Privateer 2 - part of the WC universe??

Quarto said:
But I'm afraid that in this thread, you've reached post-modernism. And post-modernism is the end of the line - there's just nowhere else to go, except to jump off a cliff. . .

By turning your argument for a particular interpretation of P2's dates into an argument against any interpretation of P2's dates (because we can't be sure of anything!), you've turned this thread into a complete and utter waste of time. That's right, buddy - we have no proof that EA or Origin made this or that decision based on this or that idea. We can't prove that P2's dates are Earth-based. Continuing down that line, you can't prove anything either.

Quarto, I can always count on you to reach for the broader meaning, you’ve overshot it by a fair piece in this case, and maybe fallen off your own cliff, but your heart’s in the right place.:)

No, not postmodernism as such, but the discussion is about interpretation and how we do or should approach canon, our “game” of canon, on this Board.

I’ve referred to a “fault line” between gaming and storytelling, and suggested P2 is interesting in that way because its rather minimal tie-ins to WC tend to beg the question of how it can or should be so interpreted. I think, in short, it challenges us to think more deeply about our approach to canon. But so far, you, LOAF, and I have managed only to demonstrate our disagreements on the specific example of the P2 time line, neither exposing any deeper differences nor finding much common ground for discussion. I think focus is again the problem, so below, for the moment, I take a different tack, zeroing in on only one of LOAF’s replies.

But before that, there is another basis on which to describe the overall issue. Don’t know if this will help you with your focus, but I’m happy to try. In our game of canon, EA is of course the Almighty Storyteller, and what it says, goes. But it never really says enough, and so we get “preoccupied” with how what it just said fits with what it earlier said and how what it didn’t say was nonetheless fairly implied, and so on.

Which is pretty much the same task facing anyone who seeks to understand religious or legal dictates “from on high”. In particular, when the Book of Genesis refers to the “days” of Creation, is that to be interpreted literally or figuratively? What about the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: where “liberty” is not to be deprived without “due process”, are the meanings of those two terms to be found in the original intent of the Framers, the precedents set by courts over the last couple of hundred years (themselves founded on varying grounds), modern sensibilities and mores, or some further “principled” consideration of all three? Difficult, contentious questions, as history shows. But that’s because interpretation is often no easy mental feat.

And toughest of all I daresay when it comes to art. However, I don’t believe we’ve had much cause to explore these “fissures” when it comes to WC’s canon because a lot of the time there is very little room to maneuver within the bounds of the canon; the storylines are pretty well interconnected; time lines are stated and related to specific events, and so forth. But I think P2 presents a more open “arena” for debate, and so a greater opportunity to “compare notes” on what a “valid” interpretation is.

That’s all I’ve ultimately been out to do here. So, no – for anyone who cares to question my bona fides in this thread – I’m not intending to be frivolous or argumentative for the sole sake of argumentation, just seeing to what extent I can raise what is a serious issue within a “not-as-serious” context. (Games are great for that.) Now, if that’s not to someone’s liking, or interest, that’s fine, but the issue is legitimate all the same. So let’s see if we can yet deepen the discussion without only getting stuck in the proverbial mud.

LOAF – I’ll be happy to respond to all your other comments as well, but for the moment, I want to focus on this one (which I’ve divided into three parts), since it appears to encapsulate the range of our disagreement and offers the chance to see if there’s any common ground at all between us. (Others following this thread will probably appreciate that too.)

LOAF said:
I've never seen anyone use A through L for a date.

I understand. But they are so used. And I would expect that, as a general matter, completely unrelated to WC, though the practice is unfamiliar to you, you wouldn’t go so far as to assert it’s nonsensical. Is my expectation wrong?

Now, as to WC, and specifically P2, I’m really not clear on what you have been arguing exactly. Do you regard “37/G/2769 = day/month/year” as an impossible interpretation, an unreasonable interpretation, or on some other basis, an invalid interpretation? Would you have any problem so interpreting it absent the issue of whether the year is a Confederation year?

For myself, seeing the notations as full-blown dates is fine in every respect – a possible, reasonable, and permissible interpretation.

If you want to embrace my dogma, it's as simple as this: unless otherwise contradicted we should take things as they were meant to be taken. This means that we need to think about the early history of the war in The Confederation Handbook, because it needs some explanations in places where it does contradict other established facts -- but it also means that we should leave well enough alone when Privateer 2 did absolutely nothing. We *know* the intention of the people who wrote those references was to include them in our future history -- they've told us that much themselves, and even without that it's the point of any such references.

Okay, that asserts we should approach P2, and any WC game for that matter, with a particular presumption – that what has stood as tradition before – in this case, the use of a single, standard time line – should be assumed to be continued (unless EA expressly says otherwise).

Assuming you’re right about what has been the tradition, no, I do not care for the presumption. I think it’s a bad principle for interpretation because, especially in regard to P2, it forecloses other reasonable interpretations of the given storyline. In all honesty, up to now on this Board, I thought that was the philosophy we operated under – freely proposing any and all logical, if not necessarily mutually compatible, explanations that successfully account for discrete conflicts.

Moreover, why would or should I care to accept on principle or on faith (however you care to phrase it) that P2 takes place precisely 109 years after Prophecy? To me, the whole point of our “game” of canon is to refuse to be satisfied with only what EA expressly tells us, or has expressly done in the past, and instead actively search for and find – exclusively via logical analysis and debate – possible further truths. In other words, I wouldn’t say the point of the exercise is simply to end up in all respects with a single, agreed-upon body of (would-be) canon (which, sure, would be great, except it’s unrealistic), but also, and perhaps more so, to enjoy the process itself, and to that end have as few restrictions as possible on the bounds of our logical creativity. Anyway, that’s been the attraction and fun of it for me.

But your assertion of a presumption implies that you don’t agree with some or all of the foregoing. And it appears P2 has thus exposed some differences in our respective approaches to canon. I’d say I place a greater value on textual interpretation – treating all text equally – than on tradition or original intent, and that you, perhaps, take the opposite approach. And maybe our disagreement runs much deeper than that.

... and sure, we *know* that we can always fall back to your silly "but it's always possible that a year isn't a year!" argument IF IT WERE EVER NEEDED -- but we sure as hell don't apply it for the sake of having an argument and generally discrediting Privateer 2.

No, this is a serious and substantive subject that goes to the heart of how we discuss canon. And no, I certainly don’t see this discussion as discrediting P2, merely facing up to its essential nature as a game – a tabula rasa in the WC universe. Indeed, I think such an assessment is very much to the credit of a community that typically puts reason and logic at the top of the list in discussions of canon.

Now, let’s compare notes. Any room for agreement here? You see our differences as more a matter of degree or of kind? What’s the jazz for you in trying to pin down the canon? Do you, by any chance, object to my calling the pursuit of canon a “game”?
 
Pedro said:
"Too cool"? we're in a forum discussing video games, you're addressing a computer programmer who has been spotted at more than his fair share of sci-fi conventions, what the hell is has coolness got to do with anything?

Easy there, LOAF. It looks like you're hurting his delicate sensibilities.
 
Wow...I ain't got the kind of time to completely read everything posted here. I don't understand how there can be that much of a debate here...

Priv 2 IS a part of the WC universe because it's creators said so. Is it really 109 years separated from WCP? Yes. Why? Because it's creators said so. Why do you feel entitled to say something completely different then what the creators of this licensed intellectual property said? If I created a series of books and then decided to kill all my characters off at the end of a cliffhanger 4th book that's my right, I created it I can do what I please with it. You may not like it, but what I say goes in regards to my creation. The same applies to Origin and the WC universe (or even Star Wars and George Lucas...it's his creation he can do what he darn well pleases with it...regardless of whether we like it). I don't understand why people can't just take words to mean what they mean. There isn't some hidden double meaning behind the text of the game guide...when it says a date...it means that date.
 
Since Privateer 2 was set in 2769 or something like that I don't really see any reason why it would directly interfere with the standard WC timeline, because most of the stuff that we deal with is during the WC1-WCP era. Ultimately, just to reiterate Maj. Striker, the creators have the final say in what, when, and how their creation works and acts. However, we fans have differences in the way we interpret the game and its universe, so constituting a universal theme is easier said than done.
 
well, yes, they (Origin/EA) do have the right. The only thing is that while they said it was part of the WC universe (the Origin FAQ), they don't say anything about the timeline, only that the-trisystem is not part of confed. And they stick in little things like that Talon would kinda make the 109 years thing a little odd, unless someone was having an antiques race that day :)
 
The problem with this whole thread (planet?) is that people feel the need to voice their opinion even when they know opinions don't have anything to do with the subject.

P2 is part of the WC universe...
"I know Origin says so, but I don't agree!"
Well, genius, P2 is still part of the WC universe.

Ignoring that fact won't give you cancer or anything, but it's just stupid to try to convince people that your opinion on the subject should matter more than Origin's.

You can debate anything you want to debate about the game (ie: the dates), but some things just happen to have definite answers (ie: is P2 WC? yes).

P2 might be the weirdest WC game ever (with 109 year old fighters floating around and what not) but that doesn't change the fact that it is WC. :p
 
Well, other-brazillian-ed-in-the-cic, priv one had a far older fighter floating around, ehehehe...

Quick question, out of curiosity... considering that there are humans in the Tri-System for millennia, is there any explanation of how did they get there? I'm not argueing, I'm curious if they are parallel evolved or something.
 
Edfilho said:
Quick question, out of curiosity... considering that there are humans in the Tri-System for millennia, is there any explanation of how did they get there? I'm not argueing, I'm curious if they are parallel evolved or something.

Not really.. I think that's supposed to be intentionally mysterious. They do refer to them as humans, and not just humanoid, which would personally make me lean to some sort of transplantation theory, but there's really not a lot of information on the subject.
 
The Darkening has nothing whatsoever to do with the Wing Commander universe, as someone already mentioned it was a completely seperate game already in development when they decided to tag on Wing commander to the title. It should be totally ignored when it comes to the Wing Commander universe despite featuring Christopher Walken and the lovely Amanda Pays.
 
Origin DID declare it was a Wing Commander title, and so it becomes one. Therefore, you've already been proven wrong - the creator does determine what is or is not canon, in the end... and it was declared 'in the Wing Commander universe' by the folks at Origin/EA.

Finis.
 
That’s all I’ve ultimately been out to do here. So, no – for anyone who cares to question my bona fides in this thread – I’m not intending to be frivolous or argumentative for the sole sake of argumentation, just seeing to what extent I can raise what is a serious issue within a “not-as-serious” context. (Games are great for that.) Now, if that’s not to someone’s liking, or interest, that’s fine, but the issue is legitimate all the same. So let’s see if we can yet deepen the discussion without only getting stuck in the proverbial mud.

So... you're not trying to be argumentative for the sole sake of argumentation, you're just trying to see how a particular argument can go?

LOAF – I’ll be happy to respond to all your other comments as well, but for the moment, I want to focus on this one (which I’ve divided into three parts), since it appears to encapsulate the range of our disagreement and offers the chance to see if there’s any common ground at all between us. (Others following this thread will probably appreciate that too.)

I would certainly like to see you reply to the rest of my points; I find that "I'll get to this later, but here's a summary..." is a pretty common tactic for avoiding various issues brought up in these lengthy debates. (Especially since you didn't just reply with your conlaw issues - you also hit the far less significant alphanumeric dates point.)

I understand. But they are so used. And I would expect that, as a general matter, completely unrelated to WC, though the practice is unfamiliar to you, you wouldn’t go so far as to assert it’s nonsensical. Is my expectation wrong?

Yes, this is an unreasonable expectation for at least two reasons. One, you simply haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. Start out by finding some examples of this practice. Two, though, your claim is that this is a common practice which is recognizable. My claim is that I've never seen it used. Prove to me that I'm a special case - that the average person thinks that using letters instead of numbers for months is a perfectly ordinary practice instead of acting hurt that I don't automatically accept that you're telling the truth.

I'm really tired of working towards this, though, so lets jump straight to the trick - if you prove that this system is 'human', then you are also disproving your initial claim. You first said that the 'weird' dates were proof towards Privateer 2's dating system being unconnected to our own... and now in order to prove that it is a dating system, you say that it *is* a system used today. If you can manage to prove this you will only disprove your original claim that they are inherently alien. (And if you can't, we can't establish that they're dates!)

Now, as to WC, and specifically P2, I’m really not clear on what you have been arguing exactly. Do you regard “37/G/2769 = day/month/year” as an impossible interpretation, an unreasonable interpretation, or on some other basis, an invalid interpretation? Would you have any problem so interpreting it absent the issue of whether the year is a Confederation year?

For myself, seeing the notations as full-blown dates is fine in every respect – a possible, reasonable, and permissible interpretation.

I do not recognize that it is in any way a *given*... furthermore, I claim that the idea that they must be dates falls apart under analysis. I like the idea that they're dates - it's sexy, it's fun to have some solid dates... but I can't honestly sit down and force A to mean January.

Okay, that asserts we should approach P2, and any WC game for that matter, with a particular presumption – that what has stood as tradition before – in this case, the use of a single, standard time line – should be assumed to be continued (unless EA expressly says otherwise).

Assuming you’re right about what has been the tradition, no, I do not care for the presumption. I think it’s a bad principle for interpretation because, especially in regard to P2, it forecloses other reasonable interpretations of the given storyline. In all honesty, up to now on this Board, I thought that was the philosophy we operated under – freely proposing any and all logical, if not necessarily mutually compatible, explanations that successfully account for discrete conflicts.

Moreover, why would or should I care to accept on principle or on faith (however you care to phrase it) that P2 takes place precisely 109 years after Prophecy? To me, the whole point of our “game” of canon is to refuse to be satisfied with only what EA expressly tells us, or has expressly done in the past, and instead actively search for and find – exclusively via logical analysis and debate – possible further truths. In other words, I wouldn’t say the point of the exercise is simply to end up in all respects with a single, agreed-upon body of (would-be) canon (which, sure, would be great, except it’s unrealistic), but also, and perhaps more so, to enjoy the process itself, and to that end have as few restrictions as possible on the bounds of our logical creativity. Anyway, that’s been the attraction and fun of it for me.

But your assertion of a presumption implies that you don’t agree with some or all of the foregoing. And it appears P2 has thus exposed some differences in our respective approaches to canon. I’d say I place a greater value on textual interpretation – treating all text equally – than on tradition or original intent, and that you, perhaps, take the opposite approach. And maybe our disagreement runs much deeper than that.

Well, here's the conlaw issue you alluded to in your reply to Quarto. I think it's a good analogy, because clearly we've been following all the popular methods of constitutional analysis when dealing with Wing Commander.

That said, I don't think there is a huge difference in our philosophies. In our 'game' the textual analysis is the best one whenever possible. The simple problem is how we put that theory into practice. I look at Privateer 2 and I say that "year" means the dictionary definition, plain and simple. You say it means something vauge - in my mind, that's going away from the textual into something else.

The hope - in constitutional analysis and in Wing Commander continuity - should be to avoid activism, not to create it wherever possible. It is necessary in the job of pursuing our goal of a consistent whole... but we don't arbitrarily decide to reinterprite things without cause.

It's only in the course of our argument that the other sorts of analysis are taken into account. Original intent - did the Privateer 2 team intend for it to be a human years? Historical - how does it fit with the precedences established by the other games? And so forth.

No, this is a serious and substantive subject that goes to the heart of how we discuss canon. And no, I certainly don’t see this discussion as discrediting P2, merely facing up to its essential nature as a game – a tabula rasa in the WC universe. Indeed, I think such an assessment is very much to the credit of a community that typically puts reason and logic at the top of the list in discussions of canon.

Now, let’s compare notes. Any room for agreement here? You see our differences as more a matter of degree or of kind? What’s the jazz for you in trying to pin down the canon? Do you, by any chance, object to my calling the pursuit of canon a “game”?

Well, that's where I stand - I don't see the need to reanalyze Privateer 2 in the first place and ultimately having taken a second look at the game I don't see evidence that supports a more reasonable analysis than the one we've adhered to for eight years.
 
My god, this has reached epic proportions of meta-debating. I don't even remember what practice are you guys refering too.
 
same here I think this topic as got a tad bit out of hand
are we all generally agreement of Priv 2 is set "many years" after prophecy??
 
Yes, we are.

And you know why? Because Origin said so. This thread really never should have happened, but some people enjoy being stupid.
 
Back
Top