Tolwyn's silly cape in WC2

Firstoff, a lot of these don't seem like contradictions -- more like personal complaints regarding the content of the novel. For example...

Never mentioning Vagabond and Catscratch again: This is annoying, but it's not a contradiction -- the game tells us what happens to Vagabond and Catscratch, and the novel doesn't say anything about it. It's *not* a contradiction...

Blair's defection is an example of the novel explaining what happens when there are more than one possible situation in the game. The game cannot decide what happens at this point -- so the novel explains that Blair shot at Seether and defected in that manner -- again, something that (by definition) is a contradiction *in* the game, can't be a contradiction when it's explained in the book.

Re, the mysterious landings. In Wing Commander IV we save the Kilrathi convoy and then go back to the intrepid -- and we disable the Princeton and then go back to the Intrepid. In the novel, Blair docks with the Kilrathi convoy and lands on the Princeton before going home -- how do we reconcile this? We simply say that the landings happened during the missions! Blair finished off the enemy in the Kilrathi mission and then docked with the furballs -- and then returned to Intrepid (ditto for the Princeton). Is there any evidence to support this in the game itself? Yes! In-game, we are told that WCIV takes place over the course of 14 days -- but only a portion of this time is accounted for... so it actually makes more sense to say that we simply didn't see the days that Blair spent on the Kilrathi convoy and onboard the Princeton. Interestingly, Telamon is one that works the other way around -- a landing we see in the game, but not in the novel.

As for the three Speradon missions being at the same time -- not entirely... three missions in Speradon are at the same time... you didn't think Blair was the *only* one flying combat missions off the Intrepid, did you? Blair flies the carrier mission first -- while other wings attack a weapons factory or collect fighters. Then, Blair picks another one of the missions (which isn't specified). As for the certain comment that it seems unusual that there would be more than one similar mission -- weren't there multiple collect fighters missions in WCIV as it is? Certainly there were multiple situations with Confed pilots wishing to defect...

Re, Catscratch and Sosa. As we already discussed, there's absolutely no problem with Blair and Sosa flirting. Having a relationship with Catscratch does not preclude flirting with Blair -- especially since we know (according to the novel) that she's had a crush on Blair since she learned about him on Heroes of the Confederation...

Re: Axius. First, if I might interject a personal comment on this bit -- the *reason* Ohlander changed the novel as he did was because, in 1996, you people were obsessed with ranting about how little sense it made in WCIV for Blair to infiltrate Axius in that manner <G> So he changed it to "make sense" -- and now you're complaining about that (by you, I mean in general -- not you specifically, mp)! If you simply *must* have it both ways, here are two possible options...

- The security officer walks behind the platform and discovers Blair, forcing an action. Blair did not take the uniform of the security officer -- we don't ever see what Blair is wearing when he boards or disembarks the Dragon... he could have been in the Black Lance uniform the whole time.
- Blair *did* take the uniform of the security officer, because he didn't want to wear DuMont's flight suit around the base -- which would still stick out.

So there you have it!
 
Originally posted by Jetlag
Gimme a break. Are you sheltered or what? You don't know she wasn't sleeping with half the guys on the ship. And sometimes it looked like Catscratch was going to try a make out with Blair.
Click to expand...

That....is just disgusting!:mad:
 
Originally posted by Wedge009
There shouldn't be anything which prevents any woman from being attracted to Blair. Heart of the Tiger and all that. :)
Click to expand...
You mean besides that he is only 1.70 metres, is an alcoholic and has the corresponding beerbelly? :D
 
LOAF, I will not argue with you about saying that what you actually *don't see* in the game *can* take place at "holes" in the time frame... Although it could make sense, there are simply some occasions where it doesn't.

BTW, let's add another "inconsistency" here: whether you defect sooner or later, Catscratch and Vagabond end up on the BWS Intrepid... or at least Vagabond... when you fight him after you deny Eisen's proposal to defect the first time, he gets recovered on board the Intrepid.

Hence, when Blair is arming is torpedo to knock out the flight deck of the TCS Lexington in WC IV, he thinks about the lives he would be taking with him... namely he mentions Catscratch and Vagabond... Two problems: 1) Vagabond is supposed to be on the BWS Intrepid 2) Catscratch is supposed to be flying with you, he lands at the same time you do!! When you defect later, so does he!! He doesn't "stay on the Lexington"...

Other example:
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF

Interestingly, Telamon is one that works the other way around -- a landing we see in the game, but not in the novel.
Click to expand...
LOAF, you're missing the point...
In the game, Blair gets briefed by the doctor on what happened on Telamon, ON TELAMON itself: he lands with his Dragon and Dekker's team... the doctor explains what happened, shows him the canisters and the victims... Blair leaves...

In the novel, Blair NEVER actually sets foot on Telamon, and there is HARD EVIDENCE to support this:
If Blair actually does go on Telamon in the novel, as you claim, why would he ask about the causes of death AGAIN, on the Intercom link with the doctor??? It just doesn't make sense!!! In the book, it is crystal clear the before the Intercom conversation Blair knows absolutely NOTHING about what happened on the planet!! Now don't tell me he could have gone *after*, beacause the same reasoning applies: he doesn't know anything on what happened even before he lands (in the game)!! Hence, we have two different versions here, undeniable facts!!!
In addition, the doctor specifically tells Blair NOT to come on Telamon (in the novel, through the Intercom link) and the planet is put in Quarantine (hell! the BW fleet even has to gun down shuttles trying to leave the planet!!)
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Re: Axius. First, if I might interject a personal comment on this bit -- the *reason* Ohlander changed the novel as he did was because, in 1996, you people were obsessed with ranting about how little sense it made in WCIV for Blair to infiltrate Axius in that manner <G> So he changed it to "make sense" -- and now you're complaining about that (by you, I mean in general -- not you specifically, mp)!
Click to expand...
Ok, but I, as you might have noticed, am not among those who are "complaining" about this... I actually said, if you recall, that this part of the novel is better than the game... I'm just pointing out that it is a discrepancy that cannot be ignored...
Now you might find every possible reason on why the mission was what it was in the game (simplicity reason), the fact remains that the game and novel versions of the episode are different!!!

[Edited by mpanty on 03-23-2001 at 12:08]
 
I think the point of Blair thinking about the lives on the Lexington and naming vagabond is not bad. But still, Vagabond could defect after the Lexington has been disabled.
 
Well people why don't we stick to what Zor Prime and myself have said all along?

If its in the game, ITS CANON.

As long as the novels do NOT contradict the game, ITS CANON.

Should there be any confusion as to multiple details in the Game, ie, Blair defecting early or later, we look to the novels, texts, calendars, read-outs, schematics for guidance.

However, I am of the opinion Locanda was SAVED! After all, "...they're naming babies after you on Locanda IV."

For the purposes of peace amongst our mighty brethren, the movie while important, does not affect the storyline. Lets assume it 'abridged' WC1 :)
 
Telamon

Yes, Blair talks to a doctor on the comm -- *a* doctor, mind you... there are more than one of them in the universe. :)

Here's a possible situation: The Intrepid arrives at Telamon, talks to a doctor over the comm. After enforcing the blockade, it is made clear that the nano-bots became ineffective after several hours/days -- allowing Blair and Dekker to land at a field hospital (supporting Citizen #1's sarcastic remark in the game: "Well, you're a little late on that."). Long story short, comm *then* landing -- the explanation of the bioweapons came in the game only *after* Blair becomes confused when the citizen claims they were bombed.

Catscratch and Vagabond

This statement can be taken one of two ways...

1) That Catscratch and Vagabond are onboard the Lexington and would die if it were hit by a torpedo.
2) That destroying the Concordia would mean certain death for Catscratch and Vagabond, because Confed would certainly use the issue to start a war.

The latter fits with what really happened, the former does not... make your own choice <G>
 
Wow! this is getting heated. I for one, will stick to the games. And as long as the books don't overly contradict the game, I will stick to those as well. But when a descrepancy comes up, I have to side with the game and not the book. Wing Commander series is a bunch of COMPUTER GAMES, *supplemented* by books. The whole series is based around the playing of the GAME, not reading of a book. The books are there just to further your enjoyment.
 
That is the way I would choose too but I think offically we have to take everything from WC as canon. Of course we can build our own WC universe (which I did since WC1) but the official WC universe has all the games, books and the movie in it. Sad but true...
 
We're actually lucky that the WC universe is as diverse and indepth as it is. How many other games have such things? Look at Quake. No books, movies, tv shows and a plethora of other things that expand on it. It just shows how truly great it is.
 
I accept the WCM as offical canon (and the books) but I think WC would have a better universe without some of these. That is what made me sad :(
 
LOAF, you ignored the my statement regarding Axius, therefore you agree there's a discrepancy... :)
That's enough in proving my point, that the game and novel cannot fully co-exist, note that I said "not fully"...
But let me argue the other points anyway:
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Telamon
Here's a possible situation: The Intrepid arrives at Telamon, talks to a doctor over the comm. After enforcing the blockade, it is made clear that the nano-bots became ineffective after several hours/days -- allowing Blair and Dekker to land at a field hospital (supporting Citizen #1's sarcastic remark in the game: "Well, you're a little late on that."). Long story short, comm *then* landing -- the explanation of the bioweapons came in the game only *after* Blair becomes confused when the citizen claims they were bombed.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but i have to say: NONSENSE!! As I said, Blair asks the same questions, in the game AND the novel. He asks them AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES, and as I said, whether it happens before the Intercom link (novel) or before landing on the planet (game), it is EVIDENT that Blair knows NOTHING of what has happened on Telamon... He asks the doctor the same questions, acting SURPRISED in both occasions... therefore one of these two events *cannot* have happened in the "official" storyline (the GAME, for me)
Catscratch and Vagabond

This statement can be taken one of two ways...

1) That Catscratch and Vagabond are onboard the Lexington and would die if it were hit by a torpedo.
2) That destroying the Concordia would mean certain death for Catscratch and Vagabond, because Confed would certainly use the issue to start a war.

The latter fits with what really happened, the former does not... make your own choice <G>
Click to expand...
The latter does not make any sense... why would they die if they were not on the Lexington, and in the case of Confed reprisals to "start a war", why would Blair think specifically about them???... See LOAF, you're evading the question... <G>
BTW, in the game the option to destroy the Lexington is given to you, isn't it? Isn't it LOAF? What happens if you DO *destroy* it? Does a war start? Does Confed use the incident to start a war? The answer is no, so the "latter" does not make sense.
For the former, it is not what the game tells us!! It is NOT!! Catscratch is supposed to be flying with you on that mission!!!! It's a scramble mission for the Lexington for Pete's sake!!!

There you have it! Let's see what The Baron comes up with next... :)

[Edited by mpanty on 03-23-2001 at 20:14]
 
I ignored your statement about Axius because you didn't *say* anything about Axius -- you simply repeated that they "were different"... but you didn't say why or how (I already explained about the uniform -- if you need something else explained, please post it <G>). In general, it's also best to refrain from pre-mature "YOU PROVEDED MY POINTedness"... that doesn't get us anywhere:)

Telamon

Blair does *not* ask "the same questions" -- and there is no evidence that he has no idea what's happened on Telamon. First, the civilian claims that the area has been bombed... to which Blair responds that "Bombs? This place is still standing. The airstrip's in one piece. You don't look like you've been touched." -- an entirely sensible question. Then the Doctor shows up and explains that it was bioweapons -- no indication that Blair doesn't know this. The doctor then asks if Blair knows what bio-convergence is. Blair replies "Pretty new stuff -- that about covers what I know." Note that the term 'bioconvergence' is not used in the comm scene. The doctor then replies that he thinks the raiders dropped nanobots... to which Blair replies "Nanobots?"... note that the term "nanobots" is *not* used in the comm discussion. Blair also asks "So how come we're not like... this?" -- another sensible question, given either situation. His next to last comment is "How many of your people...?" -- which could easily refer to simply the specific settlement (which, apparently, has had no contact with the blockade, since they didn't know about the nanbots). The point is that the scene can work either with Blair knowing or *not* knowing about the attack -- since all of the questions are different from the novel's 'comm-chat'.

Catscratch and Vagabond

Blair thinks specifically about them because they're his friends -- specifically, they're his friends whom Confed will be especially interested in punishing if he causes a war. Why does he separate Catscratch and Vagabond from the rest of the Lexington crew in your situation? Why doesn't he include Gunderson in his 'list' -- someone who's *definately* on the Lexington (if we are to believe that Vag and Cat are still Confed pilots, there's no reason why they'd still be on the Lex during a scramble...) and whom Blair seems to be more of a friend with than Vagabond and certainly Catscratch?

Confed does *not* use the incident to start a war, because Blair did *not* destroy the Lexington... but remember Paladin's shock at learning that the Achilles was destroyed by the Border Worlds?
 
And all this over a silly little cape...

Muahahahaha....ha ha ha muahahaha

Soon...Earth itself will be in our grasp...
 
Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
You mean besides that [Blair] is only 1.70 metres...
Click to expand...
Blair is tiny. At least Mark Hamill is. Just look at the size of him when surrounded by Maniac and Maestro at the end of WCP. :)

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
That destroying the Concordia would mean certain death for Catscratch and Vagabond, because Confed would certainly use the issue to start a war.[/i]
The Lexingtonp, I assume. :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top