 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Was it any good. Is it worthwhile to try and get hold of it? I've seen
snippets and it looks interesting.
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Was it any good. Is it worthwhile to try and get hold of it? I've seen
> snippets and it looks interesting.
>
> --
> -Nekar Xenos-
Sorry for the late reply...
One person's opinion:
I quite liked certain aspects of it. If you like the sort of thing where
character personalities get fairly complex and it's not always easy to say who's
a "good guy" and who's a "bad guy" while you try to unravel the conspiracies
within conspiracies within conspiracies, then you may very well enjoy it as I
did. Charges that it could get somewhat soap-opera-like are not entirely
unfounded. It's somewhat like "Babylon 5" in that it's one continuous story
from beginning to end, so that you really need to start at the beginning to
follow everything that's going on.
Graphically, it was pretty darn good in some parts, but not consistently
excellent.
If you insist that Sci-Fi needs to start with hard science and only add in
plausible inventions, forget it! They take great liberties with physics,
biology and several other sciences and stretch some rather fanciful
hypotheticals very, very thin. So, you need to be willing to overlook this sort
of thing to enjoy it.
It's definitely an intellectual cut above no-brainer action/adventure
shoot-em-ups.
My advice: Make a moderate effort to get a hold of it, but don't turn loose any
serious cash until you've been able to see enough free (or returnable) samples
to make sure it's your style.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/14/2011 7:54, Mike the Elder wrote:
> If you insist that Sci-Fi needs to start with hard science and only add in
> plausible inventions, forget it!
The sci-fi I like best starts with hard science and only adds in implausible
inventions. :-) It's a fine line, but how much of what we do today would
have been implausible 100 or 200 years ago?
Just look at something like "Flight of the Unicorn", where the guy goes back
in time from the far future. His space helmet gets depicted as a halo
later, while his air bike winds up looking too much like a broom.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:50:12 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 7:54, Mike the Elder wrote:
>> If you insist that Sci-Fi needs to start with hard science and only add
>> in
>> plausible inventions, forget it!
>
> The sci-fi I like best starts with hard science and only adds in
> implausible inventions. :-) It's a fine line, but how much of what we do
> today would have been implausible 100 or 200 years ago?
>
> Just look at something like "Flight of the Unicorn", where the guy goes
> back in time from the far future. His space helmet gets depicted as a
> halo later, while his air bike winds up looking too much like a broom.
>
Thanks for the info. It doesn't sound likes there's any wow factor so I
think I'll skip it.
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
