Did I blink?

Originally posted by Nemesis


Hmmm. Not to turn on an ally, but I’m curious to know how “eight” wins out over “seven” under those standards.:) It sounds like you’d normally give graphics the benefit of any doubt.
Click to expand...

First of all I like the number "8" more than the number "7". :)
Seriously, I just take LOAF's approach on this. The manual in WC2 states that the Concordia has 8 AMGs, the game only simulates 7 (who knows, maybe the eigth AMG is damaged throughout the course of WC2). But since we don't fly the Concordia, thus are not able to "cycle through her guns" as for fighters in the game, we have no proof that she only has 7 AMGs or better, the game doesn't contradict the manual. After all I would never say that an Exeter is unarmed only because we never see her firing on enemies. It would make no sense.


So because of what you see in the cockpits of the few particular fighters you fly during the games, you’re prepared to conclude that that is “the rule” for Hellcat Vs, Hornets, Scimitars, Rapiers, and Raptors in the WC universe?

More importantly, how can you so easily dismiss VS given that it exists in the WC universe as much as do those neutron guns? Do you also dismiss the “in-universe” statement in the KS manual that the neutron gun was retired in 2668? And what about the cockpit graphics in the WC1 manual (in the game section) for the Hornet and Rapier that are consistent with their printed shield specs? (And I note that the one for the Raptor doesn’t appear to be consistent with either the specs or the game.) What about the same shield specs for the Rapier set forth in the Confederation Handbook?

(...)
Click to expand...

I don't dismiss any manual and I don't make a rule out of my approach, I just try to take the most sensible facts (IMO) from all the sources to make a fitting picture.
Concerning the shield strength in WC1: I just find the number given in the cockpits more realistic. I find it hard to believe that a Scimitar has only 0.5cm more shield than a Salthi and it goes well with Maniac's statement that the Rapier has the toughest shields of all fighters and (as a bonus) it concedes with the in-game statistics. Plus I find it more convincing that if a ship has 4cm of shieldings you use "40" as an indicator for your shields (when at 100%) than to use "40" while only having 3cm (same goes for the Scimitar/Rapier)
Concerning screenshots, I'd very rarely take those as evidence since they are often from various stages of game development and are very often not updated along with the game.

The Hellcat issue: I don't dismiss that the Neutron gun was retired in 2668 but I think it is fairly easy to explain the Hellcat's loadout. Both the Victory and the Hellcat are fairly old ships, so it'd be not too far-fetched to say that the Victory has a complement of old Hellcats which are still outfitted with Neutron guns. Maybe any newly produced Hellcat has Lasers instead of Neutrons, we don't know (though that'd be strange).

LOAF already explained the movie Rapier issue.

If by this you mean the game code, then that would entail, for example, that the scales and the details depicted for various ships should be accepted without question. Code written to render the graphics practical or to make the playing of the game more challenging, less difficult, or simply “enjoyable” should not dictate canon.
Click to expand...

Of course we have to take technical limitations into consideration. WC1 wasn't able to simulate every ship in right scale and still be playable.

I think I have to say this again: I don't *always* go by graphics/game/manual/etc.... I just take the liberty to choose the most sensible facts from all those categories depending on the circumstances. It would make absolutely no sense to take the in-game scales from WC1 as canon. This is of course just my personal way to do it, everyone is free to do as he likes.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
I would say eight -- the game doesn't simulate the eighth one, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Click to expand...
On second thoughts, I reckon there probably is eight AMGs. Although the game doesn't simulate it this way, the eighth AMG could be on the opposite side of the ship such that, to fire on the targetted capship, it would need to shoot through the Concordia first! Although, the Tiamat's turrets seem happy to shoot through itself . :(

I think if one uses one of those ship editors, they can see that the Concordia does only have seven AMGs in-game. But I would agree that taking the most sensible value in conflicting information would be the best thing to do. Although it's hard to decide what's 'most' sensible. :)
 
I don't *always* go by graphics/game/manual/etc.... I just take the liberty to choose the most sensible facts from all those categories depending on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

We pretty much agree on the particular issues, though your take on the shielding seems mostly your own opinion about what is or isn’t “right” about that, and I’m not about to suggest you’re not entitled to have an opinion.

But that brings me to your one statement (above) that I read to be your approach to questions of canon generally. If so, I disagree.

I don’t feel free to apply my own judgement about which “facts” in the games, manuals, etc. are or aren’t “sensible”. That’s because the only “sensibilities” I choose to recognize in the first instance are those of EA/Origin. I like that for two reasons.

First, I like puzzle-solving, and if I’m not free to resolve a conflict in WC by ripping out and burning a page from Claw Marks, then that conflict presents a real puzzle, a seeming contradiction that I must discover or figure out how to harmonize. (Ripping and burning would then always be the last resort. Kind of like taking on The Times’ crossword puzzle at the end of the week.:))

Second, I applaud the effort to establish canon, to create a shared legacy and continuity for the WC universe.

Now you certainly don’t have to like puzzle-solving, but I’d think you care about whether there’s one and only one WC universe. (Why bother otherwise about something as trivial as “8” versus “7”?) Yet if we each have free reign to decide what’s “sensible” in a given case–choosing willy-nilly to discard a fact here and a fact there just because they don’t seem to “fit” at first–then the whole notion of a WC universe, and with it canon, becomes pointless. Consensus will be an impossible goal.
 
Yes, I see your point. But until we have a complete and offcial, Origin/Roberts/EA etc... approved WC compendium which brings any and all (seemingly?) contradictory statements/stats/in-game values into perfect harmony, there will always be a point where you, the player/reader have to decide what you use for your view on the WC universe.
 
For the most part, I think WC figures are generally consistent. In areas where there are conflicts, I think we make a sensible interpretation for ourselves.
 
But until we have a complete and offcial . . . compendium . . ., there will always be a point where you, the player/reader have to decide what you use for your view on the WC universe.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. If we respect Origin’s vision that the Tri-System is part of the WC universe, the neutron gun was retired in 2668, and the formal shield specs for the Hornet are 3 cm but we fly Hornets that have 4 cm, etc., then that body of fact becomes our common view and frame of reference, something stable we can build on as we debate and try to decide what most likely or persuasively “fits” in the resulting gaps.

In a nutshell, that’s what canon is all about, and what a fair number of us do already. And while we don’t always arrive at a single resolution (though we do a lot of the time), neither do we feel free at that point to go back to square one and “edit” whatever facts we just don’t like or don’t find convenient, because we know we’ll simply end up trapped, never able to get off of square one again.
 
And some of us just give up and say, "It's WC. Enjoy it for what it is. There's no need to resolve every gritty detail." :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top