Chris Roberts

[Maj.Striker]

The traitor scenes were shot... the issue was that they confused test audiences, not that they couldn't be made.

Ah, I was under the impression that they were cut from the script before they were shot due to the complications to the plot. (i.e. what you referenced in your second post). My mistake...

 

[Delance]

I personally don't think it works very well in WC2 or WC4 -- but for the opposite reason.. it's *too* obvious. In both cases the character who's a jerk to you for the whole game turns out to be the traitor.

Well, Tolwyn was a jerk from WC2, too. And Stingray. Hey, it could be anyone.

Actually, there's an interesting twist. If you shot your wingman, each one of them would accuse you of being the traitor, for it was known there was a traitor onboard. Except, of course, Jazz, who would simply state you was trying to kill him.

Tolwyn was his usual self on WC4 giving no specific indication he was the traitor. Besides, all three of them did not see themselves as traitors. Even Jazz, that idiot.

Wing Commander III was great, though, because it's both the most likely character *and* the one you're least willing to believe... because the game is set up for your character to defend him at every point.

That's true. That setup comes even from WC2. It was a big thing to sacrifice, the friendship of Hobbes. But I didn't like the "personality overlay" thingie, I thought it to be an unnecessary gimmic with no dramatic impact. It would make more sense to Hobbes to betray because they were going to nuke his homeworld, and that was not something he has signed for. WC2 makes a point that Hobbes has not betrayed his race, but simply want to defeat the Emperor.

(Now, Wings of Glory, there's a traitor -- who suspects the pretty French girl?)

Well, thanks for the spoiler! Never played that one, can you imagine that? But I did play Pacific Strike, but I don't remember any traitors. It was better then Pearl Harbor.

 

[Dyret]

It would make more sense to Hobbes to betray because they were going to nuke his homeworld, and that was not something he has signed for.

IIRC, Hobbes didnt care much for Kilrah, though.

 

[Death]

ut I did play Pacific Strike, but I don't remember any traitors. It was better then Pearl Harbor.

On the other hand, though, it's not especially difficult to be better than Pearl Harbor, if you're referring to this one.

 

[Lt.Death100]

IIRC, Hobbes didnt care much for Kilrah, though.

 

[Dyret]

I believe it was mentioned in Freedom Flight.

 

[Death]

It was the then-current leadership of Kilrah to which the overlay-Hobbes objected, not the planet or species as a whole.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Dyret is correct, Ralgha didn't like the planet -- he talks about prefering the wilderness of Hhallas to the "metallic splendor" of Kilrah.

 

[NinjaLA]

still.. I don't much like venus either.. but I wouldn't want anybody blowing it up on me


I think the personality overlay idea was fine.. I actually felt the betrayal like Blair would have.. he was my favorite wingman in both 2 and 3. but I would have thought it even more hurtful if it had just been a personal choice on his part.

WC2 is still my favorite wing commander game

 

[Bandit LOAF]

That's true. That setup comes even from WC2. It was a big thing to sacrifice, the friendship of Hobbes. But I didn't like the "personality overlay" thingie, I thought it to be an unnecessary gimmic with no dramatic impact. It would make more sense to Hobbes to betray because they were going to nuke his homeworld, and that was not something he has signed for. WC2 makes a point that Hobbes has not betrayed his race, but simply want to defeat the Emperor.

I like the personality overlay; it fits brilliantly with the opening scene of Freedom Flight, where Thrakhath shows up on Ghorah Khar to free Ralgha (who has been quite correctly charged with treason).

Well, thanks for the spoiler! Never played that one, can you imagine that? But I did play Pacific Strike, but I don't remember any traitors. It was better then Pearl Harbor.

I'm fairly sure eleven years is well outside the statute of limitations for video game spoilers.

Pacific Strike was a fun game from a technical point of view (... when it worked) -- it was pretty much the most impressive branching gameplay Origin ever attempted. The 'talking heads' story aspect was sort of lame, though, since everyone on a World War II aircraft carrier was a like-minded young white male.

Wings of Glory is a far superior game -- it has an interesting story and characters, an accurate flight model that makes winning worthwhile, colorful airplanes that make the RealSpace Engine shine... and a heck of a lot of care put into it -- they did things like record actual the sound of wind passing over the wings of actual World War I airplanes to get the experience right.

 

[Quarto]

Pacific Strike was a fun game from a technical point of view (... when it worked) -- it was pretty much the most impressive branching gameplay Origin ever attempted. The 'talking heads' story aspect was sort of lame, though, since everyone on a World War II aircraft carrier was a like-minded young white male.

Also, everyone could die, which made the 'talking heads' story even lamer at times. But it was still a neat game. No matter how unrealistic it may be, having Japanese pilots taunting you in a WWII game is great.

 

[Edfilho]

Shit, I never heard of Pacific Strike!
Well, LOAF, maybe the traitor plots of WC2 and 4 weren't as well crafted as 3's, but it was surelly a shock to know that tolwyn was the bad guy. And jazz... well, everyone who played the game wanted to kill him anyway, the traitor thing was the icing on the cake. I believe it worked both times.

I was pretty glad to find no traitors in WCP or SO, anyway. Not only it would make NO SENSE at all, but the whole traitor trick was way overdone by WC4.

 

[Mace]

If you missed out the F in of

manowar, manowar living on the road, when wer'e in town, speakers explode....

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Well, LOAF, maybe the traitor plots of WC2 and 4 weren't as well crafted as 3's, but it was surelly a shock to know that tolwyn was the bad guy.

Not for anyone who knows what guns an Arrow has!

And jazz... well, everyone who played the game wanted to kill him anyway, the traitor thing was the icing on the cake. I believe it worked both times.

Exactly, WC2 and WC4 end up being predictable revenge fantasies -- the guy you don't like gets his and the guy (and taken together, they're a *giant* revenge fantasy... Tolwyn ends up being evil in the end because his character was always mean to Blair!).

 

[LeHah]

I still think that the reason Borst/DePalma wrote WCIV the way they did was because they had Malcolm McDowell in WCIII. He's a character actor known for playing "heavies" and is usually good at it. I was disappointed to see him typecast yet again.

 

[Edfilho]

Well, your point of view makes sense, but it is applies more to a movie or book. For a game, it is indeed good to have revenge. It makes the player feel better.

 

[Delance]

I like the personality overlay; it fits brilliantly with the opening scene of Freedom Flight, where Thrakhath shows up on Ghorah Khar to free Ralgha (who has been quite correctly charged with treason).

In this respect, yes. But the game hints about Hobbes having second thoughts about nuking Kilrah in a conversation he has with Blair on the O-Deck. "They will understand what you did", "No one will ever truly understand what I did."

I'm fairly sure eleven years is well outside the statute of limitations for video game spoilers.

Sure, I was just kidding. I still want on playing WoG sometime, tought.

Pacific Strike was a fun game from a technical point of view (... when it worked) -- it was pretty much the most impressive branching gameplay Origin ever attempted. The 'talking heads' story aspect was sort of lame, though, since everyone on a World War II aircraft carrier was a like-minded young white male.

Yeah, I liked the brancing mission, I remember that. The story is very forgetabble. The subtitled (in japanese) taunts were quite a thing.

Tolwyn ends up being evil in the end because his character was always mean to Blair!.

Not always. Tolwyn is very nice to Blair after WC2, on SO1 and SO2. He somewhat respects Blair on WC3 (The Angel thing shows he doesn’t care much about Blair’s feelings, but then he’s has other things to be worried about), and actually make an awkward effort to seem nice to him on WC4 (“Pastoral life seems to agree with you”), which was a very well acted scene for a computer game.

Tolwyn’s character is interesting because it's not simplistic. Even on WCA, a cartoon, he’s both unwilling sacrifice pilots by jumping before having them land and, later on, willing to sacrifice the lives of people under him to stop the Sivar celebration, what caused Blair to throw his medal into space.

This theme of Tolwyn willing to make sacrifice to accomplish goals will recur on every medium he’s in. The games, the novel, the cartoon, the movie. And the ending result fits together quite well and, perhaps as much as someone might disagree with it, WCIV ends it quite right.

I don't think they arbitrarily choose to make him evil for impact value on WC4, a long combination of exterior factor and his own choices lead to that situation. Especially the Behemoth thing and the fact that, despite all the best efforts, mankind was losing the war. It’s understandable he would become obsessed with it. I know, I know, the writers of WCIV might not give this a lot of thougth, but the final result was well done.

That being said, I don’t think he fits the traditional traitor role. He’s not an ordinary traitor who simply switch sides and fight for an outside force. Technically, Blair did that too. What he did was much more complicated.

But I must agree it was less of a surprise than WC3. And yet, a little more than WC2.

Well, your point of view makes sense, but it is applies more to a movie or book. For a game, it is indeed good to have revenge. It makes the player feel better.

Oh yes, how not to go after Hobbes on WC3? Has anyone actually choose no to go after him the first time they played? I mean, that was one hot-blooded mission.

 

[Mace]

Oh yes, how not to go after Hobbes on WC3? Has anyone actually choose no to go after him the first time they played? I mean, that was one hot-blooded mission.

instinctivly you go after him, at least i did, in the blink of an eye, in WC, you are the ultimate pilot, and it is your place to roundhousekick unjustice into oblivion and beyond. that is where you have the power and can make a difference.

then again, blowing up your enemy's home and killing at least half of them in the process isn't a very humane thing to do.

 

[ChrisReid]

Oh yes, how not to go after Hobbes on WC3? Has anyone actually choose no to go after him the first time they played? I mean, that was one hot-blooded mission.

I didn't go after Hobbes the first few times I played through that part of the game.

then again, blowing up your enemy's home and killing at least half of them in the process isn't a very humane thing to do.

Half of who? Everyone on Kilrah died, and many trillions of Kilrathi died in the war, most of which were not on Kilrah at the end.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I still think that the reason Borst/DePalma wrote WCIV the way they did was because they had Malcolm McDowell in WCIII. He's a character actor known for playing "heavies" and is usually good at it. I was disappointed to see him typecast yet again.

I would say we even see it in Wing Commander 3... Tolwyn doesn't like our hero so his war ending weapon fails while Blair's works.

I'm sure you're right about McDowell, though -- I'm pretty sure they've said as much in interviews.

Well, your point of view makes sense, but it is applies more to a movie or book. For a game, it is indeed good to have revenge. It makes the player feel better.

That's not clever storytelling. Wing Commadner 3 did it well -- you can get revenge... but you're punished.

In this respect, yes. But the game hints about Hobbes having second thoughts about nuking Kilrah in a conversation he has with Blair on the O-Deck. "They will understand what you did", "No one will ever truly understand what I did."

That's not hinting that he's having second thoughts about Kilrah, it's hinting that he's going to betray everyone else.

Yeah, I liked the brancing mission, I remember that. The story is very forgetabble. The subtitled (in japanese) taunts were quite a thing.

I believe it was more than just branching missions... it had branching units. Each mission changed depending on how many Japanese carriers were still in the war at that point. (The 'all wingmen can die' aspect Quarto mentioned is part of this, too... and yes, it's very frustrating.)

It is a shame that the talkie version of Pacific Strike was cancelled. I'd be curious to know if they actually did any recording.

[QUOTE}Not always. Tolwyn is very nice to Blair after WC2, on SO1 and SO2. He somewhat respects Blair on WC3 (The Angel thing shows he doesn’t care much about Blair’s feelings, but then he’s has other things to be worried about), and actually make an awkward effort to seem nice to him on WC4 (“Pastoral life seems to agree with you”), which was a very well acted scene for a computer game.[/QUOTE]

Erm, the 'pastoral life seems to agree with you' line is Tolwyn calling Blair fat.

But I must agree it was less of a surprise than WC3. And yet, a little more than WC2.

Eh, I think you're glossing over Wing Commander 2. The idea that Jazz was the traitor has simply become accepted, partially thanks to the addons that treat it as history. That wasn't how we saw it in 1991.

Wing Commander 2 goes through some lengths to throw you off of Jazz's trail. Specifically, it implicates other pilots -- Spirit and Stingray. Spirit serves to throw suspicion away from Jazz... because Blair's (and the players) reaction is that it couldn't be her, they served together on the Tiger's Claw. That goes for Jazz as well.

Mostly, though, you have Stingray, the other guy who hates Blair... and who the game actually treats as the traitor for quite a while. Playing Wing Commander II for the first time your assumption is that it's Stingray because Stingray's wings were missing and that isn't resolved. We know now that, as Jazz explains, he stole Stingrays wings... but you *didn't* when you were treating it as a murder mystery in 1991.

Wing Commander IV doesn't do this *at all*. There's no alternative to Tolwyn, save perhaps Paladin who the game never tries to cast any suspicions on at all. If you accept (as the game claims early) that there's a vast conspiracy, then it has to be someone important... and the game discounts Paulson and Eisen very, very quickly.

Wing Commander II ends up being a revenge fantasy (and it ends up rubbing it in in the addons, portraying a very strong hate for Jazz on the part of your character)... but it's a good amount more subtle than Wing Commander IV.

Look, it's Chris Roberts: