SPLATFESTS - The End Has Come

I'm a cold breakfast person and I will fight you all to persuade you of the gentle pleasure of a bowl of slightly soggy corn flakes against your heart attack on a plate.

ZeroJones wrote:

heart attack on a plate.

LIVE FAST DIE YOUNG

The flame that burns half as bright burns twice as long.

Zero is a vegetarian, it stands to reason.  But for us omnivores, no real contest.  I have cold breakfast six times a week and cooked breakfast once: breakfast is a chore for six days of the week and a pleasure for one.  53 to 47?  Was Pearl on hot breakfast or something?

Ignoring this for SMO is the correct thing to do though. (Also YOU OMITTED HASH BROWNS DRUNKA )

Balladeer wrote:

Zero is a vegetarian, it stands to reason.

As I said it was a no-brainer, I thought of two possible exceptions here on the forum: Zero, for the reason you said, and Muss who eats porridge like its going out of business.

Quote :

Also YOU OMITTED HASH BROWNS DRUNKA

Ah, the hash brown. Oft-forgotten member of the fry up, but absolutely key. Crispy on the outside, soft and fluffy and buttery within. A nice ratio of potato to onion, to give you a playful and surprising texture. And perfect for soaking up some sauce, be it from baked beans, HP or egg yolk. Ah, the hash brown. You never expect much from the hash brown but, perhaps for that very reason, it can end up being the star of the show.

I've not took part in these last few splatfests in fact I hadn't even played the game at all since the flight vs invisibility fest. Anyhow I did play some regular turf wars and salmon run tonight with Buska & the Spla2n bug has bitten me again so I'm going to playing it more often now.

I noticed on the app after finishing up that two of the new maps that I haven't played yet (Manta maria & snapper canal) are in the rotation tomorrow afternoon.

Manta Maria confused the heck out of me. But then I am a dipshit.

'Manta Maria' sounds like an excellent ray-based Splatoon 3 band member. Now I'm sad she's not.

It would work well as a character name but it's still pretty clever since the map is a boat.

Jimbob wrote:

Manta Maria confused the heck out of me. But then I am a dipshit.

Not just you as there was one area that looked like I could go there so I jumped down and was surprised when I instantly died.

masofdas wrote:

I think we even got a new map but saw no one talking about due to Mario.

On that note I think the next Splatfest needs to be Breath of the Wild Vs. Odyssey.

Nah, PS4 vs. XB1.  And Marina's on Team XBox.

I assumed EU was going to have another one soon because I see the US has one coming up on Friday (Sci-fi vs Fantasy) but after checking the Splatoon wiki they are one event behind us & Japan.

At the risk of feeling 'Murican, I'll weigh in: fantasy all the time. Dragons > spaceships. And as pretentious as epic humourless fantasy can seem, it can't match the pseudo-philosophical nonsense of the aspiring sci-fi author. Plus: Terry Pratchett.

I'm expecting Drunka to disagree, natch.

And Zero. Sci-fi isn't all spaceships, you know, just like fantasy isn't all fabulously muscular barbarians with swords like tree trunks. At its best, sci-fi illuminates aspects of modern society as well as being aspirational (potentially - I've read some gritty SF in my time). Plus also

I like science fiction. I like believable worlds, I like interesting questions about human nature, our place in the grand scheme of things, our future and our past. I like exploring the implications of ever-evolving technology and the impact of fringe science coming to the fore.

Most modern "sci-fi" isn't that, though. Most television and film sci-fi is actually just fantasy with a sci-fi lick of paint. Spaceships and lasers and aliens are just stand-ins for dragons, magic and elves. There's no attempt to actually engage with scientific thought, the trappings are just used to tell generic stories. For my money, Star Wars is a fantasy set in space, whereas Star Trek is an actual Science Fiction.

Overall, though, I think in modern cinema at least, and increasingly in literature as well, fantasy is just more honest. In A Song of Ice and Fire, or Harry Potter, I make the initial leap of accepting magic and then the series plays by its own rules. In sci-fi stuff, it asks me to believe this is a realistic world grounded in reality then makes increasingly fantastical and nonsensical leaps. The Doctor may as well just be a wizard.

"You're an Alien Harry! Now jump on your little spaceship shaped like a broom & catch that golden snitch"

I've seen the term 'science fantasy' coined for Star Wars and their ilk, and I think that's fair.

Meanwhile Doctor Who plays it so loose with the 'science' it's probably more like fantasy itself. Still can't get over 'quantum locking'.

Our next Splatfest theme is................



Film vs Book

-----

I do enjoy both but I'm leaning towards films since the latter just has words everywhere.

Book, every day.  Films are the ultimate form of passive entertainment: no need to do any of the work yourself (with a few more thoughtful exceptions), video and audio are done for you.  Every aspect streamed directly into your brain.  With a book, you transfer the writer's words into a living breathing world in your head.  You're a part of the experience, the part of the experience, not just a bystander.

Plus I've yet to find a film I've enjoyed as much as many of the Discworld novels.  I daresay film'll win the popular vote though.

Film for me which most of you would say is a given from the games I even play.

Like The Snowballs Man,

DIGRESSION ALERT: I changed his username by private request last night - 'tis the season, after all. If anyone wants a Christmassy username change, get in touch!

I'm voting book. The dense brilliance of the Harry Potter novels could not hope to be translated into films, and so it proved. Plus you can read a book in the bath and, unless you're opulently rich, you can't really watch a film safely in the bath.

First things first: I really like film. I enjoy the visual language video, the passivity of it, and the dumb joy of a Transformers or a Fast and Furious could scarcely be replicated in a book.
That said, the things books can do which films can't: the endless possibility, the depth, the internal characterisation and the comedy of the written word. No film, and I mean no film, has ever gotten under my skin the way my favourite books have. Hell, even with Transformers, the comicbooks are the best ones.

Of course, that could all be argued as subjective. There is one aspect where books definitely have films beat: inclusivity. Everyone on Earth has one good book in them, and all they need is a way to write it down. That can be typing, handwriting, even transcribing to a friend.
With cinema, even the most small-scale, indie, low-budget film requires cameras, actors, locations, time and energy that all cost money. If we're talking big, high-end, fantastical science fiction action and adventure, films cost millions or hundreds of millions. A book's cost doesn't change.

The reader, the writer, the romanticist and the socialist in me all say:

BOOKS.

I think I'd end up going for books in the end too for most of the reasons listed above, but I do love appreciating a good film nearly as much as a good book. Sure, you've got your passive explosion laden blockbusters where you can turn your brain off, but a well-constructed film full of clever editing, lighting and general cinematography engages me as much as most books do. Something like Baby Driver was an audio-visual delight and I loved how Edgar Wright put that film together. But as a whole, books tend to be far more engaging than cinema.

Obviously the only actual correct answer is VIDEO GAMES.

Books vs. videogames would give me a breakdown trying to come up with the answer, so I'm glad that's not a thing. I've never tried to make a videogame!

And that was the day that NaGaProMo was born.