Black Lance Carrier

If the pro-Dragon name people would simply prove some sort of evidence, I'd love to discuss it...
 
Lord have mercy....

As I said arguements can be made either way for the Dragon/Lance debate. And ultimately, does it REALLY matter that much? Either way, we all know of what we're speaking, whether we say Dragon or Lance.

The thread is about the BL carrier. I suggest we stick to it.
 
Ok here we go again.

*couhgs*

In the OFFICIAL Strategy guide........The statistics for the Draqon call it, the Dragon. Not the lance. And if the book contadicts the games, then they are wrong. THE BOOKS ARE BASED OFF THE GAMES. Not a bunch of games based off of some books. The games are the center of the whole universe an thats all that matters. Yes the books add usefull details and what not, but when there are contradictions, THE GAMES TAKE PRECEDENCE. If we let the books take precedence, we are losing the heart of Wing Commander, the game. You can't play a book.
 
But the official strategy guide isn't an in-universe source... it's not a technical guide written from the point of view of someone in the WC universe -- it's just stats from the game. If it were an issue of Joan's I could see the argument, but saying that the strategy guide calls it a Dragon it *is* a Dragon proves nothing -- isn't the strategy guide one of those *books* that so terrifies you?
 
No, because it is directly related to the game, it isn't fiction based off of fiction. And since it is official, that is what should stand. It is nothing but the game and the 'strategy and hints' communicated to you the gamer. The guide is licensed by origin and therefore is what stands. The 'novels' are stories based off of games with a little thing added to them called artistic liscense.
 
The official guide and the novelization are *both* licensed products -- meaning that neither was produced by Origin, but both were requested and reviewed before publication. The only difference is that the novel is included with some editions of the game (portions thereof are included in *all* editions of the game). The guide states the name of the fighter as seen in the game, for obvious reasons. The novel says that this is not the right name and explains *why*. There's nothing in the guide that displaces this fact.
 
Do you remember what I said about artistic license? Thats why we have contradictions like this. If the game designers wanted it to be called a lance, then they would have called it that. They didn't. And until I see otherwise in the game, it stays a dragon.
 
Originally posted by gryphon
But seriously, if the BL carrier is as small as we seem to be suggesting, it might actually prove to be a bit of a drag... it looks mean, but mean doesn't cut it if You're smaller than the Victory...
Click to expand...
Oh, I dunno... the Tiger's Claw seemed to be able to hold its own pretty well.
 
Originally posted by Zor Prime
Do you remember what I said about artistic license? Thats why we have contradictions like this. If the game designers wanted it to be called a lance, then they would have called it that. They didn't. And until I see otherwise in the game, it stays a dragon.
Click to expand...

We *don't* have contradictions. You haven't proven that there's any contradiction whatsoever -- you're just being stubborn... there's no evidence *anywhere* that this is a contradiction. "IF I DON'T SEE IT IN THE GAME, IT SI NOT TRUE!!!1" is *not* a contradiction, it's some guy being stupid.

And why can the writer of the novel have this fabled 'artistic license', but not the writer of the guide? And why does this artistic license not apply when it's not contradicting anything?

If the designers didn't want it to be called a Lance, they could have insisted Ohlander change it -- but they didn't.
 
Why can't we all just make our own peace with the situation? I learned the hard way in lif that these discussions never lead anywhere... When I was young I was a rabid atheist, never hesitating to throw myself headlong into an argument or trying to "prove" that there's no support for religious beliefs in all of reality. Nowadays I'm older, more experienced and wiser. (Read: more tired and less apt to waste time on complete idiots that I by now know never change their mind anyway).

I think I'm justified in being a bit of a nihilist.. how can you do anything but laugh tiredly at the concerted effort of a bunch of sentient cell clumps to eradicate a bunch of other sentient cell clumps? And it keeps happening...

If You ask me, I personally believe that Strike Commander led to I-War, which led to WC... the histories match perfectly! There's artistic freedom for ya.
 
And what of "Wings of Glory" :)?

But I digress... I don't think there's much of a point to believing I can convince someone so set in their ways -- but anyone else who reads the thread can judge for themselves based on our opposing opinions...
 
Just an observation on the whole Dragon/Lance thing...

Why would the Black Lance call their fighter the Lance? Hmmmm??? It shows a surprising lack of creativity for a group who can find so many creative ways to kill people.

Am I right, or am I right??? :)
 
Yeah, but admit it IS a bit thin... I mean You hardly see any air superiority fighters named "US Air Force"... Personally I think that Bill F/Ben O screwed up and didn't pay attention, I mean it's not like these guys play the game six times and remember everyting... I'd put my cash on the Origin team which wrote "Dragon" on the screen, EVEN THOUGH I do believe that the Warthog/Thunderbolt II explanation carries more water... I simply think that the Origin team didn't think quite so far ahead...
 
I think it's Ohlander paying *too* much attention -- he saw in the script that the fighter was an offshoot of the Excalibur, he saw that Confed ships were named after weapons, and he couldn't figure out why the force would be called 'Black Lance'... he put all that together and, IMO, came up with a pretty ingenious solution.
 
The solution is very ingenious indeed... I just maintain that it is a construed solution, and as such not absolute truth... I wouldn't go as far as saying there IS an answer to what the fighter is called, but I think both sides make a compelling case... What is the convention for these conflicting stories? Lord knows WC is full of them... I mean, who is it generally accepted to believe?
 
Obviously, this is a constructed story (what story isn't?) -- but I don't think it's a conflict at all, since the story that has been constructed takes into account and explains *why* some sources call it a Dragon.
 
The novels are generally accepted as canonical.

That's no going so far as to say that there wasn't battles going on in Circe while the Intrepid was in the Spearadon system, or that Confed didn't have possession of a few Mace missiles in Spearadon, etc. The novels are what did happen, the games are what could have happened, given the same circumstances and level of technology. Blair could have become an Admiral after WC4, but didn't. Catscratch could have died, but he didn't...

Watch Clue for an illustration of this concept.
 
This is why I think there sould be a *corrected* publication that takes all this conflicting data from the games, books, novels, handbooks, movie and whatever else is out there regarding WC, have it all compiled and put into prospective. A tedious task no doubt. One that would probably take so much time and effort, you would have to dedicate to it full time. But I think the benefits of such a publication would put to rest many of the issues that still remain with regard to ship names, stats, timeline and the other little inconsistancies.

RFB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top