming they have the power to do so, e.g. divine power--->Strength--->Kratos.

A good example is Doctor manhattan, where on the special features DVD it is discussed that assuming a person were given the ability to control matter like he can, everything Manhattan is or does is typically viable, assuming he had said power. I think thats a big difference between whats logical and illogical, or physical or against physics.

It counts as an argument, not against the feat but on a whole against how that feat is percieved on a logical basis.

This first paragraph means only that you require it to not be illogical, because in the cases that fit this, the powers and abilities would be explained. And I hope that you are aware the abilities of the characters you most use toonforce against are indeed explained. However, super strength can still break physics in these cases.

Again, I want to point out that physics breaks can and do define super powers.

Super strength: The ability to produce more force than physics say is possible with your limited mass. In fact, this one is even defined by physics. Human strength limits are limited due to our size, pushing past human limits is to become superhuman and is to defy physics.

The same is the case with super speed. How does one of human size produce the force to move themselves at incredible speeds?

Telekinesis. The ability to affect the world around you with your mind. Force does not have a physical form, to apply force without touching another object sounds like physics breaks to me. But I might have slipped up on this one.

Guys, I'm pretty sure that the second option is for allowing Toonforce. Kind of weird, yes is no and no is yes in this poll :P

The option yes is to say toonforce is a viable argument. The option no disagrees, and says that toonforce sucks and should go away forever.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
The option yes is to say toonforce is a viable argument. The option no disagrees, and says that toonforce sucks and should go away forever.

'Yes' says that some feats are simply too unrealistic to be allowed, and 'no' says that all characters should be presented with their feats intact. I don't get this poll.

How can we answer this question when so far the only cases of toonforce being brought up were brought up when the feats were not even toonforce? The only ones spewing "toonforce" arguments are the ones who don't even know the definition of the word.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
This sounds like it would take established abilities away from characters. For example, Squirrel Girl's ability to beat any badguy.

That is probably a bad example. And I may simply have misunderstood. So, if you wouldn't mind dumbing it down a little more for me I'd appreciate it.


I am not familiar with Squirrel Girl, but if that is actually one of her powers and that is established it wouldn't fall under that category. If it's just the ability that protagonists tend to have if they are not in a tragedy (i.e. beating everyone against them ultimately) then obviously that doesn't count

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice



This first paragraph means only that you require it to not be illogical, because in the cases that fit this, the powers and abilities would be explained. And I hope that you are aware the abilities of the characters you most use toonforce against are indeed explained. However, super strength can still break physics in these cases.

Again, I want to point out that physics breaks can and do define super powers.

Super strength: The ability to produce more force than physics say is possible with your limited mass. In fact, this one is even defined by physics. Human strength limits are limited due to our size, pushing past human limits is to become superhuman and is to defy physics.

The same is the case with super speed. How does one of human size produce the force to move themselves at incredible speeds?

Telekinesis. The ability to affect the world around you with your mind. Force does not have a physical form, to apply force without touching another object sounds like physics breaks to me. But I might have slipped up on this one.

Again, targeted at me and defending Link in this thread. Thats not what this thread is for.

Human limit is not physics though, thats just human limitations. We use machines to get past that but special rules, such as demonic power or vampirism replace "machines" for us.

Through a power or ability such as Devil trigger for example, or Demon energy. A fictional power/energy source does not exactly break physics, it works with it by enhancing a character to said limits.

If demon power, or divine energy were not used on the other hand and said person without powers did said feat, then you would be correct they would be against physics.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
'Yes' says that some feats are simply too unrealistic to be allowed, and 'no' says that all characters should be presented with their feats intact. I don't get this poll.
lol, well it is confusing. Yes means that "that is toonforce" will be an applicable argument. And "that is toonforce" means the same thing as "that feat can not be used in the argument".

If this toonforce is ignored forever, that means Deadpool can really beat you with his life bar and C.Jack can really smack cats to the moon with a baseball bat.

I gotta long list of examples for this ridculously named "Toonforce" concept.

Dude, you want to vote no. Voting yes means Deadpool beating people with his lifebar isn't something he can normally do. It says he did it for comedy and it won't be allowed in threads.

Edit: Nvm, you corrected yourself.

Akuma can shatter an island with a punch.

According to BT's definition, this is toonforce.

BT's definition is wrong.

Fictions will ALWAYS have breaks from scientific law.

Originally posted by Bardock42
lol, well it is confusing. Yes means that "that is toonforce" will be an applicable argument. And "that is toonforce" means the same thing as "that feat can not be used in the argument".

So 'Yes' is saying no to Toonforce and 'No' is saying yes to Toonforce. How quaint!

Originally posted by Burning thought
Again, targeted at me and defending Link in this thread. Thats not what this thread is for.

Human limit is not physics though, thats just human limitations. We use machines to get past that but special rules, such as demonic power or vampirism replace "machines" for us.

Through a power or ability such as Devil trigger for example, or Demon energy. A fictional power/energy source does not exactly break physics, it works with it by enhancing a character to said limits.

If demon power, or divine energy were not used on the other hand and said person without powers did said feat, then you would be correct they would be against physics.

Quit thinking you're that important. Only the first paragraph is targeted towards you. And only like two sentences of it.

Yes it is. Human limitations are defined by physics. We can only produce force in amounts reasonable with our personal mass. And yeah, way to restate what I talked about in my first paragraph. You say an explanation cancels out the stuff being illogical.

Said limits are not physically possible with said character's mass. It doesn't matter if it's explained or not, technically it is still a physics break. It's really hard to avoid trolling you when I can't help but think you simply don't read my posts.

Edit: No, AG. Yes is yes, and no is no.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
So 'Yes' is saying no to Toonforce and 'No' is saying yes to Toonforce. How quaint!

Yes is "Yes, toonforce is a valid argument, therefore feats that are toonforce can not be used in threads"

No is "No, toonforce is not a valid argument, therefore any feat that a character has in the game can be used in threads"

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Dude, you want to vote no. Voting yes means Deadpool beating people with his lifebar isn't something he can normally do. It says he did it for comedy and it won't be allowed in threads.



Yes! Deadpool can not really do that! I mean, should a silly character like L.Raptor be able to turn someone into basketball on a whim and slam dunk them through a demonic rim? He could beat anyone! Just turn'em into basketball, game over.

I'm juts sayin' the name is stupid, but the idea makes sense. It's common sense.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice

Edit: No, AG. Yes is yes, and no is no.

No, it's not. Yes is no and no is yes.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Quit thinking you're that important. Only the first paragraph is targeted towards you. And only like two sentences of it.

Yes it is. Human limitations are defined by physics. We can only produce force in amounts reasonable with our personal mass. And yeah, way to restate what I talked about in my first paragraph. You say an explanation cancels out the stuff being illogical.

Said limits are not physically possible with said character's mass. It doesn't matter if it's explained or not, technically it is still a physics break. It's really hard to avoid trolling you when I can't help but think you simply don't read my posts.

Edit: No, AG. Yes is yes, and no is no.

Its not illogical if the game itself gives reasons for it being logical within its universe.

Not if someone is given powers to make up for the lack of mass. Its called an "exception to the law", in Kratos' case his divine durability and strength.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Akuma can shatter an island with a punch.

According to BT's definition, this is toonforce.

BT's definition is wrong.

Fictions will ALWAYS have breaks from scientific law.

not my defintion of toonforce, a illogical piece of nonsense that is innacurate to physics, math etc is simply what I have labelled toonforce.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
No, it's not. Yes is no and no is yes.

Well "yes" is yes for one statement and no for another.

Originally posted by Burning thought
not my defintion of toonforce, a illogical piece of nonsense that is innacurate to physics, math etc is simply what I have labelled toonforce. You can label it whatever you want, does not make you less wrong. You don't actually know what Toonforce is.

Calculation of feats is certainly acceptible. Hell, YOU have done it to support Legacy of Kain. That slab was stated to be granite. Ergo, it is as heavy as granite. Calculating how much that slab of granite weighs is perfectly logical.

Oh, and that island busting feat, does in fact break physics.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well "yes" is yes for one statement and no for another.

But "Yes" is for "NO to Toonforce " statement and "No" is for "YES to Toonforce" statement.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its not illogical if the game itself gives reasons for it being logical within its universe.

Not if someone is given powers to make up for the lack of mass. Its called an "exception to the law", in Kratos' case his divine durability and strength.

Cool, so a conflict between the rules.

A physics break is a physics break and is illogical by definition. But since it's explained it can't be illogical. But a physics break still happens.

Why am I not surprised I stumbled across something like this?

Originally posted by Burning thought
not my defintion of toonforce, a illogical piece of nonsense that is innacurate to physics, math etc is simply what I have labelled toonforce.

Yeah, but that's what he means, that's not a useful definition. The definition that may be useful is "toonforce = any feat a character has that is outside the range of their usual skills for reasons of overcoming plot obstacles without development or for humor"


If it is about your definition, I must vote no, it's not a useful definition for vs debates of superhuman characters. If it is a slightly altered SvFL I think it's perfectly valid, which is what No End N Site also seems to mean.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You can label it whatever you want, does not make you less wrong. You don't actually know what Toonforce is.

Calculation of feats is certainly acceptible. Hell, YOU have done it to support Legacy of Kain. That slab was stated to be granite. Ergo, it is as heavy as granite. Calculating how much that slab of granite weighs is perfectly logical.

Oh, and that island busting feat, does in fact break physics.

its the same as what I said only with "humour" added on. I am not wrong to call something illogical.

Yeh, because Legacy of Kain does not really bend physics so much outside of the games limitations. Vampires are strong, therefore they can move said object, Kratos is strong, therefore he can move said object....both universes depict said characters throughout the games as strong, its not illogical on the other hand to calculate these feats.

I dont know of the feat or its principles so I cant comment on that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but that's what he means, that's not a useful definition. The definition that may be useful is "toonforce = any feat a character has that is outside the range of their usual skills for reasons of overcoming plot obstacles without development or for humor"


If it is about your definition, I must vote no, it's not a useful definition for vs debates of superhuman characters. If it is a slightly altered SvFL I think it's perfectly valid, which is what No End N Site also seems to mean.

I never argued my defintion was what we used, or should use. Simply that saying "toonforce" is easier than claiming "illogical" because its a base term. Their very similiar the defintions anyway, at least the parts that are important.

My point being, illogical nonsense that just happens and is not developed throughout or explained at all in the game was my label as toonforce even if it was not the correct label.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
But "Yes" is for "NO to Toonforce " statement and "No" is for "YES to Toonforce" statement.

Haha, yes.


Yes means "No, toonforce can not be used in threads"

You are right. But so is MooCow, you are just talking about different statements, as I tried to point out here:

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes is "Yes, toonforce is a valid argument, therefore feats that are toonforce can not be used in threads"

No is "No, toonforce is not a valid argument, therefore any feat that a character has in the game can be used in threads"

Originally posted by NemeBro
Akuma can shatter an island with a punch.

According to BT's definition, this is toonforce.

BT's definition is wrong.

Fictions will ALWAYS have breaks from scientific law. I hope not, that's just radical. When there is clear eveidence that the character is capable (as in doin' things like this consistently), then okay. But a character like Shadow Giest shouldn't be able to erase characters from existense by shrinkin' them out of it in threads. Some things are just over exaggerated.

Originally posted by Burning thought
its the same as what I said only with "humour" added on. I am not wrong to call something illogical.

Yeh, because Legacy of Kain does not really bend physics so much outside of the games limitations. Vampires are strong, therefore they can move said object, Kratos is strong, therefore he can move said object....both universes depict said characters throughout the games as strong, its not illogical on the other hand to calculate these feats.

I dont know of the feat or its principles so I cant comment on that.

Well what you are saying is different though. You are talking about breaking in-game physics. Then you may have a point. But everyone here seems to think that you are talking about breaking real life physics.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well what you are saying is different though. You are talking about breaking in-game physics. Then you may have a point. But everyone here seems to think that you are talking about breaking real life physics.


Originally posted by Bardock42
any feat a character has that is outside the range of their usual skills for reasons of overcoming plot obstacles or without development of said powers throughout the games

This is what I am getting at. I altered what you initially said, took out the humour (because humour is objective). Although it works hand in hand, because if someone breaks their own in-game physics e.g. if said physics were considered Earth style, but then without development or reason (God of War gives development and reason for Kratos for example) will also in a way be breaking real life physics as well, because game physics were not implemented.

Originally posted by Burning thought
its the same as what I said only with "humour" added on. I am not wrong to call something illogical.

Yeh, because Legacy of Kain does not really bend physics so much outside of the games limitations. Vampires are strong, therefore they can move said object, Kratos is strong, therefore he can move said object....both universes depict said characters throughout the games as strong, its not illogical on the other hand to calculate these feats.

I dont know of the feat or its principles so I cant comment on that. You would be surprised how many things break physics. For example, and this covers a lot of characters. You know the many characters in games who are big and strong, but really slow? A physical impossibility. Speed is achieved through muscular strength, a greater muscle mass would provide speed. Therefore, such characters according to you are toonforce, and as such should not be considered. This is illogical.

"BAW I DONT LIEK HOW LINK HAS SUPER STRENGTH!" Link is depicted moving and lifting extraordinarily heavy objects, therefore he is physically superhuman. Deal with it. I can name "normal humans" who physically make Kain look like a little girl, but you would write such characters off as toonforce. For instance, Heihachi Mishima from Tekken. Survived a block busting explosion IN HIS FACE that sent him kilometers. Far beyond human durability. Has no supernatural background, is fully human. According to you, this is toonforce.

You probably should not argue things break physics if you are not knowledgable in physics then.

Here guys some IRL toonforce

http://www.cracked.com/article_17476_7-man-made-substances-that-laugh-in-face-physics.html

This is quite a complex issue, and I doubt anything but the most comprehensive definition will help the matter. The problem of "toonforce" arose in the comics vs years ago. The characters in question were Bugs Bunny, Spongebob, Squirrel Girl and their ilk. In "pure stats", these characters should fare poorly on the forums; however, many argued consistent use of "toonforce" was as much a powerset for some as "dynamic super strength" is for others. The relevant question in my most important of opinions is....

At what point do radically variable power levels cease to become a "joke" and actually become a part of the character?

Originally posted by Cyner
Here guys some IRL toonforce

http://www.cracked.com/article_17476_7-man-made-substances-that-laugh-in-face-physics.html
That's actaully pretty damn neat. I want somma that!

The whole breaking physics thing doesn't seem like a good argument to make here. There are several cosmic occurrences in the world that "break" physics. I don't think quasars/black holes among other real things in our world would be considered "toonforce".

Anomalies anyone?

Originally posted by StyleTime
This is quite a complex issue, and I doubt anything but the most comprehensive definition will help the matter. The problem of "toonforce" arose in the comics vs years ago. The characters in question were Bugs Bunny, Spongebob, Squirrel Girl and their ilk. In "pure stats", these characters should fare poorly on the forums; however, many argued consistent use of "toonforce" was as much a powerset for some as "dynamic super strength" is for others. The relevant question in my most important of opinions is....

At what point do radically variable power levels cease to become a "joke" and actually become a part of the character?


This is where my argument comes in, based around the consistency of a character, its environment and defintions behind their powers in general. E.g. the game adding credability to what would otherwise be a "toonforce" feat. Kratos, again, a Golden example of someone who is fleshed out enough.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
'Yes' says that some feats are simply too unrealistic to be allowed, and 'no' says that all characters should be presented with their feats intact. I don't get this poll.

I don't see why it's difficult?

If you vote yes, then you think that 'toonforce' is a valid argument that can or be used in debates.

If you vote no, then you think that it is not a valid argument that should not be allowed at all.

Originally posted by Peach
I don't see why it's difficult?

If you vote yes, then you think that 'toonforce' is a valid argument that can or be used in debates.

If you vote no, then you think that it is not a valid argument that should not be allowed at all. Other way around Lana.

Originally posted by NemeBro
"BAW I DONT LIEK HOW LINK HAS SUPER STRENGTH!" Link is depicted moving and lifting extraordinarily heavy objects, therefore he is physically superhuman. Deal with it. I can name "normal humans" who physically make Kain look like a little girl, but you would write such characters off as toonforce. For instance, Heihachi Mishima from Tekken. Survived a block busting explosion IN HIS FACE that sent him kilometers. Far beyond human durability. Has no supernatural background, is fully human. According to you, this is toonforce.

You probably should not argue things break physics if you are not knowledgable in physics then.
NemeBro, do not turn to personal attacks in this thread. They will not be tolerated. I have bolded the important elements. Consider this fair warning. Do not do it again.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Other way around Lana.
Yes is in support of the label, no is against it.

The only problem I have with toonforce is that it's inconsistent by it's very nature. It's like Mario for example; on the one hand he can "bounce" off of Lava and survive in space, but on the other hand he dies by walking into coopas or stepping on a little spike. He can supposedly lift castles but when he tosses Bowser he doesn't go sailing across the horizon or anything, he flies about a few hundred feet. A dedicated fan can sit here and create some sort of rational explanation for why it all makes sense, and for why the feats should still be considered, but ultimately the point is that Mario does whatever the game makers want him to do at any particular moment of time, because it's a cartoon game that emphasizes imagination and creativity more than hard fact and analysis. Be that as it may, I consider toonforce to basically just be a form of PIS, and thus not applicable in a vs. thread.

Easy answer is to just make toonforce another one of those things that a thread starter should specify in the OP if it's applicable or not.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Other way around Lana.

Ummm. No. I know what the poll options mean. GK and I created the poll, and you are incorrect.

The question asks "Is toonforce a valid claim". If you vote yes, then you think that it should be allowable. If you vote not, then you think that it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't understand what you mean by a "valid claim", or rather how it relates to being allowed. I think Toonforce is definitely a valid justification for why a character can do something, I Just don't think it should be allowed in vs. fights.

Funny, because after "Yes" it says "Some feats are simply too unrealistic to be allowed."

"No" says "Characters should be presented as they are in their games, feats intact."

So either Yes is the ban on alleged toonforce feats and no allows it, or GK ****ed up.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't understand what you mean by a "valid claim", or rather how it relates to being allowed. I think Toonforce is definitely a valid justification for why a character can do something, I Just don't think it should be allowed in vs. fights.

Then you'd vote no, because the point of the poll is if people think it should be allowed in fights or not.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Funny, because after "Yes" it says "Some feats are simply too unrealistic to be allowed."

"No" says "Characters should be presented as they are in their games, feats intact."

So either Yes is the ban on alleged toonforce feats and no allows it, or GK ****ed up.

Or you are just not comprehending the options!

"Some feats are too ridiculous" is an argument supporting the use of toonforce - "That's not possible as it breaks physics, it's toonforce, it has to be thrown out" is another way of putting it. "Feats should remain intact" is an argument stating that toonforce should not be allowed.

This really isn't rocket science, guys...

The problem is that yes to toonforce means no to being applicable in a thread, doesn't it?

If something is toonforce it has to be discounted in a thread is yes.

I can see where the confusion lies as "toonforce" actually means "You can't use things that are toonforce".

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

Easy answer is to just make toonforce another one of those things that a thread started should be specify in the OP if it's applicable or not.

Again i agree, thread starter specification which I think Lana said earlier was going to be how it would work. The way I see it, "yes" is the best option as it allows choice to get rid of nonsense feats or to keep them.

GK, how are you defining toonforce? To be clear. Is it BT's definition, or something different?

Nvm, got it

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The only problem I have with toonforce is that it's inconsistent by it's very nature. It's like Mario for example; on the one hand he can "bounce" off of Lava and survive in space, but on the other hand he dies by walking into coopas or stepping on a little spike. He can supposedly lift castles but when he tosses Bowser he doesn't go sailing across the horizon or anything, he flies about a few hundred feet. A dedicated fan can sit here and create some sort of rational explanation for why it all makes sense, and for why the feats should still be considered, but ultimately the point is that Mario does whatever the game makers want him to do at any particular moment of time, because it's a cartoon game that emphasizes imagination and creativity more than hard fact and analysis. Be that as it may, I consider toonforce to basically just be a form of PIS, and thus not applicable in a vs. thread.

Easy answer is to just make toonforce another one of those things that a thread starter should specify in the OP if it's applicable or not.

Cool

Lol, this is super confusing, but I think Lana actually agrees with what I said earlier, I just confused myself now.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But the it says "No - Characters should be presented as they are in their games, feats intact." so you'd inculde toonforce in that as they may be presented with toonforce in games, or am I wrong there?

It means that people can't go "Oh, that's toonforce" to try and ignore feats. Whether or not it is actually toonforce or not would be irrelevant - it'd be allowed.

GK is going to edit to make things clearer, he says.

Oi... I've edited the question itself to hopefully clarify.

Yes means you support labeling feats as toonforce and disallowing them.

No means you do not support the toonforce argument and wish for feats to be acknowledged as feats.

This is what I said earlier, I think that was the right interpretation:


Yes is "Yes, toonforce is a valid argument, therefore feats that are toonforce can not be used in threads"

No is "No, toonforce is not a valid argument, therefore any feat that a character has in the game can be used in threads"

Originally posted by Bardock42
This is what I said earlier, I think that was the right interpretation:


Yes is "Yes, toonforce is a valid argument, therefore feats that are toonforce can not be used in threads"

No is "No, toonforce is not a valid argument, therefore any feat that a character has in the game can be used in threads"
Yes, that is correct. The question is about the claim, not the feats themselves.

Once again, what do you define as toonforce GK?

My current working definition is an event or feat that occurs with no reasonable explanation or precedent, does not occur again (occurring twice causes itself to be precedent), and was clearly used as a storytelling device for the purposes of entertainment.

It may be altered as necessary, if the majority decide toonforce is a legitimate claim.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
My current working definition is an event or feat that occurs with no reasonable explanation or precedent, does not occur again (occurring twice causes itself to be precedent), and was clearly used as a storytelling device for the purposes of entertainment.

It may be altered as necessary, if the majority decide toonforce is a legitimate claim. Haha, going by that definition the question almost answers itself. 'tis obviously PIS.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
My current working definition is an event or feat that occurs with no reasonable explanation or precedent, does not occur again (occurring twice causes itself to be precedent), and was clearly used as a storytelling device for the purposes of entertainment.

It may be altered as necessary, if the majority decide toonforce is a legitimate claim.

Ah okay, you should put that in the initial post, I think the first couple votes (who came in like the second the thread was made) may have been influenced by what people thought BT's definition was.

With this definition clear I can now definitely cast my vote anyways, I'll vote yes, for reasons outlined before, especially eloquently by Blax (mah main man)

It's been edited into the original post.

Keep in mind that if the majority are in favor, there will be further discussion to clearly define what does and does not fall under toonforce, before it becomes an official ruling.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
It's been edited into the original post.

Keep in mind that if the majority are in favor, there will be further discussion to clearly define what does and does not fall under toonforce, before it becomes an official ruling.

Yup.

This is just the first step of what may well be a multi-step process. We'd like to settle on something that will keep the most people happy.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
My current working definition is an event or feat that occurs with no reasonable explanation or precedent, does not occur again (occurring twice causes itself to be precedent), and was clearly used as a storytelling device for the purposes of entertainment.

It may be altered as necessary, if the majority decide toonforce is a legitimate claim. So... PIS?

Which is already not allowed?

Originally posted by NemeBro
So... PIS?

Which is already not allowed?

It is PIS in some way (I hate that term, stupidly phrased if anything ever was), but as far as I can tell the Game Versus Forum actually doesn't have a PIS rule stated anywhere.

Originally posted by NemeBro
So... PIS?

Which is already not allowed?
Actually, it's closer to the inverse of PIS. PIS is when a character conveniently forgets or lacks an ability for the sake of the story, "toonforce" is when a character conveniently comes up with an ability for the sake of entertaining the player.

There actually is not a written rule against PIS here, but virtually all members have agreed that using PIS events is not valid.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Actually, it's closer to the inverse of PIS. PIS is when a character conveniently forgets or lacks an ability for the sake of the story, "toonforce" is when a character conveniently comes up with an ability for the sake of entertaining the player.

There actually is not a written rule against PIS here, but virtually all members have agreed that using PIS events is not valid.

It can fall under the broad definiton of PIS, like I said (a couple of times) it is what the comic book vs. forum called SvFL referencing the time Spider-Man (off panel) somehow mentioned to knock out a herald of Galactus a feat way beyond anything he's known to do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It can fall under the broad definiton of PIS, like I said (a couple of times) it is what the comic book vs. forum called SvFL referencing the time Spider-Man (off panel) somehow mentioned to knock out a herald of Galactus a feat way beyond anything he's known to do.
I like to keep my tropes clearly defined. Plot-Induced Stupidity is a failing on a character's part, not a strength.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I like to keep my tropes clearly defined. Plot-Induced Stupidity is a failing on a character's part, not a strength.

So do I, that's what I dislike about it, that it is often used very broadly, while I only think it should be this.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I like to keep my tropes clearly defined. Plot-Induced Stupidity is a failing on a character's part, not a strength. That's CIS. Which is a kind of PIS.

Originally posted by NemeBro
That's CIS. Which is a kind of PIS.

I think CIS is when a character is actually stupid or acts stupid for personal reasons. Batman not killing would be CIS, for example.

And what, praytell, is CIS?

Character Induced Stupidity.

Honestly... it's just PIS.

Like, if a character was running across a bridge that was collapsing right on his heels and he forgets that he has the power to fly. Actually wait I don't think that's CIS.

CIS is a character not acting in character. Like a villain who is a mastermind and tactical genius throughout the entire movie, making some obvious and critical error at the very end due to arrogance, or a hero holding back his punches to not kill someone due to being "the hero".

Character Induced Stupidity.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing a notable difference there. The end result is the same - powered character forgets they're powered because story - and PIS is a clearer term.

I edited, but that's generally the idea, yeah.

This is how I'd define all four terms to show the difference between them.


PIS - Stupidity of a character induced for plot reasons. For example someone conveniently forgetting their superpowers to not win a fight immediately. Flash is a good example as his superpower should beat anything. R2D2 not using his jetpacks although surely very convenient at many times is PIS.

CIS - Stupidity that a character actually has or that he puts on to himself for personal character reasons. Like I said Batman not killing, or Rhino being an idiot even though he's more powerful than many others (Spider Man for example)

SvFL - A skill a character gets conveniently to overcome a plot obstacle (usually a superior fighter). In that way it can be seen as "PIS" on the side of the antagonist or opponent.

Toonforce - A skill a character gets conveniently to overcome a plot obstacle. Similar to SvFL in this definition obviously, but it could have a different one.

Nahhhhhhhhhh.

Anyway, your description of toonforce is actually more like SMvFL, which is to say inconsistent and laem. Which is not toonforce (Generally), and generally disregarded anyway. There is overlap though, like Mario throwing a castle in Super Mario World.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Nahhhhhhhhhh.

Anyway, your description of toonforce is actually more like SMvFL, which is to say inconsistent and laem. Which is not toonforce (Generally), and generally disregarded anyway. There is overlap though, like Mario throwing a castle in Super Mario World.

Well I am pretty sure I am right about CIS

But I agree with you that toonforce as used here is like SvFL, and would be easily disregarded. But it should be outpointable!

Originally posted by General Kaliero
My current working definition of toonforce, and what will be used as the base if the ruling is in favor, is an event or feat that occurs with no reasonable explanation or precedent, does not occur again (occurring twice causes itself to be precedent), and was clearly used as a storytelling device for the purposes of entertainment.


I'll just try to address everything at once here:

InebpNm7juk

0:10 and 4:15

I'll just try to address everything I can here:

Under GK's definition, this is not toonforce.

It is not illogical as Link has a reason (Golden Gauntlets + Triforce of Courage), it happens multiple times (third one not shown), is not a storytelling telling device, is not intended to be entertaining, and is in fact exactly the same as any other character with superstrength.

As for Mario, the castle he lifted was the same as one of these:
http://www.mariowiki.com/images/thumb/0/00/Mariocastle.gif/180px-Mariocastle.gif

Granted, Mario can enter this castle and it is much bigger on the inside, or else Mario (and the Yoshi egg he was holding) have grown to gigantic proportions, which is an explicit ability. I wouldn't say it's really inconsistent, either.

In regards to whoever it was that turned opponents into basketballs, I'd consider them the same as anyone with transmutation powers and it would depend on their opponent's resistence to such things. Sorry for more Zelda, but would Zant turning Midna into an imp be toonforce as well?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htv6N_suWWg
See 2:35 for the scene.


I do think that characters should get to use their abilities

Originally posted by Burning thought
This is where my argument comes in, based around the consistency of a character, its environment and defintions behind their powers in general. E.g. the game adding credability to what would otherwise be a "toonforce" feat. Kratos, again, a Golden example of someone who is fleshed out enough.
I think most people here require that the feat being done the sole reason of humor, and that why you differ from most here.

Spongebob is a better example. Despite the fact that they are used for comedic effect, Spongebob has fairly consistent showings of "toonforce" abilities. Would you rate his "toonforce" feats as invalid?
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The only problem I have with toonforce is that it's inconsistent by it's very nature. It's like Mario for example; on the one hand he can "bounce" off of Lava and survive in space, but on the other hand he dies by walking into coopas or stepping on a little spike. He can supposedly lift castles but when he tosses Bowser he doesn't go sailing across the horizon or anything, he flies about a few hundred feet. A dedicated fan can sit here and create some sort of rational explanation for why it all makes sense, and for why the feats should still be considered, but ultimately the point is that Mario does whatever the game makers want him to do at any particular moment of time, because it's a cartoon game that emphasizes imagination and creativity more than hard fact and analysis. Be that as it may, I consider toonforce to basically just be a form of PIS, and thus not applicable in a vs. thread.

Easy answer is to just make toonforce another one of those things that a thread starter should specify in the OP if it's applicable or not.
Conversely, some could argue that even toonforce characters have low showings.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Yeah, I'm not really seeing a notable difference there. The end result is the same - powered character forgets they're powered because story - and PIS is a clearer term.
They are quite similar, but CIS is a little more valid reasoning. It could actually affect a battle. Superman wouldn't just melt a human with heat vision if he could avoid it, for example.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Toonforce - A skill a character gets conveniently to overcome a plot obstacle. Similar to SvFL in this definition obviously, but it could have a different one.
This isn't aimed at you specifically, but you highlight something I felt notable.

I think everyone is focusing too much on one time toonforce feats. Under the general consensus, these are easily chalked up to PIS and pose little problem on the boards. The real issue is the characters who use "toonforce" consistantly.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I think most people here require that the feat being done the sole reason of humor, and that why you differ from most here.

Spongebob is a better example. Despite the fact that they are used for comedic effect, Spongebob has fairly consistent showings of "toonforce" abilities. Would you rate his "toonforce" feats as invalid?



Invalid from logical/physical reasoning. The feat itself remains, but trying to math it or make a logical deduction based around physics for his actions, no...

Humour is objective which is why I see it as redundant.

You mean humour is subjective.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

Though if you consider if the creator intended for it to be humourous, that would be objective.

Thank you my man.

This is still stupid. Voting yes will take many abilities away from characters on the basis that they are simply unreal. And even then, we'll just start arguing about what qualified as "too unreal."

But I'm fairly sure I can say for certain that Pyron's powers would be gone. Probably a lot of Warcraft characters get nerfed. I mean, how real is it for the dragon that is omnipresent or whatever to have all of his abilities.

Its not about whats real, its about what makes logical sense for the games universe, depictions etc of those characters. E.g. my example of a CoH character pistol whipping a tank out of the way just to progress is daft, unlreal and unviable as a valid feat , wheras Dante moving at ridiculous speed is all jolly good.

Although I agree, we will argue what is qualified as toonforce in the first place.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Conversely, some could argue that even toonforce characters have low showings.

A "high" showing vs. a "low" showing implies that there is enough of a consistency with a characters feats to establish some sort of "average". For a very large number of "cartoon"-esque characters, that consistency doesn't exist. For example, looking at the Mario feats I listed above, none of the events I listed occur more often than another. If you play a level with lava on it two hours, you can survive jumping in Lava twelve times, but also get injured or die by walking into a gumba twelve times, so how do you establish what's a low showing and what's a high showing? They're both a consistent trait of the character, and a showing is not considered high or low if it's consistent, so you're stuck.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
This is still stupid. Voting yes will take many abilities away from characters on the basis that they are simply unreal. And even then, we'll just start arguing about what qualified as "too unreal."


Some characters are simply not designed to be compared and contrasted in the manner that we do so in vs. threads. Sucks, but, that's just too bad lol. There's always a big hubbub in the Star Wars vs. forums because characters who don't have any real canon feats aren't allowed to be used in vs. threads. People complain, but it's for the best. How do you seriously decide who would win in a fight if one of the characters has absolutely no solid evidence behind them and all their feats are based off of conjecture?

That is not the same case as what toonforce deals with at all, Blax. Toonforce attempts to argue that performing a certain action is a lie because that character hasn't done it before or only did it once. This is bad.

I suppose it could still work that way, as long as we start looking at circumstances. But I haven't seen a whole lot of people doing that. And, it's just one more point of argument.

Frankly, it's a lot simpler to just throw out the whole dumb concept and allow all abilities.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Invalid from logical/physical reasoning. The feat itself remains, but trying to math it or make a logical deduction based around physics for his actions, no...

So you believe feats like Spongebob reforming from a puddle should be discarded? Or are you saying they are illogical, but acceptable?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing. I'm just trying to understand your stance more.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
A "high" showing vs. a "low" showing implies that there is enough of a consistency with a characters feats to establish some sort of "average". For a very large number of "cartoon"-esque characters, that consistency doesn't exist. For example, looking at the Mario feats I listed above, none of the events I listed occur more often than another. If you play a level with lava on it two hours, you can survive jumping in Lava twelve times, but also get injured or die by walking into a gumba twelve times, so how do you establish what's a low showing and what's a high showing? They're both a consistent trait of the character, and a showing is not considered high or low if it's consistent, so you're stuck.

I don't necessarily disagree with that and your stance is quite logical; I think the problem is finding the line where "toonforce" becomes "powerset."Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Frankly, it's a lot simpler to just throw out the whole dumb concept and allow all abilities.
There are instances where a character clearly performs actions outside his/her abilities though. BlazBlue Makoto's moon punch is a good example.

Do we simply include an "obvious absurdity" clause?

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
That is not the same case as what toonforce deals with at all, Blax. Toonforce attempts to argue that performing a certain action is a lie because that character hasn't done it before or only did it once. This is bad.

I have never, ever, in the 7 years that I have been wasting my time on the internet, heard someone describe toonforce as that. That is called inconsistency. Granted, I don't read everybody's posts on here for the sake of my own sanity, but, anyone who would state that toonforce and inconstancy are the exact same thing don't understand what toonforce is. Toonforce is a specific type of power and medium.

For example, Daffy Duck is standing somewhere, and a house suddenly falls on him. A moment later, Daffy walks out of the front door of the house, completely unscathed. That is Toonforce. Now, you have the Master Chief standing somewhere, and a house suddenly falls on him. A moment later he walks out of the front door completely unscathed. That is not toonforce.

What's the difference? The difference is that Daffy is just a duck; he has no magical abilities, no technological marvels to protect him, he's just a cartoon duck. The Master Chief is wearing a suit of nigh unbreakable high-tech armor; his "powers" are from a science fiction medium, while Daffy's "powers" come from a zany cartoon medium. And that's what toonforce is. Toonforce is when you have a cartoon character, who can perform certain feats inexplicably;there is no explanation for why they can do these things, they just do it, because that's how the writer designed them to be.

To retiterate, something like Daffy Duck getting punched so hard his face flies off his head and lands on the ground intact and is still able to talk, is toonforce. Mario "bouncing" off of lava is toonforce. Dante using deviltrigger to move faster than a bullet is not toonforce, Samus' armor tanking missiles is not toonforce. Do you understand? It doesn't have anything to do with consistency.

Originally posted by StyleTime
So you believe feats like Spongebob reforming from a puddle should be discarded? Or are you saying they are illogical, but acceptable?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing. I'm just trying to understand your stance more.


The second one, illogical but acceptable. Because its consistant, such unsusal things are what the character is about, its not out of his character or the fictions for him to do it.

I am against, someone trying to math or use scientific explanation for this, because its not logical and does not have to be.

Blaxican covers my point to a degree, with his Master chief vs Donald duck example. One thing is acceptable, for the other its not within logical reasoning. MC can do this, because he has a powered super suit, Donald duck can do it not because he has armour, protection or powers but just because "he can", since hes a toon.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I have never, ever, in the 7 years that I have been wasting my time on the internet, heard someone describe toonforce as that. That is called inconsistency. Granted, I don't read everybody's posts on here for the sake of my own sanity, but, anyone who would state that toonforce and inconstancy are the exact same thing don't understand what toonforce is. Toonforce is a specific type of power and medium.

For example, Daffy Duck is standing somewhere, and a house suddenly falls on him. A moment later, Daffy walks out of the front door of the house, completely unscathed. That is Toonforce. Now, you have the Master Chief standing somewhere, and a house suddenly falls on him. A moment later he walks out of the front door completely unscathed. That is not toonforce.

What's the difference? The difference is that Daffy is just a duck; he has no magical abilities, no technological marvels to protect him, he's just a cartoon duck. The Master Chief is wearing a suit of nigh unbreakable high-tech armor; his "powers" are from a science fiction medium, while Daffy's "powers" come from a zany cartoon medium. And that's what toonforce is. Toonforce is when you have a cartoon character, who can perform certain feats inexplicably;there is no explanation for why they can do these things, they just do it, because that's how the writer designed them to be.

To retiterate, something like Daffy Duck getting punched so hard his face flies off his head and lands on the ground intact and is still able to talk, is toonforce. Mario "bouncing" off of lava is toonforce. Dante using deviltrigger to move faster than a bullet is not toonforce, Samus' armor tanking missiles is not toonforce. Do you understand? It doesn't have anything to do with consistency.

This outlines my view. And what I have been trying to explain on my side.

Read more BT posts.

Edit: Oh look, now a brand new clause. Daffy can do it because he's a toon. Believe this discussion has been had on characters before as well. So we end up defining a toon.

If thats what you belive then you completly misunderstand my posts.

Blax, I accidently merged my response into your actual quote box in my last post. I have now edited.

Indeed, to note, Daffy Duck vs. Master Chief illustrates the first caveat of the understanding I described: Chief has a durable high-tech powered suit, which is a reasonable explanation for being unscathed.

I do understand, BT. I believe the problem is that you do not.

Before I begin, someone please tell me we're not using his definition.

You understand my opinion and viewpoint better than I do? "sigh"

And I dont have a seperate defintion.

You haven't thought about side effects of your specific requirements.

You dont understand what your calling "requirements", Blaxican expanded your viewpoint in his post. Your lack of clarity on the point of toonforce or illogical fallacies concerning it is probably why you think what I claim as illogical or toonforce all have the same requirements. You want to tie in everything under one label, but what toons like goofy do and what developed charactes like Kratos and MC can do are different things altogether.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I do understand, BT. I believe the problem is that you do not.

Before I begin, someone please tell me we're not using his definition.
This is my current definition, which will be used as a guideline if the policy is voted into place:


Any necessary changes will be discussed after the poll has closed, possibly in a new thread.

So basically, toonforce is defined as none of the instances of "toonforce" used to describe a feat that directly led to the creation of this thread? Good to know.

Toon is an abbreviation for cartoon which is a humorous(or satirical, though I rather doubt that would apply here) drawing.

Force is best defined here as power or abilities(or feats, but whatever)

So my own definition of "toonforce" is a humorous power, ability, or feat that is really not meant to be taken seriously and is just there for laughs.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Toon is an abbreviation for cartoon which is a humorous(or satirical, though I rather doubt that would apply here) drawing.

Force is best defined here as power or abilities(or feats, but whatever)

So my own definition of "toonforce" is a humorous power, ability, or feat that is really not meant to be taken seriously and is just there for laughs. DUH DUH DA DAAAAAAAAAAAH /Zelda soudn

THIS MANE, HE KWNBODS

I still have problems with the definition in use. I don't see why doing it once should have any bearing.

I suppose however that my problem is summed up as not wanting to exclude characters at all, which this rule does.

But say, for example, a game embraces this idea of cartoon characters having special powers. And it's not explained in the game, it's just known and left at that it is just something cartoon characters like those in the game can do. We essentially exclude all their abilities, right?

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Toon is an abbreviation for cartoon which is a humorous(or satirical, though I rather doubt that would apply here) drawing.

Force is best defined here as power or abilities(or feats, but whatever)

So my own definition of "toonforce" is a humorous power, ability, or feat that is really not meant to be taken seriously and is just there for laughs.
I am willing to leave it at entertainment, instead of just humorous situations. Think Scott Pilgrim, there are a ton of scenes and feats that are over-exaggerated just for the Rule of Cool.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I still have problems with the definition in use. I don't see why doing it once should have any bearing.

I suppose however that my problem is summed up as not wanting to exclude characters at all, which this rule does.

But say, for example, a game embraces this idea of cartoon characters having special powers. And it's not explained in the game, it's just known and left at that it is just something cartoon characters like those in the game can do. We essentially exclude all their abilities, right?
Could you possibly give a specific example of what you mean? I want the final decision, no matter what it is, to please as many people as possible.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I am willing to leave it at entertainment, instead of just humorous situations. Think Scott Pilgrim, there are a ton of scenes and feats that are over-exaggerated just for the Rule of Cool. And completely consistent.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I am willing to leave it at entertainment, instead of just humorous situations. Think Scott Pilgrim, there are a ton of scenes and feats that are over-exaggerated just for the Rule of Cool.

Well, it's a bit more difficult to argue against coolforce in my opinion than toonforce. Let's take the Ed's, from Ed, Edd, n Eddy. The episode with those boots that were designed to make Eddy feel taller, the Ed's go so high they seem to be in space and then fall to the ground. This suggests durability beyond normal limits, and yet the Ed's can still be beating and pummeled by kids. It's not meant to be thought about, it's just to make the viewer laugh.

Coolforce is a bit trickier, and right now I can't seem to think of a good example for it. Suggestions?

I can't think of one in games, but the closest I can come is Michael Jordan in Space Jam. He stretches his arm to win the final game.

Apparently, this would fit the rule due to it being for the sake of storyline. I have a problem with this, but what sucks most is this part I'll probably just have to bend over and take it. >_>

However, the same movie. If it were a game, we would essentially rob Bugs Bunny and Daffy of their special abilities, like pulling mallets out of their pockets.

This situation seems to me to even test the limits of this rule. It has no real explanation other than the fact that Bugs is a cartoon character.

So, if that were an acceptable explanation. In many cases we would find ourselves defining what is and what is not a "toon" character. Which brings up a different issue, allowing the argument, even with these rules, will open up spot after spot of places where more and more things will have to be defined more clearly.

But, if that were not an acceptable explanation then we're still taking away abilities. Which I do not like, and will likely continue to ***** about even after this ruling.

Well, it comes to toonforce just brings up more inconsistency. Spyro for example, features Moneybags, who consistently takes beating by characters. He gets shot with rockets, lasers, boulder crushing blows from a club, etc. And at the same time, he shows no ability for any special durability, making it seem weird that he can even survive these attacks, when minions are typically knocked out after one shot. It's not meant to be serious or cool, it's funny revenge for all the crap he puts you through.

He's a bear.

Which is to say IMMENSELY ****ING TOUGH.