Why I say some of the characterization in WC3 and WC4 was not good

E

EmuMusicFan

Captain
Why I say some of the characterization in WC3 and WC4 was not good
[Thread under construction]
===SORRY, ORIGINAL POST DATA LOST DUE TO MISOPERATION. ===
So the discussion of the first question was rewritten.

I believe we all agree that WC3 and WC4 were the pinnacle of the series commercially and in terms of popularity. Indeed, their pioneering role in graphics real-time rendering technology, and technical experimentation in the film industry should not to be ignored.

But what I would like to talk about here are some technical problems in the literature of these two works.. I'll try to distinguish between "I don't like it" and "there are technical problems."

1. Did WC3 modify the character of Hobbes appropriately?

Let's start with the fact that (if I got the corresponding information correctly), the re-constructed Production team of WC3 did a reset of the Hobbes character. Technically, WC3's Hobbes is not the same Hobbes from WC2 and the first offical novel of Freedom Flight. WC2 team designed Hobbes to not be an Imperial spy at all.

So does this change make sense?

It's important to note that it's common for series stories to do midway revamps to characters. An example is Darth Vader in the Star Wars series:

In the original Star Wars movie, Darth Vader was not designed as Luke's father. The paternity of Darth Vader and Luke was introduced in the second movie of the series.

This modification was brilliant because it made the Star Wars world more human, fleshed out the character of Darth Vader, and gave the plot more drama and tension. The line in question has become almost the most famous declaration of fatherhood in movie history.

However this is not the case with WC3's revamping of Hobbes character. It is a reverse operation. Relative to father Darth Vader's design, WC3's Hobbes is a simple, faceless character.

WC2 and Freedom Flight's Hobbes came from a high Imperial noble family, and was absorbed into the Ghorah Khar Resistance because of his conflict with the Imperial family, anger at the corruption and depravity of the Empire, and pessimism about the prospect of war, before joining the Terran Confederation Fleet to fight against the Empire's aggression.

WC3's Hobbes was simply a spy who was absolutely loyal to the Imperial family. The character almost becomes a thin piece of cardboard.

Imagine if Darth Vader had been remodeled in that direction back then, would he still have the cultural symbolism he has today?


And, regarding the personality overlay.

This is a forcefully introduced deus ex machina design.It's not something should be avoid, but it requires resonable methods.

However, the foreshadowing of so-called personality overlay in WC3 was insufficient, which resulted in the subsequent appearance of this setting being very abrupt. This is like a Sherlock Holmes novel, in its last chapter, the author suddenly tells the reader that a strange alien civilization used a portal to take away the treasure, so Sherlock Holmes's reasoning is wrong. This is not allowed in a suspense drama.

Positive examples from Disney's Zootopia:

1. The carrot voice recorder, which is the key prop for the final reversal to victory, appears naturally at the beginning of the story when Officer Judy is ready to take Nick, the tax evader, after being fooled by him before. And, before the final climax of the story, this recorder reappears in the scene where Nick and Judy's reconcile, deepening its impression in the audience' mind. In this way, at the end, when Officer Judy takes out the recorder which has already recorded the key testimony, the audience has the feeling of unexpected and reasonable. If the recorder suddenly appeared for the first time in the end, although the logic still makes sense, but the dramatic tension would be much worse.

2. Nick is hit by the villain's "pill", then the audience are expecting Nick to be able to use his strong will to fight against the "midnight howl" effect, but Nick "bites" Judy's neck. At this point, Judy gives the same exaggerated performance as she did in the children's theater at the beginning of the story, so that the audience will immediately understand that they are fine. Without the theater scene at the beginning of the movie, this part would have been stilted.

It's dramatic to have something familiar to the audience appear in unexpected way.

WC3 didn't do a good job of that. Not to mention the personality overlay explanation was removed from the initial PC version.


Third, about another speculation on WC3 Hobbes' motivation for betraying the Confederation.

You might argue that, disregarding personality overlay, Hobbes would also have made the choice to return to the Empire because he couldn't accept the imminent destruction of his home world Kilrah, by humans.

This still doesn't make sense.

Hobbes is a high-ranking military noble of the Empire, surely he should know what a high-intensity general war means. According to the WC3 Victory Streak background manual, the historical Kilrathi Civil War resulted in the destruction of several planets.

Do you think Hobbes didn't have the realization that the war would reach Kilrah when he joined the Confederation? Or do you think he would have been so naive that he believes humans would never do indiscriminate bombing? Even if that was the case, was he portrayed psychologically relevant in the story?

Not to mention, do you think Thrakhath would trust a double traitor as his wingman in the final battle?


To summarize, I think WC3 Hobbes' character modifications are extremely implausible.

That's for now on the first question. Feel free to discuss.


==========


One additional point:

There is a point that Thrakhath's release of Ralgha from Ghorah Khar Imperial Intelligence in Freedom Flight indicates that Ralgha was his spy.

I don't think the latter conclusion necessarily follows from this result. Moreover, I have a different speculation on this point.

First, Jahkai, the officer of the Intelligence Department, was not given any evidence that Ralgha was a member of the Resistance. Thus legally, Ralgha was innocent. Under this premise, Thrakhath's use of the Crown Prince's prerogative to punish Ralgha would have come at a huge political cost, and since Thrakhath had only recently become Crown Prince, and was not yet well established, not to mention that his father's over-aggressiveness had led to an irreparable defeat, it was understandable that he would be cautious at this time.

Secondly, even if Thrakhath did not trust Ralgha, how would it benefit Thrakhath himself to designate Ralgha as a rebel? At this stage he did not have Ghorah Khar's rebels in his sights. From his perspective, the risk that Ralgha might be part of the rebellion did exist, but the cost of using his own resources to solve a possible problem for the Emperor seemed clearly too high.

Later, the Resistance ordered Ralgha to surrender his entire ship to the Confederation, an act that would have been shocking to the Empire. Comparatively, Thrakhath was not personally responsible - he simply released Ralgha as per Imperial rules. The Emperor would scold him for not being sharp enough and the chastisement might have been unpleasant for Thrakhath, but it did not materially harm his position. On the contrary, if Thrakhath had overstepped his authority and used chemical interrogation on Ralgha, then the Emperor might have immediately considered changing the heir apparent.

As for the ripple effect of Ralgha's subsequent defection, it can only be said that the Ghorah Khar Resistance leader's bold strategy went beyond what Imperial tradition could go to anticipate.
 
Last edited:
EmuMusicFan said:
Do you think Hobbes didn't have the realization that the war would reach Kilrah when he joined the Confederation? Or do you think he would have been so naive that he believes humans would never do indiscriminate bombing? Even if that was the case, was he portrayed psychologically relevant in the story?
Click to expand...
I think you could actually reason for that one. In a way the Kilrathi are modelled to a Samurai honor codex. Here the humans could indeed have lost their honor by doing indiscriminate bombing. But yes, also such a thing should have been foreshadowed.
 
While WC3 was a good game. 3 is easily my least favorite in the series as far as the Story Goes. A lot of characterization and plots left out floating in the wind and a lot of very unlikable characters all the way around. I never did like the idea of hobbes being a spy to begin with, but even if that's the route they wanted to go, there were so many more interesting ways to do it, then Manchurian candidate trope. I also completely hated the way they did Angel, to only include a romance subplot game mechanic that went nowhere and was completely Rewritten for the fourth game basically taken out your choice of mattering to begin with. No mention of Flint or Rachel in four. Maniac was a one note rehash of the character of Biff, radio Rollins was an interesting foil that petered out. The idea and conflict of cobra versus Hobbes could have led to some very mature storytelling and it got reduced to the most basic lame common denominator to me. Flash after you beat him in a simulator becomes an afterthought, and Vaquero wasn't giving much to do. While you do want a decent amount of wingman for variety and gameplay reasons they didn't Flesh any of them out to a great degree.
 
cff said:
I think you could actually reason for that one. In a way the Kilrathi are modelled to a Samurai honor codex. Here the humans could indeed have lost their honor by doing indiscriminate bombing. But yes, also such a thing should have been foreshadowed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you think Hobbes thinks humans would never destroy Kilrah?
 
To me the biggest mystery of WC3 is why they took the personality overlay video explanation out of the game. I know the given reason is "because there wasn't room on the CD", but it seems like you could have shortened up or eliminated some of the transitions cutscenes that we all turn off after the first couple of missions anyway to include it. (Honestly, why do we need to watch Blair waiting for the elevator for ten seconds every time we move around the ship!)

The downfall of Hobbes was one of the major story arcs of the game. Blair's first action upon coming onto the Victory is to reinstate Hobbes to the flight roster, which immediately creates conflict between him and certain crew, and among the crew. He gives Hobbes a vote of confidence. Cobra and Hobbes hostile interactions are highlighted. All the other pilots and crew comment on Hobbes, one way or another. Hobbes is built up as Blair's only true friend with Angel gone, other than perhaps Rachel. We the audience are firmly on Blair's side, and just waiting for Cobra to get shown the error of her prejudiced ways. And then we're blindsided by Hobbes turning out to be evil after all, with Cobra having a posthumous I Told You So. ... BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!! Without the explanation video, Hobbes just betrays everyone for no reason, including the audience, many of whom had stuck with him through WC2, SO1, SO2, and Freedom Flight. And Hobbes never says a word after that. If you go after him, you get a brief challenge; if not, he never says a word but just silently flies as Thrakhath's wingman. No one back on the Victory says a word about that. There's no dialog with Eisen about how shocked and betrayed everyone feels, no "I told you so, and now you got Cobra killed" from Maniac, no sympathetic ear from Rachel (who was with you in reinstating Hobbes at the beginning), no fatalistic discussions of how now everyone is extra screwed, no dire statements or veiled accusations from Tolwyn. To the rest of the characters, it's like Hobbes never existed. (Maybe the crew of the Victory had seen the Wing Commander movie!)

The personality overlay explanation was a lame, Deus ex Machina explanation that felt like lazy writing, but at least it was an explanation. Instead, we were just left with a "Somehow, Palpatine returned" moment, no further explanation, and expected to move on.

Why would you create a major story arc surrounding one of the characters, and then leave the arc dangling with no explanation just so you could free up space on a disk to let us watch Blair wait for an elevator?
 
Farbourne said:
To me the biggest mystery of WC3 is why they took the personality overlay video explanation out of the game. I know the given reason is "because there wasn't room on the CD", but it seems like you could have shortened up or eliminated some of the transitions cutscenes that we all turn off after the first couple of missions anyway to include it. (Honestly, why do we need to watch Blair waiting for the elevator for ten seconds every time we move around the ship!)

The downfall of Hobbes was one of the major story arcs of the game. Blair's first action upon coming onto the Victory is to reinstate Hobbes to the flight roster, which immediately creates conflict between him and certain crew, and among the crew. He gives Hobbes a vote of confidence. Cobra and Hobbes hostile interactions are highlighted. All the other pilots and crew comment on Hobbes, one way or another. Hobbes is built up as Blair's only true friend with Angel gone, other than perhaps Rachel. We the audience are firmly on Blair's side, and just waiting for Cobra to get shown the error of her prejudiced ways. And then we're blindsided by Hobbes turning out to be evil after all, with Cobra having a posthumous I Told You So. ... BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!! Without the explanation video, Hobbes just betrays everyone for no reason, including the audience, many of whom had stuck with him through WC2, SO1, SO2, and Freedom Flight. And Hobbes never says a word after that. If you go after him, you get a brief challenge; if not, he never says a word but just silently flies as Thrakhath's wingman. No one back on the Victory says a word about that. There's no dialog with Eisen about how shocked and betrayed everyone feels, no "I told you so, and now you got Cobra killed" from Maniac, no sympathetic ear from Rachel (who was with you in reinstating Hobbes at the beginning), no fatalistic discussions of how now everyone is extra screwed, no dire statements or veiled accusations from Tolwyn. To the rest of the characters, it's like Hobbes never existed. (Maybe the crew of the Victory had seen the Wing Commander movie!)

The personality overlay explanation was a lame, Deus ex Machina explanation that felt like lazy writing, but at least it was an explanation. Instead, we were just left with a "Somehow, Palpatine returned" moment, no further explanation, and expected to move on.

Why would you create a major story arc surrounding one of the characters, and then leave the arc dangling with no explanation just so you could free up space on a disk to let us watch Blair wait for an elevator?
Click to expand...
I remember there was a Maniac reaction scene. Also, the SO2 story has nothing to do with Hobbes, does it?

But those aren't the key issues. The point is that if you consider Freedom Flight then WC3's Hobbes make even less sense. Freedom Flight describes the backstory of Hobbes in some detail as well as the Ghorah Khar resistance movement.

1. Ralgha nar Hhallas' family was so high in nominal standing in the Empire that only the Emperor had the authority to order a chemical interrogation against him, not even the Crown Prince. And even after Ralgha defected to the Confederation, the Emperor could not directly punish his relatives.

2. In practice, however, Ralgha's family was marginalized in the Empire and had limited real power. His family's fiefdom is the planet Hhallas, which from Ralgha's memory is not a highly industrialized and developed planet. And the defenses of the place were so limited that the nobles had no choice but to evacuate in the event of a retaliatory air strike by the Confederation.

3. Then surprisingly it happened that friendly fire sank the evacuation ship. Even if this was not a deliberate political conspiracy, it at least shows that the security protection given to the nar Hhallas was riddled with holes. This was not the kind of security that should be afforded to the top power centers of the empire.

4. After so many years as Captain of Ras Nik'hra and so many battles, it was surprised that Ralgha has only one people he could trust around him - his retainer Kirha. The fact that Ralgha ordered his crew to surrender proves that he knew exactly what surrendering was all about. the WC3 "Hobbes" contradicts this.

5. The Confederation subjected him to rigorous chemical / psychiatric tests and has proved that he is not a spy.
 
Last edited:
EmuMusicFan said:
I remember there was a Maniac reaction scene. Also, the SO2 story has nothing to do with Hobbes, does it?

But those aren't the key issues. The point is that if you consider Freedom Flight then WC3's Hobbes make even less sense. Freedom Flight describes the backstory of Hobbes in some detail as well as the Ghorah Khar resistance movement.

1. Ralgha nar Hhallas' family was so high in nominal standing in the Empire that only the Emperor had the authority to order a chemical interrogation against him, not even the Crown Prince. And even after Ralgha defected to the Confederation, the Emperor could not directly punish his relatives.

2. In practice, however, Ralgha's family was marginalized in the Empire and had limited real power. His family's fiefdom is the planet Hhallas, which from Ralgha's memory is not a highly industrialized and developed planet. And the defenses of the place were so limited that the nobles had no choice but to evacuate in the event of a retaliatory air strike by the Confederation.

3. Then surprisingly it happened that friendly fire sank the evacuation ship. Even if this was not a deliberate political conspiracy, it at least shows that the security protection given to the nar Hhallas was riddled with holes. This was not the kind of security that should be afforded to the top power centers of the empire.

4. After so many years as Captain of Ras Nik'hra and so many battles, it was surprised that Ralgha has only one people he could trust around him - his retainer Kirha. The fact that Ralgha ordered his crew to surrender proves that he knew exactly what surrendering was all about. the WC3 "Hobbes" contradicts this.

5. The Confederation subjected him to rigorous chemical / psychiatric tests and has proved that he is not a spy.
Click to expand...
If you try to match up most of the books as far as characterization of characters goes, it is hard to swallow. I love what they did with tolwyn in the books. I also love the game version of tolwyn. The problem is trying to connect the character to being the same person as in the books and game. It is easier than hobbes but still it takes huge leaps of faith and reasoning.

Speaking of tolwyn the other interesting conversation nobody likes to have is the fact that he was technically right. Once again two things can be true. his methods in four were pure evil/Madness and 100% wrong. but his premise was not wrong. His premise was that humans were at their Zenith fighting The kilrathi and they better be prepared for the next threat, that will make the kilrathi look like kittens, and he was proven right within what, 5 to 10 years with prophecy?

it wouldn't make him look so right if they moved the timeline 100 to 300 years into the future, but since it is so close, it makes him more right than people want to admit lol. Plus from a story telling point of view, I would think it'd be way more interesting to move the story 100 years into the future, with a whole new cast and with all new politics in the galaxy. For instance maybe recently the kilrathi finally joined the Confederation and there's actually kilrathi Pilots/wingmen aboard your ship. Of course I get why they didn't want to do that. They wanted to use Mark Hamill and a few others as a name/brand recognition.
 
Last edited:
Jdawg said:
If you try to match up most of the books as far as characterization of characters goes, it is hard to swallow. I love what they did with tolwyn in the books. I also love the game version of tolwyn. The problem is trying to connect the character to being the same person as in the books and game. It is easier than hobbes but still it takes huge leaps of faith and reasoning.
Click to expand...
For Hobbes, the character from WC2 and Freedom Flight are a continuation, the writers are from the same group after all.

Like I said before, WC2 and Freedom Flight makes him a Round Character, while WC3 "Hobbes" is just a Flat Character, and lacks true Dramatic Tension.
 
EmuMusicFan said:
For Hobbes, the character from WC2 and Freedom Flight are a continuation, the writers are from the same group after all.

Like I said before, WC2 and Freedom Flight makes him a Round Character, while WC3 "Hobbes" is just a Flat Character, and lacks true Dramatic Tension.
Click to expand...
I added more to my previous post if you want to go back and read. I don't disagree with you but then the third game completely changes that with hobbes. just like tolwyn, he is not really the same character. The characterization in the games is all consistent enough and you can connect the dots. The story they told from wc2, to the expansions, to Wing Commander 3 could be the same person he was in wing Commander 4. but then when you really dive into him as a person in the books, there's no way that character would do what the character in four did, without some extreme leaps of faith and logic to connect the dots.
 
Jdawg said:
I added more to my previous post if you want to go back and read. I don't disagree with you but then the third game completely changes that with hobbes. just like tolwyn, he is not really the same character. The characterization in the games is all consistent enough and you can connect the dots. The story they told from wc2, to the expansions, to Wing Commander 3 could be the same person he was in wing Commander 4. but then when you really dive into him as a person in the books, there's no way that character would do what the character in four did, without some extreme leaps of faith and logic to connect the dots.
Click to expand...
Sorry for not being completely sure of your point, did you mean Tolwyn?
I haven't talked about Tolwyn yet in this discussion, but I can briefly mention this point first.

The problem with WC4's portrayal of Tolwyn is that they wrote off a battle of ideas as simply the Black Lance cabal running a riot. There is almost no depiction on conceptual conflict between outright pacifists and civilians who insist on the need to continue to prepare for war. The repercussions of Tolwynism among the populace are also not depicted. There's not even much portrayal of the two sides in the military conflict: the Confederation and the UBW, what political and economic conflicts, or even personal grudges, are there between them. All we see of the UBW is ...... that their military spending is low.
 
Last edited:
I think my point is pretty clear. most characters from the books do not add up to the characters we then see in the games as a whole. no matter who you are talking about, even Blair. The easiest character to transfer was bear because he's basically a blank slate as a character in the expansions of wing Commander 2, so it was smart to make him a main character in many of the books, because he does not appear in any games after that and his character traits were pretty open to interpretation.

While I think it's admirable to try to connect the universe as one complete piece of fiction. from the games, to the books, to the movie, to the animated TV show, it just can't be done neatly and logically to me. I find it easier to treat the books as its own alternate universe of wing Commander then try to match everything up to the game. The problem for me is even an added layer to the games itself, because I don't believe the character of hobbes in Wing Commander 2 to be the same character as Hobbes in Wing Commander 3. Even taking the books out of the equation, the way they handled him from game to game is atrocious to me. I respect others might like it, but from a narrative and storytelling point of view, it does not work for me on any level.
 
Jdawg said:
I think my point is pretty clear. most characters from the books do not add up to the characters we then see in the games as a whole. no matter who you are talking about, even Blair. The easiest character to transfer was bear because he's basically a blank slate as a character in the expansions of wing Commander 2, so it was smart to make him a main character in many of the books, because he does not appear in any games after that and his character traits were pretty open to interpretation.

While I think it's admirable to try to connect the universe as one complete piece of fiction. from the games, to the books, to the movie, to the animated TV show, it just can't be done neatly and logically to me. I find it easier to treat the books as its own alternate universe of wing Commander then try to match everything up to the game. The problem for me is even an added layer to the games itself, because I don't believe the character of hobbes in Wing Commander 2 to be the same character as Hobbes in Wing Commander 3. Even taking the books out of the equation, the way they handled him from game to game is atrocious to me. I respect others might like it, but from a narrative and storytelling point of view, it does not work for me on any level.
Click to expand...
I just don't see Hobbes from WC2, Freedom Flight and the "Hobbes" from WC3 as the same character.

Also, even looking at WC3 alone, that “Hobbes” is poorly molded.
 
EmuMusicFan said:
Sorry for not being completely sure of your point, did you mean Tolwyn?
I haven't talked about Tolwyn yet in this discussion, but I can briefly mention this point first.

The problem with WC4's portrayal of Tolwyn is that they wrote off a battle of ideas as simply the Black Lance cabal running a riot. There is almost no depiction on conceptual conflict between outright pacifists and civilians who insist on the need to continue to prepare for war. The repercussions of Tolwynism among the populace are also not depicted. There's not even much portrayal of the two sides in the military conflict: the Confederation and the UBW, what political and economic conflicts, or even personal grudges, are there between them. All we see of the UBW is ...... that their military spending is low.
Click to expand...
My point is on a pure basic storytelling point of view. I can see how tolywyn from Wing Commander 2 could turn into that crazy Mad Man by 4. Could the details be more fleshed out, yes but to give the books credit here, I feel like the politics of the border worlds, was being more fleshed out in the book false colors and maybe even more detail would have been even added if the writer had not died before he got completed the other two books in the series.

The problem once again is the character of tolwyn himself, I don't believe the character in the books and the way he's portrayed, was the same character as what Malcolm McDowell did in the games. I like both of them equally, but for different reasons. so it's hard to try to convince me that they're the same character. That's why I treat the books as its own Universe at this point and I find it way more enjoyable than trying to make the characters match up to the games
 
EmuMusicFan said:
I just don't see Hobbes from WC2, Freedom Flight and the "Hobbes" from WC3 as the same character.

Also, even looking at WC3 alone, that “Hobbes” is poorly molded.
Click to expand...
I'm Just One Step Beyond you I guess because I don't even think his character lineup game to game. On a purely logical point of view they do, because of the personality overlay you can make it make sense sort of. But you can see the strings of puppetry behind it so easily, that to me Chris Roberts did not like the character of Hobbes and did not want a friendly kilrathi, that would be the only reason to go that route. I just found it distasteful I guess. In a more extreme example that would be like having one black character in a movie and another character goes, you can't trust black people all they do is Rob, steal, and smoke weed, and then the one black character in that movie does exactly that aka rob, steal, and smoke weed. Some might call that great storytelling I'd call that eye rollingly bad. Cobra does exactly that with Hobbes and she's proven right, but they try to hand wave it away. Well at least in the PS1 version, because of the Personality overlay, which makes it slightly better but not by much. but as you pointed out in the PC version he is portrayed as purely a traitor.
 
For the record I see the same thing with angel, either Chris didn't like them being written as a couple in wc2 or he wanted to explore the romance Choose Your Own Adventure subplot game mechanic. so he quickly killed her off, to let the player decide on a new romance partner. which once again I found kind of lame to do angel that way. Plus even I was like wow Blair you moved on quick lol. Kind of reminds me of the last Batman movie in the Christopher Nolan series. Bruce Wayne was like I'm in love with a dead girl, wait now im in love with the villains daughter, wait now I'm in love with Catwoman all within a 2-hour time frame of a movie. Michael Caine as alfred was so confused he basically left the movie halfway through and said screw this LOL.
 
Last edited:
I see what you're saying, but I think what you're seeing is exactly what was intended: a reactionary response to Wing Commander II that turns the story in a different direction. Of course Wing Commander II wasn't made predicting Wing Commander III... but by the same token, Wing Commander III was necessarily made on top of Wing Commander II and wouldn't exist in the same form. What I think makes Hobbes the same character is that while you can step back in time--to, say, 1992--and imagine that you can take him in any direction you imagine there's no way to go back and divorce him from Wing Commander III; every time you tell the story, the character had to come from Wing Commander II. And a lot of the complaint is just part of IP storytelling; the Star Trek you make today is different from the Star Trek you make ten, twenty, thirty years prior and as much as people might complain it's inevitable. Whether it's the same creators or a different group, anyone is writing from a different perspective than they once were. And they're telling different stories with different meanings and goals using a set of tools descended from that first idea. It doesn't eliminate or erase that first idea but it adds another layer that you can judge on its own.

But you will find that same jump to some degree in every piece of connected media! Look at Freedom Flight, which we're praising for having a similar voice to Wing Commander II... but it actually rewrites Ralgha's story itself. Wing Commander II has him confide in you that the reason he defected from the Empire was because he's an abolitionist and that it was specifically to rescue Downtown. It's a very 'warm and fuzzy' idea. Freedom Flight ignores that and instead attributes it to the intricacies of his culture and how it applies through his relationship with Hassa! I love that story, but it was an absolute intentional change to fit the medium (probably because it was too on the nose or that Downtown had no other role in Freedom Flight).

On some level it's kind of funny that Wing Commander III and Freedom Flight are both reacting to the same thing here: feeling that Wing Commander II was too fawning and should be taken in a different direction. They just choose a different direction for Hobbes: building out a Kilrathi culture that hadn't been developed before versus rerolling the character to tell a different story. But I do think that in the end it's less that Wing Commander III is ignoring Wing Commander II so much as that it's ignoring Freedom Flight... which so unexpected for such an IP! (Although like the Jakhai stuff, that inherent contradiction can also be retroactively seen as more evidence that Ralgha is a spy... he's lying about his own background!)

To me the biggest mystery of WC3 is why they took the personality overlay video explanation out of the game. I know the given reason is "because there wasn't room on the CD", but it seems like you could have shortened up or eliminated some of the transitions cutscenes that we all turn off after the first couple of missions anyway to include it. (Honestly, why do we need to watch Blair waiting for the elevator for ten seconds every time we move around the ship!)
Click to expand...

I think part of the answer is that Chris (and many other creatives at that level) weren't ever as focused on the story as players and fans were. Chris specifically has always been fascinated by technical solutions and stuff that advances the medium... and not so much by the fictional world that gets painted on top of that. So Angel isn't so precious going in... and instead she's an opportunity to get the player to feel and react in a certain way and--in the case of the goofy Rachel vs. Flint kiss off--a neat way to show the kind of thing that's possible with interactive video. He's absolutely thinking more about the looping pretzel of video segments that are needed and how they can all be made and connected seamlessly and less about Blair's motivations.
 
Loaf you know chris far better than me and many others. All i will say is i find it odd if chris cares far more on a technical level for gaming, than a story telling level, since WC4 is so story centric. A lot of the budget for wc4 was for the story, sets, actors etc... i mean on a technical "game" level, wc4 is not that much more advanced than wc3 was. From the interviews i have seen, it seem like chris took the job of directing/story very seriously, not to mention he then went on to direct the wc movie and produce in hollywood. I just find it hard to believe that the story component was not an important component to him or at least equal to the technical aspects of Gaming.

Speaking of Chris I saw star citizen pop up in my feed a lot this week and on YouTube because they're charging for a $48,000 bundle which is interesting to say the least.

To your other point, in general, I agree,
different creators have different interpretations of characters. but there does have to be some continuation in traits and story or you risk alienating half the fan base. which is what has happened across pop culture, to a very bad detriment. everything from Star Wars to Star Trek and everything in between has become fragmented beyond belief. I do feel like the creators that stick Closer To Source material have better luck and at least less blowback on them like Denis Villeneuve with Blade Runner 2049 and of course his interpretation of the dune novels so far. Just my 2 cents.
 
Loaf you know chris far better than me and many others. All i will say is i find it odd if chris cares far more on a technical level for gaming, than a story telling level, since WC4 is so story centric. A lot of the budget for wc4 was for the story, sets, actors etc... i mean on a technical "game" level, wc4 is not that much more advanced than wc3 was. From the interviews i have seen, it seem like chris took the job of directing/story very seriously, not to mention he then went on to direct the wc movie and produce in hollywood. I just find it hard to believe that the story component was not an important component to him or at least equal to the technical aspects of Gaming.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's specific to Chris Roberts at all, there's this very common sense among... well, us... that the big name at the head of a given franchise is someone who cares about what we're starting to lump together as 'lore'... and the reality is that that's rarely the case. We like to make little Gods out the name at the top of the credits when the reality is that they aren't looking at their work the way we are at all. Take somebody like George Lucas who is incredibly passionate about the minutiae of filmmaking... but who never cared at all about making some cohesive Star Wars world. (Or Gene Roddenberry, a man whose actual genius was what producers really do... arranging financing!)

In the case of Chris Roberts, he's always been motivated by projects that let him move the needle. Wing Commander, Strike Commander, Wing Commander III were all projects that gave him an excuse to do something new and important, whether it was building new technology or coming up with a new way to tell a story. But he's not sitting down and saying 'I want to tell the story of the 26th century space war'... he's hiring someone he thinks will do a good job of that. Most of the 'lore' of Wing Commander is a gloss, written to go with where the technology is being pushed.

He famously didn't want to do Wing Commander IV because it wasn't going to let him do any of that... like Wing Commander 2, the idea was to have a sequel using the old tech out within a year. The bargain he struck with EA was that they'd let him do something new and important--shoot the thing like an actual Hollywood film. The goal there wasn't to tell a particular Wing Commander story so much as it was to set up the whole industry to take a seat next to the folks making motion pictures (which happened to some degree but not as he hoped at the time!).

(If you're interested, the game he wanted to make in 1995 was an RPG called Silverheart that he hoped would merge video and gameplay in totally new ways. EA never let him do it!)

Speaking of Chris I saw star citizen pop up in my feed a lot this week and on YouTube because they're charging for a $48,000 bundle which is interesting to say the least.

To your other point, in general, I agree,
different creators have different interpretations of characters. but there does have to be some continuation in traits and story or you risk alienating half the fan base. which is what has happened across pop culture, to a very bad detriment. everything from Star Wars to Star Trek and everything in between has become fragmented beyond belief. I do feel like the creators that stick Closer To Source material have better luck and at least less blowback on them like Denis Villeneuve with Blade Runner 2049 and of course his interpretation of the dune novels so far. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I avoid most Star Citizen news these days and even I saw that! But even though these two comments weren't intended to be related, I think they really are. Because for all the complaining fans do about their IP work... it's still making much, much more money than the arguably better stuff you mentioned. The fragmentation we experience as nerds on the internet does not matter at all to the people behind it. The worst of the recent Star Warses made four times Blade Runner 2049... and that's before endless ancilliary profits! So while we cringe and go "ugh, $48,000 for a video game? that's so stupid" the people on the other end of things are perfectly happy to have that headline making the rounds... because in the end it just convinces a few more people to spend $48,000!
 
Bandit LOAF said:
But you will find that same jump to some degree in every piece of connected media! Look at Freedom Flight, which we're praising for having a similar voice to Wing Commander II... but it actually rewrites Ralgha's story itself. Wing Commander II has him confide in you that the reason he defected from the Empire was because he's an abolitionist and that it was specifically to rescue Downtown. It's a very 'warm and fuzzy' idea. Freedom Flight ignores that and instead attributes it to the intricacies of his culture and how it applies through his relationship with Hassa! I love that story, but it was an absolute intentional change to fit the medium (probably because it was too on the nose or that Downtown had no other role in Freedom Flight).
Click to expand...
Regarding this part, I see Freedom Flight as expanding and fine-tuning rather than switching the character around like WC3 did.

Strictly literally the character of WC2 Hobbes could be described as:

An aristocrat deeply disillusioned with the dishonorable actions of the Empire, with the rescue of a human child as an opportunity, joined the Terran Confederation Fleet.

The character of Freedom Flight Hobbes could be described as:

An aristocrat deeply disillusioned with the dishonorable actions of the Empire, in conflict with the Imperial family, and not looking forward to the prospect of war, was absorbed into the Resistance and assigned to the Terran Confederation Fleet.

As you can see, the two can be combined quite naturally:

An aristocrat deeply disillusioned with the dishonorable actions of the Empire, and not looking forward to the prospect of war, with the rescue of a human child as an opportunity, was absorbed into the Resistance and assigned to the Terran Confederation Fleet.


Bandit LOAF said:
On some level it's kind of funny that Wing Commander III and Freedom Flight are both reacting to the same thing here: feeling that Wing Commander II was too fawning and should be taken in a different direction. They just choose a different direction for Hobbes: building out a Kilrathi culture that hadn't been developed before versus rerolling the character to tell a different story. But I do think that in the end it's less that Wing Commander III is ignoring Wing Commander II so much as that it's ignoring Freedom Flight... which so unexpected for such an IP! (Although like the Jakhai stuff, that inherent contradiction can also be retroactively seen as more evidence that Ralgha is a spy... he's lying about his own background!)
Click to expand...

Don't forget that Hobbes' identity is simultaneously, or at least de facto, the representative of the Ghorah Khar in the Terran Confederation. He's also a politician, so he doesn't need to lie when he emphasizes his different experiences in different crowds.

And I'm not so sure WC3 established what kind of Kilrathi culture. What I see are stereotypes.
 
Last edited:
Some inferences on the background of the Ghorah Khar Resistance:

1. Rich colonies on the fringes of the empire, caught in a long period of stalemated war, slowly built up a self-identity, rather than having everything centered on imperial culture. This is evident from the fact that the spaceport town of Ghorah Khar still has a free market.

2. Gradually they realized that the empire could not win as quickly as in the history, that it would fail and collapse. Thus the spiritual rift between them and the Empire grew. Then, they organized the Resistance, decided to revolt.

3. The nobles of these colonies were most likely lower-middle class nobles who had limited appeal within the Kilrathi cultural system, so they needed someone of high pedigree to serve as a banner. So they absorbed Ralgha.

4. Ralgha was most likely not at the decision-making level in the Resistance back then.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top