TOONFORCE - Yea or Nay?

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.

"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

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 [b]intact. I don't get this poll. [/B]

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.

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. 🙂

Originally posted by NemeBro
Other way around Lana. 😛

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?

[edit] 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.