Freespace series

hurleybird

Rear Admiral
LeHah said:
When one person says it, its stupid. When many people agree with it, its truth.
You don't think its possible to be collectively missguided? And despite the fact that this is a WC board, there are quite a few people in this debate defending freespace.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
How did you get that idea? I was mearly pointing out that I am not a "jerk who has come to a Wing Commander message board to troll about Freespace" as you put it.
Well, you're whining about how dare an 'admin' say something that disagrees with you -- you've focused entirely on this instead of trying to make any claim. It would seem that the intended outcome of your argument, in an ideal world, would be for me to apologize for having a point of view in order to let you post whatever you want uncontested... and that's just not going to happen.

First off, I never said that I was insecure that you had your opinion. In fact, it's not that you dont like freespace that troubles me. You haven't argued your opinion at all; you've arrogantly stated your opinion as if it were a cold hard fact.
Really? What about the long post where I listed *specific* missions in order to disprove the previous poster's claims? I know it's fun to claim that the other side in a debate is somehow just blowing hot air instead of making a point... but that is unquestionably not the case here. Which is to say, sorry, try another generic internet attack.

Haven't met them; however, judging from your name calling and rambling I wouldn't doupt it if you were the one who started the trolling. Could you point out some posts filled with this 'trolling' you speak of?
I've never posted to HLP, and I've never started a thread here about Freespace. I think that gives me a pretty good degree of moral authority.

Search the archives for Kazan -- if he's the standard, then Freespace people don't deserve our respect.

Also, come on LOAF! Insulting both the game and the community is a fastest way to get more HLP 'assholes' posting in these boards. Its called flame baiting, and no one who flame baits should be a mod or admin period.
That's a pretty pointless threat - I feel very confident that I can defend my point of view.
 

Ghost

Emperor
hurleybird said:
How did you get that idea? I was mearly pointing out that I am not a "jerk who has come to a Wing Commander message board to troll about Freespace" as you put it.
Good, you are simpleton jerk only!
 

hurleybird

Rear Admiral
Bandit LOAF said:
Well, you're whining about how dare an 'admin' say something that disagrees with you -- you've focused entirely on this instead of trying to make any claim. It would seem that the intended outcome of your argument, in an ideal world, would be for me to apologize for having a point of view in order to let you post whatever you want uncontested... and that's just not going to happen.
Keep twisting things however you want, I'm defending freespace, a good game, not whining about you disagreeing with me. For the record, I find nothing wrong with you having a different opinion. When you have to voice your opinion in a rude and childish manner without any support that is another matter altogether.

Bandit LOAF said:
Really? What about the long post where I listed *specific* missions in order to disprove the previous poster's claims? I know it's fun to claim that the other side in a debate is somehow just blowing hot air instead of making a point... but that is unquestionably not the case here. Which is to say, sorry, try another generic internet attack.
Now you're beating aruond the bush. Sure, you've put in good input on the prophecy end of things, thats to be expected of course -- you're a wc guru. However, you haven't said anything in the least bit constructive about the main topic, freespace. Instead, you insult people and act like a child.

Bandit LOAF said:
I've never posted to HLP, and I've never started a thread here about Freespace. I think that gives me a pretty good degree of moral authority.
I never accused you of any of those things, and you don't need to do either of those things to be guilty of flame baiting. Why you think that not going onto the HLP or starting a freespace thread gives you moral authority, or why you would need said authority in the first place, is very questionable.

Bandit LOAF said:
Search the archives for Kazan -- if he's the standard, then Freespace people don't deserve our respect.
I will. And by the way, stereotyping is wrong.

Bandit LOAF said:
That's a pretty pointless threat - I feel very confident that I can defend my point of view.
I didn't threaten you. And you think you can defend why you had to start flame baiting? I can't wait to hear this...
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
hurleybird said:
You don't think its possible to be collectively missguided?
Obviously I do. Freespace fans are evidence of such a creature.
 

hurleybird

Rear Admiral
LeHah said:
Obviously I do. Freespace fans are evidence of such a creature.
LeHah said:
I'll give it a once over again. I don't plan on being won over entirely, especially considering I'm playing great games for the first time (Half Life 2) and replaying old favorites (TIE Fighter, Jedi Knight) but I'll make a little time for this; worse case scenario, it just gives me more fodder to throw out into this thread.
Perhaps you will change your mind after you actually play through freespace 2.

Also, if you still cant get FS2 to run, you might want to try some SCP builds intstead of the original .exe
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
hurleybird said:
Keep twisting things however you want, I'm defending freespace, a good game,...
First of all if it was as great a game as you keep saying it wouldn't need defending. It would have sold millions of copies and there would have been a Freespace 3 and so on. Freespace was never ever able to go toe to toe with any of the WC installments. Take a look at the advertisements for it back when it was first released. Did they tote intricate plots? Did they promise fantastic AI? Great Wingmen personalities? No...all they talked about was pretty graphics and BIG ships. On this, Freespace delivered. It gave pretty graphics for it's day and massive ships. Unfortunately it delivered little else. I own both Freespace games and of course WCP. I've played all the games completely through. I've played WCP some 5 times through. I've never been tempted once to replay either of the Freespace games. I enjoyed the gameplay of Freespace but the complete lack of anything other than some decent gameplay mechanics makes it not worth revisiting. Basically both Freespace games were about as advanced as the combat simulator from Wing Commander 1. Neat...but what Wing Commander offered as a little side trick was the whole basis of the Freespace games. Wing commander offered an entire world!
 

Paddybhoy

Rear Admiral
First of I want to say that I'm a WC'er, the CIC was the first online community I joined and I still consider it to be the best. I ave never posted on a freespace board, to me Freespace is just a good game with a few faults. Wing Commander is so much more than Freespace, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly say that Prophecy is a better game Freespace1 because Freespace does have more variation in its missions (I'm only comparing prophecy and freespace 1, thats all)
P>S> i only ever play prophecy with nightmare difficulty on.

But, surpruse surprise, a unique game element has completely thrown off the guy complaining about how there are no unique game elements

I never said that mission was unique, I said it was well done and memorable. when I compare the two missions in question I just can't see past freespace winning. In the Freespace mission you have to frantically scan some cargo containers (you have the hold the container in your gunsight for about 3/4 seconds) whilst your wingmen get torn to shreds by an enemy that you can't hurt, cant see with radar and cut to to peaces with a few shots. In prophecy you and Stilleto take on a few bugs, waste them and then do some flybys on some dozen odd bhoys. That is how I genuinely see it, i'm not deliberatley underdescribing the details of prophecy's game play,it just doesn't have that much depth to it.

The escort missions in prophecy are in my opinion very weak in comparison to Freespace. For one thing I only consider the swacs mission to be a 'true' escort mission and that is marginal at best, you only have to protect one swacs from enemies that are attacking and spawning from one direction,its pretty easy. In freespace the escort mission that best showcases the strength of the title is when you are escorting a convoy of refugees to a jump node, in this mission you can issue pretty complex commands to multiple flight wings to counter multiple attacks from multiple directions, another good point is that the convoy is slowly moving towards its destination, this is very effective in adding to the tension of the mission. In prophecy you have only one convoy escort, and you don't even get the chance to do it because the bugs destroy it as you jump in thereby making it another 'destroy everything mission'

I like prophecy but to may of its missions are too similar, I love flying with stileeto and hearing maniac on the com trying to sound like a responsible leader and like flying with the kitties against a bug carrier and cruiser. But I also like being challenged by a game i like having to use my brain and prophecy doesn't do that.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
hurleybird said:
Perhaps you will change your mind after you actually play through freespace 2.
I'll be the first to admit that I didn't play FS2 for long, so maybe I missed something. I'll also freely admit that the reason I didn't play it for long is because I didn't like it.

It's not like I want to come in here and bash the game just because - I bash it because of my experience with it albeit limited.
 

Spertallica

Rear Admiral
I don't even know why I'm bothering, seeing as any difference of opinion about the merits or faults of WCP or FS/FS2 that is out of the party line is responded to with ad hominem attacks on the poster-

e.g.

(quoting LeHah) Originally Posted by hurleybird
You also seem to consider yourself free to call the entire freespace community stupid... more flame-baiting.


When one person says it, its stupid. When many people agree with it, its truth.

Be warry of idiots in large numbers.
They're about convincing everyone *else* that Freespace isn't worth their time -- that the people raging about it being the best game ever are fan blinded idiots and not a group with a legitimate opinion. (Quoting Loaf)
Good, you are simpleton jerk only!(quoting Ghost)
Granted, I know this is a WC dedicated forum, but if the lot of you seriously want to entertain actual debate (that's possibly even constructive for the space sim genre!), then at least at least use logic to defend your position instead of stereotype, and maintain at least a civil level of respect for other posters who aren't regulars to this forum. FS fans aren't all idiots, just like WC fans aren't so delusional that they can't admit fault with their own favorite games.

In response to Quarto's post earlier today, I offer the following responses-

The Vasudan thing, to me, was meaningless - ooh, an enemy we've been fighting for decades. I should hate them... but why? It's the first time I've ever seen. I don't give a shit. Just one encounter with the Kilrathi in WCP was worth more than the entire Vasudan subplot in Freespace, because when you saw a Kilrathi fighter on your wing it meant something to you; you had an emotional investment in the Kilrathi. You didn't with the Vasudans... and really, the way the series was going, you still wouldn't have cared about the Vasudans five games later. What do we know about the Vasudans, after two games? You mentioned something about the Kilrathi culture making the earlier games in the series more interesting. That's true - and so I ask you, why is it that after two games and one addon, the Vasudans are still just generic aliens with no culture and no personality? How do you justify using the Vasudans as an example of something that FS did better than WCP, when anybody can immediately see that the Vasudans were just as faceless as the rest of the FS cast?
First, in all fairness, they (the Vasudans) weren't fleshed out as much as they could have been- however, there were references to their culture throughout the game. While it doesn't mean as much to one to fight along side them as the Kilrathi, how possibly could it? Taking one's personal attachment to Wing Commander aside, the Kilrathi have three entire prequel games dedicated solely to fighting them- of course there is going to be more attachment. However, the Kilrathi involvement in WCP arises to no more then a subplot at best outside of the initial prophecy starting the game- IIRC, they virtually never fight on your wing outside of one mission branch, and never offer you any really meaningful support or plot development outside of the intro and that particular mission branch in-game . FS and FS2 have you fighting alongside the Vasudans, and even serving off a Vasudan ship in FS2 for a while- they arguably feel like part of the war effort, as opposed to a reference thrown in for the sake of the reference (which is how the Kilrathi feel to me (my opinion) in WCP). Without the preceding WC games, the Kilrathi would arguably have less meaning in WCP then the Vasudans do in FS2.

In your opinion - but only in yours. We're not talking about a space sim market in general. My only question is - if people loved FS1, why didn't they buy FS2? If you like a particular game, and a sequel comes out, your decision to buy or not to buy this sequel is not affected by what's happening with the rest of the genre. If you are seriously suggesting that FS fans decided not to buy FS2 because the space sim market had fallen through, you are grossly insulting the intelligence of FS fans.

So, having established that, we must come to the obvious truth - only about forty thousand FS1 players actually liked the game enough to buy a sequel. Nobody else cared. That's how memorable Freespace was.
I am talking about the space sim market in general as well as to the merits of FS1 and 2. Simply because a game doesn't sell more units during the selling cycle of another product in its franchise doesn't mean the game (or the franchise) is garbage. I argue that most gamers who bought FS1 (and WCP for that matter) are casual gamers, not hardcore fans of the respective games. If the casual gamer got bored with the then current generation of space flight simulators because they simply offered more of the same gameplay of previous space flight simulators with no real innovation (and I would fault both WCP and FS1 of this), why would they bother to spend money on a sequel, even if the sequel tried to render the some of the gameplay shortcomings of the previous games? I mean honestly, I don't know if all of you are old enough to remember the Streets of Rage or Double Dragon type side scroller beat 'em ups, but I was a big fan of those games in my youth, and still am today... but why did they die out? It's not because the casual gamer thought the new games of that genre were garbage, it's because as a gameplay experience, they didn't offer anything new. I mean, how can one justify doling out 50 bucks for a game with prettier graphics, but exactly the same gameplay? Besides, if you want to argue that people not buying something in a franchise = a franchise being garbage, it would imply that Wing Commander is garbage seeing as the last WC product released to the general public was WCM, and that resulted in a multi-million dollar loss. I don't agree with that premise, but I am willing to argue that if WC is to be successful again, it needs to borrow a step from FS2 and focus on making compelling, innovative, and tactical (read- far more unscripted) game play, getting away from "Go on a 3 point patrol, blasting a stationary (and lightly armed (see below)) destroyer, cruiser, and related fighter contingents with just you and your wingman." That worked in the early 90's due to limitations in technology and because spaceflight simulation at that time was a novel experience, however, neither justification holds true now.

So what did FS2 do right (or at least better) that WCP didn't, IMO?

Huh? So, you mean to tell me that capships in WCP never shot back at the player? They never launched fighters, or capship missiles? They never directly threatened friendly capships? They did all of these things - so your argument is just empty rhetoric.
I wish this was empty rhetoric. It's not. I can count the number of times I remember dealing with capship missiles in all WC games on one hand. When you deal with fighter launching capships in WC, they launch in waves (if at all) depending on whether you've killed what's out there. WCP ships certainly fire back at the player and his wingmen- but, like in all games but arguably WC2, they are very unthreatening in and of themselves, because they just don't have the armament to repel fighter attack effectively. WC1, 3, and 4 ships are even worse- one heavy fighter strafes a destroyer, and you might as well kiss it good bye. The reason I exempt WC2 is that the AMG's, when used tactically and used effectively, actually are pretty dangerous to heavy fighters and bombers (think the last mission of SO1 when two Fraltha are covering each other). In most instances when a capship does something that doesn't involve sitting there and getting shot at in WC, it isn't done in game, it's done through a cinematic. That's why the Midway TAG missile is disingenuous, you fire what is basically an ImRec at a transport, and then are treated to a cutscene. In FS2, the TAGs are used in a fire support role, inside a nebula you can't see jack in- you don't need to use them to win, but you can if you want to- which is a really cool gameplay feature. If there is a capship battle in WCP, it's done by cinematic, as the engine isn't even built to accomodate capship battles. In WC, friendly capships are liabilities 95% of the time- and the 5% is when you feel like it would be more fun to let a destroyer or carrier kill the light fighter that is chasing you around. In FS2, often the capships function as an asset to whatever your mission happens to be, be it reconing a nebula, escorting a convoy, or attacking another capship... and I would submit that this contributes to tactical gameplay.

Does WCP have some neat missions? Sure, there are a couple good ones- but often the missions are so scripted or cinematized it takes away from the gameplay experience, IMO (Honestly though, this is more a sin of Starlancer then of WCP). I think as a game player, it's much more rewarding and offers much more replay-ability to make it so most scenarios aren't scripted to always reach a certain outcome in how objects (like capships) behave. While FS2 does use scripting, it is much less obvious, and the engine seems to allow for some pretty decent Capship AI (a capship can actually function as an entity, as opposed to a virtual structure) and mission interaction.

Uh, sure... yeah. Taking out an enemy capship's anti-capship weaponry so friendly capships can take it out has so much more meaning than taking out an enemy capship's anti-fighter weaponry so friendly bombers can take it out.

(yes, that was sarcasm - the two situations are identical)
Except that it allows another layer of depth in the gameplay that WCP doesn't allow- imagine doing a wild weasel, and then defending both friendly bombers and an attacking friendly capship from enemy bombers during a fleet mission. In that sense, it's not identical, it shows that WCP has less gameplaying depth then FS2.

Your argument is so weak that even you don't know what you're talking about. What do you mean, "outside of WC2"? Capships in WC2 did the exact same things they did in WCP. And the argument about "blowing up the same capital ship every single time a capship is involved" applies to WC2 even more than to any other WC game. How does a Ralatha fight? With flak and AMG guns. How do you destroy it? With two torpedoes. How does a Fralthra fight? With flak and AMG guns. How do you destroy it? With two torpedoes. How does a Kilrathi supply depot fight? With flak (no AMG guns - it's deficient). How do you destroy it? With two torpedoes. How does a Confed Gilgamesh fight? With flak and AMG guns. How do you destroy it? With two torpedoes.
You're right in that torpedo runs are the same in WC2 for the most part, but there are some notable exceptions to capship behavior in WC2 that isn't present in WCP, which is why I say there is an arguable case that WC2's capship attacks aren't so monotonous. Aside from mentioning the Fraltha dual coverage mission in SO1, other capships assist you in certain missions, and not all capships are invulnerable to gun attack- you can still take corvettes and transports with guns. Additionally, some of the Capships will even chase you while firing AMG's in WC2- they may not be able catch you, but at least it means you have to be a bit more careful in your approaches then in the other WC's. Granted, you can take a corvette in WCP with guns, but WCP corvettes really act like giant fighters, not capships. My ultimate point here, however, is that Capships in WC2 really fight back against you, incoming bombers, and other capships (e.g. the Concordia shooting down Grikaths, the Tell fighting a Ralatha, etc.), they don't just keel over and take it from virtually any fighter attack like most WC capships.

Anyway, this is all my opinion, and you can disagree with it all you want, but do so with logic, not personal attacks.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
hurleybird said:
Quarto, I wasn't questioning LOAF's adminship (yeah, thats a made up word) on the basis that he doesen't agree wih me; rather because he's flame baiting. Just look at his post above mine, no mod or admin should ever resort to such rude dribble. Anyhow, I'm busy now, but I will make sure to finish a response later.
Rude dribble? Look, I've had many debates with LOAF - as well as many, many arguments which weren't pretty at all. So, I've seen LOAF being rude - and this ain't it.

Look back through the last three pages of this thread. How did this start? LOAF stated his opinion, saying that Freespace was trash. He didn't present his opinion any differently to the way you presented yours. I mean, how is "freespace had more variation and imagination in its mission structure" different to "Freespace was trash"? The only difference I can perceive is that LOAF actually had the decency to capitalise the name of a game that he hates, while you didn't bother capitalising the name of a game you like. Other than that, and the obvious fact that the two opinions presented oppose each other, there is no difference between the two statements.

But *you* then go on a tirade, telling LOAF that *he* is a horrible admin... because he thinks Freespace was trash. And then *you* have the gall to tell him that unlike his opinion, *yours* is somehow unbiased... which would, presumably, make it a fact - so where the hell do you get off, whining about LOAF arrogantly presenting his opinion as cold hard fact? *You* are the one doing that.

And here's the great part - after starting all this, after telling LOAF that he's a horrible admin (because he has an opinion different to yours!)... you then go on to tell LOAF that *he* insults people and acts like a child, instead of presenting his arguments.

So, let me make this perfectly clear, in case you don't feel like looking at the past few pages of this thread (and who can blame you? If I'd acted as stupidly as you, I'd certainly be embarrassed to go back and read what I wrote). *LOAF* presented his arguments about why he thinks Freespace is bad three pages ago. In one of the posts where you attempted to disprove his points, he said that Freespace was trash - which seems a fair enough thing to say, given that he had spent the previous few posts explaining why he thinks Freespace was bad. *You* used this as an excuse to start jumping all over him, basically turning an interesting debate into yet another boring "help, the admins are picking on me" whine-fest.

This routine stops now. I don't have the power to ban you - but I'm pretty sure that you're well on your way to achieving a ban. If you don't want that to happen, you have two options. Number one, you can simply stop posting in this thread altogether. And number two, if you think you can control yourself, you can continue explaining your opinion on Freespace and WCP, without returning to, or even mentioning, any of your previous idiocy. If you post even one more word about how horribly LOAF mistreats you... or if you even try to respond to this post, I'm going to close the thread, and I'm going to ask one of the admins to temporarily ban you. That's a relatively idle threat, because I don't know if they'll agree with me, so I don't know the ultimate outcome - but I have a feeling I know which way this would go.



...Now then. I don't want to close this thread - I happen to think this topic is worth discussing, even if it generally leads to this kind of stuff. So, I'd rather appreciate it if everyone could get back to the subject. And by that, I mean I'd like to see more posts like this last one by Spertallica (except for those first two paragraphs :p), and less posts like those by hurleybird.
 

Paddybhoy

Rear Admiral
One of the greatest games of all time? You're delusional - Freespace is Wing Commander with the serial numbers rubbed off... and they managed to break the radio while they were busy doing that.

There is *nothing* original to Freespace. It is a generic space sim with new graphics adequate to whatever year it came out. In order to be great a game has to bring something to the table - Freespace didn't do that at all.
So what new things do Prophecy bring to the table? and how exacltly did freespace copy prophecy? I really am curious, I mean it I'm not being sarcy
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
Spertallica said:
Granted, I know this is a WC dedicated forum, but if the lot of you seriously want to entertain actual debate (that's possibly even constructive for the space sim genre!), then at least at least use logic to defend your position instead of stereotype, and maintain at least a civil level of respect for other posters who aren't regulars to this forum.
Respect is to be earned, not given freely. I still struggle with that concept at times; I've been to this forum for a while and "payed my dues" but that doesn't mean I've earned the respect of the regulars here. That has to be done over time.

This aside - hurleybird walked into that joke by himself. If Im going to mention to beware of stupidity in numbers - and then you ask me if I believe such things, of course I'm going to turn it on you.

Spertallica said:
FS fans aren't all idiots
Sadly - and this is me being plain honest - I've never, ever run across anything BUT stupid FS fans. Maybe I've had bad luck or maybe its only the idiots that come here to another forum to fan the flames of needless internet forum assaults, but thats where my experiences begin and end with Freespace fans. It use to happen pretty often, too, so even if there are a lot of intelligent FS fans, theres also apparently a lot of stupid ones too.

Spertallica said:
just like WC fans aren't so delusional that they can't admit fault with their own favorite games.
Me and LOAF disagree on Secret Weapons Over Normandy. He doesn't like it because it certainly doesn't live up to SWoL, which is very true and because its as historically inacurate as humanly possible, which is very, very true. However, I like it like a stupid popcorn movie (War Of The Worlds stupid, not Pearl Harbor stupid). But because me and him disagree on this doesn't mean I have to shove my opinion down his throat at every given moment. We agree to disagree on the subject.

However, the whole Freespace thing has been a livewire here for a number of reasons. Mostly that it seems that Freespace fans come here to tell us what a great game FS is compared to Item X. I mean, thats well and good, but then you try to sell us the notion that FS is one of the greatest games of all time and yadda yadda yadda and someone disagrees with them, citing facts, points and references.

Generally, the common FS fan will reply to this in the fashion of "No, you're wrong!"

This has been repeated many, many times. LOAF has been through it many, many times. I've witnessed it almost every time. And you know what? Its the same song and dance, the same crappy waltz that begins with someone who doesn't know when to shut up because opinion isn't fact and ends with someone getting banned and we all go on with our lives.

Are you this person? Please prove us wrong.
 

hurleybird

Rear Admiral
Maj.Striker said:
First of all if it was as great a game as you keep saying it wouldn't need defending. It would have sold millions of copies and there would have been a Freespace 3 and so on. Freespace was never ever able to go toe to toe with any of the WC installments. Take a look at the advertisements for it back when it was first released. Did they tote intricate plots? Did they promise fantastic AI? Great Wingmen personalities? No...all they talked about was pretty graphics and BIG ships. On this, Freespace delivered. It gave pretty graphics for it's day and massive ships. Unfortunately it delivered little else. I own both Freespace games and of course WCP. I've played all the games completely through. I've played WCP some 5 times through. I've never been tempted once to replay either of the Freespace games. I enjoyed the gameplay of Freespace but the complete lack of anything other than some decent gameplay mechanics makes it not worth revisiting. Basically both Freespace games were about as advanced as the combat simulator from Wing Commander 1. Neat...but what Wing Commander offered as a little side trick was the whole basis of the Freespace games. Wing commander offered an entire world!
The plain truth is, interplay sucks at marketing there games. Freespace 2, planescape torment (which, according to the gamespy forums, is the secound coming of christ) and descent 3 all got rave reviews and were adorred by fans, yet were horrible commercial flops. That doesen't make them bad games though .

On the other hand, Micrsoft and EA spend millions of dollars on advertisement. Look at madden and halo... they arent anywhere near the quality of wing commander (except IMNSHO prophecy) or the freespace games, yet they rake in far more money.
 

Spertallica

Rear Admiral
I stand by everything I said in my previous post. FS2 certainly has it's faults when compared to WC series as a whole (e.g. weaker dogfights compared to earlier WC games, lack of character interaction, and a backstory that could have used a whole lot more fleshing out), as does WCP compared to FS2 (see my post about capships, mission scripting, and attempts at innovation above). I don't claim that FS2 is the end all, be all of space flight sims. However, I do think that in terms of gameplay, it had the right idea- offer the player more of a chance to be involved in a fully interactive combat environment that wasn't so heavily reliant on in-game event cinematics (e.g. the Midway firing it's plasma gun at the enemy fleet, or the same Yamato torpedo cutscenes you had to watch
every time
one attempted certain missions in Starlancer), obvious scripting, and stationary targets that don't offer appreciable resistance.

Last, regardless of what Hurleybird did, it doesn't give you the right to trash everyone else who enjoyed FS. Additionally, I don't think asking to be treated with a civil level of respect is unreasonable, despite being a new poster to this forum.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Now then, finally something to respond to.

Spertallica said:
(that's possibly even constructive for the space sim genre!),
...The very reason why I haven't closed this thread already ;).

First, in all fairness, they (the Vasudans) weren't fleshed out as much as they could have been- however, there were references to their culture throughout the game. While it doesn't mean as much to one to fight along side them as the Kilrathi, how possibly could it? Taking one's personal attachment to Wing Commander aside, the Kilrathi have three entire prequel games dedicated solely to fighting them- of course there is going to be more attachment.
That was a part of my point, though - the Kilrathi had already started getting fleshed out in WC1. They were mostly just evil cats in WC1... but you could already see some development, especially in the two addons. By the time WC2 came along, the Kilrathi had a culture, they were an interesting enemy. And more than that - WC1 had pretty poor AI, right? Yet, I remember my hands shaking when I first saw Khajja the Fang in my targetter. I remember howling in fury when Bhurak Starkiller escaped me while his wingman killed the damn transport (ironically enough, that's also exactly how the WC1/2 guide describes that mission). I hated that cat. This was already in WC1 - I reacted to these characters the way I did because the game creators had bothered to actually give us some characterisation, by describing them in the manual. This is something that Freespace never did - even after two games and an addon, the Vasudans were faceless and generic, the Shivans were faceless and generic, and, laughably enough, the ending cutscene for FS2 (if the player dies in the last mission, I presume - I've watched the cutscenes, but haven't played the game) actually has some kind of admiral talking about what a great man Alpha One was.

However, the Kilrathi involvement in WCP arises to no more then a subplot at best outside of the initial prophecy starting the game- IIRC, they virtually never fight on your wing outside of one mission branch, and never offer you any really meaningful support or plot development outside of the intro and that particular mission branch in-game .
I disagree. Yes, the Kilrathi show up in very few missions - but their subplot is one of the most meaningful ones in the game. The hero has to deal with some really ugly demons from the past - he has to deal with his father's death, and he has to help Hawk deal with the fact that the war is over. The player can choose to attack the Kilrathi to avenge his father - and in this aspect, the fact that the Kilrathi assistance is relatively meanigless actually works to the game's advantage - by not putting the player in a position where he *needs* the Kilrathi, it allows him to make a crucial choice based purely on roleplaying considerations and his own feelings of what's right and wrong.

How much of a difference would it have made had there been no previous games in the series? In this particular regard, very little. That was the whole point of that subplot - it was there to explain to new players why not everyone in Confed is happy to be flying with wingcats. It's worth noting, that had Alpha One had a father who had been killed by the Vasudans - or even had he simply lost a wingmen who was a good friend of his in combat against them - Freespace could have actually conveyed the feelings of what it's like to ally yourself with someone you've been fighting for decades. But to do that, Freespace would have had to have a story and some characters - which it didn't.

I am talking about the space sim market in general as well as to the merits of FS1 and 2. Simply because a game doesn't sell more units during the selling cycle of another product in its franchise doesn't mean the game (or the franchise) is garbage. I argue that most gamers who bought FS1 (and WCP for that matter) are casual gamers, not hardcore fans of the respective games.
Yes, but that's my point exactly - if the WC series managed to attract hundreds of thousands of faithful fans, and the Freespace series failed to attract even forty thousand (after all, not everyone who bought FS2 were fans), then it's clear that WC is somehow better than Freespace.

I mean, you can argue (obviously) that some aspects of Freespace are better than WCP... but the way I see it, the future of the space-sim genre demands that we endlessly remind ourselves that Freespace was a failure. And if you think it was a great game, then it's even more important for you to try to figure out why it is that nobody else thought so - because that's the million dollar question that will answer why the space-sim genre is dead.


...Needless to say, I have an answer to that question - and it's pretty much what I said above. It's the story, and the characters. Space is a big empty place - it's cold, it's dark, it's boring, and no amounts of flashing lights, huge capships or beam weapons are enough to make it interesting. If I want to play a game where I fly something, I'll buy a flight sim - at least there will be some neato terrain there. If I want to play a game where I kill dozens of enemies, I'll play an FPS. What does that leave for the space-sim? Nothing. Space-sims are not about gameplay. Space-sims are about gameplay wrapped in a storyline. Nobody wants to fly an x-shaped space ship around looking at a bunch of floating crates. But you tell tham that space ship is the famous X-Wing, and those floating crates are vital supplies that you have to steal from Darth Vader's evil Empire... and you've got their attention.

That is what Wing Commander did right. And that is what Freespace never did, mistakenly believing that it could sell purely on gameplay. FS1 sold well enough - it was a new series, and it came out at the same time as WCP. So, inevitably it was compared (and usually won the comparisions) in reviews to WCP, and of course those reviews focussed on the gameplay. But ultimately, those reviews were wrong - they took one element of the game, and claimed based on this one element that the whole package was better. It was a narrow, narrow view which led the makers of FS1 to make a terrible mistake by focussing on questionable gameplay-enhancers in FS2, while ignoring all the stuff that actually mattered. Had a new WC game come out at the same time as FS2, maybe FS2 would have sold more copies, winning over some casual players once again by comparative reviews (since, inevitably, such reviews would focus on the gameplay, arguing that FS2 is better than WCP2 <or whatever> because it's got huuuuge capships and beam weapons!)... but since there was no new WC game coming out, FS2 was left to rot.

If the casual gamer got bored with the then current generation of space flight simulators because they simply offered more of the same gameplay of previous space flight simulators with no real innovation (and I would fault both WCP and FS1 of this), why would they bother to spend money on a sequel, even if the sequel tried to render the some of the gameplay shortcomings of the previous games?
Quite, quite right. And yet, they bought the addons to WC1, which certainly didn't innovate. Then they bought the addons to WC2 (which also didn't innovate). Then they bought WC4, which not only didn't innovate, but actually got i]worse[/i] than WC3 in terms of gameplay. All those uninnovative games had a great storyline. And you know what game the people didn't buy? WC Academy.

Also, did WCP really not innovate? I think it was one of the most revolutionary games in the WC series. But here's the paradox - I think one of the things that make it revolutionary is the fact that nobody noticed how revolutionary it was. Because the revolution took place under the surface, where only deranged modders like me could fully understand it. The revolution lies in the fact that WCP was amazingly, perfectly scriptable, that you could literally do anything with it. And I think it is to the credit of the game's designers that they didn't vaunt these amazing new capabilities - I think it's to their credit that they didn't put big signs on the box about the engine's amazing scriptability, the way the FS2 designers had decided to advertise their engine's amazing new beam weapons. WCP simply took the scripting and made use of it to produce a great game where the gameplay was perfectly integrated with the storyline. And there are many other examples of this kind of thing. WCP's greatness lies in things unadvertised, things seemingly insignificant - things that, taken together, add up to the most perfect Wing Commander game ever. The cockpits, the background radio chatter, the way in which missions are integrated into the campaign (as opposed to FS, where the campaign is simply a bunch of unconnected missions in a sequence - not in terms of storyline, but in terms of the internal game logic), everything.

Besides, if you want to argue that people not buying something in a franchise = a franchise being garbage, it would imply that Wing Commander is garbage seeing as the last WC product released to the general public was WCM, and that resulted in a multi-million dollar loss.
Well, the WC Movie was a relative failure as a movie... but it sold more tickets than WCP (...or Freespace) had ever sold copies.

That having been said, this wasn't exactly my argument. Commercial failure doesn't necessarily mean that a franchise is bad. I can think of several really wonderful franchises that didn't catch the eye of the public. But the ability of a franchise to attract a following of hardcore fans - that's much more meaningful. However bad the WC Movie was, there was hundreds of thousands of fans who went to see it just because it was WC. Most of these fans subsequently bought the movie on DVD or video, even though they mostly hated it - they still bought it, because it was WC. This didn't happen for Freespace - it's not just that the game was a commercial failure. It's more about the fact that its hardcore fandom never materialised.

I don't agree with that premise, but I am willing to argue that if WC is to be successful again, it needs to borrow a step from FS2 and focus on making compelling, innovative, and tactical (read- far more unscripted) game play, getting away from "Go on a 3 point patrol, blasting a stationary (and lightly armed (see below)) destroyer, cruiser, and related fighter contingents with just you and your wingman." That worked in the early 90's due to limitations in technology and because spaceflight simulation at that time was a novel experience, however, neither justification holds true now.
Well, I guess I'm repeating myself now, but I would argue the exact opposite. Freespace 2 is an extremely important lesson for the developers of future space-sims - but it's a lesson in what shouldn't be done. If the next WC game focusses on innovative gameplay, I fear that it will be a disaster (...but I'll still buy it, which is more than can be said for FS3 :p), because a space-sim without a storyline is doomed to the bargain bin.

Also, I think you overestimate FS2's tactical, "unscripted" gameplay. Yes, a lot of stuff was scripted in WCP... but in WCP, you could finish a mission in different ways, and the game would accept the consequences. In FS, there is only ever one way to finish a mission. WCP tells the player, "you're in a room, there are places where you won't be able to step, but there are three exits out of the room". FS responds, "you're in a room. You can do whatever you want, but in the end, there's only one exit, and in order to reach it, you have to way exactly along this very narrow path". Which one of the two games is really more scripted? I'll give you a hint - the one that's not called WCP :). Because even if the script is unwritten, even if you leave it up to the player to write the script (under the penalty of infinite mission restarts) - it's still a script.

I wish this was empty rhetoric. It's not. I can count the number of times I remember dealing with capship missiles in all WC games on one hand. When you deal with fighter launching capships in WC, they launch in waves (if at all) depending on whether you've killed what's out there.
Well, you're right about one thing - such missions certainly were a minority. Most missions were fairly uncomplicated affairs.

...But this was intentional, and I would argue that it was good. Remember that bombing run on Kilrah in WC3? Great mission (err, actually, I personally didn't like it - but for the sake of argument, we'll call this unique mission great :)). Now imagine if every WC3 mission was a bombing run like the one on Kilrah. Doesn't sound so great any more.

Any reasonable game designer will tell you, a game should consist mainly of routine stuff - that's what makes the special stuff special. This is another thing that Freespace did wrong. Back when TIE Fighter came out, everyone was amazed by this great new feature of being able to call in reinforcements or a rearmament shuttles... but Freespace made the mistake of assuming that this was a great feature to copy everywhere. And it's not - had X-Wing 2 come out a year after TIE Fighter, it would not have included that ability. Why? Because that particular feature had been added to TIE Fighter not to innovate, but to get across the idea of the Empire's infinite resources. And, of course, for this reason every once in a while there were missions where reinforcements were not available - and they were memorable because you'd gotten used to such luxuries.

Again, the designers of Freespace didn't understand this idea - they thought that this was simply a great feature that, in and of itself, makes the game better. They didn't understand that it had been used in TIE Fighter for a specific purpose. It's the same way with every other aspect of this "tactical" combat stuff you mention. None of it is actually good in and of itself. Having capships clash once or twice in a game is good, because such events are memorable. But having them clash in every second mission is bad, because not only do you make the event less memorable, but you also make the player feel useless (oh, good, the capship will do the work for me).

WCP ships certainly fire back at the player and his wingmen- but, like in all games but arguably WC2, they are very unthreatening in and of themselves, because they just don't have the armament to repel fighter attack effectively.
In that case, you have my utmost respect - because I, personally, have lost count of the number of times I was shot down by a capship's guns and missiles in WCP and SO :).

In most instances when a capship does something that doesn't involve sitting there and getting shot at in WC, it isn't done in game, it's done through a cinematic. That's why the Midway TAG missile is disingenuous, you fire what is basically an ImRec at a transport, and then are treated to a cutscene.
...See above about special events vs. everyday events. Should game programmers really be forced to spend their precious time making a special feature that will only be used once (and rightly so)? The answer, of course, is no - not when they can spend their time making the game bug-free.

If there is a capship battle in WCP, it's done by cinematic, as the engine isn't even built to accomodate capship battles.
Sure it is - when they need one. WCP didn't require capship battles, because the game was specifically about a lone carrier cut off from the rest of the fleet. And carriers, by definition, don't go head-to-head with other capships.

In WC, friendly capships are liabilities 95% of the time- and the 5% is when you feel like it would be more fun to let a destroyer or carrier kill the light fighter that is chasing you around.
I think 95% is an overstatement, but yes, this is true to a significant degree.

...Because the game is called Wing Commander.

Ask yourself this - in WWII (the inspiration for the WC series), when exactly were capships ever not liabilities to airplane pilots? Pilots were always either defending them, or attacking them. In battles like Midway, where no visual contact was ever made between surface ships of the opposing sides, what possible benefit could your average Wildcat pilot draw from a capship?


In FS2, often the capships function as an asset to whatever your mission happens to be, be it reconing a nebula, escorting a convoy, or attacking another capship... and I would submit that this contributes to tactical gameplay.

Except that it allows another layer of depth in the gameplay that WCP doesn't allow- imagine doing a wild weasel, and then defending both friendly bombers and an attacking friendly capship from enemy bombers during a fleet mission. In that sense, it's not identical, it shows that WCP has less gameplaying depth then FS2.
I don't think, personally, that this is extra depth - it sounds to me like you're just throwing more stuff at the player and claiming the mission is more complicated because of it.

Regardless of whether this is extra depth or not, however, I feel obliged to point out that WCP is not deficient in this regard - there may not be any missions where the Midway helps you take out an enemy capship (except for the plasma gun mission), but there certainly are missions where enemy corvettes work together with enemy bombers and fighters to take out the Midway. There are also missions in SO where enemy cruisers work together with enemy bombers and fighters to destroy a space station.

Aside from mentioning the Fraltha dual coverage mission in SO1, other capships assist you in certain missions, and not all capships are invulnerable to gun attack- you can still take corvettes and transports with guns.
You greatly overestimate WC2 - all those missions where capships assist you, the friendly capships are actually invulnerable. WC2's scripting capabilities were extremely limited - but they were used in every capship battle.

(and as for taking out corvettes and transports with guns, there are corvettes in WCP and SO that you can take out with guns)
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Keep twisting things however you want, I'm defending freespace, a good game, not whining about you disagreeing with me. For the record, I find nothing wrong with you having a different opinion. When you have to voice your opinion in a rude and childish manner without any support that is another matter altogether.
No, you aren't - it's been a day and half a dozen sets of posts since you've said a damned thing about Freespace. You fell into an internet trap -- you're whining about how oppressed you are instead of actually having any sort of comeback about Freespace. For the next time we have to do this, here's what happened: I made you angry so you gave up on your argument. See how that worked?

Now you're beating aruond the bush. Sure, you've put in good input on the prophecy end of things, thats to be expected of course -- you're a wc guru. However, you haven't said anything in the least bit constructive about the main topic, freespace. Instead, you insult people and act like a child.
The repeated 'childish' comments are uncalled for -- not beyond what I'd expect from a Freespace fan, but uncalled for none the less. I believe my claim was (and remains) that there isn't anything worthwhile in Freespace -- it innovates nothing. It's hard to quantify nothing... but I've certainly responded to various points about that specific claim, such as pointing out the fallacy behind the whole 'mysterious Shivans' claim.

I never accused you of any of those things, and you don't need to do either of those things to be guilty of flame baiting. Why you think that not going onto the HLP or starting a freespace thread gives you moral authority, or why you would need said authority in the first place, is very questionable.
You need moral authority in order not to be trolling -- I'm posting to my Wing Commander message board about how much I like Wing Commander, and I've never gone out of my way to travel to anyone elses home to attack their topic -- that's a clear moral authority to counteract your claim that I could be "baiting" anything.

I will. And by the way, stereotyping is wrong.
No, it isn't. You're confusing a high school diversity lesson with reality -- stereotyping is *exactly* how human experience works. It's the reason people don't go around sticking their hands in fireplaces -- they figured out the property of fire at one point and have stereotyped all similar situations. (The expression you're looking for is that *negative* stereotyping is wrong.)

I didn't threaten you. And you think you can defend why you had to start flame baiting? I can't wait to hear this...
I don't think I'm baiting anyone -- I don't think it's physically possible in our context.

Here's your quote: "Insulting both the game and the community is a fastest way to get more HLP 'assholes' posting in these boards." If you disagree with me, you're in trouble! Very mature.

I never said that mission was unique, I said it was well done and memorable. when I compare the two missions in question I just can't see past freespace winning. In the Freespace mission you have to frantically scan some cargo containers (you have the hold the container in your gunsight for about 3/4 seconds) whilst your wingmen get torn to shreds by an enemy that you can't hurt, cant see with radar and cut to to peaces with a few shots. In prophecy you and Stilleto take on a few bugs, waste them and then do some flybys on some dozen odd bhoys. That is how I genuinely see it, i'm not deliberatley underdescribing the details of prophecy's game play,it just doesn't have that much depth to it.
If you go after the bugs first (especially on Nightmare), you'll lose the mission. Maybe that's why you're having trouble.

The escort missions in prophecy are in my opinion very weak in comparison to Freespace. For one thing I only consider the swacs mission to be a 'true' escort mission and that is marginal at best, you only have to protect one swacs from enemies that are attacking and spawning from one direction,its pretty easy.
Well, no offense, but you're just an idiot -- there's literally two dozen escort missions in Prophecy, involving defending bomber squadrons, defending transport ships, defending the Midway, defending other fighters and so on. If you think for a minute that anyone will accept making a horrible arbitrary decision that only one mission is a *true* escort mission is a legitimate criticism about escort missions in the game then you are sadly mistaken.

In freespace the escort mission that best showcases the strength of the title is when you are escorting a convoy of refugees to a jump node, in this mission you can issue pretty complex commands to multiple flight wings to counter multiple attacks from multiple directions, another good point is that the convoy is slowly moving towards its destination, this is very effective in adding to the tension of the mission. In prophecy you have only one convoy escort, and you don't even get the chance to do it because the bugs destroy it as you jump in thereby making it another 'destroy everything mission'
Actually, you have to escort the TCS Redeemer back to the Midway through multiple points of enemies in that mission. Don't let the fact that Prophecy actually has some semblance of an emotional story - the Porter and the Barkley blowing up - make you think the entire mission is scripted.

Don't worry, I know you'll cut this out if you bother to reply -- look what happened to that hilarious bit where I listed a specific Prophecy mission to counter each 'original' Freespace element you listed.

I'm not sure why you're hung up on escort missions -- but Wing Commander *invented* the damned things and sure as hell taught everyone to hate them. Nothing you just jerked off about Freespace doing in a convoy escort is original in the least -- hell, it's all in the *original* Wing Commander's Ralari mission.

I like prophecy but to may of its missions are too similar, I love flying with stileeto and hearing maniac on the com trying to sound like a responsible leader and like flying with the kitties against a bug carrier and cruiser. But I also like being challenged by a game i like having to use my brain and prophecy doesn't do that.
Hehe, did you just suggest that Freespace 2 involves using your brain? That's very, very sad -- these are arcade games.

I don't even know why I'm bothering, seeing as any difference of opinion about the merits or faults of WCP or FS/FS2 that is out of the party line is responded to with ad hominem attacks on the poster-
The internet and a catchphrase is a lot like a donkey with a drum set. I'd very much like to find out exactly who it was who took Freshman logic and decided to teach the internet proper the term so as to punch them in the face.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "ad hominem" attacks (in the rare occasion that the internet manages to identify them properly - which this isn't) -- as I already pointed out in a similar thread, if they're good enough for Milton they're sure as hell good enough for LeHah.

Granted, I know this is a WC dedicated forum, but if the lot of you seriously want to entertain actual debate (that's possibly even constructive for the space sim genre!), then at least at least use logic to defend your position instead of stereotype, and maintain at least a civil level of respect for other posters who aren't regulars to this forum. FS fans aren't all idiots, just like WC fans aren't so delusional that they can't admit fault with their own favorite games.
Wing Commander fans were happy to debate this. We cited missions, mythological concepts and talked about the evolution of space sims -- it was Freespace idiots who started raging about the dynamics of the debate instead of making any kind of counter-point.

You have to earn respect -- if it's something we hand out as to any idiot with a gmail address in the interests of being polite, it's not worth a dime in the first place. A heck of a lot of people have earned my respect for arguing wth me -- people like Quarto... they sure as hell didn't get it by whining about how I conduct myself or demanding that I accept their ideas immediately. They made points.

The plain truth is, interplay sucks at marketing there games. Freespace 2, planescape torment (which, according to the gamespy forums, is the secound coming of christ) and descent 3 all got rave reviews and were adorred by fans, yet were horrible commercial flops. That doesen't make them bad games though .

On the other hand, Micrsoft and EA spend millions of dollars on advertisement. Look at madden and halo... they arent anywhere near the quality of wing commander (except IMNSHO prophecy) or the freespace games, yet they rake in far more money.
Interplay doesn't suck at marketing their (!) games -- they were one of the most succesful game companies for many, many years. They didn't do that by not being able to sell products.

What you're citing here isn't some kind of acceptable fact -- it's the last gasp of the faithful, of the fanboy. My game failed? Well, it can't be the games fault -- it must have been... marketing! Every single community in the universe, save our little slice of heaven, does this. FOX cancelled my favorite show because no one was watching it? Well, it must be the vauge and variable concept of *advertising*! You are picking something that cannot be defined and blaming all your problems on it - it's just not the case.

No, dear fans, the giant multi-national corporation that spent millions of dollars developing your favorite product didn't suddenly magically forget how to sell things.

And your Prophecy jab was idiotic. That's what we're debating here -- that kind of off sides crap is horrible and is *exactly* why we hate you people.

So what new things do Prophecy bring to the table? and how exacltly did freespace copy prophecy? I really am curious, I mean it I'm not being sarcy
The OED and I aren't sure what sarcy means.

I'm not sure Prophecy brought anything new to the table -- it's Freespace 2 with characters, seamlessness and a plot. I'd call it the standard bearer, and argue that all the crummy knockoffs completely failed to attain even that standard... but it certainly wasn't the same leap as WC1->WC3 was.

It did some little things -- it helped with the 3D accelerator movement, but it wasn't Wing Commander II and Soundcards. It also proved that you could do high quality FMV on the cheap -- but that ended up not mattering to the future of video games.

Personally, it proved to me that Adam Foshko et. al. were as much responsible for Wing Commander's greatness as Chris Roberts... and I think it premiered a lot of things that would have been important later, had Freespace 2 not broken the world. The 3D engine is magnificent -- and Secret Ops soon proved that you can do some amazing spinoff concepts using it.

A lot of games have 'copied' Wing Commander. You're probably too young to understand what Wing Commander meant, but it was a huge paradigm shift in gaming... WIng Commander was really the first 'modern' computer game -- one that you sold to the mass market instead of just to a market of hobbyists.

A lot of games tried to literally copy Wing Commander: MANTIS, Star Crusader, X-Wing, etc, Some of them had a unique take -- the Star Wars titles especially... most of them didn't. Freespace is a modern example. Star Crusader was a fun game that was absolutely no different from Wing Commander. That's what Freespace is to a longtime Wing Commander fan -- it's Star Crusader, the silly little knockoff with a damn Dralthi on the box and a "BETTER THAN THAT OTHER SPACE SIM!" sticker on the box. It didn't do anything new, and it managed to drop the charm and the style and the class that was assosciated with Wing Commander -- and that's why it's not great. It isn't that it's not good -- some people may enjoy it -- it's that there's nothing special about it. It's a parasite that relies entirely on concepts created and tested by Wing Commander.
 

Paddybhoy

Rear Admiral
Don't worry, I know you'll cut this out if you bother to reply -- look what happened to that hilarious bit where I listed a specific Prophecy mission to counter each 'original' Freespace element you listed.
If you insist, I was actually ignoring them because I can't really remember most of the losing track mission on Prophecy but I'll give it a jolly good go


G'wriss 1 - Convoy Rescue

(or any of the many convoy and battle group escorts you fly in Secret Ops
.)

Yeah but in prophecy theres only one ship, one ship ain't a convoy (its no even a capship), that the bugs don't even bother to target so its pretty much just another dogfight (And why were the transports scripted to be destroyed anyway? I always thought the pelican was a pretty good looking ship,... little overpowered though)



Hriss
ith 5 - Plasma Gun Defense

(or half a dozen others, I just picked one with 'defense' in the title that people frequently have trouble with.)
Thats pretty much just another attack on the midway that involves a small group of enemy fighters not very ambitious or original egh?


Hellespont 1 - Callisto Defense
To be honest I can't even remember playing hellespont, its on the losing track right? So I concede on this ,matter


T'lan Meth 2 - MIA Recovery
One evac pod, being targeted by one ship, with a bunch of other fighters who you can ignore and then fight later, not really pushing the bar is it?
,


H'rekkah 2 - Black Widow Rescue

(You rescue a wing of damaged fighters -- the only difference is that they're flown by people you care about instead of Greek letters.)
This is actually one of my favourite misssions but its just a big furball, not to mention you can't even control your wingman (I know you supposed to be a plebe at this point but I think its a problem with the entire game I mean your supposed to be a wing commander and not even your damn wingmen will obey your orders to withdraw) not to mention that you could single handedly destroy about 30 odd fighters but because one wingman buys it to entire mission gets logged as a failure, not very accurate of war is it? (remember when you went to navpoint and one of them croaked it straight away before you were even in range, man I hated that... but still fun)


G'wriss 2c - Enemy Starship Encounter

(G'wriss 2b and G'wriss 2c literally require the Midway to be damaged to be triggered.)
I just don't think that compares to protecting a damaged leviathan(?) class cruiser against waves of fighters and bombers, the only way the midway gets damaged is by essentially letting the bombers through.

Although Capship encounters are mostly dull, if used properly they can spruce up the action but Prophecy engine is to limited to do that, every mission essentially degenerates into you killing as many bugs as possible in as quick a time as possible, and most of the time it means nothing. You fight well the convoy still gets destroyed, you fight well dallas still dies, No matter what choice you make hawk still dies (and yet you can still see both Hawk and Dallas in later briefings), you can't save blair from being abducted by the bugs etc etc


By the way Quarto good post, alot of stuff you said made sense but I just don't agree with it.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
If you insist, I was actually ignoring them because I can't really remember most of the losing track mission on Prophecy but I'll give it a jolly good go
That's cute, but only one of the missions I listed was on the "losing track".

You've also completely ignored the point: you were whining that Freespace was original because it had X, Y and Z ... and I smeared you by proving that every single type of mission on your list appears in Prophecy. Nothing you've just said has countered that. All I can do is point out horrible inaccuracies with the weird and unrelated points you've made -- you haven't done anything towards proving that these missions don't exist.

Yeah but in prophecy theres only one ship, one ship ain't a convoy (its no even a capship), that the bugs don't even bother to target so its pretty much just another dogfight (And why were the transports scripted to be destroyed anyway? I always thought the pelican was a pretty good looking ship,... little overpowered though)
"Convoy" usually refers to a group of transports... so it's *never* going to mean capital ships.

Your complaint is beyond comprehension -- you think they look good so you don't understand why they were destroyed? They were destroyed to advance the story. (And the note about being overpowered is even more bizarre -- they've got five light caliber lasers. You're wasting electrons and sounding crazy.)

Thats pretty much just another attack on the midway that involves a small group of enemy fighters not very ambitious or original egh?
A Freespace jackass is complaining about something being original? I guess we can repeat the challenege again -- try finding a single damn element of your game that isn't derived directly from Wing Commander.

Even then, Prophecy did have some pretty interesting new elements for capital ship defense... including:

* Dual defense/strike missions, with big panoramic battlefields. Balancing a Midway defense and striking a destroyer group was an impressive show.

* Booster packs -- you can zip out to an inbound strike force... but you can only do it once, and if you plan it poorly you're far away from the next group of attackers. Same deal with swarmers -- instant kill... but pick your targets carefully.

* Corvette torpedo strikes during defense missions.

* Red Mantas. Gosh darn, the Red Manta was brilliant. We're all spoiled by the internet today, but in 1997 the Red Manta was a very well planned surprise. The game very consciously introduces the Manta as the space superiority fighter... and then sneaks in a variant that strips shields down in a defense mission. It's one of those cool, subtle tricks that Wing Commander can manage because everything is integrated so well -- you don't even notice it's happened, and it's so *reasonable* looking back.

To be honest I can't even remember playing hellespont, its on the losing track right? So I concede on this ,matter
You condeded *all* these points, sir, by not replying to them in the context of the debate.

One evac pod, being targeted by one ship, with a bunch of other fighters who you can ignore and then fight later, not really pushing the bar is it?
I'm not sure what you're saying here -- you were looking for an example of a mission with an escape pod.

I'm also not sure what you think the bar is in terms of missions about escape pods -- they have to have seven escape pods instead of one? How does that make sense? This mission was great because it was part of the story, complete with FMV sequences that related directly to it... if it was some kind of generic space crap roundup, it wouldn't have the kind of connection we'd want.

(However, I can tell you what the actual bar in terms of missions about escape pods are -- the Privateer 2 math mission. Freespace will never, ever come close to that.)

This is actually one of my favourite misssions but its just a big furball, not to mention you can't even control your wingman (I know you supposed to be a plebe at this point but I think its a problem with the entire game I mean your supposed to be a wing commander and not even your damn wingmen will obey your orders to withdraw) not to mention that you could single handedly destroy about 30 odd fighters but because one wingman buys it to entire mission gets logged as a failure, not very accurate of war is it? (remember when you went to navpoint and one of them croaked it straight away before you were even in range, man I hated that... but still fun)
You can order your wingmen around -- Wing Commander invented this. They're not going to follow stupid instructions, because they're people and not robots -- Wing Commander invented this, too. Freespace just forgot to steal that part.

And yes, if you FAIL TO MEET THE MISSION REQUIREMENTS, you're going to fail the mission. Anybody can go around killing the enemy by themselves... you can do that in any game. This is an escort mission, if the guys your'e escorting die then you're a damned failure. This is, it would seem, a perfect example of exactly the sort of difficult escort mission you've been jerking off about in this very thread.

(Which begs the question as to what your creepy ideal escort mission is -- you have to protect five transports and seven escape pods... but if you lose them, it's okay because you shot down a bunch of enemy fighters? And whenever Alpha 1 isn't on screen, everyone should be asking: where's Alpha 1?)

I just don't think that compares to protecting a damaged leviathan(?) class cruiser against waves of fighters and bombers, the only way the midway gets damaged is by essentially letting the bombers through.
You don't think the missions about protecting the damaged Midway against waves of fighters and bombers can be compared to 'protecting a damaged leviathan class cruiser against waves of fighters and bombers'? Why is that, exactly? Is it because the ships have different names? Otherwise, I can't figure out what the difference is.

Although Capship encounters are mostly dull, if used properly they can spruce up the action but Prophecy engine is to limited to do that, every mission essentially degenerates into you killing as many bugs as possible in as quick a time as possible, and most of the time it means nothing.
You fight well the convoy still gets destroyed, you fight well dallas still dies, No matter what choice you make hawk still dies (and yet you can still see both Hawk and Dallas in later briefings), you can't save blair from being abducted by the bugs, you can't save him from dying.
This is a story - good games have them.

At least freespace was honest about the lack of choice and they tried to make as good a game as they could (albeit with some crap storytelling).
It's not being "honest about the lack of choice", it just DOESN'T HAVE ANY STORY AT ALL. This is what's wrong with you damn fan boys - you don't understand the game. There's no secret brilliance behind Freespace -- it's a tech demo that forgot to have a plot, not a treatise on the madness of storytelling.

Hell prophecy didn't even have a good storyline.
Prophecy had a *great* storyline.

It does an amazing job of attaching a new set of characters and an entirely new story to the previous mythology -- digging the Nephilim into the Kilrathi backstory, making your character actually connected to an odd little element of Wing Commander I.

Wing Commander Prophecy is in the unusual position of being both a great 'origin story', creating a new set of characters and situations for Wing Commander... and also being a great closing story, putting away the last pieces of the war and giving a fairly romantic conclusion to elements of the first four games. Crossing 'closer' storylines like Hawk's racism and Blair's need to belong in the post-war universe to 'opener' ones like Casey and Zero trying to fill their fathers shoes was great.

What did Alpha 3 do, again?
 
Top