Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Wiki Project => Topic started by: Mobius on January 24, 2009, 02:16:40 pm
-
Retcon and retconning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon)
The community overuses a lot of terms like "inconsistency" but, at this point, I guess it's the case to introduce retconning in FreeSpace.
That'd prevent stuff like new theories like "Why FS1's Shivans didn't have any beam cannons?". The answer is simple, :v: simply wanted to add beam cannons to improve the sequel and added them. This is a typical retcon.
The "jump points from Sol" matter would deserve a similar treatment and the same thing can be done with many other aspects of the FreeSpace Universe.
Speaking under an FS Wiki point of view, a page in which all retconned things are listed would be ideal. Each entry will have a link to a given Wiki page for better comprehension. What do you think? :)
-
'Introduce retconning in Freespace'? Clarify please?
Anyway, it's a matter of opinion whether or not there were any retcons between Freespace 1 and Freespace 2. I personally favor that idea, but there are plenty of theories that propose explanations for the differential, and there's no reason to discard them.
ST:R suggested that Sol had phasing or periodic jump nodes, for instance. Did you play it?
-
I think retconning is a sign of terrible plot development.
If you need to retcon something, you have not thought it through.
-
'Introduce retconning in Freespace'? Clarify please?
Anyway, it's a matter of opinion whether or not there were any retcons between Freespace 1 and Freespace 2. I personally favor that idea, but there are plenty of theories that propose explanations for the differential, and there's no reason to discard them.
ST:R suggested that Sol had phasing or periodic jump nodes, for instance. Did you play it?
The addition of beam cannons, just to give an example, looks like an obvious retcon to me.
I linked that Wikipedia page to show what retconning is about. By "introducing retconning in FS" I mean "starting to treat inconsistencies in a different way".
In any case, the main intent is to prevent people from coming out with theories pretending to explain retconning. I read weird stuff about Shivan beams in FS1, just to give another example, and that kind of stuff is nearly widely accepted as fanon. That's not a good move, IMO.
I think retconning is a sign of terrible plot development.
If you need to retcon something, you have not thought it through.
Your point? For the greater good :v: decided to add more features in FS2. That included beam cannons, better shaped spacecraft&warships and so on.
What's wrong in accepting retcon?
-
In any case, the main intent is to prevent people from coming out with theories pretending to explain retconning. I read weird stuff about Shivan beams in FS1, just to give another example, and that kind of stuff is nearly widely accepted as fanon. That's not a good move, IMO.
I don't see any reason to discourage such theories. As you've often said, things should be explained in-universe as well as out-of-universe.
-
No, what I usually say is to make differences between ingame experiences and Universe-related ones. That has nothing to do with retconning.
-
No, what I usually say is to make differences between ingame experiences and Universe-related ones. That has nothing to do with retconning.
So you want everyone to stop coming up with theories?
I mean, we all know it's a retcon. Why is this big news, and why does it have to be anything official?
-
ST:R suggested that Sol had phasing or periodic jump nodes, for instance. Did you play it?
It's not strictly ST:R. Galemp and I had been toying around with a similar idea for a while, but it was Mad Bomber in this thread (http://www.sectorgame.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1717) who really crystallized the concept. :)
-
So you want everyone to stop coming up with theories?
No...
Theories are welcome...it's the tendence in considering them fanon which may be a problem. Accepting retconning is, IMO, the most appropriate way to accept radical changes.
I mean, we all know it's a retcon. Why is this big news, and why does it have to be anything official?
In can ensure you that not everyone here knows what a retcon is.
As for the "officiality", my idea is to have a list of retconned concepts because, IMO, there's a bad use of terms like "inconsistency".
Many community members don't know how to treat inconsistencies. They go for the "Uhm, I prefer the FS1 way so my FS2 campaign will use that concept".
-
Freespace has a reasonable continuity. There are plenty of justifications for each new thing.
The Lucifer fleet could simply have been a detached and primitive remnant of the main Shivan fleet, separated by the shifting of jump nodes. The shield system it uses also appears to be extremely vulnerable to beam weaponry, explaining why no other Shivan vessels have it; they probably prefer thicker hull armor in its stead.
(Incidentally fighters would still retain shields because fighters aren't giant blocks easily targetted by unstoppable beam weapons.)
And as for the Sol sole jumpnode thing; it's been what, thirty years? Do you really think any contemporary person would be completely accurate about it? How accurate are you about the details of the Vietnam War? What do you think is more likely; 1) "Because of the destruction of the Lucifer within the Delta Serpentis node, all contact with Sol was lost", or 2) "Because of the destruction of the Lucifer within, the Delta Serpentis jump node to Sol as well as, for some reason the two other jump nodes connected to Sol, collapsed".
It's not like Volition forgot about the other two nodes. "All the jump nodes to Sol have been destroyed."
-
The Lucifer fleet could simply have been a detached and primitive remnant of the main Shivan fleet, separated by the shifting of jump nodes. The shield system it uses also appears to be extremely vulnerable to beam weaponry, explaining why no other Shivan vessels have it; they probably prefer thicker hull armor in its stead.
(Incidentally fighters would still retain shields because fighters aren't giant blocks easily targetted by unstoppable beam weapons.)
That's EXACTLY what I was refering to earlier. That theory makes no sense but, yet still, is widely accepted. I read stuff like "The Shivan fleet didn't have beams because they would compromise intersystem jumps" while the most credible thing is to admit that the Shivans used volatile nodes, probably undetected/ignored by Terrans and Vasudans during the T-V War.
And as for the Sol sole jumpnode thing; it's been what, thirty years? Do you really think any contemporary person would be completely accurate about it? How accurate are you about the details of the Vietnam War? What do you think is more likely; 1) "Because of the destruction of the Lucifer within the Delta Serpentis node, all contact with Sol was lost", or 2) "Because of the destruction of the Lucifer within, the Delta Serpentis jump node to Sol as well as, for some reason the two other jump nodes connected to Sol, collapsed".
It's not like Volition forgot about the other two nodes. "All the jump nodes to Sol have been destroyed."
Again, no. Your statements are based on FS1 and not on FS2. That's why you completely miss the retcon.
Tell me, why did Petrarch mention the Delta Serpentis-Sol jump node, only, when he talked about the eventual construction of a Terran Knossos? Why doesn't he mention the other jump nodes? The answer is simple: that whole matter was retconned.
-
So you're saying that FS1 is non-canon now? :rolleyes:
-
:doubt:
FS1 is canon. Retconned stuff isn't.
-
The Lucifer fleet could simply have been a detached and primitive remnant of the main Shivan fleet, separated by the shifting of jump nodes. The shield system it uses also appears to be extremely vulnerable to beam weaponry, explaining why no other Shivan vessels have it; they probably prefer thicker hull armor in its stead.
(Incidentally fighters would still retain shields because fighters aren't giant blocks easily targetted by unstoppable beam weapons.)
That's EXACTLY what I was refering to earlier. That theory makes no sense but, yet still, is widely accepted. I read stuff like "The Shivan fleet didn't have beams because they would compromise intersystem jumps" while the most credible thing is to admit that the Shivans used volatile nodes, probably undetected/ignored by Terrans and Vasudans during the T-V War.
How does it not make any sense, exactly?
And the Lucifer fleet couldn't have had any contact with the core Shivan forces. Otherwise questions like 'where were the rest of them after the Lucifer went boom' come up.
Of course, you could always say that the node they came through from completely destabilized, but that would suffer from the problem of 'did the Shivans get more advanced in fifty years or what'?
And as for the Sol sole jumpnode thing; it's been what, thirty years? Do you really think any contemporary person would be completely accurate about it? How accurate are you about the details of the Vietnam War? What do you think is more likely; 1) "Because of the destruction of the Lucifer within the Delta Serpentis node, all contact with Sol was lost", or 2) "Because of the destruction of the Lucifer within, the Delta Serpentis jump node to Sol as well as, for some reason the two other jump nodes connected to Sol, collapsed".
It's not like Volition forgot about the other two nodes. "All the jump nodes to Sol have been destroyed."
Again, no. Your statements are based on FS1 and not on FS2. That's why you completely miss the retcon.
Tell me, why did Petrarch mention the Delta Serpentis-Sol jump node, only, when he talked about the eventual construction of a Terran Knossos? Why doesn't he mention the other jump nodes? The answer is simple: that whole matter was retconned.
Hah, easy, because the Knossos portal is a massive undertaking and the Delta Serpentis node is the closest to the GTVA core systems, so the organization would be simple. You missed my point that people would mainly remember the Delta Serpentis node as the node which actually went KABLOOEY.
For storytelling reasons, the other nodes are insignificant and don't need to be mentioned. That doesn't mean they were never actually there. Now, if there was an specific in-game statement saying that "the only subspace node to Earth" was destroyed, that would be a retcon.
-
How does it not make any sense, exactly?
And the Lucifer fleet couldn't have had any contact with the core Shivan forces. Otherwise questions like 'where were the rest of them after the Lucifer went boom' come up.
Of course, you could always say that the node they came through from completely destabilized, but that would suffer from the problem of 'did the Shivans get more advanced in fifty years or what'?
The worst thing about the matter is that people pretend to consider it fanon while it isn't. Fanon has to be accepted by the community as a whole but I'm afraid this theory doesn't work.
1) Had the Shivans sortied more units the game would have never come to a conclusion. The newly formed TV Alliance wouldn't have been able to fight Shivan reinforcements.
In any case, the "Shivan task force" theory, although acceptable, has no significance in explaining why the Shivans didn't have beams in FS1.
When the GTVA faced the Shivans in FS2 no one said: "Hey, those guys now have beams like the ones we developed in the past years! Isn't it a bit strange?". Again, the answer is simple: retcon.
Hah, easy, because the Knossos portal is a massive undertaking and the Delta Serpentis node is the closest to the GTVA core systems, so the organization would be simple. You missed my point that people would mainly remember the Delta Serpentis node as the node which actually went KABLOOEY.
For storytelling reasons, the other nodes are insignificant and don't need to be mentioned. That doesn't mean they were never actually there. Now, if there was an specific in-game statement saying that "the only subspace node to Earth" was destroyed, that would be a retcon.
You keep missing the point. The phrase you mentioned comes from the same old source, FreeSpace 1. It proves nothing because FS2 came later.
Also, Deneb and Beta Aquilae weren't remote/unimportant systems. Deneb was an important system attacked by the NTF and Beta Aquilae is the place where the BETAC was signed.
Node Inconsistencies (FreeSpace Wiki page) (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Node_Inconsistencies#CBAnim)
There are a number of jump node connections that are used in FreeSpace but are not illustrated on the Official Volition Node Map. They are listed below, along with their references and how valid you should consider them. Volition says that the node map should overrule other references.
(http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/images/Fsnodemap.jpg)
:v: had a lot of confusion even when FS1 got released and then decided to clear everything by claiming that the official nodemap is the only one that counts. Let me say something about the matter:
1) In the official nodemap (:v: dixit) there's only one jump node from Sol, and it leads to Delta Serpentis;
2) That statement by :v: it is clearly proved that they retconned the map...at this point I don't understand why the same principle shouldn't be applied to FS2;
-
Quote me the exact statement that retcons FS1.
-
How does it not make any sense, exactly?
And the Lucifer fleet couldn't have had any contact with the core Shivan forces. Otherwise questions like 'where were the rest of them after the Lucifer went boom' come up.
Of course, you could always say that the node they came through from completely destabilized, but that would suffer from the problem of 'did the Shivans get more advanced in fifty years or what'?
The worst thing about the matter is that people pretend to consider it fanon while it isn't. Fanon has to be accepted by the community as a whole but I'm afraid this theory doesn't work.
1) Had the Shivans sortied more units the game would have never come to a conclusion. The newly formed TV Alliance wouldn't have been able to fight Shivan reinforcements.
That's not actually a reason. That's more why it was done for the sake of the story. Next you'll say that the reason why the Shivans are so numerous in the second game isn't because they've been expanding in space for millenia, but because Volition needed an implacable enemy for future sequels.
How does it not make any sense, exactly?
And the Lucifer fleet couldn't have had any contact with the core Shivan forces. Otherwise questions like 'where were the rest of them after the Lucifer went boom' come up.
Of course, you could always say that the node they came through from completely destabilized, but that would suffer from the problem of 'did the Shivans get more advanced in fifty years or what'?
The worst thing about the matter is that people pretend to consider it fanon while it isn't. Fanon has to be accepted by the community as a whole but I'm afraid this theory doesn't work.
1) Had the Shivans sortied more units the game would have never come to a conclusion. The newly formed TV Alliance wouldn't have been able to fight Shivan reinforcements.
In any case, the "Shivan task force" theory, although acceptable, has no significance in explaining why the Shivans didn't have beams in FS1.
When the GTVA faced the Shivans in FS2 no one said: "Hey, those guys now have beams like the ones we developed in the past years! Isn't it a bit strange?". Again, the answer is simple: retcon.
They don't have a discussion on why the Lucifer fleet was so comparatively small either. That doesn't mean discussions weren't had.
Anyway, why on earth would they find it strange? The Shivans were the ones who developed beam technology in the first place! Of course people won't find it odd that they've upgraded since then, especially since the GTVA has done so successfully.
Hah, easy, because the Knossos portal is a massive undertaking and the Delta Serpentis node is the closest to the GTVA core systems, so the organization would be simple. You missed my point that people would mainly remember the Delta Serpentis node as the node which actually went KABLOOEY.
For storytelling reasons, the other nodes are insignificant and don't need to be mentioned. That doesn't mean they were never actually there. Now, if there was an specific in-game statement saying that "the only subspace node to Earth" was destroyed, that would be a retcon.
You keep missing the point. The phrase you mentioned comes from the same old source, FreeSpace 1. It proves nothing because FS2 came later.
Also, Deneb and Beta Aquilae weren't remote/unimportant systems. Deneb was an important system attacked by the NTF and Beta Aquilae is the place where the BETAC was signed.
Node Inconsistencies (FreeSpace Wiki page) (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Node_Inconsistencies#CBAnim)
There are a number of jump node connections that are used in FreeSpace but are not illustrated on the Official Volition Node Map. They are listed below, along with their references and how valid you should consider them. Volition says that the node map should overrule other references.
:v: had a lot of confusion even when FS1 got released and then decided to clear everything by claiming that the official nodemap is the only one that counts. Let me say something about the matter:
1) In the official nodemap (:v: dixit) there's only one jump node from Sol, and it leads to Delta Serpentis;
2) That statement by :v: it is clearly proved that they retconned the map...at this point I don't understand why the same principle shouldn't be applied to FS2;
Hmmm, alright then, I'll concede that they retconned it in this matter. Not on the other though.
-
Quote me the exact statement that retcons FS1.
That seems a silly posts. You're somewhat implying that I hate FS1 or something while what I'm willing to do has nothing to do with it.
That's not actually a reason. That's more why it was done for the sake of the story. Next you'll say that the reason why the Shivans are so numerous in the second game isn't because they've been expanding in space for millenia, but because Volition needed an implacable enemy for future sequels.
Wrong...
They don't have a discussion on why the Lucifer fleet was so comparatively small either. That doesn't mean discussions weren't had.
Anyway, why on earth would they find it strange? The Shivans were the ones who developed beam technology in the first place! Of course people won't find it odd that they've upgraded since then, especially since the GTVA has done so successfully.
May I know why GTVA units faced the Behemoth and the Goliath without mentioning their beam weapons? They should have been surprised/worried had they kept thinking that the Shivans didn't have beam cannons.
:v: simply retconned Shivan weapons and gave them beams to improve the game. It's not that hard to accept, dude.
Hmmm, alright then, I'll concede that they retconned it in this matter. Not on the other though.
The other matter is more conceivable. :P
-
Whoaaaakay, Mobius. Slow down, take a few breaths.
People can come up with whatever theories they like to explain these inconsistencies. And, for now, that's what they are: inconsistencies.
Because at no point in FS2 did anyone actually come out and say 'the Shivans have always had beams, they had them back in the Great War'. Nor did anyone say 'There was only ever one jump node to Sol.' As Snail said, it's hard to find a single statement that retcons FS1.
Inconsistencies were ignored or glossed over, but no one came out and retroactively changed anything. So were there any actual retcons? Arguable, I guess.
If Volition had made a point of retconning in the story, we'd know, because it would be glaringly obvious: 'The Shivans have always had beams.' As it is now, you can read it either way.
Maybe those pilots attacking the Behemoth weren't surprised because the Shivans have always had beams - a retcon. Maybe it was some other reason.
But there's just no reason to force this idea down the community's collective throat. Why not let people do their thing? There is no Freespace fanon, and there's no need to create some crazy set of rules a la Lucasfilm Licensing.
Lastly, what do you mean retcons aren't canon? By definition they supersede and replace existing canon. They are certainly canon.
-
That's not actually a reason. That's more why it was done for the sake of the story. Next you'll say that the reason why the Shivans are so numerous in the second game isn't because they've been expanding in space for millenia, but because Volition needed an implacable enemy for future sequels.
Wrong...
They don't have a discussion on why the Lucifer fleet was so comparatively small either. That doesn't mean discussions weren't had.
Anyway, why on earth would they find it strange? The Shivans were the ones who developed beam technology in the first place! Of course people won't find it odd that they've upgraded since then, especially since the GTVA has done so successfully.
May I know why GTVA units faced the Behemoth and the Goliath without mentioning their beam weapons? They should have been surprised/worried had they kept thinking that the Shivans didn't have beam cannons.
:v: simply retconned Shivan weapons and gave them beams to improve the game. It's not that hard to accept, dude.[/mobius]
Because the Behemoth had earlier destroyed a GTVA cruiser group with its beam cannons. You know, the surprise attack which actually kicked off the Second Shivan Encounter? It wasn't actually a surprise at that point.
-
People can come up with whatever theories they like to explain these inconsistencies. And, for now, that's what they are: inconsistencies.
Because at no point in FS2 did anyone actually come out and say 'the Shivans have always had beams, they had them back in the Great War'. Nor did anyone say 'There was only ever one jump node to Sol.' As Snail said, it's hard to find a single statement that retcons FS1.
Retconning means changing things and pretend that they've always been that way, with minimal references. As for Snail, he should definitely look at the starmap posted above. He should also read that excerpt from :v:.
The fact that no one said stuff like "The Shivans had beams since the Great War" fits with retconning in a perfect way. If something is standardized why would you mention it? Do I need to remind you that humans are supposed to have two legs, two eyes, two years, one node, etc. etc.?
Lastly, what do you mean retcons aren't canon? By definition they supersede and replace existing canon. They are certainly canon.
I meant that FS1 sources retconned in FS2 shouldn't be considered canon.
Because the Behemoth had earlier destroyed a GTVA cruiser group with its beam cannons. You know, the surprise attack which actually kicked off the Second Shivan Encounter? It wasn't actually a surprise at that point.
The Behemoth attacked and destroy only a single cruiser, not a cruiser group.
Had the GTVA been surprised of the beams then Petrarch would have mentioned them. The fact that Petrarch didn't is a clear evidence of retconning because retconning, as I said, means changing stuff and pretend that it has always been that way. There was no need to mention the presence of beams just as sure as there was no need to mention the fact that most Shivan ships are red.
EDIT: This thread has derailed. It was meant as a place to discuss the plans for adding references to retconning but it turned into a GFD thread that is likely to lead to nothing.
-
EDIT: This thread has derailed. It was meant as a place to discuss the plans for adding references to retconning but it turned into a GFD thread that is likely to lead to nothing.[/mobius]
Yeah, because nobody agrees with you. :rolleyes:
-
I would say that the question of the nature and composition of the Shivan fleet in FS1 is resolved because of FS2's new information, not in spite of it. In other words, we're given the answer in no uncertain terms based on what we learn in FS2.
Think of the Knossos in Gamma Draconis. It was seemingly deactivated by the Ancients in a (vain) attempt to stop the Shivan advance, and it wasn't activated again until the Trinity did so on Bosch's orders. That's a good 8000-year span without any contact between the GTVA's current area of space and the systems beyond Gamma Draconis. From what we see in Into the Lion's Den, either the Shivans' core space itself or at least some large concentration of them lies beyond that series of Knossos portals; one can even surmise that creating them and stabilizing those nodes is what brought the Ancients into contact with the Shivans in the first place. Since we know all of that, is it any real stretch to assume that the Lucifer fleet is the same fleet which destroyed the core remnants of the Ancients' empire 8000 years ago?
The Vasudan scientists stranded on Altair recognized the planet as having been attacked by Shivan weapons; since the Lucifer fleet's weapons were the only ones they had any knowledge of, it's no stretch to assume that the Lucifer itself caused the destruction. Let's say that, after wiping out the Ancients, the Shivan fleet returns to Gamma Draconis, only to find the node sealed behind them. Cut off from whatever command structures the Shivans possess, the Lucifer and her accompanying ships have no other choice but to find someplace to sit around and wait. Fast-forward 8000 years, and they begin to pick up signals from two other subspace-capable species that are currently going at each other...and you know the rest.
So there you go. That's all based on information that we learn in both games, and it easily explains why the Shivan cruisers and destroyers in FS1 don't possess any sort of beam weaponry. No retcons required.
Had the GTVA been surprised of the beams then Petrarch would have mentioned them. The fact that Petrarch didn't is a clear evidence of retconning because retconning, as I said, means changing stuff and pretend that it has always been that way. There was no need to mention the presence of beams just as sure as there was no need to mention the fact that most Shivan ships are red.
Petrarch didn't even need to specifically mention the fact, since anyone with a pair of eyes could see the sensor video clip in that command briefing showing a Shivan ship firing beam cannons. It was an established fact at that point. Just because he didn't express surprise in that one briefing doesn't mean that the GTVA as a whole didn't express surprise when the information was first discovered. Just because the game didn't explicitly state a certain reaction or stance doesn't make that stance any less feasible.
Or maybe it was all some nebulous retcon to work around the fact that :v: had managed to put spiffy new weapons into the sequel. But if that's the case...who cares?
-
Petrarch didn't even need to specifically mention the fact, since anyone with a pair of eyes could see the sensor video clip in that command briefing showing a Shivan ship firing beam cannons. It was an established fact at that point. Just because he didn't express surprise in that one briefing doesn't mean that the GTVA as a whole didn't express surprise when the information was first discovered. Just because the game didn't explicitly state a certain reaction or stance doesn't make that stance any less feasible.
Strange, because Petrarch talked a lot about the new class of Shivan units encountered - the Rakshasa and Mara - with no reference to their weapons. Also, Command said that the full capabilities of the Rakshasa were yet to be discovered. Still, no reference to beam cannons.
Or maybe it was all some nebulous retcon to work around the fact that :v: had managed to put spiffy new weapons into the sequel. But if that's the case...who cares?
"Who cares?"
That's the whole point of this thread, accepting that kind of changes as retcon. If the FS Wiki is to provide the community with info then it should accomplish that goal in the most exhaustive way. That's why I decided to create this thread in the first place. :)
-
That's the whole point of this thread, accepting that kind of changes as retcon. If the FS Wiki is to provide the community with info then it should accomplish that goal in the most exhaustive way. That's why I decided to create this thread in the first place. :)
As far as I can see, not everyone (in fact, nobody except for you) seems to accept this whole retcon idea, so it should stay off the Wiki or at least be isolated to one article and not be spread all over the entire Wiki.
-
As far as I can see, not everyone (in fact, nobody except for you) seems to accept this whole retcon idea, so it should stay off the Wiki or at least be isolated to one article and not be spread all over the entire Wiki.
I thought I mentioned the creation of a single article that points to other pages for further info. :rolleyes:
Also, "nobody except for you"? First of all, I'd like to say that not everyone here knows what a retcon is(we all know how they work, though). Also, most community members and Wiki contributors didn't post here. How can you claim something like that? :rolleyes:
-
Fine, just remember not everyone agrees with you.
-
Mobius, you are an odd creature.
I am not entirely sure what you're on about any more. Do you want to create a big page that says 'Retcons between FS1 and FS2?' Do you want to delete pages that say 'inconsistencies between FS1 and FS2'? Do you want to add a few sentences to existing pages?
-
He wants to make a big page about retcons I guess.
-
Petrarch didn't even need to specifically mention the fact, since anyone with a pair of eyes could see the sensor video clip in that command briefing showing a Shivan ship firing beam cannons. It was an established fact at that point. Just because he didn't express surprise in that one briefing doesn't mean that the GTVA as a whole didn't express surprise when the information was first discovered. Just because the game didn't explicitly state a certain reaction or stance doesn't make that stance any less feasible.
Strange, because Petrarch talked a lot about the new class of Shivan units encountered - the Rakshasa and Mara - with no reference to their weapons. Also, Command said that the full capabilities of the Rakshasa were yet to be discovered. Still, no reference to beam cannons.
Or maybe it was all some nebulous retcon to work around the fact that :v: had managed to put spiffy new weapons into the sequel. But if that's the case...who cares?
"Who cares?"
That's the whole point of this thread, accepting that kind of changes as retcon. If the FS Wiki is to provide the community with info then it should accomplish that goal in the most exhaustive way. That's why I decided to create this thread in the first place. :)
They don't go OMGWTFBBQ for every new thing the Shivans come up with, unless you think that they had Aeshmas during the Great War. Not to mention beam weapons are standard among terran vessels at the time, so it's not really something you need to brief people on.
-
They don't go OMGWTFBBQ for every new thing the Shivans come up with, unless you think that they had Aeshmas during the Great War.
"Also, pilots, you might want to know we encountered a new type of badly crappy fighter - called the Aeshmas. Intelligence is still studying it to understand what sort of danger this new ship can possibly represent, and whether to classify it as a "C" threat or a "D" threat".
-
Bombers pose a greater threat to me than any of the fighters... :nervous:
-
Bombers pose a greater threat to me than any of the fighters... :nervous:
That's what happens when you charge the ships with the most primaries in the entire game head on. :drevil:
-
Fine, just remember not everyone agrees with you.
I created this thread following a few opinions of yours. Citing yourself as "someone who doesn't agree with me" is threadbare, in this case. :rolleyes:
Mobius, you are an odd creature.
:wtf:
I am not entirely sure what you're on about any more. Do you want to create a big page that says 'Retcons between FS1 and FS2?' Do you want to delete pages that say 'inconsistencies between FS1 and FS2'? Do you want to add a few sentences to existing pages?
He wants to make a big page about retcons I guess.
If this thread is in this board there must be a reason, right? And I thought you read my first post. I wasn't the one who turned this into a typical General FreeSpace thread.
They don't go OMGWTFBBQ for every new thing the Shivans come up with, unless you think that they had Aeshmas during the Great War. Not to mention beam weapons are standard among terran vessels at the time, so it's not really something you need to brief people on.
Dude, what you said doesn't make sense. Wouldn't they be worried if minor Shivan vessels come out with weapons comparable to the ones used by the Lucifer? They're not the same thing but they're still a powerful foe. Also, their effectiveness makes GTVA beam weapons very poor in a direct comparison.
The SC Goliath jumped from the nebula and fired beams. Nothing about the "amazing news" on the matter. Typical in a retcon.
They don't go OMGWTFBBQ for every new thing the Shivans come up with, unless you think that they had Aeshmas during the Great War.
"Also, pilots, you might want to know we encountered a new type of badly crappy fighter - called the Aeshmas. Intelligence is still studying it to understand what sort of danger this new ship can possibly represent, and whether to classify it as a "C" threat or a "D" threat".
Another nonsense.
The SF Aeshma is a relatively rare, and only recently encountered, class of Shivan fighter. It appears to be a heavy attack fighter, like the Basilisk. With a low known top speed, Aeshmas seem to target slower-moving vessels, such as bombers, freighters, and gas miners. Their powerful lasers make them a danger to all such craft, so they must be engaged and destroyed as quickly as possible.
Tech descriptions are supposed to be read. :rolleyes:
-
What exactly do you want to do again?
It sounds like you came upon the term 'retcon' and decided that 'whoa, we really need this for Freespace.' But it's a familiar term, and while it's accurate, I don't think we need to go slapping it up on the Wiki...
-
Why are the beams the Goliath fired the whole point of your argument? The GTVA got beams in the 30 years between wars. The Shivans were more advanced to begin with. Why is it such a stretch that Allied command would not be surprised. Besides, in a breifing, the CO has to appear calm and collected or morale goes to hell. Admitting surprise to the people you are sending to their deaths is bad form. Add to that the fact that the real surprise would be finding the Shivans out there at all. The beams are superfluous.
The SC Goliath jumped from the nebula and fired beams. Nothing about the "amazing news" on the matter. Typical in a retcon.
So therefore just because the mood of the briefing is unsurprised, it's a retcon. Flimsy logic there.
Why are you so rooted to having a 'retcon page?' More people disagree with you here than agree with you. People can come up with their own ideas about why this or that happened. :v: made the game, what you think are your opinions. Let us keep ours.
-
Concur.
-
If we need to retcon, we're doing it wrong. The original Freespace storyline holds together well enough, even with these possible loose ends, but if you want the whole storyline revamped and the game remade so that there are absolutely no plotholes whatsoever, that's your baby. We won't complain if you do it, but we'll not lose sleep wondering about the answers to questions nobody asked.
-
Mobius was right, a lot of people have no idea what retconning means.
There is overwhelming evidence to support the idea that the excess nodes to Sol/beam weapon continuity was retconned in Fs2. But it seems like the majority would prefer to fill the gap with interesting theories...and that's just fine. In fact, it's better that way! Retconning closes the door on speculation and is ultimately unneccessary as the same job can be done through fan theorizing, which is always more fun and a lot healthier for the community.
I don't see any problem with Mobius making a list of retcons, or whatever. I'm sure it would be very accurate. But despite the obviousness of the retconning taking place, lacking any official word from :V: it's better that these gaps be filled with theorycrafting. I mean, you can make a structurally sound sandwich with mud, but who wants to eat it?
My vote: mention that a retcon took place if you want. But I don't see the point. It will be insultingly, pointlessly obvious to anyone who knows that a retcon is a retroactive plot revision, and will leave those who are unfamiliar with the term reaching for their flamethrowers because the dictionary takes a few more mouseclicks. I don't see what it would accomplish, so go ahead by all means.
mmm sandwiches
-
I'd prefer if they were kept to one page and were named 'inconsistencies', not retcons. Since they're not retcons.
-
Guys, let's get straight to the point. Many brilliant plot creators had to retcon their stuff. It happened to JRR Tolkien, it happened to the creators of BSG. May I know why you keep thinking that :v: was so perfect even if there are enough sources proving that they applied the rules of retcon?
For God's sake, may I know why the FS community is the only place in which the word "inconsistency" is misused? No one talks about retcons and the behavior towards those inconsistencies is ambiguous and inconclusive.
What exactly do you want to do again?
It sounds like you came upon the term 'retcon' and decided that 'whoa, we really need this for Freespace.' But it's a familiar term, and while it's accurate, I don't think we need to go slapping it up on the Wiki...
Familiar term? I'm afraid you're wrong.
What I want to do? Edits, edits and edits as soon as this problem (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,57946.0.html/) is solved.
Why are the beams the Goliath fired the whole point of your argument? The GTVA got beams in the 30 years between wars. The Shivans were more advanced to begin with. Why is it such a stretch that Allied command would not be surprised. Besides, in a breifing, the CO has to appear calm and collected or morale goes to hell. Admitting surprise to the people you are sending to their deaths is bad form. Add to that the fact that the real surprise would be finding the Shivans out there at all. The beams are superfluous.
The SC Goliath jumped from the nebula and fired beams. Nothing about the "amazing news" on the matter. Typical in a retcon.
So therefore just because the mood of the briefing is unsurprised, it's a retcon. Flimsy logic there.
Why are you so rooted to having a 'retcon page?' More people disagree with you here than agree with you. People can come up with their own ideas about why this or that happened. :v: made the game, what you think are your opinions. Let us keep ours.
Your psychological analysis is truly debatable and...
...guess who's imposing his opinion? Surely not me. I'm introducing a change and I have proofs to backup it. If your fingers are stuck in your ears, well, this is not my problem.
If we need to retcon, we're doing it wrong. The original Freespace storyline holds together well enough, even with these possible loose ends, but if you want the whole storyline revamped and the game remade so that there are absolutely no plotholes whatsoever, that's your baby. We won't complain if you do it, but we'll not lose sleep wondering about the answers to questions nobody asked.
Thanks for the suggestion but I don't think creating a "What If...?" campaign is the right thing. It'd get the opposite result.
Mobius was right, a lot of people have no idea what retconning means.
There is overwhelming evidence to support the idea that the excess nodes to Sol/beam weapon continuity was retconned in Fs2. But it seems like the majority would prefer to fill the gap with interesting theories...and that's just fine. In fact, it's better that way! Retconning closes the door on speculation and is ultimately unneccessary as the same job can be done through fan theorizing, which is always more fun and a lot healthier for the community.
I don't see any problem with Mobius making a list of retcons, or whatever. I'm sure it would be very accurate. But despite the obviousness of the retconning taking place, lacking any official word from :V: it's better that these gaps be filled with theorycrafting. I mean, you can make a structurally sound sandwich with mud, but who wants to eat it?
The problem is about the hierarchy. What :v: made is canon, so why would canon retcons be put to an inferior level, replaced by fan made theories?
Everyone is free to create his/her theory but unless you put it to a very good use (i.e. a campaign) there's no point in spreading it and expecting people to accept it while retcon is the most credible solution.
I'd prefer if they were kept to one page and were named 'inconsistencies', not retcons. Since they're not retcons.
Snail, your brain is a mystery.
Node Inconsistencies (FreeSpace Wiki page) (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Node_Inconsistencies#CBAnim)
There are a number of jump node connections that are used in FreeSpace but are not illustrated on the Official Volition Node Map. They are listed below, along with their references and how valid you should consider them. Volition says that the node map should overrule other references.
(http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/images/Fsnodemap.jpg)
:v: had a lot of confusion even when FS1 got released and then decided to clear everything by claiming that the official nodemap is the only one that counts. Let me say something about the matter:
1) In the official nodemap (:v: dixit) there's only one jump node from Sol, and it leads to Delta Serpentis;
2) That statement by :v: it is clearly proved that they retconned the map...at this point I don't understand why the same principle shouldn't be applied to FS2;
What I see here is a retcon. And I also see :v: accepting it. What's the point in refusing such an obvious thing? What's the point in limiting the subject to the starmap, alone?
And be polite - feel free to say that not everyone agrees with me but as long as the individuals who don't agree are close minded and refuse to accept the obvious please forgive me for not considering their opinions unless they cite proofs that totally nullify what I've been saying.
-
...what's the point in making a big deal out of it?
Again, we know there are retcons. That's no reason not to come up with cool theories about them. Sure, the Sol jump node thing was retconned, but ST:R also came up with a great theory to explain it.
Calm down!
-
I am calm. :)
I didn't expect such a high level of attrition towards me, especially by a random guy like Snail who refuses to accept the obvious. :rolleyes:
About the theories - tey should be left as theories. First place in the hierarchy: retcon. Second place, fillable by the community: theories. It's not the contrary.
-
I still don't even understand what you're on about. Who wants to make theories into some kind of canon?
You are tilting at windmills, my quixotic friend.
-
I have a problem that prevents me from creating new Wiki pages and edit them. That's why I'm not taking the initiative.
On a side note, from what I heard, those Shivan task force theories according to which the FS1's Shivans didn't have beams because of the need to make intersystem jumps appear to be widely accepted.
Also, take look at this:
I would say that the question of the nature and composition of the Shivan fleet in FS1 is resolved because of FS2's new information, not in spite of it. In other words, we're given the answer in no uncertain terms based on what we learn in FS2.
Think of the Knossos in Gamma Draconis. It was seemingly deactivated by the Ancients in a (vain) attempt to stop the Shivan advance, and it wasn't activated again until the Trinity did so on Bosch's orders. That's a good 8000-year span without any contact between the GTVA's current area of space and the systems beyond Gamma Draconis. From what we see in Into the Lion's Den, either the Shivans' core space itself or at least some large concentration of them lies beyond that series of Knossos portals; one can even surmise that creating them and stabilizing those nodes is what brought the Ancients into contact with the Shivans in the first place. Since we know all of that, is it any real stretch to assume that the Lucifer fleet is the same fleet which destroyed the core remnants of the Ancients' empire 8000 years ago?
The Vasudan scientists stranded on Altair recognized the planet as having been attacked by Shivan weapons; since the Lucifer fleet's weapons were the only ones they had any knowledge of, it's no stretch to assume that the Lucifer itself caused the destruction. Let's say that, after wiping out the Ancients, the Shivan fleet returns to Gamma Draconis, only to find the node sealed behind them. Cut off from whatever command structures the Shivans possess, the Lucifer and her accompanying ships have no other choice but to find someplace to sit around and wait. Fast-forward 8000 years, and they begin to pick up signals from two other subspace-capable species that are currently going at each other...and you know the rest.
So there you go. That's all based on information that we learn in both games, and it easily explains why the Shivan cruisers and destroyers in FS1 don't possess any sort of beam weaponry. No retcons required.
Had the GTVA been surprised of the beams then Petrarch would have mentioned them. The fact that Petrarch didn't is a clear evidence of retconning because retconning, as I said, means changing stuff and pretend that it has always been that way. There was no need to mention the presence of beams just as sure as there was no need to mention the fact that most Shivan ships are red.
Petrarch didn't even need to specifically mention the fact, since anyone with a pair of eyes could see the sensor video clip in that command briefing showing a Shivan ship firing beam cannons. It was an established fact at that point. Just because he didn't express surprise in that one briefing doesn't mean that the GTVA as a whole didn't express surprise when the information was first discovered. Just because the game didn't explicitly state a certain reaction or stance doesn't make that stance any less feasible.
Or maybe it was all some nebulous retcon to work around the fact that :v: had managed to put spiffy new weapons into the sequel. But if that's the case...who cares?
I'm afraid the part about FS1's Shivans is not true. The Ancient Empire was immense so the Shivans did not sortie only the small task force we see in FS1. Even if they sortied a much larger task force, it'd be hard to believe that the Ancients nearly decimated it, leaving only the fleet we see in FS1. That's not what the Ancient monologues suggest because leaving such a small remnant of the main Shivan task force would sound more as an Ancient victory, giving the original dimensions of the fleets which engaged each other in combat.
Just to point how widely accepted theories are, if analysed, not that reliable.
-
I'm afraid the part about FS1's Shivans is not true. The Ancient Empire was immense so the Shivans did not sortie only the small task force we see in FS1. Even if they sortied a much larger task force, it'd be hard to believe that the Ancients nearly decimated it, leaving only the fleet we see in FS1. That's not what the Ancient monologues suggest because leaving such a small remnant of the main Shivan task force would sound more as an Ancient victory, giving the original dimensions of the fleets which engaged each other in combat.
Just to point how widely accepted theories are, if analysed, not that reliable.
And how do you know that the Shivans would have needed a force any larger than we saw in FS1 to destroy the Ancients? :v: themselves said that the Ancients weren't that far ahead of the Great-War-era Terrans and Vasudans technology-wise, with the obvious exception of subspace technology. And one of the Anicent monologues has a very telling quote: "But these were not like the others. They did not die." I'd say it's fairly likely that the Ancients were physically unable to impose any sort of substantial damage on the Shivan fleet...think trying to down even something as weak as a Scorpion using only ML-16s. We certainly know that they weren't able to do anything against the Lucifer, since they only discovered the secret to getting through its shields after they were still able to put that knowledge into practice. Even a single Lucifer-class vessel by itself could presumably have rampaged through entire fleets of Ancient ships, all without suffering so much as a scratch. Maybe the Ancients managed to pick off some cruisers and a destroyer or two, but even what was left by the time of FS1 could have easily walked right over them.
So there you go. A position well-supported by multiple canon sources that doesn't require any retconning at all. :p
-
Seems like Mobius really wants an excuse to make his own continuity. No offense, Mob, but it just seems to be that we're not going to get any true process on this retcon issue unless these hazy issues are settled by a solid, continuous belief across the entire community. And, as you can see, that's not going to be likely until the theory is proposed in a campaign or something.
-
I didn't expect such a high level of attrition towards me, especially by a random guy like Snail who refuses to accept the obvious. :rolleyes:
It's not obvious it's your opinion
-
It is obvious that the nodemap has been retconned. No trouble with this.
Then, I have some troubles going much further :
- What is retcon, and what is "inconsistancies", "mistake" ? I think even the developpers of FS were not half as fan of their game as we are of their ; and things they didn't care too much about became canon for us.
- What is "mystery that is going to unravel in FS3".
Though, I DO agree that Command not noticing the beam weapon in the briefing is weird. That doesn't mean anything more. There is no one saying "their AA beams are still as dangerous as during the Great War". It might as well have been an overlook from the developper of the mission, who forget to mention this. Remember that if memory serves, by that level, the player has already been facing tough beam weapons, so they might have overlooked the fact that Shivan beam weapons were actually new.
So theories t explain this are speculative. Exactly like saying it was retconned is just as speculative. The only thing we can say for sure is that command didn't say anything about the use of beam weapons.
Still, the most puzzling mystery for me is to understand how you can swear at one another for this. MY GF who read above my shoulder just said :
"Donc il y a des gens pour s'engueuler sur des points mineurs de la chronologie d'un jeu d'action de plus de 10 ans ! Talk about neeeeeerrddds !" (you'll translate :p)
-
It is obvious that the nodemap has been retconned. No trouble with this.
As someone has said there are explanations, not only retcons. So there is TRUBBLE.
-
"Talk about Nerds! These guys argue over minor chronological points in a 10-year old action-game!"
Bleh. My french sucks.
-
And how do you know that the Shivans would have needed a force any larger than we saw in FS1 to destroy the Ancients? :v: themselves said that the Ancients weren't that far ahead of the Great-War-era Terrans and Vasudans technology-wise, with the obvious exception of subspace technology. And one of the Anicent monologues has a very telling quote: "But these were not like the others. They did not die." I'd say it's fairly likely that the Ancients were physically unable to impose any sort of substantial damage on the Shivan fleet...think trying to down even something as weak as a Scorpion using only ML-16s. We certainly know that they weren't able to do anything against the Lucifer, since they only discovered the secret to getting through its shields after they were still able to put that knowledge into practice. Even a single Lucifer-class vessel by itself could presumably have rampaged through entire fleets of Ancient ships, all without suffering so much as a scratch. Maybe the Ancients managed to pick off some cruisers and a destroyer or two, but even what was left by the time of FS1 could have easily walked right over them.
So there you go. A position well-supported by multiple canon sources that doesn't require any retconning at all. :p
Too bad that canon also proved. It's not the quality here, it's the quantity. Terrans and Vasudans have been conquering space for centuries. The Ancients had been conquered space for thousands of years and pardon me if Mrs. Logic suggests that their fleet was much bigger and their Empire much larger
And the reference to shields? It's likely to be a reference to the advantage the Shivans had in dogfights and bombing runs, which really makes the difference in a war. That was a long term tactical advantage, not a random reference to a single superdestroyer.
And my source is canon... :p
Seems like Mobius really wants an excuse to make his own continuity. No offense, Mob, but it just seems to be that we're not going to get any true process on this retcon issue unless these hazy issues are settled by a solid, continuous belief across the entire community. And, as you can see, that's not going to be likely until the theory is proposed in a campaign or something.
That's exactly what should never happen: apply this to a campaign and leave it as a fan made theory.
Also, I never said that an eventual Retconning theory wouldn't have any references to the fact that not everyone agrees with it (even if, as fan made theory, it'd be obvious).
It is obvious that the nodemap has been retconned. No trouble with this.
Then talk about this subject with Snail because he's stubborn (in the bad way).
As someone has said there are explanations, not only retcons. So there is TRUBBLE.
Are you aware of the fact that those "explanations" are fan made and each one is different from the others?
I thought common sense calls for a total rejection of elitism, especially here. What do I see instead? People placing certain fan made stuff to a debatable high level... :rolleyes:
-
Are you aware of the fact that those "explanations" are fan made and each one is different from the others?
I thought common sense calls for a total rejection of elitism, especially here. What do I see instead? People placing certain fan made stuff to a debatable high level... :rolleyes:
So elevating YOUR OPINION on retcon to a higher position is somehow not elitism? :rolleyes:
-
My opinion is neutral because retconning is not like inventing stuff from scratch and pretend it to be valuable and believable. Retconning means having a different approach on fan made theories. Yet again, you're missing the point here... :rolleyes:
-
I have no idea what your point is, or what it has ever been.
I don't even understand what the issue is in the first place.
Can't we go back to happily disagreeing and fanwanking about everything? It's more fun.
-
My opinion is neutral because retconning is not like inventing stuff from scratch and pretend it to be valuable and believable. Retconning means having a different approach on fan made theories. Yet again, you're missing the point here... :rolleyes:
Where did I say that explanations are canon?
Yet again, you are missing the point that just ending all speculation and discussion on unexplained mysteries by introducing retcon (with little to no canon base may I add) is just not the right thing to do IMO.
Can I just get this straight here? What I'm saying is that this entire thread is just your opinion. Everything you say which isn't definitely fact is nothing more than opinion. And just FYI, what you're saying here isn't ''fact''. It's inference, guesswork if you will, taken from the absence of certain statements in FS2 and other very vague comments.
Look, the problem I have with this being included in the Wiki is the fact that it's just some people's opinion. It's not even established material agreed upon by people. This entire retcon idea is plainly your idea, your opinion, your theory. It's not fact. Perhaps if you presented it as your opinion I wouldn't be so miffed.
-
Yes, well put.
-
"Talk about Nerds! These guys argue over minor chronological points in a 10-year old action-game!"
Bleh. My french sucks.
So not only does she know the concept of what everyone's talking about but she knows the game's that old.
Sounds hypocritical to me. :p
-
She knows what "retconning" means + she has already pulled my leg about how old is this game (cause I enthusiastically told her about "that game some fans improved so much I am going to play it instead of kissing you").
-
Too bad that canon also proved. It's not the quality here, it's the quantity. Terrans and Vasudans have been conquering space for centuries. The Ancients had been conquered space for thousands of years and pardon me if Mrs. Logic suggests that their fleet was much bigger and their Empire much larger
And the reference to shields? It's likely to be a reference to the advantage the Shivans had in dogfights and bombing runs, which really makes the difference in a war. That was a long term tactical advantage, not a random reference to a single superdestroyer.
And my source is canon... :p
As you yourself said, quantity does not equal quality. The Ancients may have had massive fleets spread out over thousands (maybe even millions) of star systems, but we know for a fact that they weren't all that far ahead of the Terrans and Vasudans in terms of their technological developments. Do yourself a favor and try lining up a thousand FS1-armed Orions in front of a FS1-armed Lucifer. Notice what happens? That's right...the Lucifer cheerfully plows its way through the lot of them without suffering a scratch, even if the entire bomber complement of each Orion were launched against it. Outside of subspace, it's literally an invincible ship in the FS1 era, and based on what the Ancients themselves say, it was equally invincible to them; even if the "shields" reference may have extended to fighters and bombers, it most certainly described the Lucifer. You don't even need to bother with the rest of the Shivan fleet; that single ship could have done the job all by itself.
(And I fail to see how your opinion is better backed by canon, when I'm the one using multiple direct quotes and gameplay references from the game itself. :p)
-
hi all,
after reading with interest all the above topics I wanted to express my opinion:
seems everyone is right but from a different angle. I am not verse with the whole fs universe but I agree with mobious that a wiki page with all inconsistencies would be interesting for fans. However, calling them all retcons is not proper either unless there is evidence. Hard evidence.
If in FS1 there were 2 stable jumpnodes in sol (dont know, just saying) and then in FS2 some map shows only one, then this is retcon.
if in FS1 there were no beams used by shivans but in FS2 there are, this is inconsistency but not recon. If however there is a mention that there should be beams in FS1 in text or artwork or video, then it is retcon. FS1 is not FS2 and vice versa.
If there is no real contradiction with hard facts, then retcon is just another theory as to what happened.
My theory is that the universe exists in between missions and the player may have had communications about the beams before the mission briefing. Someones theory might be that V actually changed the shivans and gave them beams trying to persuade everyone that they had them all along.
-
First of all, I really want to say that I'm amazed of what someone is posting here. Looks like certain people are more interested on offending and pointing someone else out as illogical instead of contributing in a notable way to the debate. Seriously, guys, if you don't have anything to say then don't post.
Can I just get this straight here? What I'm saying is that this entire thread is just your opinion. Everything you say which isn't definitely fact is nothing more than opinion. And just FYI, what you're saying here isn't ''fact''. It's inference, guesswork if you will, taken from the absence of certain statements in FS2 and other very vague comments.
Look, the problem I have with this being included in the Wiki is the fact that it's just some people's opinion. It's not even established material agreed upon by people. This entire retcon idea is plainly your idea, your opinion, your theory. It's not fact. Perhaps if you presented it as your opinion I wouldn't be so miffed.
I'm the one who's missing the point? For some strange reason, you appear to refuse everything that somewhat compromises FS1's role as "the best in the series"(because that's what retcon does, by underlining the fact that FS2's changes are well placed and planned to make their FS1 counterparts obsolete).
And due, "opinions"? I didn't come out with a theory like the others, which mix canon and non-canon stuff. Everything
There's a bad approach, that is all. Leaving certain stuff as "inconsistencies", without even mentioning retcon, leaves those inconsistencies as "What to do with them?" aspects of FS plot development. The word "inconsistency" says absolutely nothing and is only a way to confuse people. One example is the FS2 Intro, in which the Manticore that takes down the Hercules has reversed firing points. "Inconsistency" is the word used to define the issue although it'd be a lot more appropriate to use the words "error" and "mistake".
As you yourself said, quantity does not equal quality. The Ancients may have had massive fleets spread out over thousands (maybe even millions) of star systems, but we know for a fact that they weren't all that far ahead of the Terrans and Vasudans in terms of their technological developments. Do yourself a favor and try lining up a thousand FS1-armed Orions in front of a FS1-armed Lucifer. Notice what happens? That's right...the Lucifer cheerfully plows its way through the lot of them without suffering a scratch, even if the entire bomber complement of each Orion were launched against it. Outside of subspace, it's literally an invincible ship in the FS1 era, and based on what the Ancients themselves say, it was equally invincible to them; even if the "shields" reference may have extended to fighters and bombers, it most certainly described the Lucifer. You don't even need to bother with the rest of the Shivan fleet; that single ship could have done the job all by itself.
It is so epic to imagine that the Ancients got crushed by a single Lucifer...yeah, it's so epic... :p
Quantity over quality? The Ancients were aggressive, well equipped and full of pride. It's more than believable that their levels of training and technology were good enough to let them base their strategies on both quality and quantity.
I compiled a list of "potential" retcons that will be analyzed in the article. As you may noticed, many of them haven't been discussed here (but I'd be glad to know what you guys think about them). Please note that the article will not sound as a definitive and clear voice, meant to replace everything else - that's why there will be a proper and moderate introduction to the subject at the beginning.
FreeSpace Universe Starmap
More like the only widely accepted retcon so far.
Vasudan Naming Convention
Analysis of ship naming conventions and how they changed in FS2. I will mention the Hope, the Rasputin, and the fact that all Vasudan ship names in FS2 are Egyptian(it didn't happen in FS1).
Capabilities Of The Ancients
Using canon references, I'll add an analysis of what the Ancients' capabilities probably were and how the lack of vital info in FS2 left us with FS1 sources, only.
Changes In Shivan Design
Analysis of the radical changes in Shivan designs noted in FS2, probably intended by :v: as a development of Shivan concepts to boost the game.
Introduction Of Shivan Beams
By mentioning the Lucifer's "flux cannons" and a few fanmade theories, I'll analyze the introduction of Shivan beams in FS2.
-
And due, "opinions"? I didn't come out with a theory like the others, which mix canon and non-canon stuff.
For **** sake, man, you are missing the ****ing point.
I don't give a half of a half of a half of a **** (a half quarter of a ****/an eighth of a ****) what you think. For all I care you could add a whole section of your own bull**** into the Wiki.
WHAT I DO CARE ABOUT IS YOU PRESENTING YOUR VIEWS AS FACT.
YOUR VIEWS ARE NOT FACT.
DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, AS LONG AS YOU SAY THAT THEY ARE NOT FACT, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FACT.
THESE ARE NOT FACTS, THEY ARE YOUR VIEWS!!
:)
-
:blah:
-
:blah:
Look, mate. Difference between fact and opinion:
FreeSpace is cool - OPINION
FreeSpace is cool. Some people may agree, some may disagree. Either way, it's an opinion. It's not fact. It should not be presented as such.
FreeSpace is a game - FACT
There's no refuting that FreeSpace is a game. You cannot disagree with this. It can be presented as the truth, simply because it is the truth. FreeSpace is irrefutably a game.
Similarly:
Some say FreeSpace is cool - FACT
Some people do say that FreeSpace is a game. It's the truth.
FreeSpace should be retconned - OPINION
FreeSpace shouldn't be retconned - OPINION
Both of these are opinions.
Some members believe FreeSpace should be retconned - FACT
This is a fact. There is no refuting that some say that it should be retconned.
What's bugging me here is that Mobius is trying to present his views as some kind of over-arching ultimate solution to the inconsistencies of the game. They're not. What Mobius says is his views.
Look, all I'm asking for is this, at the beginning of the article:
"Some members believe that FS2 overrules FS1 canon blahblahblah" as opposed to "FS2 definitely overrules FS1 canon blahblahblahblah."
Other than that, I have no problems with this retcon idea.
-
I know the difference between fact and opinion.
But I think your example of an opinion should be a fact anyway. ;7
-
I know the difference between fact and opinion.
Some people in this thread don't.
-
Oooh, I see. Snail's points make even more sense than they did before, and although I had a general sense Mobius was wrong, I now see specifically why he's wrong.
Thank you, Snail, that last post was well-put.
-
1) I think Snail should be banned, because he's uncapable of discussing in a polite way. If he doesn't get banned, I'll seriously want to know what the reasons behind that choice will be like;
2) I want comments regarding my list to improve it. This is not a General FreeSpace thread, I created this one in the Wiki because I have something in the works and I want constructive criticism before posting the final product.
I can't be bothered to consider Snail's behavior, since his only concern is offending me rather than contributing to the debate. He keeps his fingers insise his ears and refuses to join a peaceful debate only because he doesn't like me and the subject. That's ground for a ban, if you ask me.
Since I assume this thread will soon get locked I encourage people who want to contribute to the article to PM me and wait for the creation of the article. Thanks in advance;
-
Look, Mobius, I don't not like you or anything. What i don't like is your opinions and your assertions that what you say is irrefutably the truth or something.
It's not the frikken truth man. It's your opinion. And until you get that through that thick skull of yours, I won't shut up.
Ban me if the admins will, when I return I'll return like TrashMan with a vengeance.
-
Eh, I'm just going to lock this and say enough is enough. Nobody's getting banned.