Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Wiki Project => Topic started by: nos_mercenary on December 31, 2005, 11:22:15 am
-
I have found a very good article that theorizes quite a bit about the shivans. i suggest we put it into the Shivan part of the wiki, but i do not know where the author is and thus can't get his permission. help? (and the article is in general freespace, also title the shivan manifesto. very long)
-
The Shivan manifesto gets discussed all the time but it's worth remembering that it is just one persons interpretation of the events of FS1 and FS2. It's not in any way canon and several people (myself included) disagree with several of the central arguments.
-
What kara said; the Shivan Manifesto is basically speculation, so it's no more valid as canon than, say, Inferno or the Capellan BBQ theory. IIRC it has a number of holes in the logic, too, and relies a lot on supposition.
I'd recommend against putting any fanon type stuff of this ilk in the wiki, as it's liable to being misinterpreted as canon, and it also risks people not developing their own ideas. At most, we should put external links to discussion thread about this and other theories, but I think highlighting one theory alone - be it the SM or otherwise - is somewhat unfair to everyone with their own theories. IMO, the only reason the SM is seemingly so popular in this regard (vis-a-vis other theories) is because a) it is quite long and b) most campaigns can't, don't or won't publish their own ideas for obvious reasons.
-
IMO, if somebody were to collect all the theories and write them up, it wouldn't be particularly bad to place them in a marked "fanon" section.
-
I don't object to it being in a completely seperate section of the wiki. I wouldn't want it to be in the same articles as the canon stuff though,
-
Make a 'shivan manifesto' page. It sounds like something that might be searched for.
-
I'm againt it, personally. The Shivan Manifesto is already seen as semi canon by some people, and I don't think we need to encourage that by putting it in the wiki. The way I see it, non canon info in the wiki should be footnote stuff, details - not major, full page articles.
-
I disagree, that is exactly the sort of thing that should be in the wiki. I mean, if we're going to keep redirecting new users to the wiki and complaining when people don't use it, we can't intentionally leave stuff out even though it's important. Something like the Shivan Manifesto is perfect, because it can have its own page with a "this is non-canon" warning at the top of it, and it's something that people would probably mention as the "Shivan Manifesto" but will be buried in some thread. (And since search is out, it's kind of a pain to find it.)
What with the SCP and all, the FS wiki has to be more of a community thing rather than just a list of all the stuff in FS1 and FS2.
-
How about some sort of "Theories on the Shivans" or "Theories on the Ending of Freespace 2" page? Something that we can demarcate clearly as non canon, fan speculated, and where we can present multiple viewpoints without promoting one over another?
-
:lol:
Sounds almost exactly like the whole ID/Ev thing.
I really don't care. I just think that the Shivan Manifesto should be in the wiki because it's one of the very few theories on Shivan behavior that's put together as a cohesive entity, and people reference it frequently. Sort of like the Federalist papers' connection to the Constitution, they aren't law in any way, but they do shed a certain light on how it can be interpreted and are well-known enough that others might base their interpretation on that, so they're a valuable read even if your opinion is totally different, because they effect the way people see things.
But to be honest that's over-analyzing it a little too much.
I think a general theory page on Shivans would be good (say, a Shivan Origins and/or Shivan Motives page(s)) with links to specific theories. I can't think of any off the top of my head, other than campaign-linked ones and of course the Manifesto, but I don't see any problem with them being in there. I just don't think we should try and limit or summarize them to make them 'appear' fair, just make it clear that they aren't canon and let people think what they will. The wiki is meant to be a reference, not a way of life, after all.
-
The MindGames theory although very specific to MG is pretty much out in the open so that could probably be added. I quite like Aldo's explaination too.
-
We should make an article, one which has a link to the Shivan Manifesto we all know. The article may only mention what a Shivan Manifesto is, what aspects it contains and why it was written.
I don't know enough about this piece of writing, so I daren't start such article.
We have the non-canon template anyway and there are non-canon stuff in the Wiki already.
-
Just because it's already in there doesn't mean we have to encourage people to add things at random and get even more in. I still intend to cleanse the wiki of as much non canon stff as I can eventually.
-
I wouldn't mind non-canon stuff as long as it would be clearly indicated as such. With templates, colors tags or separate headers, what ever. And also the source (if any) of the non-canon material should be indicated.
But i would rather see canon articles to be without any non-canon material but articles could have links to non-canon material (on separate pages).
-
Just because it's already in there doesn't mean we have to encourage people to add things at random and get even more in. I still intend to cleanse the wiki of as much non canon stff as I can eventually.
We could do something like WikiSource.
-
The Shivan manifesto gets discussed all the time
Really? I've never seen one of these discussions. Sounds quite interesting too. I'd like to see how the Shivan Manifesto differs from say... the Dalek's 3 word Manifesto.
-
It gets discussed all the time because some people have read it and assume that it is using actual canonical sources rather than conjecture as its basis. I don't like it at all myself, and I get really annoyed when people start refering to it as the basis for some argument, as it really isn't canon at all. As I understand it, the wiki's primary purpose is a collection of Freespace knowledge, but most of this knowledge relates to installing the game, or FSO, or mods, or whatever. Canon reference is fine, but do we really want noncanon mess cluttering things up?
-
The MindGames theory although very specific to MG is pretty much out in the open so that could probably be added. I quite like Aldo's explaination too.
I wasn't aware I'd posted my explanation(?)
-
I don't like it at all myself, and I get really annoyed when people start refering to it as the basis for some argument,
...to summarize opposing arguments.
Seriously though, quite a few of you people seem to be mainly opposed to its entry into the wiki because you don't like what it has to say. It's the first argument, the primary argument, you offer. Well, get down off your hobbyhorses and explain to me why it shouldn't be added again.
As the source on all things Freespace, the wiki needs to have...all things Freespace. Like the Shivan Manifesto, and any other Shivan theories that can be scrounged up. Yes, they should go in a non-canon section, but honestly no one has offered a coherent argument against adding them at all. This is knowledge of FS too.
-
I wasn't aware I'd posted my explanation(?)
I've stiched it together from various posts on numerous topics :)
I especially like the idea that Bosch was played by the Shivans to get him to open the Knossos portal for instance.
@ngtm1r : You'll notice I haven't said I don't want the Manifesto in the wiki. I don't paricularly care either way. My main points are these.
- If the Manifesto is added it should not appear on any page that contains canon info. It should be completely seperate.
- All entries for non-canon information need to be labelled as such at the top of the page.
- Adding any non-canon info to the wiki presents a certain danger. If a new user were to turn up and push that the Shivans blew up Capella to prevent the attack of a giant space badger his theory would have the same validity as the Shivan Manifesto does. There are lots of people who think the Shivan Manifesto is seriously flawed too.
- The proper place for the discussion of theories is on the forums not the wiki. If someone puts up a theory on the wiki it has to stay there unedited even if there is a gaping flaw in the argument. Doing otherwise will simply result in the wiki turning into another forum with everyone editing out percieved errors in the theory. You might think that the Shivan Manifesto needs no corrections but would you be as willling to sit on your hands and leave Space Badger alone? [
- Adding any non-canon information to the wiki has the effect of legitimising it even if it is non-canon. There are already people treating the Manifesto as if it wasn't just one theory amongst many. The fact that FS2's ending left everything so open is one of the reasons that the community is still around. I'd hate to see people stiffling new and inovative ideas in favour of something from the wiki. I'd prefer to see the wiki as a place you go to check your facts. If you want to dicuss ideas go to the forums.
While I'm at it, exactly how long have I been moderator for this forum? :wtf: Not that I mind but I'd never spotted it till now.
-
I wasn't aware I'd posted my explanation(?)
I've stiched it together from various posts on numerous topics :)
I especially like the idea that Bosch was played by the Shivans to get him to open the Knossos portal for instance.
Um.... that'd be the old theory, then. The new one is a little more literal, and also a bit more interesting. Sort of. A lot more cohesive, at the least.
-
Hangs together better than the Manifesto to my mind though.
-
Hangs together better than the Manifesto to my mind though.
If it was in any way based of the Reci one (rather than the LS one), then I think there was a problem (or more likely a hole) in it when viewed vis-a-vis FS1 and ST. Albeit I have about 5 different versions of the (possible) Shivan motivation mapped out, I think, from the sort of FS-literal 'exodus to a new galaxy' type explanation to wilder stuff with other races / time travel* / etc, so most of the responses I make are really nit-pickery.
Although I always felt it was somewhat more likely the GTVI was playing Bosch initially (for whatever reasons wanting to find the Knossos and open it), and the Shivans were simply opportunistic.
*I was always quite keen on the idea (for a campaign, not as the actual real story) of the Shivans originating/evolving from a human created nanotechnology that was sucked back in time a few million years.
-
I don't seem to have been paying much attention when this "manifesto" was written/discussed. All links leading to it are dead seeing how search is busted and any 3dgamespy links go to frontpage.
Can someone repost it here?
As the source on all things Freespace, the wiki needs to have...all things Freespace. Like the Shivan Manifesto, and any other Shivan theories that can be scrounged up. Yes, they should go in a non-canon section, but honestly no one has offered a coherent argument against adding them at all. This is knowledge of FS too.
I would agree with you if things weren't the way the are realistically.
Fact is (and this is one of the community's biggest problems) that everyone has their interpertation of the Shivans, no matter how off the wall or close to canon it may be. To put in opinions that are not canon and then all "Shivan Theories" is impossible considering that they can't be all put together since everyone has their own idea, no matter how ridiculous it may be.
The answer is no. None of it should really leave the discussion forums.
-
Posted On Gamespy
It's pretty easy to convert an old HLP link to a new one. Just open a random post on HLP and then take the numbers after t= in the old link and substitute them for the numbers after topic, in the new post.
So if you can find a link to the old HLP page you can now find it on HLP 3.0 :)
-
I don't seem to have been paying much attention when this "manifesto" was written/discussed. All links leading to it are dead seeing how search is busted and any 3dgamespy links go to frontpage.
Offhand, I believe (think so, anyways. Could be talking pish, here....) the gist is that Shivans are energy beings from subspace wearing suits (with some sort of metaphysical reliance upon comm nodes), that GTVA type jumpdrives are damaging subspace, and that the Shivans destroyed Capella because they were scared the GTVA might have 80 odd Colossi in Vega. Oh, and I think it also says Bosch didn't actually talk to the Shivans, and that the Shivans thought his hello was a distress call from captured Shivans (this bit is, I think, complete and utter nonsense) - i.e. so Bosch is basically a Deus Ex Machina to open the portal and nothing more.
As I remember it, anyways. There were a lot of dodgy assumptions, IIRC.
-
That's some of the craziest **** I ever heard.
Now I think it's a service to _not_ include it in the Wikipedia.
Thanks for the summary though, the solution Kara posted I can't seem to... do.
edit: okay I figured it out....now to read the entire mass. http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,22279.0.html
edit2:
Oh okay, upon reading it I get it.
He tried to use logic but failed at conclusions because he didn't really understand what FS ST and FS2 were all about. Got caught up so much in the literal meaning of the tech descriptions that he lost all perspective.
Yeah it happens all too frequently.
It's a nice try.
But no.
-
BlackDove, if you really want to read the entire thing: http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:QtdDGcsf77wJ:dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/showthread.php%3Fthreadid%3D22279%26highlight%3Dmanifesto&hl=en
HLP 3.0 has a character limit on posts and the end is missing
-
I don't really think I want to know the end. I read through most of it and it's very skewed, and in some things, just blatantly wrong because of the perception loss.
Thanks though.
I like the notion that they ran away though :lol:
How do you explain the nebula then? What? They were running away from the Ancients too then? The nebula is another star they collapsed. What, they feared the Ancients as well?
I mean I can shoot that idea down just like that. Don't even have to go into the debate of the Shivans
a) Having anything that resembles fear
b) Running after 3 epic stories in which they don't run
Just simply - no.
(I know these are just half-witted replies to a half-witted scenario as described by the guy writing that, we all know it's much more complex than that, but I don't really need any further argument to counter those opinions)
-
To be fair, the nebula in FS2 was clearly pre-Ancients war (knossos), so we don't know what happened there. But I think the SM is symptomatic of the problems you get when you try and create an answer through discrete questions - namely that you tend to lose sight of the whole. Like, for example, why the Shivans would be interested in dissecting someone.
-
We definatly know that it was induced by the Shivans, and we actually don't know werther it was 8000 years ago or more (it's possible though not probable that it was in the time of the Ancients).
But let's take your scenario - they blew it up with the race before the Ancients. They were scared from this other species. Want to tell me why this other species, more powerful than the Shivans, exists no more?
Come on. We all know why the Shivans are "The Great Destroyers" - it is the story of the nine cities of Troy. Bosch couldn't be more clear about it. They destroyed countless civilizations before us and the Ancients. They weren't "running" anywhere.
-
We definatly know that it was induced by the Shivans, and we actually don't know werther it was 8000 years ago or more (it's possible though not probable that it was in the time of the Ancients).
We don't know anything of the sort. Bosch speculates that it may have been the Shivans who were responsible but for all we know the nebula is natural and the ancients came along and colonised\built the knossos later.
Even Bosch says that the nine cities stuff is a "What if?". I'd bet money that the Shivans were the great destroyers but even that isn't certain. One of the beauties of Freespace when it comes to writing plots is that almost nothing is definitely proven. It's this whole ambiguity that gives me a problem with putting non-canon material on the wiki.
-
Bosch was used to perpetuate the story to the player. The cutscenes were a way (the only way) to let the player know what and why things are going on. The idea with using the news casters was cut if you'll remember, and really for a good reason.
Also you'd have to be pretty ignorant not to face the fact that a situation involving the Shivans in a supernova'd system and their Sathanas capabilities is a coincidence.
The whole point of that system beyond GD is to show that the Shivans have had Star Destroying Capabilities for a LOOOOOONG LOOOOONG time and that we're pathetic in comparison to what they can accomplish.
From your FAQ and the game
The nebula is the remnant of a supernova thousands, if not billions, of light-years from Earth; and I wonder now if our ancestors witnessed the death of this star erupting over an Egyptian landscape, blazing with the brilliance of four hundred million suns. Even in their divinity, no pharaoh could have imagined this.
Could have imagined what? A star crumbling? The only way the last sentence makes sense is if a Pharaoh couldn't imagine Shivans raping a system.
Yeah, because it's not spelled out for you, you can call it conjecture, and yes, it is a problem regarding the Wikipedia, and we'll never be able to put it in as cannon.
But let's not pretend as if we don't know where the logical conclusions lead us to.
Also, the "We can't be certain about the nine cities of Troy" - Really? Somehow I found it to be one of the core points of the entire story and the game.
To quote what the game is really all about in broad terms as outlined by the developers:
Descent: FreeSpace: The Great War is an epic story of human survival against an unstoppable alien foe. It spans 3 sapient races, over 40 different types of space craft, and countless lives. Told from the perspective of a Terran squad leader, FreeSpace is more than a war journal, it is a futuristic look at the risks and sacrifices people must be willing to make for the sake of our species.
The species, their history and their future are the core point of the game, and that was just FreeSpace 1. FreeSpace 2 goes on a _lot_ further into the whole thing if you'll compare. I doubt the story narrator would be putting lies into Bosch's mouth - he who tells the story.
-
We definatly know that it was induced by the Shivans, and we actually don't know werther it was 8000 years ago or more (it's possible though not probable that it was in the time of the Ancients).
No evidence for that atall. AFAIK it's never even suggested the supernova was artificially induced. But we can say with certaintly it was prior to the Ancients bulding not one but 2 Knosso gates, and thus I think it may be safe to presume the Shivans weren't there at that time (because the Ancients monologues never mention pressing forward, just being forced back, so if they met the Shivans in a Knossos system surely it would the last in the GD-neb-LG-? sequence). In either case, it is incredibly far from being definite. Astonishingly so.
But let's take your scenario - they blew it up with the race before the Ancients. They were scared from this other species. Want to tell me why this other species, more powerful than the Shivans, exists no more?
Well, the latter would be giving sommat away.... but who says that the Shivans created that nebula in the first place? Certainly I never thought so when I first played through the game; it's not something that's explicitly hinted at. Whether or not the origin of the nebula is of any importance to the story (beyond being a really cool setting) is an issue in itself.
Also, you point out (er, below) the Troy myth as a possible parallel - the analogy that drew was with the 9 cities of Troy, being built upon the ruins of the last, and thus how societies like the Terran and Vasudan ones only survived because the Shivans destroyed the likes of the Ancients before they could exterminate or subjugate the nascent species (noting the Vasudan-Ancient issues; I think subjugate is a very important word in this context, BTW). So you have the possibility - if it was a hostile act - the Shivans nuked that sun (if they did) simply to polish off a lesser race akin to the Ancients (again, this has it's own issues, like why they didn't do the same to the Ancients or in FS1 if they had the ability - but the whole point is surely that we don't have any definitive answers, and that's where the fun is).
Come on. We all know why the Shivans are "The Great Destroyers" - it is the story of the nine cities of Troy. Bosch couldn't be more clear about it. They destroyed countless civilizations before us and the Ancients. They weren't "running" anywhere.
Didn't Volition employees once warn about applying human motivations to the Shivans? I'd say the same could be quite true of analogies. Plus the Troy analogy itself doesn't entirely fit with the known storyline; the Greeks (in the mythology) attacked to reclaim Helen, but there's not an equivalent for the Shivans to 'reclaim' AFAWK. Likewise, I don't think the T-V 'foes united by war' is found within the Troy story.
It's remiss not to point this out, given what we've said about the Shivan Manifesto.
It sort of reminds me of the academic giving an interview about Bagpuss, who described it as a metaphor for the oppression of the proletariat workers by the bourgeious rulers. The creator of Bagpuss said it was just a show about a cat. I wonder which one of those 2 we're closer to?
-
Yeah, I didn't say that the "FS2 story is like the nine cities of Troy". Sorry if you missread it that way, but what I meant was that as the 9 cities of Troy, our civilizations (Ancients, us, and whoever before Ancients) is like Bosch's reference to it.
Think you missunderstood me.
As for the rest, you need to read my post above. You missed it.
Just to clarify fully - when I say and refer to Bosch's "Nince cities of Troy" - I am refering to this:
Excavation campaigns:
Dörpfeld, Blegen
After Schliemann, the site was further excavated under the direction of Wilhelm Dörpfeld (1893/4) and later Carl Blegen (1932-8). These excavations have shown that were at least nine cities built one on top of each other at this site.
One good point you make though:
No evidence for that atall. AFAIK it's never even suggested the supernova was artificially induced. But we can say with certaintly it was prior to the Ancients bulding not one but 2 Knosso gates, and thus I think it may be safe to presume the Shivans weren't there at that time (because the Ancients monologues never mention pressing forward, just being forced back, so if they met the Shivans in a Knossos system surely it would the last in the GD-neb-LG-? sequence).
Indeed a good point, the gates of Ancients wouldn't be there if it happened during the extermination of them.
However it most certainly happened with a previous race. The story is that much poorer if it wasn't, because the chronology of Bosch's statements wouldn't be there.
-
Bosch was used to perpetuate the story to the player. The cutscenes were a way (the only way) to let the player know what and why things are going on. The idea with using the news casters was cut if you'll remember, and really for a good reason.
Bosch was used to perpetuate ideas. That's different from feeding the storyline to the player - it provides hints, etc, but no decent developer would plan a game whereby the storyline was entirely seperate to the actions of the player. So the storyline must be revealed as much through brief, debrief, game etc as the one medium of the cutscene. Bosch is definately a key to the storyline, but not necessarily the only one.
Also you'd have to be pretty ignorant not to face the fact that a situation involving the Shivans in a supernova'd system and their Sathanas capabilities is a coincidence.
The whole point of that system beyond GD is to show that the Shivans have had Star Destroying Capabilities for a LOOOOOONG LOOOOONG time and that we're pathetic in comparison to what they can accomplish.
Ignorant? Why? Normal supernovas do occur, y'know, and we don't know if the Capella nova was even intended to be a nova. Again, it is not explicit, thus it is a guess. It is never hinted that the nebula is anything other than naturally occuring, even at the end monologue. Even if it is - and it may be - we have no basis for claiming a definitive conclusion; for one thing, we don't have a motive or reason for the Shivans destroying the neb sys.
From your FAQ and the game
The nebula is the remnant of a supernova thousands, if not billions, of light-years from Earth; and I wonder now if our ancestors witnessed the death of this star erupting over an Egyptian landscape, blazing with the brilliance of four hundred million suns. Even in their divinity, no pharaoh could have imagined this.
Could have imagined what? A star crumbling? The only way the last sentence makes sense is if a Pharaoh couldn't imagine Shivans raping a system.
You think the pharoahs of Ancient Egypt could have imagined a lightning struck gaseous nebula in the depths of space? Hell, the Pharoahs never even knew the world was round, let alone the cosmos. If anything, he's contrasting what the Pharoahs may have seen - a tiny-but-bright flash - compared to what he and the player was seeing in the cutscene (the 'veil of clouds' mentioned in the previous line); how man cannot perceive everything, perhaps an allegory for the discovery Bosch made (and that has driven him into the nebula).
Yeah, because it's not spelled out for you, you can call it conjecture, and yes, it is a problem regarding the Wikipedia, and we'll never be able to put it in as cannon.
But let's not pretend as if we don't know where the logical conclusions lead us to.
Where your conclusions lead you, you mean. The logic of them is no more definitive than that used in the Shivan Manifesto, which is the whole point. Any evidence we can put to a conclusion will always be only 2 thirds of the whole picture, and the lesser two thirds at that - and that is exactly what forms conjecture.
Also, the "We can't be certain about the nine cities of Troy" - Really? Somehow I found it to be one of the core points of the entire story and the game.
I didn't, and I'd bet I've done as much conjecture, analysis, etc as you have. After all, FS - 1 and 2 - is full of mythological and historical references, many of which are of the Roman era IIRC. IMO it could just as well be Bosch using the 9 cities as an analogy for a cosmological cycle of destruction-rise of species-destruction that he wishes to break by communicating with the systems; the question is surely in what sense the 9 cities of Troy is being evoked; as a glimpse of what Bosch fears the human race will endure in the future without his intervention, as a glimpse into the past of the galaxy and age of the Shivans, etc. I get the sense there's a 'but' at the end of that monologue, though, when he's speaking about what the Ancients thought the Shivans were/are/wanted.
To quote what the game is really all about in broad terms as outlined by the developers:
Descent: FreeSpace: The Great War is an epic story of human survival against an unstoppable alien foe. It spans 3 sapient races, over 40 different types of space craft, and countless lives. Told from the perspective of a Terran squad leader, FreeSpace is more than a war journal, it is a futuristic look at the risks and sacrifices people must be willing to make for the sake of our species.
The species, their history and their future are the core point of the game, and that was just FreeSpace 1. FreeSpace 2 goes on a _lot_ further into the whole thing if you'll compare. I doubt the story narrator would be putting lies into Bosch's mouth - he who tells the story.
But none of that pertains to the Shivan motivation or role - that's something FS2 was exploring (more than FS1), but even then the role Shivans will have is left open as something to be answered in FS3. Bosch is an important McGubbin, but we can't say that what he believed he was doing was actually 'right' (either in the consequences or in what he expected) because we don't know the after-effect. Probably at best we can guess at what Bosch thought the Shivans wanted.
But this thread - or the last page or so at least - strikes me as a good example why not to put this type of conjecture into the wiki. IMO we should have the techroom entries, and make briefing/cutscene text available, and let people come up with their own theories.
-
BD, your argument against the Shivan Manifesto is based on as many assumptions as the Manifesto itself.
If someone were to write up a Space Badger theory as well-written, with about as many supporting points, and as popular as the Shivan Manifesto, by golly, it should be in the Wiki.
I just did a search in the wiki, and didn't find the Shivan Manifesto. So as a newbie to the forums, I'm going to go ahead and assume that the Shivan Manifesto is obviously a well-reasoned, hard-to-find source on Shivan behavior released by Volition. :nod: Because after all, that's what people are saying, and I can't read it to find out for myself.
I'm also going to post a thread IN ALL CAPS to ask people about when someone is going to make Freespace 3, now that Volition's plans for the Shivans are now known.
-
Not really WM, there are no assumptions that the Shivans kicked the Ancients' asses and the civilizations prior to the Ancients.
As much the fact is that the player wasn't told "That's how it happened", you have to be pretty retarded not to have gotten the hint and accepted it.
I'm going to play the quote game only once here, because aldo is doing it and I don't want to seem as if I don't have basis for assuming the most logical course. I hate the quote game however, which is why I'll do it only this time.
Bosch was used to perpetuate the story to the player. The cutscenes were a way (the only way) to let the player know what and why things are going on. The idea with using the news casters was cut if you'll remember, and really for a good reason.
Bosch was used to perpetuate ideas. That's different from feeding the storyline to the player - it provides hints, etc, but no decent developer would plan a game whereby the storyline was entirely seperate to the actions of the player. So the storyline must be revealed as much through brief, debrief, game etc as the one medium of the cutscene. Bosch is definately a key to the storyline, but not necessarily the only one.
No. Bosch was used to perpetuate the enhanced storyline from his point of view. You're mistaking it for them being "ideas", because the writer made him speak in vague terms. This is a mistake on your part, because the alternative is for the story to be an endless sense of bull**** that is far from coherent. That isn't the case. The Brief/Debrief/Command brief are a way to perpetuate the story directly to the player - while Bosch isn't directly talking to the player. The form is different but the spirit is the same. It is story - not guesswork. If it was guesswork, nobody would play the damn thing.
Also you'd have to be pretty ignorant not to face the fact that a situation involving the Shivans in a supernova'd system and their Sathanas capabilities is a coincidence.
The whole point of that system beyond GD is to show that the Shivans have had Star Destroying Capabilities for a LOOOOOONG LOOOOONG time and that we're pathetic in comparison to what they can accomplish.
Ignorant? Why? Normal supernovas do occur, y'know, and we don't know if the Capella nova was even intended to be a nova. Again, it is not explicit, thus it is a guess. It is never hinted that the nebula is anything other than naturally occuring, even at the end monologue. Even if it is - and it may be - we have no basis for claiming a definitive conclusion; for one thing, we don't have a motive or reason for the Shivans destroying the neb sys.
Normal Supernova's do occur, but a normal supernova doesn't fit into the storyline of FS2, especially if we consider the ending where it is revealed what the shivans DO around here. If that didn't happen, I'd agree with you, but considering the punchline of the game was star destroyers, I'm going to go ahead and assume that from a player's point of view, I got the point. The references are easy to tie, and I did it above. Considering the logical conclusions that we reach through this "may or may not be", we can safely say that not only it may be, but that it is.
From your FAQ and the game
The nebula is the remnant of a supernova thousands, if not billions, of light-years from Earth; and I wonder now if our ancestors witnessed the death of this star erupting over an Egyptian landscape, blazing with the brilliance of four hundred million suns. Even in their divinity, no pharaoh could have imagined this.
Could have imagined what? A star crumbling? The only way the last sentence makes sense is if a Pharaoh couldn't imagine Shivans raping a system.
You think the pharoahs of Ancient Egypt could have imagined a lightning struck gaseous nebula in the depths of space? Hell, the Pharoahs never even knew the world was round, let alone the cosmos. If anything, he's contrasting what the Pharoahs may have seen - a tiny-but-bright flash - compared to what he and the player was seeing in the cutscene (the 'veil of clouds' mentioned in the previous line); how man cannot perceive everything, perhaps an allegory for the discovery Bosch made (and that has driven him into the nebula).
You're being a bit too literal for your own good. Of course the pharoahs of ancient Egypt couldn't imagine gaseus nebula's and stuff like that, but what he meant was that they couldn't imagine what was going on - as in, cosmic destroyers being out there waiting for you to make your predictable moves and punishing you for your choices in a way which irradicates systems on a massive scale. There is such a thing as "reading between the lines". He was maknig the reference to a pharoah, because pharoah's were the top of the food chain as far as power goes in Ancient Egypt. He could have easily said "A peasant in Ancient Egypt", but the reason he referenced a pharoah is because, even him with all his power, he wouldn't be able to comprehend the power of the Shivans
You people do get those allusions, right? I'm not the only one who was able to read why things were written the way they were, right? If I'm not the only one, please endow me with your interpertations or possible interpertations of his texts. So far I haven't seen anyone take a stab at it in a logical and comprehensive way, even though we've been discussing this for years.
Yeah, because it's not spelled out for you, you can call it conjecture, and yes, it is a problem regarding the Wikipedia, and we'll never be able to put it in as cannon.
But let's not pretend as if we don't know where the logical conclusions lead us to.
Where your conclusions lead you, you mean. The logic of them is no more definitive than that used in the Shivan Manifesto, which is the whole point. Any evidence we can put to a conclusion will always be only 2 thirds of the whole picture, and the lesser two thirds at that - and that is exactly what forms conjecture.
No, I mean where the logic leads me. I didn't misstype that. The Shivan Manifest has a few open points, but the other points it makes are right down retarded as far as logic goes, so that makes them non-logical. Naturally that the whole discussion is pure conjecture - we don't even need to state that given the fact that the writer didn't finish and feed the story, but as I said again, we are all entitled to make accurate, logical and most probable guesses, and that's what I did.
Also, the "We can't be certain about the nine cities of Troy" - Really? Somehow I found it to be one of the core points of the entire story and the game.
I didn't, and I'd bet I've done as much conjecture, analysis, etc as you have. After all, FS - 1 and 2 - is full of mythological and historical references, many of which are of the Roman era IIRC. IMO it could just as well be Bosch using the 9 cities as an analogy for a cosmological cycle of destruction-rise of species-destruction that he wishes to break by communicating with the systems; the question is surely in what sense the 9 cities of Troy is being evoked; as a glimpse of what Bosch fears the human race will endure in the future without his intervention, as a glimpse into the past of the galaxy and age of the Shivans, etc. I get the sense there's a 'but' at the end of that monologue, though, when he's speaking about what the Ancients thought the Shivans were/are/wanted.
There's no but at the end of that monologue. He finishes his thought and his sentences coherently. His general "thought" with that cutscene is that history keeps repeating itself and that he needs to find some other way in order to save our species. That's IT. Reading more into it leaves you with your theory that comes after your "IMO" which isn't supported by anything, and is acquired by putting "but"'s at the end of his monologues, which aren't there.
If you took enough time to look at the thing from the outside as much as you're trying to look at it from the writers point of view, you'd see more meanings to the story, and rather from using induction to form opinions, you'd use deduction, which is the way to go about matters that haven't been fed and explained to the fullest.
However you're right - I make a mistake myself by assuming that the most logical way is the commonly accepted way. Of course you're right, most interpertations out there that differ from mine are quite literally... beneath the point.
To quote what the game is really all about in broad terms as outlined by the developers:
Descent: FreeSpace: The Great War is an epic story of human survival against an unstoppable alien foe. It spans 3 sapient races, over 40 different types of space craft, and countless lives. Told from the perspective of a Terran squad leader, FreeSpace is more than a war journal, it is a futuristic look at the risks and sacrifices people must be willing to make for the sake of our species.
The species, their history and their future are the core point of the game, and that was just FreeSpace 1. FreeSpace 2 goes on a _lot_ further into the whole thing if you'll compare. I doubt the story narrator would be putting lies into Bosch's mouth - he who tells the story.
But none of that pertains to the Shivan motivation or role - that's something FS2 was exploring (more than FS1), but even then the role Shivans will have is left open as something to be answered in FS3. Bosch is an important McGubbin, but we can't say that what he believed he was doing was actually 'right' (either in the consequences or in what he expected) because we don't know the after-effect. Probably at best we can guess at what Bosch thought the Shivans wanted.
Exactly, the Shivans motivations and role you won't see me discuss in public, after all even I can't be that certain of them since that part of the story was left open the most, and not even Bosch or command were able to patch that. This is the part that I make my own and create a campaign that manages to explain that in my way to the best of my abilities.
However, I do not see the point in questioning every little nitpick Bosch said or did because some/main parts of the story were left open to interpertation. Many of them were pretty clear as far as subtext goes.
But this thread - or the last page or so at least - strikes me as a good example why not to put this type of conjecture into the wiki. IMO we should have the techroom entries, and make briefing/cutscene text available, and let people come up with their own theories.
Alas, not because of MY "assumptions" or "guesses" as you attempt to make it clear, but because the fact is that everyone only has assumptions and guesses, and we can't put any of it in the wikipedia, even if some of us (and by "some of us" I mean - I -) am most likely right.
In the end as a summation - we can all play the "yeeeeeeeah but that's not how they said and I don't accept your opinions because they left that part open and I had some other ideas here" - that's true, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that some of us have more logical solutions to the story of FreeSpace, and some of us less.
However that's it for my contributions to this thread (at least it contributed as much as to prove that we can't put any of this **** into the Wikipedia), and I will not be playing the quote game again should you reply. Too time consuming for me, has nothing to do with me not wanting to discuss this with you aldo, since you're pretty smart, but I just can't do it for technical reasons. Sorry if you reply and I don't give you the "back" from "back and forth".
-
Bosch was used to perpetuate the story to the player. The cutscenes were a way (the only way) to let the player know what and why things are going on. The idea with using the news casters was cut if you'll remember, and really for a good reason.
However it must be remembered that Bosch is giving his point of view. It's very possible that :v: were merely giving us a glimpse of what Bosch thought was going on only to reveal the real truth later on in the series. Bosch may have been privy to knowledge that gave him a clear indication of Shivan motives or he may just have thought he was. It's a very important distinction.
Also you'd have to be pretty ignorant not to face the fact that a situation involving the Shivans in a supernova'd system and their Sathanas capabilities is a coincidence.
I can think of other explainations. Perhaps the nebula was natural but after 1m years the Shivans had mined most of it and needed a new one. Perhaps the nebula was created by another race from whom the Shivans later stole the technology. Perhaps the nebula was created by the race who created the Shivans and then buggered off beyond the rim. I could go on all day.
The whole point of that system beyond GD is to show that the Shivans have had Star Destroying Capabilities for a LOOOOOONG LOOOOONG time and that we're pathetic in comparison to what they can accomplish.
From your FAQ and the game
The nebula is the remnant of a supernova thousands, if not billions, of light-years from Earth; and I wonder now if our ancestors witnessed the death of this star erupting over an Egyptian landscape, blazing with the brilliance of four hundred million suns. Even in their divinity, no pharaoh could have imagined this.
Could have imagined what? A star crumbling? The only way the last sentence makes sense is if a Pharaoh couldn't imagine Shivans raping a system.
Again you're treating Bosch as if he was the mouthpiece of the author repeating stuff that the player can't figure out for himself. The fact is that there is a very large possibility that Bosch was wrong. The fact that the Shivans attacked the Iceni and may have taken Bosch off of it by force should be a big warning sign to you that maybe :v: intended for him to be wrong all along.
Yeah, because it's not spelled out for you, you can call it conjecture, and yes, it is a problem regarding the Wikipedia, and we'll never be able to put it in as cannon.
But let's not pretend as if we don't know where the logical conclusions lead us to.
Thing is that it's not a logical conclusion. Its a possibility. You're making the same mistake the writer of the Shivan Manifesto made in trying to make definate claims about what must have happened based on very little data. Petrach states that the Shivans blew up Capella in order to reach home. If so why didn't the Shivans get home after blowing up the star that became the nebula? Especially when you consider that it must have been a massive star to end up with such a pea souper of a nebula.
You can't take the words of anybody in a cutscene as gospel. And you certainly can't say that there is only one logical conclusion. I may agree that the shivans creating that nebula is likely to be the explaination that :v: would have picked but I'm certainly not going to say that it's the only choice.
Descent: FreeSpace: The Great War is an epic story of human survival against an unstoppable alien foe. It spans 3 sapient races, over 40 different types of space craft, and countless lives. Told from the perspective of a Terran squad leader, FreeSpace is more than a war journal, it is a futuristic look at the risks and sacrifices people must be willing to make for the sake of our species.
The fact that there are at least 4 sapient races in the FS2 universe should show you that you should take that with a pinch of salt rather than again assuming it says what you want it to say :) Besides I don't see it supporting your argument in any way. The Shivans are still unstoppable whether they created the nebula or not.
The species, their history and their future are the core point of the game, and that was just FreeSpace 1. FreeSpace 2 goes on a _lot_ further into the whole thing if you'll compare. I doubt the story narrator would be putting lies into Bosch's mouth - he who tells the story.
I disagree. One of the fundementals of good storywriting is learning not to make your characters oracles. A character should only have access to whatever knowledge he should have. He shouldn't be privy to the inner working of the universe just because the person writing for him is.
Besides setting up the audience to believe one thing and then showing it to be completely false later on is one of the fundementals of storywriting.
Not really WM, there are no assumptions that the Shivans kicked the Ancients' asses and the civilizations prior to the Ancients.
Yes there are. We only know for certain that a race with shielding technology similar to the Shivans kicked the crap out of the ancients. We can't even conclusively prove that it was the Shivans!
There's absolutely no evidence beyond the conjecture of Bosch that the Shivans wiped anyone else out. Even Bosch says What If?
-
Sorry Kara, I made some clarifications in my reply to aldo, so if you really want to reply you'll have to do it to that part as well, but like I said, I won't play the quote game you guys use to discuss.
I maintain that I am correct in my views even with your very informed and intelligent responses, which I just simply believe are reached from a skewed perspective.
I assume that you feel the same way about me as well of course, but in the end, that is how our discussion on our views regarding the FS universe will have to remain, because I just can't do the back and forth anymore like I used to.
Sorry. If you really want to discuss it, we can do it over irc - I can focus better and type in a more relaxed and cohesive manner if it's real-time (yeah, kind of the opposite of logical order, that forums are more relaxed, but it's true heh), you can find me on irc://irc.maxgaming.net:6667/ssx (copy and paste the string into FF, should launch it correctly).
If you want to that is, but I've really said my peace (peace yeah) when I replied to aldo, and do not wish to consume my effort and time into playing the quote game.
-
In all your criticisms of my own statements, BD, you're making the same sort of assumptions without evidence. I freely admit I'm just guessing here (it's just a pain in the arse to add IMO equivalents to my own replies), but I'm sure you'd agree this type of debate is always circular in nature because the lack of unambigious statements within FS1/ST/FS2 leads us to add in personal philosophy.
Nitpicking highlights; we don't know that the Shivans are star destroyers (i.e. that Capella was intentionally nova-ed), also the reference to pharoahs rather than 'a peasant in Ancient Egypt' is a lot better sounding (avoids the repetition of 'Ancient Egypt' from the previous line, plus a pharoah is generally a more easily imagined cultural reference than a peasant), the point I was making RE: the 'but' was that the intonation, style, tone etc can have a lot of subtle meanings and even ask questions (especially as it's a monologue postulated as a 'what if?' - you yourself mention 'reading between the lines' for the monologues, and that's exactly what this is, so why dismiss it because you don't happen to like that idea), and you're completely wrong to assume that I'm using 'ideas' as a way to dissasociate Bosch from having relevance to the storyline (as in actuality I'm suggesting he has a role that is not a linear 'true' description of events, in the same sense as we can't regard Petrarchs postulations in the last thread as literal truth or the only option to consider). I found the bold bits a little condescending, actually, because you're highlighting stuff that's no literal truth, especially when it comes to allusions and interpretations of the FS2 ending, which makes it sound like you're declaring this as some obvious fact when it's not) - which is why I felt compelled to reply. Often the most, um, 'forceful' reply (which I tend to do myself) seems to 'win' these little arguements, which is sometimes a little wrong IMO because they are usually a draw.
This is exactly what I mean from the Bagpuss thing, though, because we're both probably vastly over-analysing this (on the basis of what is said, it seems - offhand - like the Shivans were travelling to another galaxy* via Capella and Bosch wanted to tag along, but that's far too simple for most of us, including me :)).And you're right in that there's no point batting this about, but all I want to say is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone is definitively right on any of this.
*particularly given the dropped 'Exodus' subtitle.
-
Like I said, and I'll quote what I said:
In the end as a summation - we can all play the "yeeeeeeeah but that's not how they said and I don't accept your opinions because they left that part open and I had some other ideas here" - that's true, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that some of us have more logical solutions to the story of FreeSpace, and some of us less.
Subsequently I provided you with my ideas above and the reasoning for them so I see no need to reiterate - so far there hasn't been anyone to come along and make a more or equal statement as far as value goes, so that is why I'm going with my interpertations and assumptions. When I see someone make a better argument, I will accept it over my own. That's just how it goes.
Sorry if I sounded condescending with the bold stuff, just was trying to bold the important bits of my opinions.
edit:(which you pointed out in the end of your post - sorry it's hard to concerntrate)
But like you said
no point batting this about, but all I want to say is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone is definitively right on any of this.
That is true and I agree. It's just that I also think that the first part of this post is the way to go about it if we can't be completely right. (which we can't)
-
Sorry Kara, I made some clarifications in my reply to aldo, so if you really want to reply you'll have to do it to that part as well, but like I said, I won't play the quote game you guys use to discuss.
I read them. I don't find them that applicable to the main thrust of my argument (That :V: could very easily have been setting us up only to take a completely different path than you are thinking of).
we don't know that the Shivans are star destroyers (i.e. that Capella was intentionally nova-ed)
Given that the Shivans are supposedly part of a bigger problem we have no proof that they weren't killed in a failed attempt to stop Capella going nova. :D Of course the question then becomes what did blow up Capella? :)
As I said before having such an open ended plotline is such a godsend for the community.
-
Sorry Kara, I made some clarifications in my reply to aldo, so if you really want to reply you'll have to do it to that part as well, but like I said, I won't play the quote game you guys use to discuss.
I read them. I don't find them that applicable to the main thrust of my argument (That :V: could very easily have been setting us up only to take a completely different path than you are thinking of).
Again if you want to discuss it, you can reach me at the irc string above, but unless you state it openly, I can't refute it or agree with it.
-
I did state it openly. All your conclusions are based on the fact that you believe that :v: weren't preparing a big plot twist whereby they reveal that Bosch was wong and something else was going on.
I don't really need to state what the something else was. It could be any of the other myriad theories that exist. All I need is to do is get you to accept the possibility that :v: were setting us up and I'll have proved that what the Shivans were up to in the past, present and future might not be half as cut and dried as you claimed it was.
-
There are no theories that exist, that's the point. Not any coherent ones anyway that I can latch on to as possible.
And it sounds very unlikely that :v: was planning any big plot twist where Bosch was wrong. Considering it's unlikely, I just much rather take to my own beliefs, which are likely.
The reason it's unlikely, is because we have a good frame of reference with three games already that followed a certain pattern. Unless you describe your already unlikely course, mine remains on the top.
-
If you think it's unlikely then so be it. I find it completely plausable. In fact I find it more interesting than him actually being completely right.
You've limited yourself to a universe where something must be true because a character hypothesised out loud that it might be that way. I'd prefer to go with the theory that just cause a character hypothesises something doesn't necessarily make it so. Otherwise you are also left with the fact that the shivans definitely did use the destruction of Capella to get home just because Petrach says so.
-
Exactly why it's called a plot twist. :p
Not really WM, there are no assumptions that the Shivans kicked the Ancients' asses and the civilizations prior to the Ancients.
As much the fact is that the player wasn't told "That's how it happened", you have to be pretty retarded not to have gotten the hint and accepted it.
'Scuse me? And this isn't basing your arguments on assumptions, how?
Maybe the Manifesto makes assumptions that you don't agree with, however, for any kind of guess about What Freespace 3 Would Be Like, you have to make assumptions, even if you are holding a copy of the full Freespace 3 script, direct from Volition, in your hands. Because there's no certainty that it would've actually been used.
So you can complain about the Manifesto, but the thing is, while it has problems, it doesn't totally contradict any explicitly established elements of the Freespace universe. Volition could use it for Freespace 3 and retcon little to nothing in Freespace through Freespace 2, regardless of where you thought it was headed.
As such it's a valid theory for Freespace 3, it's a widely supported theory in the community, so it's worth having an article about in the wiki. If nothing else, it gives a chance to add the "fanon" notice at the top of the page so that people understand what exactly it is.
And like I said, if someone can make as convincing an argument as the Manifesto for the theory that the Shivans nuked Capella to gain the help of Space Badgers, then they are welcome to have an article about that in the wiki aswell, but it will have the same "fanon" notice as the Manifesto.
-
After this discussion I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather see the fanon left out of the wiki completely.
I'd rather see our Freespace encyclopedia aspire to something like the Britannica, only reporting well documented fact than follow wikipedia with its idiotic attempts to please everyone (Graham Hanccock on the entry for the Pyramids? Please! :rolleyes:).
The wiki is meant to be the sum of the communities knowledge. The forum is the place for conjecture about the game.
-
Exactly why it's called a plot twist. :p
Not really WM, there are no assumptions that the Shivans kicked the Ancients' asses and the civilizations prior to the Ancients.
As much the fact is that the player wasn't told "That's how it happened", you have to be pretty retarded not to have gotten the hint and accepted it.
'Scuse me? And this isn't basing your arguments on assumptions, how?
Maybe the Manifesto makes assumptions that you don't agree with, however, for any kind of guess about What Freespace 3 Would Be Like, you have to make assumptions, even if you are holding a copy of the full Freespace 3 script, direct from Volition, in your hands. Because there's no certainty that it would've actually been used.
So you can complain about the Manifesto, but the thing is, while it has problems, it doesn't totally contradict any explicitly established elements of the Freespace universe. Volition could use it for Freespace 3 and retcon little to nothing in Freespace through Freespace 2, regardless of where you thought it was headed.
As such it's a valid theory for Freespace 3, it's a widely supported theory in the community, so it's worth having an article about in the wiki. If nothing else, it gives a chance to add the "fanon" notice at the top of the page so that people understand what exactly it is.
And like I said, if someone can make as convincing an argument as the Manifesto for the theory that the Shivans nuked Capella to gain the help of Space Badgers, then they are welcome to have an article about that in the wiki aswell, but it will have the same "fanon" notice as the Manifesto.
Like I said, and I'll say it again, there is a spectrum of logical and illogical things - the manifesto belongs in the illogical section of off the wall crap.
It is only so much of a valid theory for FS3 as much as the Capella BBQ theory is. That doesn't however mean that all theories are equally valid, because there is a degree of sane and insane interpertations.
But that is beside the point.
Separate issue is that the manifesto or any other plausable or non-plausable interpertation doesn't belong in the Wikipedia period. This is where we disagree. You seem to be of the thought that senseless crap as well as good ideas belong there, while I don't - regardless of them being good or bad.
I was just making distinctions between coherent ideas and off-the-wall ones when I discussed the manifesto.
That clear it up for you? Read Kara's post above mine.
-
I don't like the Shivan Manifesto because it is a comprehensive theory. I totally disagree with it on several key points, as I firmly believe that it is refuted by what we see in the only "canon" source that exists. But then it is only an opinion one way or another and isn't part of my argument to keep it out of the wiki. I'm fine with putting it somewhere with a big "this is not canon" flag on it, but I would hate to have it mistaken for something official as that is already happening with it's current existance as a single thread on the board. It should be obvious that it is just a single way of reading the events of Freespace, coupled with a lot of assumptions and suppositions, and yet very often it is used as some infallible source of info. That is ultimately my problem with it, and I'd have the same problem if my own thoughts on the Shivans were "widely supported by the community." I wouldn't be protesting if there were multiple theories to put in the same place, but to only include the one when it is hardly agreed upon is wrong IMHO.
And even if/when it is put up, all that really needs to happen is to add a link to the discussion board thread about it with the disclaimer and perhaps a discussion on its merits and shortcomings as a fan-made story. It doesn't need to be copied verbatim into the wiki because it is already on the same server.
-
Rather than rant some more, here is my rough idea of what the Manifesto page should be like:
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Shivan_Manifesto
I would've preferred a more evident non-canon notice, but I didn't know how to put one on there without searching around for a bit. Something with a box, like the notice at the top of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).
My point is - whether we think something is crap or not, if it is important enough within the community then it should be in the wiki. We already have 'fanon' in there - user-made campaigns. If we're going to shut out community developments, then the Wiki should not be a community wiki, but rather a separate project or even website.
Better that people can look up the Manifesto and see that it's non-canon, rather than poke through a half-dozen threads of interpretation and walk away thinking that Volition ripped off Titan AE.
Ack, StratComm posted.
If there are other theories available to put up, then I'm totally fine with that. I'd be interested in having them around to read, if nothing else. Ideally, I'd see them linked to on an 'Origins of the Shivans' page, which would list relevant facts from FS1 and FS2, then have some discussion on popular theories (ie Shivans evolved in space) and links to whatever specific theories (Mindgames, Manifesto) exist.
At the very least it will give people an idea of where other people have gone before, rather than suggesting the same things over and over again.
-
You think the pharoahs of Ancient Egypt could have imagined a lightning struck gaseous nebula in the depths of space? Hell, the Pharoahs never even knew the world was round, let alone the cosmos.
The cosmos is flat, not round!
:nervous:
-
To be honest, even though I can imagine the cloud and all, I'm not too sure about actually going with the sound in space thing, or Bosch's voice following me around as I drift through a nebula full of toxic gases. :p
-
whether we think something is crap or not, if it is important enough within the community then it should be in the wiki.
That Manifesto is not important - at all. Theories on Shivans are a dime a dozen.
-
It's a *checks article* 30-page persuasive essay for an interpretation about pretty much anything Shivan, that's referenced regularly when a topic related to the Shivans comes up. I'll reference ID/Ev - even if you think the other side is spewing complete crap, it's still a good idea to be familiar with the other side's position so you can argue against it.
It was referenced on the first page of this thread[/url, actually, and someone posted in wikipedia that it was canon. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,37231.0.html)
-
I actually like what you've done with it WMC. Again, I wish there were examples of competing theories up, but then no one has taken near that amount of time in putting something like that together. I wish I knew more Wiki code to help make the non-canon warning clearer, but as a general summary and source for details on the Shivan Manifesto this more than adequately addresses my concerns with it. A little more polish, and an overarching "origins of the Shivans" page and this gets my vote as to how to do it.
-
Dammit, I want to see the Space Badger Armada now.........
Anyways, I think it's fair to say - no fanon allowed in the wiki.
-
I like the wiki page, and IMO there should be more fanon stuff in the wiki (except the Space Badger theory)
Like the plot and theories of fanmade campaigns (once they are released and not secret any more, with a huge spoiler and non canon warning, so you don't have to play through the campaign again to find out one minor detail, and of course only if the author(s) agree to put it up)
But that warning should be much bigger, I didn't even notice it. The 'Summary of the Manifesto' title is bigger and draws your attention away from it. Could you increase the text size perhaps? Or put one big Warning title over it?
-
Any better now?
I thought the spoiler / non-canon spoilers were too small and i was going to try to make bigger ones at some point anyway...
-
Yes, much better :yes:
-
Yup, very nice and attention-getting. :yes:
-
I think you need to make a notification that it's also garbage as well as not canon.
Otherwise it's just a missrepresentation.
Oh and, if you intend to keep that atrocity in the Wiki, I suggest you start adding the Capellan BBQ theory, and the Space Badger theory as well as the Space Crack theory.
They are all equally valid examples of the Shivans and the FS universe just as that Manifesto is, so I don't see why they shouldn't be in the same category.
-
Garbage - That's just a little outside the scope of the document. Plus, adding that is just as likely to get people to blindly jump behind the Manifesto and start defending it as it is to convince people to your own POV.
For the other three articles...the BBQ theory (I'm guessing) comes from a picture in the MSPaint thread, the Space Badger theory was just developed in this thread as an hypothetically extreme idea for Shivan motivations, and I've never even heard of the Space Crack theory. None of them has become the subject of serious debate in threads, AFAIK.
I suppose, when it comes to fanon, I'm going to say that there's a difference between a 30-page persuasive essay using examples from several different sources within the three games, written to advocate a specific interpretation of events that a fair number of people in the community agree with, and a one-shot example somebody came up with for the hell of it that no one has really seriously put forth as a theory. Of course if you want to expand on it and put it forth within the community as a valid theory and have it gain acceptance by a number of people, like the Manifesto or any number of theories regarding Bosch and co., there you go.
-
All the easier to incorporate it to the Wiki.
After all, if you're not going to be making distinctions between coherent and "25 Quoted pages of the game material - then commented on with false logic" (<--what the Manifesto is), then there certainly is no distinction between funny images and said material that you already uploaded.
You said it yourself:
If someone were to write up a Space Badger theory as well-written, with about as many supporting points, and as popular as the Shivan Manifesto, by golly, it should be in the Wiki.
Incoherent conclusions and funny images should go hand in hand - one doesn't have to be written to be considered a valid idea after all - since we all get the point.
I suggest you start uploading images, considering they're primary sources of ideas that everyone understands equally as the manifesto - and I also would like you to write a big headline above them citing the same thing that the manifesto now enjoys - "The following information has not been confirmed by Volition and is therefore not canon for the Freespace universe."
-
Garbage - That's just a little outside the scope of the document. Plus, adding that is just as likely to get people to blindly jump behind the Manifesto and start defending it as it is to convince people to your own POV.
For the other three articles...the BBQ theory (I'm guessing) comes from a picture in the MSPaint thread, the Space Badger theory was just developed in this thread as an hypothetically extreme idea for Shivan motivations, and I've never even heard of the Space Crack theory. None of them has become the subject of serious debate in threads, AFAIK.
I suppose, when it comes to fanon, I'm going to say that there's a difference between a 30-page persuasive essay using examples from several different sources within the three games, written to advocate a specific interpretation of events that a fair number of people in the community agree with, and a one-shot example somebody came up with for the hell of it that no one has really seriously put forth as a theory. Of course if you want to expand on it and put it forth within the community as a valid theory and have it gain acceptance by a number of people, like the Manifesto or any number of theories regarding Bosch and co., there you go.
That's still no reason for it in the wikipedia. Even by simply placing it in there you give it a precedence over other theories not within the wikipedia, something which is wholly unfair. If we're going to have that sort of thing in there, why not every theory ever posted in length? Why isn't there a criticism section alongside to highlight the flaws within it? Why are we giving this one theory - which IMO isn't even solid - a veneer of acceptance overriding all others?
-
I wish I had the time to write all ideas I regard as insane into a few paragraphs and request them to enjoy equal attention in the Wikipedia.
If this thing remains, I most assuredly will try to find the time in the near future.
Conclusion nr1 will be that the Shivans at the end of FS2 were trying to blow up Capella because Bosch told them to after he boarded the Azrael transport. He was very angry at the GTVA, so he wanted to avenge the NTF by making a big boom.
That sounds awesome.
-
That's still no reason for it in the wikipedia. Even by simply placing it in there you give it a precedence over other theories not within the wikipedia, something which is wholly unfair. If we're going to have that sort of thing in there, why not every theory ever posted in length? Why isn't there a criticism section alongside to highlight the flaws within it? Why are we giving this one theory - which IMO isn't even solid - a veneer of acceptance overriding all others?
Because nobody has added the other theories? No one has added a criticism section? I wrote the article to present the document as neutrally as possible, ie to just summarize the document and make it clear that it isn't canon and isn't generally accepted as canon by the community. OTOH throwing on a criticisms section opens the actual pages up to debate and discussion, which has typically been the purview of the forum, rather than just information on pertinent topics. Wikipedia's done it though, so beyond that small thought I've got no argument if someone wants to go in and highlight the holes in the theory.
As for giving it a veneer of acceptance over others, it's hard to make other theories seem as impressive as the Manifesto because it's put together so well. Most of the Shivan Manifesto builds upon itself, while other theories I've seen are very selective and just extrapolate one conclusion from one set of circumstances.
I guess I'm just having trouble seeing how including this in a reference document where it's easy to get to if someone is curious about it makes it any more official. It's like arguing that because the Christianity page in the Wikipedia is so long, while a Russian cult isn't even mentioned, that the Wikipedia is endorsing Christianity. No, mostly it just means that there are people that were willing to go to the trouble and add it, because more people in general do support Christianity.
The wiki, IMHO, should not be playing at deciding what is and what isn't...it should just be a repository of information regarding FS. A reference document, if you will.
BD, if I were to go with your argument - that the Shivan Manifesto is a steaming pile of **** and so it should be left outside the wiki - then we would be giving your opinion and your personal theory precedence over everything else. Any theory we included in the wiki WOULD be a sign of endorsement that we believed that the theory is somehow better than all the others and somehow more relevant to canon.
I figure you've obviously got no problem than that, but what if we replace "You" in that paragraph with someone else who believes that the Shivan Manifesto is the best theory out there? If you want to include aldo or I in that theory then I'm sure I could find two more people with the same opinion of the Manifesto. Perfectly equally valid reasoning, except that I'm guessing you wouldn't be happy with it.
-
I still would argue that my first preference would be to not have any of that stuff in there at all. I don't care if it's a theory I completely agree with; it's still opinion and falls outside of the mandate of the FS wiki (as a document containing all of the knowledge on the subject of Freespace that the community knows) simply because it's a fan-made story, in essence. I don't mind an explanation of what it is in there, but we need to be very conscious of not biasing it one way or another besides the emphesis that it is not canon. What would be good though (and we still need an "Origins of the Shivans" page) would be the perspective that Shivan origins are supposed to be completely mysterious and theories as to their motives, unless clearly backed up by :v: documents or the games themselves, should be treated as nothing more than guesswork.
-
From my FAQ
What else can you tell me about the Shivans? Why did they do x/y/z?
Very little is known about the Shivans. Probably [V] had planned to reveal more in FS3, but since it was never made we are stuck trying to deduce Shivan motives from what we know from the games and from a few cryptic comments by people who work in [V].
One thing we do know from [V] is that the Shivans are what we see in Hall Fight (a cutscene in FS1). They aren't wearing power suits like the aliens in Independence Day. We're not seeing a soldier race that works for the Shivans. What we are seeing is the real thing.
Another comment from [V] states that we should view the Shivans as "a symptom of a much bigger problem". Many people have taken this to mean that there is another species that the Shivans are at war with. Of course, if you have a better explanation, we'd love to hear it.
As for the Shivans' actions at the end of FS2, your guess is as good as mine.
I figured that was the best way to deal with it when I had to make a decision.
-
I'd just leave it at that. It's best way really.
WM, I'm not happy with any kind of an opinion in the Wiki, even if you state it's an opinion - it's just that the fact that the one you consider so high and mighty happens to blow, so it is proving the point why any opinions shouldn't be there.
And as a sidenote, I woudln't be putting myself in the line of finding it fascinating if I were you (as far as the Manifesto goes) - it's a fairly accurate showcase of how little you've given thought to the actual subject.
-
BD:
- Read my posts and get your facts straight before you start trying to tell me what I think.
- The fact that someone was able to construct thirty pages on the subject is definitely interesting, considering that no one else has bothered to do so since. From what it sounds like you're implying - That my opinion is somehow worth less, because I clearly haven't spent as much time thinking about a fictional race of aliens from a video game as you have - I must conclude that either you somehow feel threatened by the Manifesto, because it is better proof than you can present that this person's opinion is more relevant than yours. Or, however long that a person has spent thinking about the Shivans does not necessarily have bearing on the validity of a person's arguments.
Edit: And actually, BD, my page on the Manifesto is no more an opinion than the pages on user-based campaigns. Stating that any of them are "unreasonable" or "trash" would definitely fall under the "opinion" category.
Do you disagree that the Manifesto is non-canon? Do you disagree that the outline in the wiki is the outline of the Manifesto? Do you disagree that the Manifesto is "controversial"? (I hope not, as you've been very passionate about your dislike of it in this very thread) Do you disagree that the link to the Manifesto is in PDF form?
Edit 2: Am I to understand that you'll be railing against including an article on BWO or TVWP because they have non-canon storylines and are therefore merely an opinion on how things could have been? If not, then what if I or someone else goes and makes a campaign based on the Manifesto - it'll be a user-made campaign, and therefore eligible for inclusion in the wiki, along with the Manifesto, as that will be the basic idea of the campaign.
Of course in that case, you'll just have to hope that people don't like the campaign, or else we may have people trying to get that FS3 status within the community. :lol:
-
Anyway, I would think that having the Manifesto in the wiki would be a good thing for you. Assuming your competing theory is better and we have some 'Origins of the Shivans' page, then should be more skeptical of the Manifesto as they'll be able to compare the two, and the weaknesses of the Manifesto will become obvious. Rather than finding the Manifesto in an old thread via Google where practically all the replies are something like "This is really good!", where it's not obvious that anyone has much of a different idea from the Manifesto.
A malinformed populace is almost always more easily influenced than a well-informed one...
-
Haha oooooh this is getting boring.
.....okay let's go again.
I don't have to tell you what you think. I just need to quote you, which I did so above to blatantly point out that your opinions on this matter are false and unproductive.
As far as being threatened by the idea that the Shivans thought there are 80+ Colossus warships out to destroy them and fled - really are you kidding me?
The only thing that threatenes me is the fact that anyone scrolling through the Wikipedia will actually believe anything like that to be accepted as a valid train of thought. That SCARES ME!
As far as wanting BWO or TVWP to be in the Wikipedia - I don't want them to be in the Wikipedia for the exact same primary reason that I don't want the SM in the Wikipedia - and that is the fact that those opinions aren't FACT - neither the campaigns I'm involved with, or that 30 page long garbage. If I put BWO and TVWP into the Wikipedia, then I have to put that piece of **** in there as well, and that is percisely what I want to AVOID. There are good theories out there and there are bad theories out there, and because I can't make one fact and the other sensless bull****, because the only way I can do that is through opinion - I don't want ANY of it near the facts.
Do you get me yet?
-
Well, I like the Manifesto,it sure guarantees an hour or two of enjoyable text...
One question rose to my mind, that I believe has not been answered yet (Sorry if I'm wrong)
How the Shivans are..breeding. I mean, are they increasing numbers trough "normal" means, or is there set amount of them (Billions+)
I remember, that it was stated that the Shivans were "constructed" or bred by another species. If that Species is long gone, then how the Shivans are able to reproduce themselves...
Sorry, it's really an odd question, but...
-
I have no problem with non-canon stuff being included in the wiki (the FS Wiki, not Wikipedia - the latter should be only for canon) as long as it's clearly marked as such. Otherwise there would be no good place to keep track of important information that people might like to reference. The jump node inconsistencies are a good example, to toot my own horn. :) The Shivan Manifesto falls into that category IMHO, even if I disagree with just about all of it.
-
Because nobody has added the other theories? No one has added a criticism section? I wrote the article to present the document as neutrally as possible, ie to just summarize the document and make it clear that it isn't canon and isn't generally accepted as canon by the community. OTOH throwing on a criticisms section opens the actual pages up to debate and discussion, which has typically been the purview of the forum, rather than just information on pertinent topics. Wikipedia's done it though, so beyond that small thought I've got no argument if someone wants to go in and highlight the holes in the theory.
AFAIK Wikipedia doesn't print fiction in what is effectively a factual entry (as opposed to, say, storylines of books and movies or the background of fictional charatcers and places, etc), but with a 'this is not fact' disclaimer. Moreso, the issue of what is and what is not fair criticism is something that would inevitably result in a pseudo-edit war. And it the purview of the forum, as you point out.
Also, why should we be obliged to add all theories to the wiki? Because that's the only fair way of dissemination, given the wikis' reference/factual purpose.
As for giving it a veneer of acceptance over others, it's hard to make other theories seem as impressive as the Manifesto because it's put together so well. Most of the Shivan Manifesto builds upon itself, while other theories I've seen are very selective and just extrapolate one conclusion from one set of circumstances.
It builds upon false or unproveable assumptions garnished as fact; moreso these are IMO very misleading and likely to send people in the wrong way. Frankly, I don't find it a particularly impressive theory; there are gigantic holes within it, and I've seen a number of far better thought out theories from other campaigns
I guess I'm just having trouble seeing how including this in a reference document where it's easy to get to if someone is curious about it makes it any more official. It's like arguing that because the Christianity page in the Wikipedia is so long, while a Russian cult isn't even mentioned, that the Wikipedia is endorsing Christianity. No, mostly it just means that there are people that were willing to go to the trouble and add it, because more people in general do support Christianity.
We're not talking about length competition between 2 factual entries though; we're talking about a fictional construct. The wiki is a reference source; it is not a dumping ground for postulation or ideas - the forum is. Why not go the whole hog and have people submit their ideas as wikipedia articles rather than forum threads?
The wiki, IMHO, should not be playing at deciding what is and what isn't...it should just be a repository of information regarding FS. A reference document, if you will.
Information being the key word. Fiction (within the context of fact within the fictional Freespace universe being the canonical evidence) is not information, as it is not informative.
Also, it's valid to have entries on the storyline of the likes of TVWP because of context; it's a description of that campaign or mods fictional universe - what it is not, is an invention purely for the purposes of display, as the SM is. It's like, we can have (in the 'main' wikipedia) descriptions of the FS2 universe, but not descriptions of a made up universe that exists only as an abstract and unused construct.
The SM is simply not of worthwhile reference; it has a welter of problems that, unless contested, can lead to similarly false assumptions being made. I've already seen fallacities within it being quoted as if it was canon. Moreso, it's validity is something that should be discussed in the forums, alongside every other theory. I should not have to type up a 29 page PDF just to ensure equal reference within what is suppossed to be a respository of reference information - i.e. fact.
-
NB: still want criticism of the SM?
Criticisms of the Shivan manifesto
- Assumes that the Shivan body was designed to operate in space from scratch; when it is equally likely the Shivans evolved upon a planet and modified themselves over a long time to their current physical state; i.e. 'evolving' through need or desire to a non-planetary race
- Assumes the Capellan supernova was intentionally induced (rather than accidental side-effect)
- Omits details of Bosches reasoning for contacting the Shivans; namely his contact with GTI research (fighting the Silent Threat rebellion) and specifically information arising from GTI interaction with live Shivan captives.
- Highly assumptative of first contact between Bosch and th Shivans; namely assumes that a communication (enough to convince Bosch of a 'tentative alliance') somehow occurred with a translation error that allowed a conversation to appear perfectly logical to both sides, yet carry an entirely different and consistent meaning. This type of consistency of meaning is incredibly unlikely for a translation; moreso it fails to explain how the Shivans knew the precise arrangements of the docking and how to identify command crew upon the Iceni
- Assumes the Shivans attempted to rescue POWs as a motivation for boarding the Iceni. This has never occured in Freespace history; the only known example of Shivans journeying to captured Shivan specimens resulted in the destruction of the SC Tarnais and Tombaugh station - i.e. killing the captured Shivans rather than attempting rescue.
- Over-emphasies Boschs' 'love of humanity' comment; assumes Bosch would not want the Shivans to kill the Iceni crew, yet this is the same Bosch as masterminded a rebellion costing thousands of lives; and all this for a diversion.
- Assumes the size and nature of the ETAK device; and whether or not it was reproduceable by the (highly advanced) Shivans. Presumes manual communication is impossible, even though this would be a circumstance anticipated by Bosch if he was to meet the Shivans face-to-face (so to speak). Also makes a false comparison between 1940s computers and the ETAK device; namely that in the FS2 universe it would be impossible to make a portable prototype, despite the centuries in the future this represents (also, it has been suggested by Volition employees that nanotechnology is possible in FS era, and thus so would be extreme miniturisation). Additionally, this assumes ETAK is a primarily physical device, rather than a software program driving existing technology.
- Error in that it assumes Bosches logs, data, etc are only kept on his laptop (referring to the ability to rebuild ETAK) rather than copied across multiple ship based databanks or even solid media.
- Assumes the Shivan attitude towards humanity; whilst referencing the violent contact in FS1, it completely omits the key difference in the 'Iceni incident' - namely that communication was made. Bosch explicitly mentions that an era of 'tragic misunderstanding' is over; implying a change in the Shivans expressed attitude.
- Assumes the Shivans have shunned diplomacy, without considering that it may not be a natural part of their psychological makeup (i.e. that any 'normal' race would automatically wish first contact and peace, rather than attack).
- Suggests the Shivans are energy-based lifeforms inhabiting an artificial body (although not explaining how and why this body was constructed); thus any conclusions based upon this are open to question. Moreseo, begs the question as to why a race with no interest in planetary inhabitation (effectively confined to their ships) needs individual bodies.
- Issue over the 'immediacy' negating the theory of Shivans as created cyborgs (assuming created by another race rather than themselves); namely this is no reason why the Shivans cannot be ancient, given their know 8000 year history and the FS2 suggestion their attacks through space are cyclical (it would take a very long time to travel an entire galaxy; it's not inconceivable for the FS1 and FS2 fleets to be actually part of the same force, and seperated by 32 years as a result of sheer distance to travel).
- The Shivans do not disregard planets entirely; they have destroyed at least 3 (Altair, the Ancients homeworld, Vasuda Prime). Also, they do not disregard technology; for example, they attacked the convoys carrying shield prototypes in FS1 (alongside other examples).
- Subspace damage being incurred by travel is, of course, a complete guess. As is - more importantly - that the Shivans have drives that do not damage subspace, and yet the GTVA has not identified what would surely be fundamental differences as a result of their study of captured Shivan vessels.
- Virtually all of the subspace damage/repair physics is assumed guesswork.
- Assumes the Shivans must have a base, with no evidence(in FS1/2) to support this.
- Assumption of the reasons why the GTVA does not wish to use main beam cannon upon the Knossos leaves other opportunities; for example that it may be too slow (strategic) to destroy such a strong construction, or that there may be problems if the entire structure is not destroyed simultaneously (scientific)
- Fails to explain how the Shivans could not activate or understand (the purpose of) Knossos portals, whilst stating the SHivans have an inherent and unparalleled knowledge of subspace. It seems highly unlikely a race formed of subspace wouldn't be able to understand exactly what a subspace affecting device was doing.
- Assumes the Shivans failed in FS1 (we don't know if their priority is xenocide, if the FS2 fleet was a continuation of that attack, or if FS3 would see the Shivans resume their attack. Moreso, we don't know if Bosch changed the Shivans plans in FS2 from being of destroying the GTVA to something else)
- Assumes that the Shivans attack races for using subspace, rather than for fighting with each other (a key point of the previously referenced FS1 monologues was that the Ancients were being punished for their subjugation of other races)
- Assumes the Shivans did not try and stop the GTVA destroying the nodes from Capella to Vega and Epsilon Pegasi; the mission briefings and dialogues describe heavy attacks on both these nodes from 'conventional' (non juggernaut) forces. It's not inconceivable that these attacks were intended to both create a defensive screen for the Sathani and also to allow a system hopping plan of extermination, destroying every star in every GTVA system in a calculated and complete genocide.
- Assumes the Sathani cannot make an inter-system jump from Capella - although we know the Shivans could use unstable nodes that were not marked as stable to the GTVA, and that intra-system jumps are near instant, making it possible (if unlikely) the entire fleet could not escape through 1 or more unstable nodes.
- Massively assumptative over the purpose of Shivan Comm Nodes. Especially given that 'Comm Node' is a fairly descriptive term in itself. Also assumes some linkage between the Shivan Sathanas traffic and the destruction of these devices - this is somewhat nonsensical, particularly given that the Lions Den mission made no assumption these devices would be destroyed (i.e. this buildup would occur in-game regardless of whether any Comm Nodes were destroyed). This would also not be an explanation of the increased juggernaut fleet, given the Shivans already had massive superiority within all access points to that region of space; especially not if we consider that 80 Sathani might just have been needed for the Capellan star (especially given that is where they were deployed, rather than in defensive positions around comm node locations).
- Assumes that the Shivans could never have lost a Sathanas type vessel before; it's arguable that they (given the 80+ in reserve) could have seen that loss as acceptable - in deploying it they destroyed a number of significant GTVA blockade forces, and also exposed the GTVAs tactics for attacking such a vessel. It's worth noting that the 2nd time the Colossus encountered a Sathanas, its fighterbays had been destroyed; indicating the Shivans knew the key to a victory was to stop GTVA bomber attack.
- Assumes that the Shivans believed the GTVA had multiple (many) Colossi, and that Shivans did not have a comparably large force. This is likely to be wrong for several reasons. Firstly, the Shivans would likely have had intelligence upon the GTVA capabilities from the Great War, and thus would know the GTVA did not have the technology or resource levels for such rapid advancement and development. Also, the Shivans would have had the considerable intelligence source of Bosch, an admiral prior to rebellion. Also, this is tied with an assumption that the Shivans are technologically stagnant - there is more evidence to contradict than support this, given the Shivans aquisition of beams (for all capships), flak, et al. It also assumes the Shivans would not anticipate GTVA technological advancement, despite having seen the GTVA taking massive strides (sensor, shield, weapons, subspace technology all spring to mind) during the relatively short Great War.
- Assumes the Shivans would retreat from a large GTVA force rather than engage; especially given the previous attribution of the Shivans to be xenocidal and determined to 'defend' subspace. This would imply the Shivans are in fact just bullies, who run from any larger force rather than 'defend subspace'; assumes that leaving the GTVA to rebuild would be preferable for a race whose fight is for survival.
- Also assumes the Shivans would be somewhat stupid, in that it should be blatantly obvious the GTVA would not withold such a large and war-winning force, especially when taking heavy losses in Capella. Any simple tactician would know it is nonsensical to sacrifice lives and territory if you have a war-winning advantage. This reasoning requires a high level of naivety from the Shivans.
- Assumes that the Shivans destroyed Capella to create an extremely large (physical dimensions) jump node, rather than the (Petrarch suggested) long distance node. This does not explain why the Shivans would sacrifice so many ships; effectively their entire non Sathani fleet, as well as a number of the juggernauts. It's one thing to retreat - it's another to do so in a manner that loses a massive force, especially when you have a clear escape route (Gamma Draconis)
- Largelies upon the assumption of a Shivan hive mind and fight or flight response to justify retreat - where the 'flight' instinct is caused by irrational and unsupported fear.
- Evidence of Shivan retreat is flawed; in all cited cases, the 'retreat' can be justified as simple tactics rather than the characterised 'fight or flight' response; a cruiser requiring resupply, a cruiser group attempting to combine forces with another, a destroyer protecting the weak rear of the first Sathanas. None of these are also equatable to a full-scale retreat, being individual movements within a large scale offensive.
- Assumes the Shivans, a race with ability to build at least 80 Juggernauts, would consider the (arbitrarily calculated) 2.6m casualties figure as being significant.
- The Colossus' movements themself shows the Shivans would not assume a vast Colossus fleet was inbound but merely taking their time; there is more than sufficient time for a large force of that size to travel to the Capella, etc systems in time to engage the Shivans - the Colossus manages it in spite of also having to fight the last dregs of the NTF. Also, the citing of capital ship movement time fails to consider intra-system jumping (instanteous). Also, it fails to consider that the Shivans might be able to detect GTVA subspace drives and thus ships - something made only more likely if we accept the notion of Shivans as literal subspace beings.
- Assumes the Shivans would be concerned about the time period for destroying all GTVA stars; this is a species which has seemingly waited for 8000 years. This is also a species which, based on the manifesto, would now view the GTVA as their number one enemy.
- By this stage of the Manifesto, there is no consideration of Bosch - one of the most important characters of the game storyline, who provides much of the exposition - is ignored, largely because some of his statements would contradict the Manifestos assumptions.
- Mentions the GTVA studying Shivan comms systems - but the GTVA has never (as far as is stated) studied a communications 'nexus', only ship level systems.
- Describes the Lions Den system as 'highly defended'. However, if this system was a staging post for the attacks upon GTVA space, it would naturally be full of capital ships arriving, departing, or being supplied and maintained for launching attacks; just think of any marshalling point for a modern day invasion or attack.
- Assumes subspace energy is unstable; this is (admittedly arguably) unsupported by FS, which only mentions subspace nodes (points - in realspace - where the fabric of subspace is strong enough to support travel) as being unstable.
- Assumes the Shivans needs comm nodes as life support systems, yet fails to mention why they have not been seen before in FS1 or FS2 (particularly the former).
- Assumes that the Capellan supernova does not damage subspace but all other novas would, as an explanation of why Capella was 'chosen'.
- Unforunded assumption of living or grown Shivan vessels; this is not supported by any of the tech statements in FS1 or FS2 (particularly relating to retrofitted Shivan fighters). Additionally, the dexterity of the Sathani arms in the FS2 end cutscene is scarcely unusual or inexplicable for a purely constructed vessel - just look at an F-14s swing wings and add a few centuries (or millenia) of mechanical engineering. A minor issue is the use of metallic 'grating' type textures in Hallfight - whilst this would not rule out 'grown' technology, it is not visually indicative of it in the way you would expect it (a visual indicator of Shivan technology) to be.
- Describes the Shivans as a purely energy based lifeform inhabiting physical bodies temporarily simply to move in realspace, than describes them as retreating to a physical station, in subspace, with their ships. Why would the Shivans not move about in their natural energy form? Also, the concept of a subspace 'hub' is unsupported by any evidence from Freespace.
- Describes the Shivans as being affected (in jump position) by subspace forces - but the Shivans should surely be able to counteract this, given their stated ability with subspace, their long term usage of it, and that they are stated as being effectively 'part' of it.
- States it is established that Shivan traffic is proportional to species subspace traffic - this is in no way established. Especially as there is no exemplar for any level of subspace traffic from the Shivans, let alone what the variances in the levels of Ancients, Terran and Vasudan traffic have been over the past 8000 years; this is purely stated (as unsupported fact) in order to justify a similarly unevidenced assumption of how Shivans can perceive locations in space.
- Assumes Shivans cannot transmit messages in long distance; namely that the Lucifer was unable to communicate with 'home'. This is wholly unsubstantiated and based on a number of assumptions - that the Lucifer had time to ask for assistance, that the Sathanas fleet was retreating in FS2, that no reinforcements were sent after the Lucifer was destroyed, etc. This also misses the possibility to suggest a use for Shivan Comm Nodes - i.e. that type of ultra-long distance or inter-spatial communications.
- Assumes the Shivans had only one point of entry into GTVA space in FS2; misses out the fact that the first 'move' made is by the entry of the Trinity into the nebula, and that there is no evidence of a Shivan attack from that point prior. This is supported by the simple time it took to assemble the Sathani fleet in the nebula - and also that the GTVA were allowed to launch probing sorties.
- Assigns a strange arbitrary value for the age of subspace. Subspace is described as an alternate plain of existence; as such, it would have came into existence at the point of the big bang (i.e. with all existence) rather than xx billion years after.
- Describes planets, stars, etc as not existing in subspace - but these objects all generate gravity fields, and we know that gravity affects subspace, hence surely there are perceptible?
- Describes the Shivans as manipulating matter - but fails to explain how this can mesh with the previous description of their perception as being only upon the level of subspace rather than physical object. Also fails to explain why the Shivans would evolve in the subspace dimension and yet develop an ability to perceive matter - essentially, this portion of the manifesto assumes essentially human characteristics of investigation and understanding, but places them within the context of a wholly alien environment (one where normal relativistic physics do not even exist) and upon an alien immeasurably different from any real-space type life.
- Assumes all subspace travel is harmful, except Shivan. This is despite failing to define exactly what is special about Shivan subspace travel, beyond it's creator. Nor does it explain why the Shivans would not offer 'safe' travel to other races; especially given an implication they have the best subspace engines (technically, n-dimension oscillation devices to facilitate entry to subspace apertures)
- Another issue of living ships is that there is no explanation why these ships would be alive - could the non-corporeal Shivans harness an evolved living (space faring) animal? If not, how else could they acquire such a technology - given that they are as far physically and scientifically removed ('born' from non-relativistic space) from normalspace life as possible (i.e. not genetic engineering - I would doubt an energy race has genes in any way equivalent to normalspace biological animals).
- Opts to dismiss the FS2 box text on very spurious grounds; namely by assuming a Shivan scout force (the Lucifer fleet) would be small, yet not considering what 'small' constitutes for a race as powerful as the Shivans. This also omits the concept of a scout force that is also permitted to attack an enemy when it has superior forces. For example, Force Recon forces perform both recon operations and destruction of key enemy installations; it's perfectly plausible the Lucifer fleet was tasked to identify a target, and then perform various combat actions (depending on the scale of threat posed by said target) intended to weaken or even defeat the enemy whilst a larger force was enroute (for example, the FS2 Shivan fleet; perhaps delayed by distance or caught behind an unexpected Knossos).
- Assumes that the GTVA has never researched Shivan engines, simply by dint of engine glow colours in one mission.
- Assumes the GTVA has not had success integrating Shivan and TV technology; however, the Hades had (if fully operational) Shivan weaponry equivalent to the Lucifer (the exact text describes a defense system; this is in the Silent Threat debriefings). It's also possible technological issues are simply down to lack of suitable raw materials.
- Incorrect summation of Bosches motives for the NTF rebellion; in actuality (as described in the game) Bosches fighting the GTI in the Hades rebellion led him to some (unknown) revelation regarding the fate of humanity and the motives of the Shivans - the NTF rebellion was started in order to provide a diversion, allowing Bosch to plunder Ancients ruins in Vasudan systems (presumably to discover the location of the Knossos and it's activation methods). This may be an accidental omission, but it's fitting with the Manifestos general ignoring of the role and importance of Bosch within the FS2 storyline.
-
One question rose to my mind, that I believe has not been answered yet (Sorry if I'm wrong)
How the Shivans are..breeding. I mean, are they increasing numbers trough "normal" means, or is there set amount of them (Billions+)
I remember, that it was stated that the Shivans were "constructed" or bred by another species. If that Species is long gone, then how the Shivans are able to reproduce themselves...
Sorry, it's really an odd question, but...
You're wasting your time asking us. None of us wrote the manifesto so any answer to an unexplained question would be complete conjecture which is completely unconnected to the complete conjecture of the manifesto :p
As for the manifesto being in the wiki why don't we just take a poll on the matter and go with what the majority want? I don't think it should go in just cause WMC put it in otherwise we've set the dangerous precident that any discussion on the wiki can simply be preempted by someone just editing it to add what they wanted.
-
Haha oooooh this is getting boring.
.....okay let's go again.
I don't have to tell you what you think. I just need to quote you, which I did so above to blatantly point out that your opinions on this matter are false and unproductive.
No, you haven't.
As far as being threatened by the idea that the Shivans thought there are 80+ Colossus warships out to destroy them and fled - really are you kidding me?
Hey, it's no more improbable than weapons 300 years from now having a 2km maximum range. :D
The only thing that threatenes me is the fact that anyone scrolling through the Wikipedia will actually believe anything like that to be accepted as a valid train of thought. That SCARES ME!
There are far scarier things in this world. You could make your posts a lot shorter by being less dramatic.
As far as wanting BWO or TVWP to be in the Wikipedia - I don't want them to be in the Wikipedia for the exact same primary reason that I don't want the SM in the Wikipedia - and that is the fact that those opinions aren't FACT - neither the campaigns I'm involved with, or that 30 page long garbage. If I put BWO and TVWP into the Wikipedia, then I have to put that piece of **** in there as well, and that is percisely what I want to AVOID. There are good theories out there and there are bad theories out there, and because I can't make one fact and the other sensless bull****, because the only way I can do that is through opinion - I don't want ANY of it near the facts.
Do you get me yet?
Now that you've switched from "I don't like the Manifesto so it shouldn't be in there" to being a little more mature, yup. :nod:
-
NB: still want criticism of the SM?
...
I guess not. The point of the article I wrote was to give a brief overview of what the Manifesto was, to introduce it to someone in as neutral a context as possible, the criticism you wrote would effectively turn it into a debate and edit war.
As for the manifesto being in the wiki why don't we just take a poll on the matter and go with what the majority want? I don't think it should go in just cause WMC put it in otherwise we've set the dangerous precident that any discussion on the wiki can simply be preempted by someone just editing it to add what they wanted.
Really, I think the original poster should've added the article himself, and then if/when problems cropped up we could've dealt with it then. As it is, a lot of the discussion in the thread has been about what people might think as a result of it.
I don't want to start such a precedent for disregarding community opinion so, please, start a poll, but please also link to the page so that people can see what they're voting to keep or not.
-
I was pretty much intending to keep the poll in this forum and not link to this thread on the grounds that if you don't pay attention to this forum you really don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to deciding the fate of the wiki :)
-
Er, I meant the wiki page, not the thread page. I think anyone who really reads this forum will know that the poll is related to this forum...
-
Well I'm off to bed soonish. I'll see if anyopne disagrees with taking a simple majority vote and if no one does I'll set things up tomorrow morning.
-
NB: still want criticism of the SM?
...
I guess not. The point of the article I wrote was to give a brief overview of what the Manifesto was, to introduce it to someone in as neutral a context as possible, the criticism you wrote would effectively turn it into a debate and edit war.
Well, put it (criticism) in as neutral a tone as possible, but if you don't place the criticism in there then you're failing to provide any reason to keep it as reference; the SM only has a value as a factually based hypothesis if its potential faults are pointed out and provided. If we are to present it in the context that it is in, as a non-canonical reference theory, then we must surely also justify that context by explaining the faults or criticisms of the theory. Otherwise there is a very real risk of people turning up, reading it, and assuming it is all the most logical theory simply because there are neither alternatives nor the detailed criticism (as the theory itself is a huge document, and with it carries the risk of assuming size=correctness) presented. As it is, the current line about 'controversy' doesn't imply the validity or basis of that; making it very easy to assume it's just because it's not direct from Volition or somesuch.
-
I've read the criticism and some points there are incorrect and unfair. E. g. the one about assuming Shivan engines don't damage subspace: the SM doesn't rule out that possibility. :v: said this game is about sacrifice, well, the Shivans have to sacrifice stg. too to save the whole, they damage subspace a little (but they try to keep this down and end the war as quickly as possible, hence the "strategy" of destroying homeworlds first, dealing a decisive blow to the enemy), but they do this to prevent further damage which would be much more catastrophic.
Also:
- Assumes that the Capellan supernova does not damage subspace but all other novas would, as an explanation of why Capella was 'chosen'.
I think that may refer to a previous version of the manifesto, because there's a different explanation in the final version (no other star big enough). If we're going to put in criticism, at least lets check if it's valid first.
BTW I agree with the criticism regarding Bosch, the SM gives him too little significance. There is room for improvement, but some of the ideas there I like. Shivans being energy beings e.g., and it is not stupid (coughVorlons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlon)cough).
-
The SM has value in that people will know what the Shivan Manifesto is when someone brings it up in a discussion on the Shivans. We don't have to justify anything because the theory is made by someone other than :V: , and has not been approved by :V:, ergo it is non-canon. People are responsible for what they want to believe; the wiki is meant to be a source of information, not a belief system.
As you've shown, someone can come up with a ridiculous amount of criticism to spam the wikipedia page with, starting a debate over which points are valid or not, which points belong in the wiki, etc etc. Keeping that criticism off the page doesn't interfere with the purpose of the page, which is to inform the reader what the Shivan Manifesto is - not prove or disprove it.
We've already had people treating Inferno and the Shivan Manifesto as canon on the wikipedia Freespace entry, so I don't think that they need a wiki entry to legitimize either, rather, it seems better to have a page to point out that it is *not* canon and *not* accepted by the Freespace community at large to set things straight right off the bat.
-
I've read the criticism and some points there are incorrect and unfair. E. g. the one about assuming Shivan engines don't damage subspace: the SM doesn't rule out that possibility. :v: said this game is about sacrifice, well, the Shivans have to sacrifice stg. too to save the whole, they damage subspace a little (but they try to keep this down and end the war as quickly as possible, hence the "strategy" of destroying homeworlds first, dealing a decisive blow to the enemy), but they do this to prevent further damage which would be much more catastrophic.
Also:
- Assumes that the Capellan supernova does not damage subspace but all other novas would, as an explanation of why Capella was 'chosen'.
I think that may refer to a previous version of the manifesto, because there's a different explanation in the final version (no other star big enough). If we're going to put in criticism, at least lets check if it's valid first.
BTW I agree with the criticism regarding Bosch, the SM gives him too little significance. There is room for improvement, but some of the ideas there I like. Shivans being energy beings e.g., and it is not stupid (coughVorlons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlon)cough).
That's fine - but you can't really edit in criticism of criticism in the wiki entry, can you? Which is why this should be kept in the forums.
What WMC has said, of course, is that we can post any old tat on the wiki with a 'non-canon' tag - but no-one is allowed to provide the actual criticism of it. So we could happily put the Capellan BBQ entry in there, with the same 'controversy' line. Again, I'd point out that drawing false conclusions (as the SM does - the stuff relating to ETAK strikes me as pretty bad in that way) can make that interpretation of the evidence be accepted as logical fact, simply by failure to provide alternatives. There's several parts, IIRC, in the SM that mention 'possible alternatives' or 'conclusions' when they are actually neither.
And how in the name of **** is that a 'ridiculous' amount of criticism? Because it's long? Then the SM is similarly ridiculous because of its length too, isn't it? Did you consider it's because there's a lot to criticise, why is exactly why the current entry at the very least needs edited?
And what happens when we have other peoples entries hacked into the wiki? Do we repeat this process, trying to weed out the ones that are bollocks? Or do we do as you suggest for the SM, and let people draw unsupported conclusions and let the reader try to decide (or, vastly more likely, assume that everything there is factually accurate)?
-
I've altered the article somewhat - that might be more acceptable.
I think its important to remember that the article, in this case, is about the theory, it is not the theory reproduced on the wiki. If the Article was called "The Shivan Manifesto" and then just had the text of the theory, that would be a problem. I think its better this way - the page has both support and criticisms of the manifesto, and liks to detailed versions of both.
Both articles need to be improved considerably, though.
-
I've read the criticism and some points there are incorrect and unfair. E. g. the one about assuming Shivan engines don't damage subspace: the SM doesn't rule out that possibility. :v: said this game is about sacrifice, well, the Shivans have to sacrifice stg. too to save the whole, they damage subspace a little (but they try to keep this down and end the war as quickly as possible, hence the "strategy" of destroying homeworlds first, dealing a decisive blow to the enemy), but they do this to prevent further damage which would be much more catastrophic.
Also:
- Assumes that the Capellan supernova does not damage subspace but all other novas would, as an explanation of why Capella was 'chosen'.
I think that may refer to a previous version of the manifesto, because there's a different explanation in the final version (no other star big enough). If we're going to put in criticism, at least lets check if it's valid first.
BTW I agree with the criticism regarding Bosch, the SM gives him too litle significance. There is room for improvement, but some of the ideas there I like. Shivans being energy beings e.g., and it is not stupid (coughVorlons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlon)cough).
That's fine - but you can't really edit in criticism of criticism in the wiki entry, can you? Which is why this should be kept in the forums.
What WMC has said, of course, is that we can post any old tat on the wiki with a 'non-canon' tag - but no-one is allowed to provide the actual criticism of it. So we could happily put the Capellan BBQ entry in there, with the same 'controversy' line. Again, I'd point out that drawing false conclusions (as the SM does - the stuff relating to ETAK strikes me as pretty bad in that way) can make that interpretation of the evidence be accepted as logical fact, simply by failure to provide alternatives. There's several parts, IIRC, in the SM that mention 'possible alternatives' or 'conclusions' when they are actually neither.
And how in the name of **** is that a 'ridiculous' amount of criticism? Because it's long? Then the SM is similarly ridiculous because of its length too, isn't it? Did you consider it's because there's a lot to criticise, why is exactly why the current entry at the very least needs edited?
And what happens when we have other peoples entries hacked into the wiki? Do we repeat this process, trying to weed out the ones that are bollocks? Or do we do as you suggest for the SM, and let people draw unsupported conclusions and let the reader try to decide (or, vastly more likely, assume that everything there is factually accurate)?
From the other topic:
EDIT; and also, it strikes me that any criticism added in to balance out these articles will be removed as 'unfair' or somesuch, especially if said article has massive holes and hence lots of criticism.
I did not say remove ALL the criticism as unfair. There is ONE point there wich MUST be removed if the thing stays in the wiki ("Assumes that the Capellan supernova does not damage subspace but all other novas would, as an explanation of why Capella was 'chosen'."), simply because it is not true. If you don't want to decrease the amount of criticism, you could add another point instead, like "Assumes that Capella was the only suitable star for the nova, but we do not know how many systems the Shivans had access to beyond the nebula, and if those systems had no suitable star". The wordcount for the criticism would even increase.
The other one ("Assumes all subspace travel is harmful, except Shivan. This is despite failing to define exactly what is special about Shivan subspace travel, beyond it's creator. Nor does it explain why the Shivans would not offer 'safe' travel to other races; especially given an implication they have the best subspace engines (technically, n-dimension oscillation devices to facilitate entry to subspace apertures)"):
I've already stated what my problem with that one is. I didn't say remove it, just add in the fact that the SM also supports the idea that even the Shivans damage subspace.
There, that's two. Out of much more. And only IF it does stay in the wiki. I'm sure someone else will eventually read both the SM and the criticism page and point out these errors (if it does stay). As for the rest of the criticism page, lock it. If someone brings up a valid point to criticise the manifesto in the forum (there is a bigger chance of that happening if it does stay in the wiki), include it.
-
What WMC has said, of course, is that we can post any old tat on the wiki with a 'non-canon' tag - but no-one is allowed to provide the actual criticism of it. So we could happily put the Capellan BBQ entry in there, with the same 'controversy' line. Again, I'd point out that drawing false conclusions (as the SM does - the stuff relating to ETAK strikes me as pretty bad in that way) can make that interpretation of the evidence be accepted as logical fact, simply by failure to provide alternatives. There's several parts, IIRC, in the SM that mention 'possible alternatives' or 'conclusions' when they are actually neither.
No, I didn't. Read my bold text.
And how in the name of **** is that a 'ridiculous' amount of criticism? Because it's long? Then the SM is similarly ridiculous because of its length too, isn't it? Did you consider it's because there's a lot to criticise, why is exactly why the current entry at the very least needs edited?
It's a ridiculous amount of criticism because it's written to be as long as possible to look impressive. :rolleyes: It's also 3 pages of criticism compared to 2 paragraphs of summary. If that is an 'acceptable' amount of criticism then we're opening the wiki up to a sort of filibuster mentality, where any article can be spammed as long as it's criticism.
I think its important to remember that the article, in this case, is about the theory, it is not the theory reproduced on the wiki. If the Article was called "The Shivan Manifesto" and then just had the text of the theory, that would be a problem. I think its better this way - the page has both support and criticisms of the manifesto, and liks to detailed versions of both.
Actually the page does not have support for the Manifesto, nor does it link to a detailed version of support for the Manifesto. Which is why I'm very wary of adding 'criticism', because someone can now argue that because there's a criticism of the Manifesto, there also needs to be support for the Manifesto, and we have to add another page.
-
@WMC
So it's now ridiculous for me to write a line-by-line criticsm because it's long? I take it then we're going for the option that the amount of criticism reflected in the wikipedia is inverse to the actual criticism? It's long because there's a ****load of holes in it; this applies to any theory, because we have only a small amount of evidence from the games. And the SM itself is a big arguement 'for' itself anyways, so the page is linking to a big PDF 'support' document - the whole point of a theory is to support itself.
I gave you a list of my criticisms, the things I felt which acted against it's validity for inclusion (in particular), so don't get petty because it's large. Hell, if I stretched it into summary it would be twice that length; I had to work bloody hard to cut it into bullet points and try to cut down on (in particular) referencing alternate theories. I'm quite frankly insulted that you're insinuating I padded it out to look big and impressive. In any case, you're the one who opened up the 'filibuster mentality' by citing the length of the SM as a reason for supporting its addition above other theories.
@knn; I didn't want to go over this before, and I can't be arsed reading over the SM again. In any case did not format that critcism for wiki use (nor research it as much I would have done in that case; otherwise it'd be full of links and quotes, etc), and I didn't phrase it for such. I spent ages going through that document (as quickly as possible), so I wouldn't be surprised if there were errors, as I was noting things on a section-by-section basis. But I'd accept you'd still find a number of significant failings in the SM in any case; at which point we have the again edit issue, and why these things are better for forum discussion. The wiki is essentially a dictatorial system where one person after another decides what is right and wrong; not ideal for what is essentially a discussion topic. Frankly, I found the SM increasingly bizarre and messy towards the end section, as it jumbled up the concept of retreating with creating a jump to a strange physical installation for escape, to a concept of it being impossible to reach this, and just all kinds of stuff I find nonsensical. Imaginative, but nonsensical.
-
Actually the page does not have support for the Manifesto, nor does it link to a detailed version of support for the Manifesto. Which is why I'm very wary of adding 'criticism', because someone can now argue that because there's a criticism of the Manifesto, there also needs to be support for the Manifesto, and we have to add another page.
The page links to the entire text of the Manifesto. On a thirty page document, there has to be internal support. Moreover, if you wish to change the support, section on the main page, go for it. But the valid criticisms (and I didn't go through and confirm every single one was a valid criticism - I copied and pasted Aldo's ones from here- as a wiki, I figured that the bad crits will get ditched and the good ones kept) should be kept on. If they can be answered, then get rid of them.
-
Forgive my attitude in my previous post, I just got pissed over what you wrote in the other topic. If you want to create a comprehensive criticism for the wiki, I'd be happy to help, at least by reading over the SM and pointing out the incorrect points :)
OT, I would like to make a campaign one day in the distant future, and in that case I'd like to borrow some of the ideas from the SM (but there'd be a lot of difference)
And what BW said, except I still don't think the criticism page should be editable for everyone, because that would probably start an edit war. Instead, after discussion about the criticism in the forum, an admin with write access to the article should edit the article. Or something like the contribution system in the Wikipedia, where only registered users can edit the wiki, unregistered users can submit a change which has to be approved by an admin
-
@WMC
So it's now ridiculous for me to write a line-by-line criticsm because it's long? I take it then we're going for the option that the amount of criticism reflected in the wikipedia is inverse to the actual criticism? It's long because there's a ****load of holes in it; this applies to any theory, because we have only a small amount of evidence from the games. And the SM itself is a big arguement 'for' itself anyways, so the page is linking to a big PDF 'support' document - the whole point of a theory is to support itself.
Right, but the document isn't about whether or not the Manifesto is or is not a reasonable theory - just that it exists, and is relatively well-known in the community, and so is something that you'd expect to find with the other things like "FS lingo".
I gave you a list of my criticisms, the things I felt which acted against it's validity for inclusion (in particular), so don't get petty because it's large. Hell, if I stretched it into summary it would be twice that length; I had to work bloody hard to cut it into bullet points and try to cut down on (in particular) referencing alternate theories. I'm quite frankly insulted that you're insinuating I padded it out to look big and impressive. In any case, you're the one who opened up the 'filibuster mentality' by citing the length of the SM as a reason for supporting its addition above other theories.
:lol: Insinuating? I bluntly stated it in my post. However you may be right - I could probably make it even longer without actually adding any content. So it isn't "as long as possible".
Still, you have criticisms like this:- Subspace damage being incurred by travel is, of course, a complete guess. As is - more importantly - that the Shivans have drives that do not damage subspace, and yet the GTVA has not identified what would surely be fundamental differences as a result of their study of captured Shivan vessels.
- Virtually all of the subspace damage/repair physics is assumed guesswork.
Where the latter makes the former redundant. Also, ones like this:
- The Shivans do not disregard planets entirely; they have destroyed at least 3 (Altair, the Ancients homeworld, Vasuda Prime). Also, they do not disregard technology; for example, they attacked the convoys carrying shield prototypes in FS1 (alongside other examples).
Where you yourself make an assumption on the Shivans without factual evidence (That the Shivans attacked the convoys because they were carrying technology).
Other ones like this:
- By this stage of the Manifesto, there is no consideration of Bosch - one of the most important characters of the game storyline, who provides much of the exposition - is ignored, largely because some of his statements would contradict the Manifestos assumptions.
Where you assume that in-game supposition by characters is canon. (Although if you're making reference to some point where the Manifesto states that Bosch is acting out of greed or somesuch, ie where conclusions about the character are made, I would give you this point. Even then this criticism is misleading as most of your assumption points have nothing to do with Bosch.)
There's also this gem:
- Assumes all subspace travel is harmful, except Shivan. This is despite failing to define exactly what is special about Shivan subspace travel, beyond it's creator. Nor does it explain why the Shivans would not offer 'safe' travel to other races; especially given an implication they have the best subspace engines (technically, n-dimension oscillation devices to facilitate entry to subspace apertures)
Where not only is it mostly incorrect about the Manifesto, but the Manifesto specifically talks about this in (IIRC) two different places; it states that Shivan subspace travel may be viewed as a 'necessary evil' even if it is harmful, and points to a repeated breakdown in communication with races as why they don't offer safe travel to other races. The Manifesto also points out that the Shivans live (in some form) in subspace, and so would be better positioned to test for such damage as they would be more accustomed to the environment. Of course, assuming the guess that subspace is damaged by subspace travel, the GTVA obviously does not consider it a very critical issue or doesn't know about it as there is never any mention of it any game, meaning reduced interest in development of 'cleaner' drives.
Many of the others are simply pointing out that the Shivan Manifesto made an assumption here or there, which isn't incorrect, but is sort of a natural consequence of making guesses about anything outside the FS timeline.
Length of SM as a reason? Absolutely. It provides reasons for its conclusions. Above all others? Obviously not reading my bold text. I haven't argued against including other 'theories' in the wiki beyond those that are meant as jokes (Capellan BBQ) and those that aren't really supported by anybody and thus aren't really as meaningful to the community. I think that this is because many of those theories haven't gone to the length to put them in as cohesive named form as the Manifesto, but I can't really do much about it, especially since I haven't seen any of those theories mentioned. :wtf:
At this point all I could do would be to come up with a 'Shivan theories' and add some of the common guesses in there (ie the nebula was a star that the Shivans made supernova, or that Bosch saved the GTVA in exchange for Capella, or somesuch.) Of course if I did that, then I would be disregarding this discussion and the poll...and to be honest I'd rather not make the page because I don't know that many theories off the top of my head.
The page links to the entire text of the Manifesto. On a thirty page document, there has to be internal support. Moreover, if you wish to change the support, section on the main page, go for it. But the valid criticisms (and I didn't go through and confirm every single one was a valid criticism - I copied and pasted Aldo's ones from here- as a wiki, I figured that the bad crits will get ditched and the good ones kept) should be kept on. If they can be answered, then get rid of them.
Right, obviously, but the criticism is not part of the document. Some criticism makes sense, to point out major problems with the theory being accepted in any kind of official sense. However adding on an extensive point-by-point discussion has no place in the wiki - because (As pointed out) it's a reference document, not a forum. For example, Derelict - almost anybody who's gotten involved in the FS community knows it and has played it, but it doesn't really make sense to add people's opinions on it because they arent part of the campaign itself. (and generally drastically less important to the community or a discussion on it)
Edit: If we're going with an Encyclopedia Britannica idea, I doubt you'd find the actual criticisms on how Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" was unrealistic and fictitious, along with citations for specific archaeological evidence and Roman writings of the time, pointing out flaws with the characters, setting, and plot. However there would probably be some indication that the play itself is fictitious, and thus makes a number of assumptions that have either been disproved or cannot be proven.
-
Well, no, but Romeo and Juliet isn't ghenerally considered to be a historically accurate document. Where Britannica documents both Fiction and Fact, the FS Wiki is concerned with documenting fiction - we have to distinctly separate the fiction fact, if you will, from the fiction that doesn't belong. If that means a list of crits, then that's what it taskes. Keep in mind that those criticisms can be edited by anyone...
-
Haven't read the whole thread, but why not make a wiki-page called somthing like "theories on shivans" or "theories about the FS universe" and let people add in LINKS to forum-topics and eventually also mod pages; with one to five lines for describing each link. Also maybe somehow group liks that belong together, for example put a link to this thread right above the link to the Shivan Manifesto. :)
And OF COURSE state at the top of this links page that those teories are entirely non-canon. ;)
That way people would have a place where to look for theories instead of browsing through the whole (quite large) forums and it would be pointed out that those theories are non-canon. If need be, make a "non-canon" tag to each link... :D
And as for me, I don't like most of the points of the Shivan Manifesto, too. One thread I'd like to be linked (if that is whats going to be done) is this one: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,37231.75.html
That's just my vote, so to say, and isn't too tightly correlated with the first part of this post.
-
I think you need to read the non-canon in the wiki thread to see what the objection was.
Although links to the forum is a huge improvement on entries.
-
My opinion was that there should be a forum link; it provides the perfect medium for actually dissecting a document, and it's also, shockingly enough, what the Gen FS forum is for.
-
A significant portion of the original Manifesto is cut off by the new forum software. Also, the thread is locked.