[NGTM-1R]

Yeah, I can't recall that one from BP either.

[Spicious]

Occam's Razor.
Prometheus S is introduced as a result of access to the nebula, nothing more. If people want to construct some elaborate work around for their campaign kudos to them, it's better I suppose than simply ignoring the fact all together.

That does not remove the problem that Argon is not a rare gas. On top of that it's fairly conceivable that the GTVA could manufacture it from other elements if necessary. It's just a bull**** excuse to not give you as good a weapon early on while keeping the name and appearance.

[Scooby_Doo]

Or just find another nebula....

[SF-Junky]

The question raises for me: What gas would have been more appropriate? Or better: What explanation would you have chosen?

[Snail]

Erm, back on to the topic, is this going on the Wiki?

[The E]

Indeed. There is one Lucifer in BP, which appears in three missions (one of them a cutscene,  another one a dream), and it is destroyed in the third. No regeneration there.

[General Battuta]

It does jump out to repair damage, as mentioned in a line of dialogue. I can't remember if there's any regeneration involved.

[NGTM-1R]

Erm, back on to the topic, is this going on the Wiki?

Don't think this is wiki-appropriate no more, as far too many issues of personal taste have been brought up.

[Snail]

Those which are valid concerns (ones earlier on in the thread) can be stuck onto the Wiki...

[Nuclear1]

"Said the Spider to the Fly", the nebula recon mission in Derelict.

[Axem]

We need a FSTropes for unnotable, ranty and purely opinionated subjective tirades on campaign plots and well... tropes. 

Also it'll destroy any chance for any FREDder ever releasing a campaign ever again.

Except the liars who say they don't get this whole "Tropes" thing.

[Droid803]

Tropes are stupid.
Most of the time the connections are forced rather than being apparent, in addition to them being subjective crap. Like literary analysis, tropes are bunk.
There. I said it.

[Axem]

Should we just not use the word Trope then?

Because this whole thread is about "subjective crap."

I'm only finding about half these pet hates valid. So I could all most of this bunk even!

[Droid803]

Yeah, actually, most of this thread is.
Which is precisely why it shouldn't be going on the wiki.
As Snail said, only those that are valid concerns could...but drawing the line is...difficult.

[NGTM-1R]

Tropes are stupid.

Bull****. They're broadly defined, sure, but their definitions are rarely subjective. They're not something you can make up and examples are typically easily recognized.

If you think otherwise that's because you're the subjective problem. I've caught more than a few people doing that.

[Mongoose]

The-Site-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Linked has given us an entire shared language for recognizing and discussing age-old story elements that we've experienced for our entire lives yet never explicitly discussed.  No matter what one thinks of the items on any individual page, that alone is invaluable.  Plus, it's the single-greatest cross-linking piece of time genocide I've ever come across on the Internet, which is worth something in and of itself.

More on-topic, while all of the entries as-presented may not be suitable for a wiki article, I feel like the majority of them cross over from individual pet peeves to negative elements that hinder just about any campaign they're used in.  I mean, I don't know a single player who likes a challenging 20-minute-long mission with a very real chance of death in the 19th minute, or having to sit through five minutes of dialogue every time they restart a difficult mission, or a twenty-wave enemy wing, or anything along those lines.  These complaints are bigger than individual players.

[TopAce]

And who's gonna decide which ones are "bigger than individual players?"

[Snail]

As Snail said, only those that are valid concerns could...but drawing the line is...difficult.

Yes.

[Mongoose]

And who's gonna decide which ones are "bigger than individual players?"

I didn't say that anyone would. Like I said, this may not be suitable for a wiki article, but it doesn't make the comments any less valid.

[Droid803]

If you think otherwise that's because you're the subjective problem. I've caught more than a few people doing that.

I don't rule out the possibility that that could be the case. Though with their nonsensical naming scheme its difficult to tell (seriously though, the names sound like their jokes, not accurate description of what they really are).