[Mobius]

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 .

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.

[Snail]

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.

[Mongoose]

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 had managed to put spiffy new weapons into the sequel.  But if that's the case...who cares?

[Mobius]

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 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.

[Snail]

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.

[Mobius]

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.

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?

[Snail]

Fine, just remember not everyone agrees with you.

[General Battuta]

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?

[Snail]

He wants to make a big page about retcons I guess.

[Narvi]

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 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.

[Narwhal]

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".

[Commander Zane]

Bombers pose a greater threat to me than any of the fighters...

[Narvi]

Bombers pose a greater threat to me than any of the fighters...

That's what happens when you charge the ships with the most primaries in the entire game head on.

[Mobius]

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.

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.

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.

[General Battuta]

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...

[Scotty]

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.  made the game, what you think are your opinions.  Let us keep ours.

[General Battuta]

Concur.

[FoxtrotTango]

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.

[Vretsu]

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

[Snail]

I'd prefer if they were kept to one page and were named 'inconsistencies', not retcons. Since they're not retcons.