[SmashMonkey]

* AdmiralRalwood ponders introducing a mechanic whereby continuous Maxim fire increases the stress on the barrel, and giving it too much stress causes it to break mid-mission.

And that's how the maintenance crew got *blammed*

[Kestrellius]

Well. This thread got weird.

[Colonol Dekker]

Belated welcome beam.

[X3N0-Life-Form]

(beams are lightsabers)

*invokes the comment someone made a long time ago on a thread regarding in-engine beam physics*

[Klaustrophobia]

(beams are lightsabers)

("Power up photon beam cannon")

[AdmiralRalwood]

("Power up photon beam cannon")

(Well, "photon torpedoes" use matter/antimatter warheads...)

[qwadtep]

("Power up photon beam cannon")

(Well, "photon torpedoes" use matter/antimatter warheads...)

Photons are the product of electron/positron annihilation, so...

[Vrets]

One aspect of "expanded universe" and "fanon" that I find to be cringeworthy is the pursuit of explanations for 'background static' elements, such as sound and non-newtonian physics in space. For example, trying to explain why Tie Fighters make that roaring sound (or any sound at all) just adds layers of confusion and fluff between the viewer/reader/player and actual plot. The mental gymnastics of trying to, say, justify non-newtonian physics, produces a distraction from things that actually make good stories...like space battles, space politics, and people trying to live difficult lives in space against a backdrop of cosmic horror, etc.

source: annoying friends in High School who tried to sell me on a variety of crappy "expanded universes" for Star Wars, Borehammer 40k, and some other fukin' **** I have mercifully forgotten

edit: I slightly regret this cruel post

[General Battuta]

One aspect of "expanded universe" and "fanon" that I find to be cringeworthy is the pursuit of explanations for 'background static' elements, such as sound and non-newtonian physics in space. For example, trying to explain why Tie Fighters make that roaring sound (or any sound at all) just adds layers of confusion and fluff between the viewer/reader/player and actual plot. The mental gymnastics of trying to, say, justify non-newtonian physics, produces a distraction from things that actually make good stories...like space battles, space politics, and people trying to live difficult lives in space against a backdrop of cosmic horror, etc.

source: annoying friends in High School who tried to sell me on a variety of crappy "expanded universes" for Star Wars, Borehammer 40k, and some other fukin' **** I have mercifully forgotten

edit: I slightly regret this cruel post

No it's true and right. You can say it to make people like you. Another thing you can do is say it when you want to feel correct.

[Lepanto]

Some people just like works of fiction for what they are on the surface. A lot of people also want to examine those works in detail and concoct elaborate fanon explanations for every setting detail and perceived inconsistency. Surely we can respect that we each engage the material in different ways?

[Kestrellius]

One aspect of "expanded universe" and "fanon" that I find to be cringeworthy is the pursuit of explanations for 'background static' elements, such as sound and non-newtonian physics in space. For example, trying to explain why Tie Fighters make that roaring sound (or any sound at all) just adds layers of confusion and fluff between the viewer/reader/player and actual plot. The mental gymnastics of trying to, say, justify non-newtonian physics, produces a distraction from things that actually make good stories...like space battles, space politics, and people trying to live difficult lives in space against a backdrop of cosmic horror, etc.

source: annoying friends in High School who tried to sell me on a variety of crappy "expanded universes" for Star Wars, Borehammer 40k, and some other fukin' **** I have mercifully forgotten

edit: I slightly regret this cruel post

The trouble is that people think fiction is about us. It's not. Fiction is about fiction. Entertainment is secondary to constructing a universe, and if that universe lacks fidelity, the writer has failed. If you want to make departures from our universe in how yours is constructed, that's fine -- it's good, in fact. Just copy-pasting our own universe and sticking your story into it is a dreadful idea, because it'll end up filling the cosmic hierarchy with derivative crap. (I just hope other races are more creative and less self-centered.) However, you have to explain how said universe works. Or at least establish that it does work somehow.

[General Battuta]

You don't have to do any of that and you can still create amazing art. A universe can operate entirely on dream logic and possess no internal consistency whatsoever, and it can be the fundament of a great story. A universe without fidelity may indicate a writer's triumph.

Analyzing and scrutinizing fictional universes is actually pretty dope and I'm down with it: the problem is that this technique is radically overrepresented in nerd spaces (due to really effective marketing) and the huge array of other techniques you can use to understand and improve fiction are often ignored.

People will happily analyze screen flash to estimate the yield of a turbolaser, but god forbid someone mention 'subtext'

[General Battuta]

Thomas Ligotti articulated a singular and compelling vision over the course of a cult career by arguing, over and over again, that nothing makes any sense and no one exists.

[General Battuta]

I would again wager that I have spent as much time rationalizing, cataloging, systematizing and explaining every wrinkle of the FS canon as anyone on Earth. We've gone as far as figuring out possible explanations for ship name discrepancies that were just V's errors. This analysis has helped generate and support an FS mythos now far more developed and internally consistent than the original canon. I clearly don't hate the technique!

But whenever you deploy a technique you must recognize its limitations and the strengths of its alternatives, lest you apply it in a situation outside its performance envelope. This is not a matter of personal preference. It's a matter of developing as a reader of text.

[Vrets]

My post has generated unintelligible responses from both sides of the debate, so I can only blame myself. I suck.

Entertainment is secondary to constructing a universe

If your goal is to produce unreadable fan-fiction, then you are right; but if you wish to make FreeSpace (The Game) a more immersive, fun story-telling experience, you are objectively wrong. The FreeSpace universe literally exists to supply a game (the universe was created to allow for entertainment).

This is why the Star Wars expanded universe got flushed...it grew so bloated and fixated on background static that it became an obstacle to telling a good story.

No it's true and right. You can say it to make people like you. Another thing you can do is say it when you want to feel correct.

So many "it's" make it impossible for me to understand your reply. Your post is like the hit film Prometheus...so much is left to my imagination.

[General Battuta]

This thread will help us achieve CHIM.

[Kestrellius]

Oh hey a TES lore nerd.

And the goal here is more Amaranth than CHIM, although CHIM is generally considered a prerequisite...

[Mongoose]

One aspect of "expanded universe" and "fanon" that I find to be cringeworthy is the pursuit of explanations for 'background static' elements, such as sound and non-newtonian physics in space. For example, trying to explain why Tie Fighters make that roaring sound (or any sound at all) just adds layers of confusion and fluff between the viewer/reader/player and actual plot. The mental gymnastics of trying to, say, justify non-newtonian physics, produces a distraction from things that actually make good stories...like space battles, space politics, and people trying to live difficult lives in space against a backdrop of cosmic horror, etc.

*cough*midichlorians*cough*

Some people just like works of fiction for what they are on the surface. A lot of people also want to examine those works in detail and concoct elaborate fanon explanations for every setting detail and perceived inconsistency. Surely we can respect that we each engage the material in different ways?

That's true, but I do think there's a fundamental difference between doing that sort of thing to the work itself, versus trying to awkwardly cram out-of-universe factors into the work, which is what the vast majority of that sort of fanon seems to be.  We all know that FS ship movements don't remotely conform to the basic laws of physics, and I think we all realize that they were made that way because wanted to capture the "WWII in space" feel that earlier genre pieces had popularized.  Now you can get wrap your mind into knots trying to rationalize what you see in-game, or you can just employ the MST3K Mantra, blame it all on luminiferous aether, and get on with blowing up Shivans.  I know which one I think suits the overall experience better.

To cite a non-FS example, the classic DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations" had the characters wondering about the different appearance of Klingons in the TOS-era setting, and Worf grumbling in response, "We don't like to talk about it."  It was a fantastic little way of hand-waving away the external reality of the original series not having the makeup budget to make Klingons look any different than normal humans with ugly beards.  The funny part is that the (overall excellent) final season of Enterprise actually came up with an in-universe explanation for what had happened, and while the arc was pretty good, looking back I feel like leaving things at Worf's one-liner was the best way to go.

[S-99]

Hi everyone, I'm new here. Don't I get an introduction to a Shivan named Carl or something?

I'll bring carl to you. You'd be surprised how cash he makes whenever he visits thailand.

[jr2]

Hi everyone, I'm new here. Don't I get an introduction to a Shivan named Carl or something?

There's a thread I made with a bunch of welcome speeches in it.  Fair warning, bring a lunch with you.