TOONFORCE - Yea or Nay?

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 😛

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.