Anyone not like the books?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, thats usually a sign that Frosty is just too goddamned tired to think.
 
Edfilho said:
The reason being he has nothing to support his claims? :)

No, the reason being him not wanting to have a descation, but rather force us to accept his opinion...
What other reason doe's he have for ignoring over half of the post wirten to aswer him claims? posts writen PER HIS REQUEST for our opinions...

funny he is accusing us of that...
 
Viper61 said:
A slight difference (I know nothing about the StarFire universe) might be that WC resources are spread out all over the universe. At any one time you have high teens of carriers protecting/launching offensive strikes in maybe 3 or 4dozen 'border' systems (the line seperating the Terran Confederation and the Kilrathi at any one time). These systems (if you'll look at LOAF's representation/augmentation of the Prophecy Map online) seem to have maybe on average 2 jump point entries from enemy territory in each. The usual problem is, you don't know where the attack will be coming from. That coupled with the fact that you don't have enough carriers/task groups to cover every entry into the Confed space, make the comparison problematic at best (Every confrontation we've seen when one force 'knows' what jump point an enemy is coming through is disasterous for the jumping enemy, ala - I'm guessing - StarFire). So you have the WC system of jump point engagement . .. station picket ships at jump points so that they can get word to the main task forces either in-system or in an adjacent system (centralizing your defensive forces so they can respond to any incursion) where the enemy has come through so they can engage said enemy. If a force knows which jump point the enemy is using (off the top of my head - WC3, WCM, a few instances about jump point tactics scattered through out the books, False Colors [Kilrathi didn't know, it just so happened they were sitting at the jump point when a Landreich force began to jump in]), StarFire and Wing Commander seem to be rather similar :D.

C-ya

The situation is similar in Starfire, in that there are many axis of approach, in the war between the Terran Federation (heh heh heh) and the Khanate (which practicly ARE kilaralthi) there are a bunch of system and both sides eventually heavily fortified their systems.
The thing is the resources needed to build decent warp point defenses (to at least blunt an assault) are a bit less then needed to maintain carrier groups. And doing so at key systems is often worth it. We should see more mine fields at least I mean minefields are cheap, and other then Wing Commnader 1 and a little in 3/4 we hardly ever see massive minefields. hell the least hey can do is by time for the picket ships to excape.

All in all though it would detract from the "flavor" that the designers of wing commander were trying to achieve (WWII in space) so I see why they did the things they did. Starfire campaigns usually devlove into WWI/WWII eastern front attrition combat, it turns into a nasty meat grinder :D That and the side who developes the niftier toys first wins :D

I hate to say this, but alot of things in Wing Commander could be considerd to have been ripped from Starfire, the races involved for much of the starfire history are the same as wing commander, you have the human terran federation, the cat like orions , and the bird like ophichi. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Time for me to contribute non-stupid points to this thread, since I haven't been helpful in the past.

1) This argument is simply both sides unwilling to comprimise their thoughts on the subject.

2) sea_monkey isn't giving his opinion in a constructive manner. i.e. if I don't understand it, it isn't true.

3) several people have tried to show Sea_monkey points to help him understand the WC universe better to which he replies, "meh, truth is subjective".

4)Truth be told, I agree with some things sea_monkey said about the community as a whole being somewhat nerdy in their pertection of the "truth", however I think sea_monkey is not trying to do anymore than upset or goad people into an argument we can't win, because he really didn't care in the first place.

5)Sea_monkey's argument that cotinuty(sp) issues destroyed his expirence is irritating, because the issues as I have seen illustrated aren't universe shattering

6) WC is like a movie, in a movie, you see fantastic things that can't possibly exist in todays terms Why is blair protecting the concordia himself(along with shadow) a universe shattering deal, or even an argument? *stabs his brain searching for a good answer* Oh wait, there isn't one.

7) if you're so annoyed with continuty issues, which I won't say there are or aren't any why the hell do you even bother coming here, was it to find out if people agreed with "anybody else here not know anything about the WC universe and want to bitch?"

8)I think the fact that you have reitterated over and over again the Blair hero story even after LOAF explained it more times than you have braincells, makes it obvious that you don't really look at logic, you like getting people to argue with you.

-Rance-
 
I am kinda stunned at how long this inane argument has gone on for. People have been argueing the military logic of a fictional universe based on a video game series. The arguments from LOAF and Frosty and several others have been coherent and logical in their thinking. sea_monkey on the other hand has been obviously looking for a fight and got what he wanted. This makes me wonder about why LOAF and the others even deigned to continue argueing with this poster? It would'nt be looked upon as a defeat of their arguments if they simply ignored him and his rude attitude and inability to argue persuasively or correctly. We are argueing about the minute details of a video game and its tie-ins?
 
We go on because, as someone else said, the continuity thing is a game on its own. But this match has become boring and annoying because monkey can't learn the simple rule that origin/ea determines what is canon.
 
Dragonslayer said:
I am kinda stunned at how long this inane argument has gone on for. People have been argueing the military logic of a fictional universe based on a video game series. The arguments from LOAF and Frosty and several others have been coherent and logical in their thinking. sea_monkey on the other hand has been obviously looking for a fight and got what he wanted. This makes me wonder about why LOAF and the others even deigned to continue argueing with this poster? It would'nt be looked upon as a defeat of their arguments if they simply ignored him and his rude attitude and inability to argue persuasively or correctly. We are argueing about the minute details of a video game and its tie-ins?

I agree.
We are argueing about a video game, and however good it is, or isn't, we kind of lost direction and glided into some rather ugly and personal lines.

I say enough is enough.
LOAF, Chris - you might consider closing down this thread - it is after all getting no-where.
 
vindicator said:
4)Truth be told, I agree with some things sea_monkey said about the community as a whole being somewhat nerdy in their pertection of the "truth".

Thats because LOAF is basing all of his things on FACT. Truth without fact is worthless, or at best religion. If sea_monkey or anyone else doesn't like the community, they're free to leave when they see fit.
 
If you just started this debate to bash at us, and insult us, and simply cry "I'm right and you all are jerks!" then ok, you are right, and let us part as friends, every one with his own opinion.

Blah blah blah. Read the thread again. The shit-talking IS excessively one-sided, and it's not my side.

I'm done doing the line-by-line thing. #1, there was about 10 posts since I logged off, in addition to what I hadn't already covered. Not a big deal since no one of them by itself wasn't the logical equivalent of a piece of Swiss cheese, but it makes it impossible to respond to all of them at once. #2, this method of debate makes it easier to run in circles (example: suggesting I'm unenlightened, then denying you said it, then denying denying it):

Back to the beginning, shall we:

1) Books are too carrier-centric, Forstchen over-emphasizes the importance of carriers in the WCU, thinking it's like WWII. It's not, because cruisers and destroyers can carry fighters (and bombers), which means some of the roles that only the carrier could play in WWII, can now be played by other ships.

Carriers in WWII could do A,B,C,D. Cruisers could do E,F,G. Now, in WC, cruisers can do C,D,E,F,G. The relative importance of carriers is reduced when compared with WWII because the cruiser can take on some of its role. The fact that carriers are still the only ship that can do A & B makes no difference whatsoever -- they were the only ship that could do that in WWII also. Not arguable!

2) Kilrathi seemed to use Fralthra more than carriers (100-fighter dedicated carriers) in the games, not so in the books.

Response: The whole defense rests on the idea that "carrier" couldn't refer to a Fralthra -- even when it makes the most sense that it does. Arguable, but argued very poorly. The argument came down to insisting that the Kilrathi decide to attack Ghorah Khar if you eject 20,000 klicks from the Concordia after beating 2E, but retreat if you land -- how they can even know (and yet someone don't know if you were recovered by Search&Rescue) is beyond me.

3) Kilrathi seem to outnumber Confed significantly in the games.

Response: There could be some 100,000 fighter force we never see or hear about. Certainly arguable, but the evidence came down to pointing out how many fighters certain bases COULD hold, and then pointing out that many systems had fighters stationed there -- ignoring that in all cases except two (Earth & McAuliffe) the number cited is MUCH lower than what would be expected if there was 100,000 fighters sitting around. Last, this force never makes an appearance in the books or games.

It would be one thing if the WC universe had been particularly well planned out from the beginning and made perfect sense on it it's own, but it really doesn't. Some of the things YOU guys pointed out in this thread did a far better job to illustrate this than I could. You guys might as well be coming up with ways the Klingons grew mountains on their heads all of a sudden.

Within the context of Wing Commander, which everyone acknowledges (hopefully) to be entirely fictional, there can exist certain truths, based on the contextual realities (i.e. The Empire and the Confederation were at war for a great long time.)

The context of Wing Commander only occurs in separate, individual imaginations. You're arguing that the hundreds of thousands of people who played a WC game but didn't read the books have "untrue" views of WC. As if one version of make-believe can be more "true" than another.
You can certainly argue that yours is the "official" view according to the author, but this presupposes that the hundreds of thousands of people you're talking about really give a crap about the "official" line. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest they don't.
 
Dear God this is a ridiculous argument. Too much effort is being expended on debating the realities of a fictional universe. sea_monkey for some reason seems to believe himself to be defending the right of people to not adhere to what the CIC deems as canon. Now I am not saying that such a right does not exist but EA/Origin has stated that the books and the games are canonical. The leadership at the CIC and the majority of the WC community has seen fit to accept the books and the games. Now argueing about the continuity, reality, logic, or whatever else is kind of ridiculous. Sea_monkey seems interested in argueing against the majority of CIC opinion. And that seems a bit childish and destined for useless and endless argument. Lets just stop talking about this topic.
 
I have to agree with Dragonslayer on this. Both sides are just going to argue until they're blue in the face.
The games came first, then the novels came later. Origin said that the novels are the backbone of the WC Universe. The same applies to Star Wars. Per the Bearded One, the novels before and after the movie are official continuations of the stories and adventures of the Skywalker heritage. Everything else doesn't matter.
There are a ton of people out there who have played the video games, loved it, but have never been aware of the novels. I was one of them. I didn't know about the novels until I started browsing through the web site.William Forstchen weaves some good stories, and really fleshes out the secondary characters as much as possible. But I'm in it for the games, and others enjoy it for the literature. Everyone in the CIC sticks by the decision made by Origin. And you can agree or not, no one is twisting your arm, this isn't the Spanish Inquisition. Honestly, let's end this topic and rant about something else, like why, every time I play WC 3 or 4, they always have to show at least one cut scene of Maniac sniffing his 'pits? He never does that in 1 or 2, does he?
 
Dear monkey:
1) asked and answered, reapetedly, both by me, LOAF, Viper, and a horde of other guys - all in logic and comprehencive manner - and none of us gave you the same answer! - pick any answer you want, or make one of your own.
2) diddle.
3) double diddle.

and for more interesting stuff :D

jedi2187 said:
Honestly, let's end this topic and rant about something else, like why, every time I play WC 3 or 4, they always have to show at least one cut scene of Maniac sniffing his 'pits? He never does that in 1 or 2, does he?

No he doesn't. apperently he developed some medical condition - May be a stress related skin condition resulting from the battle of earth?
All we can tell is that it keeps annoying him on 2681 - Prophecy.
(What?! Haven't he heard of Anti Fungal cream?! ;) )
 
Confucious say "When man talks himself into corner, he hits head against wall"
 
sea_monkey:

Your statements about canon only continue to beg the question–that is, your reasoning continues to be circular–as to what you’re trying to accomplish here. On the one hand, you belittle our efforts to take EA/Origin’s canon seriously and build consensus in our group around a single history and storyline for WC. You claim that WC is something that exists only in people’s imaginations and on that basis our arguments either aren’t conclusive or don’t make sense to you.

On the other hand, you continue to post and argue about how you yourself see WC, disputing others’ views and defending your own. But just who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Obviously not. But then that means you’re actively seeking some kind of consensus about WC too, something very much outside of your own imagination.

Yes, there are problems here both with your consistency and continuity. But let us see if, by taking your statements seriously (rather than dismissing them, since that would be pretty disrespectful of you, their author), we can come up with what’s really motivating you to argue in this forum, and so judge whether your motives are justified.

sea_monkey said:
It would be one thing if the WC universe had been particularly well planned out from the beginning and made perfect sense on it it's own, but it really doesn't.

And therefore you should favor or at the very least respect any effort that tries to make sense of . . . no, wait, you don’t! Now how does that make any sense? You seem to be contradicting yourself again. Hmm, what are you really trying to say here? Ah yes, I can think of a meaning that does smooth over the apparent illogic. Aesthetics! Many of the statements made here about WC “don’t make sense” to you in the sense that you just don’t like them! You don’t like how the experience of the games is interpreted for the sake of harmonizing the games and the novels. Not the way you enjoyed and so now envision your favorite games in the series. Not the way you would have written the novels. That’s what you mean whenever you say our arguments or positions don’t make sense to you (whether or not you realize that, or whether or not you care to admit that).

Well, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion about what makes for great storytelling and exciting gaming (and you’re entitled to “treasure” whatever turns you on about WC in your own mind’s eye), but this has nothing to do with whether inconsistencies in the WC canon can be reasonably, logically, and thus plausibly explained. We would never claim, however, that our explanations are designed to make for the best fiction or gaming. That is not our goal.

sea_monkey said:
WC only exists in the imaginations of individual people -- a subjective experience.

Well, you clearly do ignore the fact that WC can be said to exist objectively given the very tangible form of the games, manuals, books, etc. But let’s still take you at your word. You imply that there’s something wrong with our trying to develop a consensus about an otherwise fictional universe that exists only in the mind’s eye. (From your most recent statements, it sounds like you see this effort as requiring some sort of approval or support from the hundreds of thousands of other fans of WC. But I assure you, those other fans, like you, are entitled to see WC however they want. What matters to us in the first instance is what EA/Origin thinks. WC is their creation.) But is there really anything wrong with what we try to do? Not at all. (And, as I’ve already pointed out, you yourself appear to be doing the same thing.) Moreover, I think it is you who have underestimated the issue of context.

So yes, WC exists within each person’s imagination. But under your notion of subjectivity, so do history, philosophy, mathematics, much of science, in particular physics, economics, and, oh yes, law. (You won’t find the critical terms “speech” and “due process”, among others, defined in the U.S. Constitution, for example. Their “meaning” derives exclusively from their time-honored “mulling over” by citizens, pundits, scholars, lawyers, and judges.) As I’m sure you’d agree, each of these prominent fields of knowledge represents quite a collaborative, largely successful, and mutually beneficial undertaking (despite all the “subjectivity"). Now while games of “canon” certainly are not as crucial in that respect (though don’t get me wrong, I think games in general are very important in any culture), they share the same goal–to build a consistent body of knowledge on a given subject.

So no, there’s really nothing “wrong” or unusual in the least about our own undertaking here that should give you or anyone else pause.

In sum, enjoy WC however you wish, celebrate in your own mind whatever you feel is “precious” about it, but please don’t pretend to join in our game when all you want to do is trash it for the sake of your personal take on WC’s aesthetics. (If you want to debate “what should be canon”, fine. If you want to debate if EA/Origin is a good storyteller, fine. But don’t confuse that with our efforts to “smooth out” and enrich WC’s lore.)

Dragonslayer said:
Too much effort is being expended on debating the realities of a fictional universe. . . .Now argueing about the continuity, reality, logic, or whatever else is kind of ridiculous.

But arguing about the continuity, etc. is a form of gaming (as I posted earlier in this thread). And really, as any true gamer knows, there can never be “too much effort . . . expended” in playing a game.:)

In all seriousness though, I think it’s very much to the community’s credit to take the time, even at the risk of taking more than enough time, to try to explain the ideas and goals that underlie much of this site to someone new who’s obviously “concerned” about them. But of course that’s always the moderators’ call to make.

Like others, I’m off for the weekend. Any comments directed at me in the meantime (I’m not holding my breath), I have no problem with others responding if they wish.
 
Nemesis said:
In all seriousness though, I think it’s very much to the community’s credit to take the time, even at the risk of taking more than enough time, to try to explain the ideas and goals that underlie much of this site to someone new who’s obviously “concerned” about them. But of course that’s always the moderators’ call to make.

What he said.
 
I have a doubt: What is Origin's position concerning the Movie and the Movies books? Are those considered canon by OSI/EA or not? All the references to canon I recall are related to the non-movie books and materials. I'm not directly saying there are officially apocryphal, but are they activelly INCLUDED in the canon?
for instance, in AS it is made clear that Confed has been in a state of peace for the last few centuries. Not just in the sense that they were in no officially declared war with an enemy state, but in the sense that they just didn't fight anyone else for hundreds of years. The weasel senator JAmison keeps pointing that the military hardware was just expensive toys for the military boys to play around, with no enemy to fight. Confed is in a dire state of unreadiness because there was no real threat...

The only thing the mention was the terrorists that the teacher/commando guy fought along with richards. But those a certainly not the pilgrims.

Were would the pilgrim conflicts fit into this picture? They surely happened just before the K-War, didn't they?
 
sea_monkey said:
. . .Not a big deal since no one of them by itself wasn't the logical equivalent of a piece of Swiss cheese, but it makes it impossible to respond to all of them at once . . .
And somehow throwing out games and manuals that you personally don't consider 'canon', assuming that what doesn't agree with your assumptions from a game is a 'glitch' (and apparently being around for WC2 game development meetings in 1991), and reading open-ended blurbs for technology in only the way that agrees with your personal view of WC is somehow more substantial or more solid ground for a logical debate? :rolleyes:

And if you can't come up with the time to formulate 10 arguments, how the hell has this thread gone on for 5 pages?

sea_monkey said:
The context of Wing Commander only occurs in separate, individual imaginations. You're arguing that the hundreds of thousands of people who played a WC game but didn't read the books have "untrue" views of WC. As if one version of make-believe can be more "true" than another.
You can certainly argue that yours is the "official" view according to the author, but this presupposes that the hundreds of thousands of people you're talking about really give a crap about the "official" line. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest they don't.
Alright Champion of All Non-Book Reading, WCATV shunning, single WC game playing Wing Commander Fans Everywhere, then why the hell are you here? By posting to this thread, you were sharing your view of WC to the world, trying to find like minded individuals. When you don't, you begin in on a crusade with the banner "this is why the authors, designers and creators of the of WCU are wrong". What the hell happened to "one version of make-believe isn't more true than another"? (And I'm actually not even going to touch the "you can't have guidelines/rules/structure to a fictional universe!" dribble)

People that play WC games but don't read the books don't have an 'untrue' view of WC. They just have an incomplete view. A basic physics undergrad student knows alot about his field. A doctoral physics research assistant knows more about a certain area of physics than the student. Does this mean the student is wrong? No, the doctoral candidate just has more information. Only play the games? You have a correct (albiet limited) view of WC. Read WC novels, this view is fleshed out further, and so on and so forth. And thus continues the process of life.

And your right, some people couldn't give a rats ass about the 'official line' here (if there is such a thing, as points are being debated on a daily basis). They either aren't present on this board or haven't cared enough to post anything, but you have. So apparently you do give a rats ass about the 'official line' here, oh Champion of "individual views of . .. oh wait, nevermind". So get off your damn white horse of "seperate imaginations!" and get back down here in the mud with the rest of us where you have been wallowing for 5 pages.

Or was that last post of yours giving up on finding logical arguments for your cases and the equivalent of "I'm taking my ball and going home"?

C-ya
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top