Wc1- First Impressions

F

Fatcat

Swabbie
Banned
I just recently picked up a copy of the PC Gamer Calssic Game CD with Wc1 redone to run on 98. This not only complete's my Wing Commander collection, but is also the only other Wc game besides Prophecy that I got to have sound. I have a few questions:

1. The Tiger's Claw is supposed to be a new carrier in Wc1, yet they obviously made it look old and worn out (water dripping with pail, chalk board). Any ideas why?

2. Why do all the ships have very long barrels for the guns?

3. Can you change the ship you fly on the Simulator?
 
Well, I don't believe that the Tiger's Claw was ever claimed to be new in wc1. In fact, just the opposite... the claw marks manual details some of the carrier's past.

The long barrels were just an artistic convention. There's no real reason for them to be short or long, except that the artists thought they looked better that way.

As for the simulator, I don't believe you can change the ship you fly in the simulator. It's always a Hornet as far as I can remember.
 
1. The Tiger's Claw is supposed to be a new carrier in Wc1, yet they obviously made it look old and worn out (water dripping with pail, chalk board). Any ideas why?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Corsair's right. The Tiger's Claw was an old ship by WC1. It was around as far back as 2644, ten years before the events of WC1.
 
Fatcat said:
Why do all the ships have very long barrels for the guns?
Click to expand...


Maybe the long barrels were necessary for the earlier models of fighter mounted guns. Could be that they proved too vulnerable to damage from enemy fire and were eventually improved and shortened. That would be supported by the fact that you don't get your guns shot off anymore in the later games.
 
McGruff said:
Maybe the long barrels were necessary for the earlier models of fighter mounted guns. Could be that they proved too vulnerable to damage from enemy fire and were eventually improved and shortened. That would be supported by the fact that you don't get your guns shot off anymore in the later games.
Click to expand...

I always preferred thinking that the long barrels were there for the same reason given by McGruff. Guns getting destroyed added a fun element to the game in my opinion. In the earlier games you had to be really careful when your front shields and armour were gone as your guns could get blown off and then you would have no way of defending yourself. I especially liked the feeling when you had no missiles and only one laser left on the hornet and still managed to return to the Claw alive, with the mission objectives completed too, but not a happy mechanic.
 
Yeah, Corsair's right. The Tiger's Claw was an old ship by WC1. It was around as far back as 2644, ten years before the events of WC1.
Click to expand...

My mistake. I also did notice how freakishly similar Maniac in Wc1 is to Tom Wilson (I know it's his character, but he looked like some kind of sleep-deprived Polynesian islander in Wc2) He looked more like the actor than Blair or Angel did.
 
The person I thought made the closest transition from wc1 to Film was Hunter.
Hunter in the movie looks uncannily like Hunter in WC1.

But If were talking about a characters persona rather than looks, then your probably right about Maniac. (see http://www.crius.net/zone/showthread.php?t=16966 ) But angel, Blair, Paladin, and Tolwyn translate from wc2 to wc3 nicely too.
 
AD said:
The person I thought made the closest transition from wc1 to Film was Hunter.
Hunter in the movie looks uncannily like Hunter in WC1.

But If were talking about a characters persona rather than looks, then your probably right about Maniac. (see http://www.crius.net/zone/showthread.php?t=16966 ) But angel, Blair, Paladin, and Tolwyn translate from wc2 to wc3 nicely too.
Click to expand...

yeah, especially tolwyn. He look excactly as actor as cartoon figure (if you look away from his mustage though)
 
cff said:
I agree besides of Angel. IMHA Angel is on of the characters that is worst with regards to switching mediums (WCM->WC1/WC2->WC3).
Click to expand...

I can't really explain the transition to the WCM but I thought her move to FMV in WC3 was decent. Mind you we don't really get to see alot of her (unless you count blood).
 
TopGun said:
I liked WC III Angel
Click to expand...

I didn't say I disliked any Angel, but just that they are one of the worst conserved characters IMHO.

However actually I really don't like either the WCM nor the WC3 Angel (especially this one) very much.
 
cff said:
However actually I really don't like either the WCM nor the WC3 Angel (especially this one) very much.
Click to expand...

I'm curious what it is you don't like about wc3 angel. Do you have any specifics.
I mean, it's up to you to like or dislike something. Not every one has the same taste.

From my point of view though, she wasn't that far off in wc3. She had the right accent, and a defiant attitude towards the Kilrathi. In the whole of three scenes she's in (4 if you count her death separatly) I thought the actress, while maybe not the best in the world, adequatly portrayed her feelings and the nature of her relationship with Blair, and her quiet yet understated power, especialy when confronting Thrakath. I can see the actress maybe not being to your taste, but I don't feel the character suffered from wc2 to wc3. I mean, the best looking Angel is probably wc1. Her hair was kinda wierd in wc2 in my opinion. But I can still see this as a probable evolution of the character. In fact the character was a much stronger, and more prominent, character in wc2.

While in wc2 Angel and Blairs relationship is an underlying theme (love and trust), wc3 is entirely different in nature. This is a game about desperation and betrayal, and revenge. The game is no longer about their relationship, but rather their relationship becomes a plot device. It is motivation for Blair. She isn't a prominent character because she can't be within the confines of that particular story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top