couple quick questions about WC2

Jdawg

Commodore
So I started playing wc2 again bc well I love it. the ship designs the asshole attitude of blue hair and co pilots and the great art. to this day I still love the take off and landing animations most out of any wing commander game. not to mention between this game and the books, sparks is my favorite chief tech ever lol.

Anyways the two quick questions I have are about 2 specific missions. the first one is where you first meet downtown in the game. Tolwyn sends you on a courier solo mission to a planet base; my question is why was this included, what I mean is you only ever see this base one time and I believe this is also the only time you ever land planet side. it just seems odd that they made these animations and art assets for just one scene in one mission. the second mission also falls into this same vein; im talking about the mission where you and doomsday jump across the system to destroy the supply depot. After the jump you refuel in space, as far as I can remember this is also the only time you ever do this in any wing commander game. once again a very cool animation haappens showing you refuel, but what was the point bc it never happens again even though in the missions that follow you have to jump pretty far across the galaxy but never refuel. Were these animations, art assets, and missions just test to see if they would work and they were cool so they added them to the game or what, im really curious about them bc they never happen again.
 
They weren't added as a test of anything - rather, there was all kinds of cool stuff they wanted to add to the game. Some of it made the cut, some of it didn't (limited by floppy disk space as much as anything). As far as whether those elements were important enough to make the cut, refer to the Hobbes explanation scene from WC3. :)

In-refueling happens again in Prophecy. Single-use landing sequences appear in places like the asteroid bases of WC3 or Callisto Station in Prophecy.
 
I try to avoid prophecy but yes I remember that in Wing Commander 3 but not quite the same as when you make it to where you refuel in space. and it was cool I could have took off and landed at That base a couple more times
 
A little late to this party but I'll throw in.

What makes these scenes cool is that we only see them once; they're unique to the context of the missions. A lot of work clearly went into the Broadsword's mid-flight refuel, and not only does it look great but it adds to the immersion factor that it's never repeated. WC2's missions are very diverse and full of character, and if you think about it, the game as a whole is full of art assets and animations we only see once; the explosion on the flight deck, the Concordia vs Fralthra scene, Angel fighting Jazz, McGuffin's murder. Then the in-space stuff! Like the refueling and unique landings, the Kamekh surrender scene, Jazz spinning in his ejector seat before Angel tractors him in. There are many more...

Now of course, the in flight refuel could have been used again, but the fact it's only seen once gives it real character and adds a realism to the long range mission you're on.

Many 90s games are guilty of copying and pasting cutscenes over and over but WC2 stayed largely fresh throughout.

It's a great game, if not for the story then for all the little touches such as these.
 
A little late to this party but I'll throw in.

What makes these scenes cool is that we only see them once; they're unique to the context of the missions. A lot of work clearly went into the Broadsword's mid-flight refuel, and not only does it look great but it adds to the immersion factor that it's never repeated. WC2's missions are very diverse and full of character, and if you think about it, the game as a whole is full of art assets and animations we only see once; the explosion on the flight deck, the Concordia vs Fralthra scene, Angel fighting Jazz, McGuffin's murder. Then the in-space stuff! Like the refueling and unique landings, the Kamekh surrender scene, Jazz spinning in his ejector seat before Angel tractors him in. There are many more...

Now of course, the in flight refuel could have been used again, but the fact it's only seen once gives it real character and adds a realism to the long range mission you're on.

Many 90s games are guilty of copying and pasting cutscenes over and over but WC2 stayed largely fresh throughout.

It's a great game, if not for the story then for all the little touches such as these.
I agree also lets not forget the mission where you escort one cap ship to do battle with another cap ship. Its in the Telsa system where you escort the william tell to do battle. I believe it explodes one jump later off screen.

on a side note I read the rock paper shotgun article that was posted here (here is the link) https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/07/10/have-you-played-wing-commander-iii/. I think the author was right about how dark wc3 is but he acts like the dark tone came out of nowhere, which is just not true; bc wc2 is probably just as dark if not darker. you have terrorist attacks, all the women wingmen die besides angel (shadow, spirit) although angel does die in wc3. You got human traitors helping out the enemy. you were branded a traitor for a crime you did not commit. WC2 is really dark especially after you also add in the expansion packs which add pirates and huge odds stacked against you. I guess bc there is no real voice acting outside of a few scenes and the game is so bright and colorful, certain gamers and journalist forget how dark WC2 truly is. Anyways it is my 2nd favorite game literally right behind wc4.
 
Just beat wc2 for the umpteenth time and it is really a toss up between this one and wc4, especially after the expansion packs with bear. I do love it
 
Just beat wc2 for the umpteenth time and it is really a toss up between this one and wc4, especially after the expansion packs with bear. I do love it

2 and 4 have always been my favorites and it mostly has to do with the storytelling and particularly the character development which was at its peak in these two games.

I can kind of understand what the RPS review was getting at with Wing Commander 3, there's an oppressive pessimism throughout the game that makes sense in the context of Fleet Action which sets the Confederation in a very dire position compared to the decent one they were in by the end of 2, but casual fans wouldn't be aware of the novels.

Wing Commander 2 has its dark moments for sure but ultimately it's a pretty uplifting story of personal retribution that makes you feel good as you prove your innocence to people who thought you were a traitor and reconnect with old friends that never doubted you.

Wing Commander 3 on the other hand puts you in a really desperate situation where even when you're winning you feel like you're pushing a boulder up a hill and only through that final last ditch effort are you finally able to breathe and enjoy your victory. This isn't necessarily bad but it is a different atmosphere from the earlier games, at least in my opinion.

Honestly one of the things I didn't like about 3's story is how many elements of 2 it recycles, mainly destroying your old carrier again and doing another traitor subplot. Minor complaints considering they were pretty much creating something no developer had really done before and the overall product is great, but it's still something that always bugged me.
 
Last edited:
Honestly one of the things I didn't like about 3's story is how many elements of 2 it recycles, mainly destroying your old carrier again and doing another traitor subplot. Minor complaints considering they were pretty much creating something no developer had really done before and the overall product is great, but it's still something that always bugged me.
That's two elements... can you name any others? :) Because, you know, with these two elements that you did point to, it's very interesting how WC3 actually plays around with them. Blair explicitly references the repetition of carrier destruction ("First the Tiger's Claw, now this"), which changes the whole thing from recycling into something else entirely. Similarly, with the traitor subplot, you see how the writers were clearly aware of the WC2 plot, and worked with it to mess up the player's expectations. Who is the obvious traitor in WC3? If we go by WC2 as an indicator, then probably the most reasonable choice of traitor would be Cobra. Instead, it turns out to be Hobbes. And the motivation turns out to be completely different, though of course the PC version screwed that one up completely.

However, there certainly is one plot element that got recycled from WC2 in a bad way: the relationship between Blair and Tolwyn. That was weird.
 
2 and 4 have always been my favorites and it mostly has to do with the storytelling and particularly the character development which was at its peak in these two games.

I can kind of understand what the RPS review was getting at with Wing Commander 3, there's an oppressive pessimism throughout the game that makes sense in the context of Fleet Action which sets the Confederation in a very dire position compared to the decent one they were in by the end of 2, but casual fans wouldn't be aware of the novels.

Wing Commander 2 has its dark moments for sure but ultimately it's a pretty uplifting story of personal retribution that makes you feel good as you prove your innocence to people who thought you were a traitor and reconnect with old friends that never doubted you.

Wing Commander 3 on the other hand puts you in a really desperate situation where even when you're winning you feel like you're pushing a boulder up a hill and only through that final last ditch effort are you finally able to breathe and enjoy your victory. This isn't necessarily bad but it is a different atmosphere from the earlier games, at least in my opinion.

Honestly one of the things I didn't like about 3's story is how many elements of 2 it recycles, mainly destroying your old carrier again and doing another traitor subplot. Minor complaints considering they were pretty much creating something no developer had really done before and the overall product is great, but it's still something that always bugged me.
I agree with you two and three share the same basic plot structure. destroyed carrier a crew that doesnt seem to like you or trust you and the traitor subplot. Also two and three have the romance subplot with blair. Although I have to disagree with you that wc2 was not dark, I think it was really dark as far as the story goes, it is just that the animations are so colorful that it seems cheery. I mean concordia suffers assassinations, a terrorist attack on the flight deck of the concordia and spirit going suicide bomber on the base. All of that is very dark, even the sub title to the game is in blood red font and is called vengeance of the kilrathi. Also lets not let blair completely off the hook in wc2 he was kind of a douche at times like when you rescue stingray and he seems to try and really thank you for doing it, blair shuts him down quick. While I agree with you that wc3 feels like pushing a boulder up the hill, if you play the expansions for wc2 its kind of the same thing with you coming out on top but not a lot of ground gained against the kilrathi. but as a story I think wc2 works far better than wc3. For the record wc3 is easily my least favorite wing commander game of the first 4, didnt like a lot of the characters besides Eisen, Rachel, hobbes, Tolwyn and vagabond. Thought they could have done some more interesting things with rollins, and cobra. Flint was just meh to me as was a lot of the others. Maniac was a one note joke, although I loved how they gave him some depth in wc4 he went from a two inch puddle to a kiddie pool of emotional depth lol.

I also feel wc4 and wc1 have a lot in common once you get to the Intrepid in wc4. I feel like your backs are against the wall and alone out there just like wc1. Your enemies have superior ships to you and your crew just like wc1, and I feel like the chemistry between you and the rest of the crew is really strong just like wc1. Even though you are an outsider at first when you defect in wc4, blair very quickly is accepted by the crew of the Intrepid in wc4 and you become just one of the guys, I havent felt comrade like that since wc1.

Just my two cents

P.S.
I agree with quarto on the relationship between blair and tolwyn, it makes no sense in wc3. the only way I can justify it is that when tolwyn really needs to count on blair he either goes rouge or fails him. lets look at the history, I think tolwyn still blamed blair for the destruction of the tiger's claw stealth fighters or not. blair goes rouge in wc2 and jeopardizes the final mission in wc2 and pulls it out by the skin of his teeth. During Fleet action blair is MIA and Tolwyn saves the day. in wc3 blair puts his full trust in hobbes and yet hobbes betrays blair and tolwyn and the behemoth is destroyed. Finally blair steals tolwyns thunder by destroying kilrah. Tolwyn probably secretly hoped seether would kill blair in wc4 and im talking about before blair decided to defect lol.
 
Last edited:
However, there certainly is one plot element that got recycled from WC2 in a bad way: the relationship between Blair and Tolwyn. That was weird.

I was actually going to mention that but I left it out because I didn't want to sound like I was ragging on the game too much. It is really awkward that Tolwyn hates your guts again. There are ways of justifying it but it's still such a sharp turn for the character for no apparent reason.
 
Blair explicitly references the repetition of carrier destruction ("First the Tiger's Claw, now this"), which changes the whole thing from recycling into something else entirely.

I felt that line gave the scene a sense of "it never ends, does it?", "it" meaning not just the war but the ongoing cycles within the war.
 
Back
Top