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.
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!
Re: TOONFORCE - Yea or Nay?
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Frankly, it's a lot simpler to just throw out the whole dumb concept and allow all abilities.
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.