Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Mobius on August 02, 2010, 06:46:31 pm
-
Here's what, a while back, I got from a person who loved (and loves) the Colony Wars series, just like me:
I often felt that the introduction of aliens to the series was something of a cop-out. Here was a game that wasn't afraid to veer away from the usual industry cliche of 'external threats' to mankind, which I found refreshing. For me, one of the most inspiring features of the first game, was that it was an exclusively human conflict, so the conclusion to Vengeance was a big let-down.
It reminds me what I was like when I first played FreeSpace: "Huh, too many aliens here!". That happened because I've always liked space wars fought by men against men and the way those wars can show the true cruelty of war. When your opponent is also a human, you get a chance to understand what you're fighting for and ask yourself if you're doing the right thing: I have experienced this many times in the past, and considered it a great achievement for those game developers who actually induced me to understand what led my enemies to fight. I've never experienced this in FreeSpace... but why? I came to the conclusion that it must have something to do with the nature of enemies.
The Shivans* are mysterious and enigmatic, and with all the questions and theories lying around they're light years away from the stereotype of xenophobic alien species that comes to kill everyone. The Vasudans* are nice, effective in combat... but hardly memorable when it comes to nitpicking. Then we have the Ancients*, but info regarding them are so poor they aren't even worth discussing. That said, don't you think the presence of "too many" alien species posed limitations to the depth of FreeSpace's plot? Don't you think FS1 would have been better if the Vasudans were replaced with a Terran faction, and then the Shivans appeared to threaten the entire human race?
One of the reasons why I prefer FS2 over FS1 is that it starts with a war with a Terran faction, the NTF. Although very little has been done to make the civil war epic, Bosch's monologues reached a level of awesomeness no cutscene about an alien species could have ever reached. Even when talking about the Shivans, Bosch was awesome simply because he showed things from the perspective of a human being who wanted to achieve the impossible. That's for :v:'s work: now let's talk about our community's work.
Speaking of custom campaigns, don't you think those involving wars between Terrans have more chances of becoming memorable? GTVA Vs. EA, GTVA Vs. SCP, GTVA Vs. UEF (only to name a few)... aren't those wars likely to show the cruelty of war and ensure high-level immersion more effectively than any other war with a aliens? Don't you think that pirates and other turkey-shoot opponents, basically those lacking any tangible role, deserve better characterization?
Discuss.
*I like all alien species seen in FreeSpace, true, but with this thread I'm proposing to analyze the FS Universe from another perspective.
-
More Terran factions would have diluted the impact of the NTF and, before it, the GTI. As it was, both were working toward concrete, definitely meaningful goals, both of which, interestingly enough, had to do with the aliens of the setting. Adding more Terrans would have spread the plot thin over too many subplots, and the story is already well fleshed out against the Vasudans/Shivans/HoL and the NTF/Shivans, respectively.
-
Okay. What I see here is a good reflection of trends in SF. Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, Aliens were a must-have in SF. Usually, they were introduced as Strawmen for whatever issue it was that the heroes had to deal with (this is the type you most often see in TOS Star Trek, for example), or as basically colourful backdrop (Star Wars), or as expys for standard roles found in mythology or fantasy (See Babylon 5).
Modern SF, as most recently shown in shows like Firefly or BSG, as well as in literature, has moved away from Aliens in order to focus more on humans and how humans deal with whatever situation they are thrown in.
Personally, I feel that both narrative styles have their pros and cons, and both are equally appropriate at different times. Yes, a gritty, human war story featuring human combatants makes storytelling easier.
But Aliens offer you the opportunity to do weird and crazy and utterly inhuman stuff, which also has an appeal. In addition, if you posit a "unified" human race, they can provide the "other" that any opposition needs to be.
In FS, the myth arc introduced with the Ancients and Shivans adds a "larger than us" backdrop to the universe that opens up a whole lot of storytelling opportunities IMHO. In conclusion then, it all depends on the kind of story you want to tell.
Also, what Scotty said.
-
lol
seriously, just lol
i cant say anything more
-
but hardly memorable when it comes to nitpicking
Wait what does this mean? As I recall Vasudans were masters of nitpicking. They had a fourteen-year war over a nitpick.
aren't those wars likely to show the cruelty of war and ensure high-level immersion more effectively than any other war with a alien
In Metal Gear Solid 4 nanomachines could do everything. That was pretty counterimmersive. Metal Gear FreeSpace, I dunno how immersed I'd be.
Battlestar Galactica is an excellent example of a deeply immersive and intense 'naturalistic' story that veered away from aliens but still had fantastic elements that felt believable and grounded.
-
Humans are boring. I honestly don't like sci-fi stories that focus too much on human drama (BSG was terrible imo. At least Firefly did it right)
Why does everything have to be realistic, gritty and grey? I like exotic alien races with colorful beams and strange technology.
So no, I think Freespace did everything right there.
-
Humans are boring.
But WiH looks absolutely BAMF. :P
-
I like exotic alien races with colorful beams and strange technology.
You made that quite apparent. I'd make fun of it if it weren't for the fact that it's also one of the best pieces of modding I've seen in years.
-
FreeSpace without aliens is not FreeSpace. In fact, it's not even possible. Other humans simply cannot serve the same role the Shivans do. They are ultimately something you can understand, because they are human. While as a writer I hold the belief that anything may ultimately be explained with the right words as an article of faith, without that essential alienness that comes from being not only aliens, but not even humanoid, there isn't even a shadow of doubt we could understand them. And that would destroy them utterly as a storytelling tool.
And the fact you argue that they're lightyears from the xenophobic aliens stereotype because people have speculated about them is utterly laughable. People always speculate about these sorts of aliens. It's a tradition that dates back to at least Fred Saberhagen's Berserkers or the TOS Trek Romulans. You speak of what you do not understand.
To further expand on this theme, your conception that the cruelty of war is something that can only be examined in a human-vs.-human setting is equally laughable. I've never even watched Bablyon 5 though not for lack of trying, but the sideways glance at Crusade I got more or less proves the point. I'm tempted to also cite the Narn/Centauri war, but only know it through secondary sources. I myself have toyed with a campaign concept that would have presented a more personal view of a Shivan incursion.
But in a larger sense I think presenting that kind of view in a FreeSpace setting, from the point of view of a fighter pilot deployed shipboard during active combat, is fundementally invalid. I'm not saying it can't be done, I just think that much effort must be wasted in overcoming the limitations of your medium, effort that could have been put to better use. Such concerns are unlikely to enter their horizon unless it is their own ship that is badly damaged in action, a circumstance that a wise campaign developer should not rely on because it is rich in ways to destroy disbelief. They have little time to contemplate the wider significance or to keep up with news from home except in the broad strokes, and their form of combat is one that is intensely mechanized, mostly subsuming the human into the machine. The physical signs of blood and death are far from a pilot.
-
FreeSpace without aliens is not FreeSpace. In fact, it's not even possible. Other humans simply cannot serve the same role the Shivans do. They are ultimately something you can understand, because they are human. While as a writer I hold the belief that anything may ultimately be explained with the right words as an article of faith, without that essential alienness that comes from being not only aliens, but not even humanoid, there isn't even a shadow of doubt we could understand them. And that would destroy them utterly as a storytelling tool.
qft'ed
-
Option 4.
Speaks for itself.
-
Random note, I guess we should point out that there were the Terran Post-War factions (Antares Federation, Adhara Coalition, etc.) that are mentioned in the Reconstruction Intel entry that could do with some exposition in future mods. Not because Terran factions are somehow far more interesting than the Vasudans or Shivans (which is IMVHO utter tosh) but because it's a part of established canon that has yet to really be touched upon.
-
to be honest it don't matter who the opponent is so long as the story telling is on the mark. A well told human vs alien plot can be used to explore humanity by contrasting the desired aspect with an alien behaviour. likewise it can be done in a human vs human conflict by demonstrating how humanity can go wrong.
I've always liked space wars fought by men against men and the way those wars can show the true cruelty of war
in a narrative it is easier to show aliens doing something cruel because they can be what the writer wants them to be (shivans glassing Vasuda and would have probably done the same to Earth) where as with a human you have to deal with conflicting emotions that the reader can identify with but this takes a scenario badly gone wrong to enable a character to justify scenarios like mass harm/murder of civilians. It's all apart of the tool set the modern sci-fi author has which when used well can create outstanding stories.
-
I like exotic alien races with colorful beams and strange technology.
You made that quite apparent. I'd make fun of it if it weren't for the fact that it's also one of the best pieces of modding I've seen in years.
You make fun of everything that isn't Die hard science fiction so no big suprise there :p
-
But in a larger sense I think presenting that kind of view in a FreeSpace setting, from the point of view of a fighter pilot deployed shipboard during active combat, is fundementally invalid. I'm not saying it can't be done, I just think that much effort must be wasted in overcoming the limitations of your medium, effort that could have been put to better use. Such concerns are unlikely to enter their horizon unless it is their own ship that is badly damaged in action, a circumstance that a wise campaign developer should not rely on because it is rich in ways to destroy disbelief. They have little time to contemplate the wider significance or to keep up with news from home except in the broad strokes, and their form of combat is one that is intensely mechanized, mostly subsuming the human into the machine. The physical signs of blood and death are far from a pilot.
Well put, and my thoughts exactly.
You only have to read a biography or five about fighter pilots, to know that the war fought on the ground was very different to the war fought above them. There was little notion they were shooting at people, rather, machines. The cruelty of war to most pilots, was the way in which their friends died, often helpless to efforts from their squadmates. And the way some pilots shot down others in cold blood, most likely due to rare events that they'd experienced, friends being shot to ribbons whilst bailing out of the aircraft, etc.
But that's generally where it stops, with the addition of veteran pilots hardening to replacement pilots.
But, on topic.
Freespace isn't a story about the cruelty of war, for the most part. For what it's about, it achieves an adequate amount of depth.
-
Humans are boring.
But WiH looks absolutely BAMF. :P
Blame the Vishnans for indirectly messing up the GTVA's plan. :p
/me has voted.
-
But in a larger sense I think presenting that kind of view in a FreeSpace setting, from the point of view of a fighter pilot deployed shipboard during active combat, is fundementally invalid. I'm not saying it can't be done, I just think that much effort must be wasted in overcoming the limitations of your medium, effort that could have been put to better use. Such concerns are unlikely to enter their horizon unless it is their own ship that is badly damaged in action, a circumstance that a wise campaign developer should not rely on because it is rich in ways to destroy disbelief. They have little time to contemplate the wider significance or to keep up with news from home except in the broad strokes, and their form of combat is one that is intensely mechanized, mostly subsuming the human into the machine. The physical signs of blood and death are far from a pilot.
Definitely agree. Another factor is that good stories are essentially about people, even if they aren't human. :) Freespace isn't limited by having aliens: it's more fundamental limit is in the kind of stories that can be told from a perspective where individuals are essentially abstracted out of the equation.
Of course, that's a limit the community has done a fantastic job overcoming, as anyone who's played BP or Transcend can attest. :)
-
I like exotic alien races with colorful beams and strange technology.
You made that quite apparent. I'd make fun of it if it weren't for the fact that it's also one of the best pieces of modding I've seen in years.
You make fun of everything that isn't Die hard science fiction so no big suprise there :p
No I don't. I quite enjoy FreeSpace.
-
For the record, I'm not an extremist: I chose the second option.
I understand stereotypes are quite strong here. When I mentioned more enemy Terrans, I wanted to take distance from the way the NTF has been handled in FreeSpace 2: has anyone ever felt sad when taking down an NTF fighter or bomber? Has anyone ever thought that, under certain points of view, the rebels' motives were understandable?
While more Terran factions would have been confusing, I wished a) the battles with the NTF were more epic and b) Vasudans with better characterization as a separate species. That way, I believe the Shivans would have even worked better as bringers of annihilation.
-
has anyone ever felt sad when taking down an NTF fighter or bomber?
I can't feel empathy for an assemblage of polygons and pixels that is brought to life by lines of code.
As for the topic: I chose the "It's fine as it is" option. I would have voted otherwise had the word opponent not been there in the choice below it. Multiple Terran factions would have elevated the overall feel of FreeSpace, but they shouldn't be opponents like the rogue GTI or the NTF - Currently, it seems as if the GTVA were a happy unified whole. Anyone with a different view is the member of the NF.
-
And even if he wasn't, it's not my job to die for my country. It's my job to make sure the other guy dies for his first.
-
I like exotic alien races with colorful beams and strange technology.
You made that quite apparent. I'd make fun of it if it weren't for the fact that it's also one of the best pieces of modding I've seen in years.
You make fun of everything that isn't Die hard science fiction so no big suprise there :p
No I don't. I quite enjoy FreeSpace.
I see you are trying to make a point here but I fail to see it :p
-
You make fun of everything that isn't Die hard science fiction so no big suprise there :p
No Spoon that's me, but even I can enjoy things other than hard sci-fi.
It's just that then the other stuff (mainly, gameplay) needs to be fun and immersive enough to draw my notice away from all the physical inconsistencies that my mind homes in if I'm given time to look at things at my leisure. :p
If I start looking for inaccuracies, I usually find them. Like, in Avatar, Pandora is well within the Roche limit of the gas giant Polyphemus and should likely be part of the planet's rings, but then the whole moon is made of phlebotinum so I can just ignore that inconsistency (amongst others) and I can concentrate on ogling at pretty things (like blue alien girls).
Regarding the post topic: I don't agree, and on parts I have to take a stronger stance and actually have to disagree. There aren't too many aliens in FreeSpace universe, we've already seen four sentient space-faring species mentioned by name (it's implicated that the Ancients saw many, many more and subjugated them, as would be expected based on Drake's equation and the lifetime of their civilization).
On the other hand I don't think FreeSpace as a story would benefit from any more aliens. In fact, Volition's story writers did take quite a minimalist route in the depiction of aliens. It works for the story in its context, though. As space-faring civilizations, both humanity and Vasudans are utter noobs and have barely gotten away from the spawning area into the PvP territory, and their tussle attracted the attention of something a lot more experienced, stronger and uglier. It's expected that if they survive longer and expand to the galaxy, they would encounter other species that would have evolved and filled the niche left by the destruction of Ancients.
If the Shivans let them.
And what comes to different human factions, we've already seen splinter groups in both human and Vasudan camps (GTI, NTF, Hammer of Light) in the narrow scope of view given to the player through the official campaigns. The name Galactic Terran Alliance in itself implies that it is an alliance of more than one factions. Vasudans are more singular entity than humans in my opinion; in my interpretation of FreeSpace, I see humans in each system being quite autonomous and independent, with GTA and later GTVA armed forces acting on a mandate of the alliance, whereas the Vasudans are an empire headed by Emperor.
-
Didn't read the thread, just throwing in my two cents: the Shivans present a bigger threat than any Terran faction could ever be. The "oh ****ing ****" feeling I got when they blew up Capella, was one of the top FS moments for me.
-
I think Freespace as a whole game is ok, the inclusion of Terran factions would have made a difference, but I truly believe the essence of FS is the fact that the plot was conceived differently to other sci-fi games of the era (AFAIK), you see the common theme would be human vs human, then a second species buts in and we all forget our differences and start slaughtering the other race.
In real life, that's what we all expect to happen if another species comes to kill us all right?
BUT it also allows you to center your hate point toward an enemy that you'll probably have no problems in slaughtering, thus the player's hate becomes real and personal.
No such thing can be achieved with human counterpart... why? simple:
I bet 90% of the people in this forums hesitated to pull the trigger in "But hate the Traitor".
-
I understand stereotypes are quite strong here. When I mentioned more enemy Terrans, I wanted to take distance from the way the NTF has been handled in FreeSpace 2: has anyone ever felt sad when taking down an NTF fighter or bomber? Has anyone ever thought that, under certain points of view, the rebels' motives were understandable?
No, not really. I'm not even sure what you mean by stereotypes.
I've never felt much sympathy for the NTF. They represent an armed rebellion against the duly constituted government that advocates a policy of ethnic cleansing. There's pretty much nothing there to feel sympathy for. Destroying the NTF is, from my point of view, doing a favor to the greater human race.
-
Yeah, the genocidal aspects of the NTF really prevented there from being much ambiguity.
-
NGTM-1R, things change completely when you try to understand the motives of those Lost Generation younglings who decided to join the NTF. Try to do that, especially with the FS2 Intro in mind, and you may look at them from a different perspective.
The most memorable moment I've ever experienced in FreeSpace was the battle between Koth's NTD Repulse and the Colossus, during which I was told how many human lives were about to be lost during the engagement. I felt the gravity of the moment and also experienced a form of empathy.
Guess what, I've never experienced the same thing when taking down a Vasudan or Shivan destroyer.
-
The most memorable moment I've ever experienced in FreeSpace was the battle between Koth's NTD Repulse and the Colossus, during which I was told how many human lives were about to be lost during the engagement. I felt the gravity of the moment and also experienced a form of empathy.
The loss of human lives is always tragic. The death of 10,000 Nazis is tragic...but they're also Nazis. The NTF was a regime not dissimilar to the Nazis, and no matter how thoroughly I understand why people found the Nazi ideology appealing, the fact is that everyone on that ship was a volunteer fighting for an evil cause.
Guess what, I've never experienced the same thing when taking down a Vasudan
That's sort of a problem.
or Shivan destroyer.
Not as much (from what we know.)
-
Well, I think the "problem" with FreeSpace is that it makes killing the way too easy, without trying to show the psychological implications of it.
Citing the Nazis serves no purpose, as not all German soldiers and pilots were cruel and worth dying. Your generalization is a bit bogus and kind of surprises me... :rolleyes:
-
The loss of human lives is always tragic. The death of 10,000 Nazis is tragic...but they're also Nazis.
The need to eliminate other people that you are expressing because of their beliefs or convictions, is no different of what the Nazis did.
You just needed a more "human" excuse to eliminate the problem they pose to you.
I'm not defending Nazis (or flaming you), I'm just saying... if you are gonna look for justification of your decision to kill humans, then what's the difference presented with decisions the Nazis took?
NTF is a government founded from rebellion, it cannot sustain it's power by other means.
From Bosch monologues you can understand he's move was not about hate to the Vasudans per se, that was either a consequence or a casualty of using the wrong resources to reach the power position. (my bet is that he used the hole "hate to the Vasudans" to get to the power, then he was overwhelmed by the amount of xenophobic scum that joined the NTF).
The fact is that everyone on that ship was a volunteer fighting for an evil cause.
So there's no possibility of a non fanatic NTF person being aboard and not being able to leave because of the possibility of being caught and killed in the action?.
-
Citing the Nazis serves no purpose, as not all German soldiers and pilots were cruel and worth dying. Your generalization is a bit bogus and kind of surprises me... :rolleyes:[/color]
That's exactly the point I'm making. The fact that you didn't get it surprises me.
Seriously, how the **** did you read that and not understand that this was not exactly the point I was making? With the (possible) exception of psychopaths even people fighting for the most misguided, morally compromised causes do so for reasons they see as valid - and no matter what they believe they are still human beings with emotions, desires and fundamental worth.
But the fact is that in air combat - and in FreeSpace's space combat - there is no empathy with the target. Pilots do not suffer the same psychological duress as infantry. In this respect FreeSpace retail is very accurate. It doesn't mean all fan work has to be the same way. War in Heaven is very much about the difficulty of killing another human being.
-
When NTF ships attempted to get to Gamma Draconis and so many lives were lost, I kept wondering if it was really necessary. I know the destruction of those ships was preferable over a defeat at the Knossos, but still...
That's exactly the point I'm making. The fact that you didn't get it surprises me.
Seriously, how the **** did you read that and not understand that this was not exactly the point I was making?
To be honest you seemed more focused on idealogy than empathy in your previous post.
-
I'm sure that many a NTF pilot fought and died for a cause they believed to be right. 'Evil' is subjective.
I'm sure that if you interview a NTF pilot and ask him why he is fighting for such an obviously evil cause, he would smack you in the face.
-
Reread my last post.
-
I am happy with FS as it is.
Also, this thread is doomed.
-
If there's any opposing human faction in FS I have sympathy for, it's definitely not the NTF, since their whole philosophy was heavily on the douchebag side of things anyway. What really gets me are Lt. McCarthy's forces in FS1's "Avenging Angels." During the mission, they're yelling at you in anxious voices that the Vasudans are the least of humanity's worries, that there's something else out there that's far more dangerous, yet you wipe them out anyway. And in the end, you find out they were absolutely right. You really can't look back on that without thinking, "...well, ****."
-
Imagine the vasudans were less human. Insect-like, like bees with a queen and a completely differing view of how to fight. Vasudan pilots doing suicide attacks on a regular basis. Having the whole equipment and strategies formed around the idea of dying for the queen. This is realistic. Real bees fight like this if it isn`t avoidable.
Now imagine you fighting them and suddenly the shivans turn up and vasudans and terrans become allies. Now you have to fight alongside them. Could you identify with them ? Would you defend a Vasudan civilian convoy under attack, knowing that these civilians would die for their empire the moment they have a chance to do so? Imagine them requiring you to participate in one of their suicide missions. Imagine...
Like if the shivans were your allies and e vasudans the enemy.
I would find the implications very interesting. I think the vasudans are too human to really exploit the full potential of what other races could bring to freespace. They're just Humans that look different.
I would like to add that an abstraction of inter-human relationships and feelings can also be a plus for storytelling. Sometimes not seeing the other caracters in person is a good thing.
-
NGTM-1R, things change completely when you try to understand the motives of those Lost Generation younglings who decided to join the NTF. Try to do that, especially with the FS2 Intro in mind, and you may look at them from a different perspective.
No, they really don't. I'm not interested in the slightest as to why they do something. It is possible to make any cause, no matter how vile, sound noble if you try. The only safe and sane way to judge a cause is in its actions, not its intents. Utopia does not and can not justify the means.
As a pilot, your means of interacting with the enemy is limited. By destroying the NTF's ability to wage war, you are depriving it of the ability to commit the Vasudan genocide they wanted to carry out. If this causes some collateral damage, there isn't much to be done about it from your cockpit. Use the tools you have been given to the best of your ability.
Guess what, I've never experienced the same thing when taking down a Vasudan or Shivan destroyer.
While this remains perfectly true to me for the Shivans, that is because the Shivans have demonstrated fairly consistantly that your options for interacting with them are limited to kill or be killed, and all other things being equal I'm going to prefer the species that usually doesn't go in for xenocidal.
However there were exactly two moments in FS2 that presented me with a moral quandry. Both were in SOC Loop 1. The obvious one from But Hate The Traitor applies. The one that would apparently surprise you is in Rebels And Renegades. I actually found myself quite conflicted in fighting off the Vasudans. At this point all you know is that ETAK is probably a weapon of mass destruction and that Bosch as the head of the NTF's military is a high-value target. Given that and the basic premise that the NTF needs to be dealt with for the greater good, the Vasudan assault makes a great deal of sense, and I sincerely did not want to interrupt it regardless of their renegade status because they were doing the right thing. This is perhaps the only mission in the FS canon that unequivocally casts you as the villian.
-
The loss of human lives is always tragic. The death of 10,000 Nazis is tragic...but they're also Nazis.
The need to eliminate other people that you are expressing because of their beliefs or convictions, is no different of what the Nazis did.
You just needed a more "human" excuse to eliminate the problem they pose to you.
I'm not defending Nazis (or flaming you), I'm just saying... if you are gonna look for justification of your decision to kill humans, then what's the difference presented with decisions the Nazis took?
If you actually can't tell the difference you may have a problem. I understand what you're trying to say, but there's a big difference between action against an innocent and harmless group and action to prevent a hegemonic group from carrying out a genocidal agenda. While everything is subjective it doesn't mean everything is equally valid, especially not in our moral system.
-
While I agree with you that fighting human enemies has greater depth to it, I can't agree that it does anything to harm Freespace's plot, because the aliens are so integral to the plot. Freespace is based around the idea that an interspecies war caused Terrans and Vasudans to learn how to adapt and survive, and built on the mistakes of another race which came before them, and was wiped out by the Shivans. You couldn't achieve that without having Alien species - The fact the T-V war was interspecies is what differentiates it from all other wars, and you can't substitute humans for races which are several millenia old and keep it in any way similar to the current plot.
In FS2 a human enemy was a realistic prospect, there had been no war for 3 decades when the rebellion began, and there was a solid reason for the NTF to exist, in FS1 with the background of a long interspecies war (central to being able to survive against the Shivans) an intra-species conflict would have been highly out of place - no rebellion in such a situation would gather enough support to survive, because people would be too scared of the other species taking advantage and attacking. The HoL was reasonable because of the religious alien aspect, but it's not plausible for humans to turn against each other in a war of survival.
In Freespace 2 a human it was well done, but asking if the amount of aliens limited FS1's plot is like asking if the plot of Titanic was limited by the fact it's set on a boat.
-
I bet 90% of the people in this forums hesitated to pull the trigger in "But hate the Traitor".
Nah, I just slaughtered anything the moment it turned red. :P
-
If you actually can't tell the difference you may have a problem. I understand what you're trying to say, but there's a big difference between action against an innocent and harmless group and action to prevent a hegemonic group from carrying out a genocidal agenda. While everything is subjective it doesn't mean everything is equally valid, especially not in our moral system.
I agree.
Nah, I just slaughtered anything the moment it turned red. :P
YOU MONSTER!
-
I think Mongoose raises an extremely important point about the Traitors in Avenging Angels, but I'd like to extend that to all the Vasudans and Terrans who died before the armistice. It was all pretty pointless.
-
The loss of human lives is always tragic. The death of 10,000 Nazis is tragic...but they're also Nazis. The NTF was a regime not dissimilar to the Nazis, and no matter how thoroughly I understand why people found the Nazi ideology appealing, the fact is that everyone on that ship was a volunteer fighting for an evil cause.
Blanket statements don't give you no credit.
Like every german soldier was a blood-thirsty bigot? Like every one of them said "Hey, this is evil. Let's go do EVIIIIL!"? No.
A) You'll always find some normal people among such tads
b) A lot of time, people think they're doing good.
EDIT: Late to the party, see this was already adressed. Carry on.
-
The loss of human lives is always tragic. The death of 10,000 Nazis is tragic...but they're also Nazis. The NTF was a regime not dissimilar to the Nazis, and no matter how thoroughly I understand why people found the Nazi ideology appealing, the fact is that everyone on that ship was a volunteer fighting for an evil cause.
Blanket statements don't give you no credit.
Like every german soldier was a blood-thirsty bigot? Like every one of them said "Hey, this is evil. Let's go do EVIIIIL!"? No.
A) You'll always find some normal people among such tads
b) A lot of time, people think they're doing good.
EDIT: Late to the party, see this was already adressed. Carry on.
That's exactly the point I was making.
-
However there were exactly two moments in FS2 that presented me with a moral quandry. Both were in SOC Loop 1. The obvious one from But Hate The Traitor applies. The one that would apparently surprise you is in Rebels And Renegades. I actually found myself quite conflicted in fighting off the Vasudans. At this point all you know is that ETAK is probably a weapon of mass destruction and that Bosch as the head of the NTF's military is a high-value target. Given that and the basic premise that the NTF needs to be dealt with for the greater good, the Vasudan assault makes a great deal of sense, and I sincerely did not want to interrupt it regardless of their renegade status because they were doing the right thing. This is perhaps the only mission in the FS canon that unequivocally casts you as the villian.
I felt this as well. In fact, the first few times I played through the campaign, I tried to avoid killing Vasudans as much as possible.
These were people doing their jobs, and doing what they thought was right, why should I kill them? Especially when we're on the same side.
But when you're there for real, your training just takes over, and most of us would've pulled the trigger regardless.
-
However there were exactly two moments in FS2 that presented me with a moral quandry. Both were in SOC Loop 1. The obvious one from But Hate The Traitor applies. The one that would apparently surprise you is in Rebels And Renegades. I actually found myself quite conflicted in fighting off the Vasudans. At this point all you know is that ETAK is probably a weapon of mass destruction and that Bosch as the head of the NTF's military is a high-value target. Given that and the basic premise that the NTF needs to be dealt with for the greater good, the Vasudan assault makes a great deal of sense, and I sincerely did not want to interrupt it regardless of their renegade status because they were doing the right thing. This is perhaps the only mission in the FS canon that unequivocally casts you as the villian.
I felt this as well. In fact, the first few times I played through the campaign, I tried to avoid killing Vasudans as much as possible.
These were people doing their jobs, and doing what they thought was right, why should I kill them? Especially when we're on the same side.
But when you're there for real, your training just takes over, and most of us would've pulled the trigger regardless.
I think "Renegade" kind of gives it away. They were specifically ordered not to attack the Iceni but Ahmose went ahead with the attack anyway. The Vasudans under his command knew full well what they were doing, they probably thought a couple of spies or two was a fair tradeoff for destroying the Iceni.
-
However there were exactly two moments in FS2 that presented me with a moral quandry. Both were in SOC Loop 1. The obvious one from But Hate The Traitor applies. The one that would apparently surprise you is in Rebels And Renegades. I actually found myself quite conflicted in fighting off the Vasudans. At this point all you know is that ETAK is probably a weapon of mass destruction and that Bosch as the head of the NTF's military is a high-value target. Given that and the basic premise that the NTF needs to be dealt with for the greater good, the Vasudan assault makes a great deal of sense, and I sincerely did not want to interrupt it regardless of their renegade status because they were doing the right thing. This is perhaps the only mission in the FS canon that unequivocally casts you as the villian.
I felt this as well. In fact, the first few times I played through the campaign, I tried to avoid killing Vasudans as much as possible.
These were people doing their jobs, and doing what they thought was right, why should I kill them? Especially when we're on the same side.
But when you're there for real, your training just takes over, and most of us would've pulled the trigger regardless.
I think "Renegade" kind of gives it away. They were specifically ordered not to attack the Iceni but Ahmose went ahead with the attack anyway. The Vasudans under his command knew full well what they were doing, they probably thought a couple of spies or two was a fair tradeoff for destroying the Iceni.
And you know, they weren't wrong, in my opinion. I like Bosch, he was a fairly well written character, but from the information the pilot in FS2 had at that point, I think it was fairly obvious that the Vasudans were doing the right thing. (No Bosch, no problem from the ETAK), yet you were explicitly ordered to act as an NTF pilot, and to maintain your cover, you had to destroy the "Renegade" vasudans.
-
I think "Renegade" kind of gives it away. They were specifically ordered not to attack the Iceni but Ahmose went ahead with the attack anyway. The Vasudans under his command knew full well what they were doing, they probably thought a couple of spies or two was a fair tradeoff for destroying the Iceni.
Given that you are a peon in FS2, it's quite probable that Ahmose knows more about what SOC are up to than you do. It's also quite possible that Ahmose was correct in his assessment that SOC were not acting in the best interest of the Vasudans (Given that Bosch for some reason believes the GTVA have no future with his race).
On of the best things about this mission is that it really does push the morality of the situation into a very grey area. Who is actually the good guy in that battle? We know that Bosch's NTF has done many truly evil things but when you look at why you realise that wasn't his purpose. On the other hand you have the SOC/GTVA doing strange things like allowing Bosch to escape by pulling the blockade in earlier missions. Finally you have Ahmose, who may simply be a vengeful Vasudan out to kill Bosch and not caring what the end result of the SOC's mission is, or maybe he's someone who is correct and killing Bosch was the correct thing to do at that point.
Then you have the pilots flying the Vasudan craft. They're definitely not the bad guys. They're pawns in a game that doesn't make sense too. The situation could have very easily ended up with you flying on the same side as Ahmose and completely convinced it was the right thing to do based on the information you had at that time.
So yes, like NGTM-1R, I had a very hard time pulling the trigger against the Vasudans in that mission.
I bet 90% of the people in this forums hesitated to pull the trigger in "But hate the Traitor".
Nah, I just slaughtered anything the moment it turned red. :P
Are you sure of that? ....but hate the traitor is the one where you're asked by the NTF pilots to kill an unarmed civilian transport in order to preserve your cover.
-
Seriously? I had already read the text that came up and then blasted that Elysium into vapor before the other pilot even finished the sentence vocally, then killed the Myrmidons when they went hostile. No hesitation, just read what they said and opened fire immediately. :nod:
-
Seriously? I had already read the text that came up and then blasted that Elysium into vapor before the other pilot even finished the sentence vocally, then killed the Myrmidons when they went hostile. No hesitation, just read what they said and opened fire immediately. :nod:
Er, so you failed the mission?
-
Yep. :D Had to see the outcome. Would've done it anyway at some point if I hadn't the first time.
-
Ech, yeah, those two missions.
If it wasn't required to survive and proceed with the story, I wouldn't have destroyed the Vasudans. Once I flew around firing at the Zods, but without actually hitting them. "That seems convincing enough, and I don't have to kill anybody! Yes!" Then the Iceni is destroyed and I'm thinking that's a victory for the GTVA! Yay! Nope. Do it again, and this time, kill the Zods, even though you don't want to. I didn't like it.
I don't think I ever killed the Elysium, except once just to see if there was an alternate ending. I didn't even hesitate to leave it. Several times I started shooting the NTF even while they were still green.
-
The only reason I didn't destroy that Elysium the first time I played that mission was that I had already heard from other people that I fail it if I do. The only reason.
-
:wtf:
-
Ech, yeah, those two missions.
If it wasn't required to survive and proceed with the story, I wouldn't have destroyed the Vasudans. Once I flew around firing at the Zods, but without actually hitting them. "That seems convincing enough, and I don't have to kill anybody! Yes!" Then the Iceni is destroyed and I'm thinking that's a victory for the GTVA! Yay! Nope. Do it again, and this time, kill the Zods, even though you don't want to. I didn't like it.
I don't think I ever killed the Elysium, except once just to see if there was an alternate ending. I didn't even hesitate to leave it. Several times I started shooting the NTF even while they were still green.
perhaps someone could do a alternative story line to take that into account
-
The only reason I didn't destroy that Elysium the first time I played that mission was that I had already heard from other people that I fail it if I do. The only reason.
To be honest, in retail I don't think you actually failed. Or at least don't have to do the mission over.
-
You do. I tried it just to see.
:wtf:
An undercover pilot, given a direct order by his current commander. Staying undercover is vitally more important if it yields data on a suspected weapon of mass destruction.
-
You do. I tried it just to see.
:wtf:
An undercover pilot, given a direct order by his current commander. Staying undercover is vitally more important if it yields data on a suspected weapon of mass destruction.
Yeah, I could see it, but on the other hand your mission is arguably already over - Snipes is gone, you have no directives, you've collected the data.
-
Not to mention you've just committed a war crime that will get you a long prison sentence. If not a firing squad.
-
The pilot, at that point, has no idea if Snipes will be coming back, and has no idea if the data collection was successful. You have recieved no directive to break cover, which usually means stay undercover until they need you again.
But, that's not really the point. You fail if you blow it up, so you don't. *Shrug*
-
Yeah to be honest I think the safety of those innocent civilians probably comes before your mission.
-
I was only obeying orders, eh? :p
It's worth pointing out that even if you do blow up the transport the other ships still turn on you. So you could simply claim you suspected your cover was blown anyway. Since all the pilots in your wing are going to be dead or still in the NTF at the end of the mission, who is going to tell you differently?
-
I was only obeying orders, eh? :p
Indeed.
It's worth pointing out that even if you do blow up the transport the other ships still turn on you. So you could simply claim you suspected your cover was blown anyway. Since all the pilots in your wing are going to be dead or still in the NTF at the end of the mission, who is going to tell you differently?
However, the player doesn't have definitive proof the other ships will turn on him/her until he/she has played the mission at least once.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say blowing up the transport is a great idea, just that the player is kind of uncertain of the cover situation.
-
Anyone have qualms about killing the "Witnesses" in the first two missions of Silent Threat? I think that idea was uber kewl and really showed the darker side of the GTI.
-
Anyone have qualms about killing the "Witnesses" in the first two missions of Silent Threat? I think that idea was uber kewl and really showed the darker side of the GTI.
I hated that, felt like such a waste of military resources and pilots
-
Anyone have qualms about killing the "Witnesses" in the first two missions of Silent Threat? I think that idea was uber kewl and really showed the darker side of the GTI.
Only in hindsight, with knowledge that the Hades would have completely changed the dynamic of fighting the Shivans, and then not very much. Neither the Terrans nor the Vasudans have the ability to defeat remaining Shivan forces on their own, much less while fighting with each other. It's ugly, but trading lives for the survival of the species is essentially what fighting Shivans is. This is just more direct about it.
I was only obeying orders, eh? :p
To be honest, you could easily blame it on your wingmates. They're all about to die anyways in the context of the mission, so why it fails I don't know.
Also for some reason I blew up the transport and successfully progressed to the next mission right away at least once.
-
You can progress with the campaign, no matter the transport's fate.
-
Huh. I got a debrief saying something about war crimes and that I was going to get court martialed in a bit.
Then again, I might be wrong since I haven't blown it up in quite some time.
-
You can blow it up and then exit the loop.
-
In ...but Hate the Traitor, I instantly blew the transport up after I've got the order. Considering the fact that I am totally alone, undercover, knowing nothing about my "fellow pilots" plans, I am helpless to reach Command and I cannot warp out, I was sure that I have to keep my cover and keep on going with the NTF as long as I can. After I killed the transport, they have obviously turned on me but I managed to survive. Guess my surprise when I was sentenced to court martial at the end of the mission.
I mean, I was supposed to say "**** you NTF bastards", then single-handedly kill 5 enemy fighters (which is only simple in FreeSpace context), then... err... wait?! Wait until Command finds me somehow and picks me up, hoping that they don't shoot me down on the way? How could I even identify myself after Snipes was gone?!
I have always considered that mission illogical (and yes, this happened in retail).
As for the original topic, I think that it is an integral part to the FreeSpace story arc that our opponents are 'different' than us. The Shivans carry the mystery, the hidden agenda, the danger, the unknown, and most importantly, an adversary whose methods and motives are totally unknown to us. As for the Vasudans, don't forget that the whole war started based on our cultural differences and that was what made our cooperation ultimately that important and - for me at least - that interesting.
All in all, the original FreeSpace story, for what it is, purposefully makes you the "nameless cog in the great machine" (which is a feeling I really miss and I think none of the mods even attempted to catch this at all, StL had a shred of it but that was satisfying for entirely different reason - as for my mod, I try to keep the player as "nameless coggy" as possible since I consider it to be an integral part for FS) and as such the "humane" part of Alpha 1 is basically unimportant. Of course, they could have written a story with multiple human factions, but that would have been something entirely different. For what :v: made, aliens were needed. And if you would have wanted different effects, you would have needed a different story as well. At least, in my opinion.
-
I can see where people are coming from when they decide to destroy the transport, but you're a GTVA Officer, you've taken an oath that includes the protection of civilians.
I know for a fact integrity is a key quality at the Officer Selection Board, and really, when you start killing civilians, how much good are you starting to do here? You're not in a special operations squadron, you're not doing anything classified, you're just doing run of the mill general duties for a frontline squadron, little except your cover is at stake here.
As soon as Niven or whatever his name was started the countdown, I started formulating a plan which involved targeting Niven, expecting the squadron to fall into disarray due to loss of leadership, and then shoot my way out using tempests. Not in those words of course, since I was only about 8/9. :P And unfortunately FS doesn't model the loss of leadership within a squadron.
-
Well mitigated by the fact that half the NTF seem to be SoC operatives in disguise anyway, you'd think the lives of 40 or so people onboard one elysium transport is worth continued high level activities with the iceni.
But yea....
FS2 is so 'overwritten' it's stupid in quite a lot of places.
So there really isn't any point in killing the transport, since they have at least another 20 people on the Iceni ¬.¬
-
I'd like to repeat that even if I gun my squad down I still can't do squat (can't depart) and it is 1:100 at most that Commanf finds me before the NTF finds a more effective way to kill me.
-
I always love listening to people coming up with rationales for being bastards. :p
-
As soon as Niven or whatever his name was started the countdown, I started formulating a plan which involved targeting Niven, expecting the squadron to fall into disarray due to loss of leadership, and then shoot my way out using tempests. Not in those words of course, since I was only about 8/9. :P And unfortunately FS doesn't model the loss of leadership within a squadron.
...you COULD technically probably FRED that sort of thing.
Morale would affect the hostiles' and friendly ships' AI levels. A squadron losing their leader would fall apart unless the second in command saved their morale check and took command immediately.
Actually it would be somewhat possible to add some RPG-ish elements with character variables affecting the skills and effectiveness of ships all over the place. :nervous:
/me imagines campaign-start-up screen where you roll and assign STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS and CHAR values to the character, and the campaign will use these values somehow...
-
Nah, just DEX, CON, INT and CHA.
Dex could have to do with maneuverability and stuff. Con.... I'm not sure, but probably somewhere. INT could have benefits to the ETS, scanning cargo, etc. CHA would have to do with wingmen somehow.
-
Herra, stop spoiling things. :mad:
-
As soon as Niven or whatever his name was started the countdown, I started formulating a plan which involved targeting Niven, expecting the squadron to fall into disarray due to loss of leadership, and then shoot my way out using tempests. Not in those words of course, since I was only about 8/9. :P And unfortunately FS doesn't model the loss of leadership within a squadron.
...you COULD technically probably FRED that sort of thing.
Morale would affect the hostiles' and friendly ships' AI levels. A squadron losing their leader would fall apart unless the second in command saved their morale check and took command immediately.
Actually it would be somewhat possible to add some RPG-ish elements with character variables affecting the skills and effectiveness of ships all over the place. :nervous:
/me imagines campaign-start-up screen where you roll and assign STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS and CHAR values to the character, and the campaign will use these values somehow...
:lol: FS2RPG :D
-
Herra, stop spoiling things. :mad:
You stop validating my spoilers!
They aren't spoilers if they don't know they are! :lol:
-
/me grabbs the arms of his chair and waits to ride the thread in its descent to chaos
-
Herra, stop spoiling things. :mad:
You stop validating my spoilers!
They aren't spoilers if they don't know they are! :lol:
HRRRRRRRRRNGH
-
/me imagines campaign-start-up screen where you roll and assign STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS and CHAR values to the character, and the campaign will use these values somehow...
Transcend: Okay, now roll SAN.
-
As soon as Niven or whatever his name was started the countdown, I started formulating a plan which involved targeting Niven, expecting the squadron to fall into disarray due to loss of leadership, and then shoot my way out using tempests. Not in those words of course, since I was only about 8/9. :P And unfortunately FS doesn't model the loss of leadership within a squadron.
...you COULD technically probably FRED that sort of thing.
Morale would affect the hostiles' and friendly ships' AI levels. A squadron losing their leader would fall apart unless the second in command saved their morale check and took command immediately.
Well interestingly enough I have FREDed a similar kind of thing (one of the proof of concept missions I have lying around in hard to find places) where the squadron lost the squadron commander and several pilots decided to attack, others with no orders, and one jumping out. Although this was from an SOC perspective and the the SOC pilots subsequently took advantage of the situation by crushing the enemy fighter escort and capturing the freighter (objective of the mission).
I found it quite funny the first time, seeing the enemy fighters scatter in a 'bomb-burst' type formation.
Anyway, interesting thing to try out/think about. At the time of FREDing I was toying around with using a random number variable to determine which pilots broke, which of them departed, and which of them did nothing. Come to think of it, I should've implemented a "2IC save", where the squadron retained cohesion due to the swift action of the 2IC.
Man, this is sounding more like warhammer 40k. :P
-
Squad broken?
-
It's in War in Heaven a few places. I don't know how noticeable it actually is; there would probably have to be explicit messages about it for the player to really see the change.
-
has anyone ever felt sad when taking down an NTF fighter or bomber?
Why would I be? They shot first.
-
Yes. Just like Han Solo did.
And feel free to interpret it as a mocking of the asinine re-write or a declaration of the truth of Han shooting first, either way makes sense.
-
Yes. Just like Han Solo did.
And feel free to interpret it as a mocking of the asinine re-write or a declaration of the truth of Han shooting first, either way makes sense.
Yeah. Pilots rarely feel the same kind of remorse as infantry do to 'killing', and hell, they don't typically view themselves as killing anything, you'll find that most pilots stuck their thoughts to "I'm shooting down a machine". In any pilot's career, the number of times a dogfight becomes 'personal' is a mere handful, from what I've read of pilot bios.
When your mate goes down, etc, those are the kind of events that typically brought pilots back to reality, and the fact that they were killing people. It's generally a taboo subject anyway, and for good reason.
But back to a squadron losing cohesion upon the loss of the squadron commander, you could also argue that in combat, this wouldn't affect the unit nearly as much as it would if it were an infantry unit. Why? Because all of these pilots are officers, people with leadership ability who can and will take command in the absence of leadership in these kind of situations. And especially in the case of fighters, those are the real bright bunch of boys and girls there, most of whom would not crack under pressure.
-
I always love listening to people coming up with rationales for being bastards. :p
First, :P
Second, I was thinking that the loop would be, in fact, a lot longer. :nod:
-
For a game that's over a decade old, we can't really expect it to be as indepth. Take for an example, Mass Effect's universe compared to any older RPGs. Old games just don't develop the same kind of really immersive and indepth universes. Sequals and novels usually attempt to expand on the game universe and since there's no FS3, there isn't a more indepth game. I think it's very possible to have more
human aspects personal depth in the game but that would involve removing the generic pilot Alpha 1 and/or making others more fleshed out instead of unnamed wingman #45.
As for pilots panicking and breaking apart, it would probably have to involve most of the squadron dying with the survivors facing overwhelming odds, kinda like Lt. Ash in the FS1 intro.
-
That's ... astonishingly wrong. I will point you towards Planescape: Torment, and leave it there. I'm quite sure there are other games that are just as in-depth as Mass Effect that are even older than that.
-
UFO Enemy unknown (X-Com: UFO Defense If your American) 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufo_Enemy_Unknown)
if a soldier got killed it knocked the remainder of the squad and the higher rank the killed soldier the bigger the impact. the lower a soldiers moral got the more likely they were to panic resulting in either freezing to the spot for a turn, shooting randomly or dropping anything in their hands and running blindly. also take into account atmospheric music, chilling sound effects, some well thought out plot points, imaginative bad-guys ( /me still shivers at the thought of Chryssalid 15 years after playing the demo) and character development for all stats on all soldiers (I have had games with 45+ soldiers across different response bases)
-
That'd probably be an accurate representation of how things would function in an infantry section, but in the section, things are very different to how they function in a squadron. An infantry officer tells his platoon (generally) how he wants things done and is the sole officer within the unit, supported by the Sergeant(s) and so on. Once all the NCOs are gone, there's no-one to take leadership, and once the Platoon commander is down, there are no other officers in the platoon, which is a worry for morale.
In the squadron though, the Squadron Commander is really a Captain among Captains, as the saying goes. All the pilots are officers, and none will hesitate to take command in the absence of leadership, therefore I think there'd be a much higher chance of the squadron recovering from the loss of the squadron commander.
As for pilots panicking and breaking apart, it would probably have to involve most of the squadron dying with the survivors facing overwhelming odds, kinda like Lt. Ash in the FS1 intro.
This I'd agree with, but even then, I don't think it'd be more than a 1/2 chance.
-
For a game that's over a decade old, we can't really expect it to be as indepth. Take for an example, Mass Effect's universe compared to any older RPGs. Old games just do-
(http://i34.tinypic.com/28lz9ug.jpg)
I wish I could punch you over the internet.
-
In the squadron though, the Squadron Commander is really a Captain among Captains, as the saying goes. All the pilots are officers, and none will hesitate to take command in the absence of leadership, therefore I think there'd be a much higher chance of the squadron recovering from the loss of the squadron commander.
The effect of losing a squadron leader is generally more of a long-term worry than an immediate danger in a fight. Fighter units will usually manuver and attack by element in combat, and with everyone essentially fighting their own seperate 2-vs-all or 4-vs-all the presence of an overriding squadron command level is somewhat superfluous.
In the long term, losing the squadron commander, particularly in a fighter unit with a sensation that things are not going well, is probably the single most destructive event for morale. It's less important for bombers since most Western countries and Russia/Japan can point to serious bomber losses on a regular basis as having been the norm in their experience, and bomber crew exists as a sub-unit within the unit so to speak; it's losing the pilot that will spook a crew, not losing the squadron commander. Similarly in modern times bombers might move in groups, but mostly they attack singly.
-
Yeah, it is. By recovering from the loss of the squadron commander, I was referring to the situation in combat.
I recall reading a book about the Battle of Britain which featured a guy who'd been appointed the Squadron's new commander after the previous three had died in the two weeks before or something to that effect. At that point, I'd have imagined it causing a considerable drop in morale and by extension, their combat performance.
-
That's ... astonishingly wrong. I will point you towards Planescape: Torment, and leave it there. I'm quite sure there are other games that are just as in-depth as Mass Effect that are even older than that.
I take my statement back and apologize for my ignorance, although what I'm trying to say is that sequals tend to be more indepth. This is based on the observation that games tend to become more well defined. Look at Half-Life to Half-Life 2 or even Freespace 1 to Freespace 2. What I'm simply trying to say is that Freespace 3 if it was ever developed would have more personal elements.
-
It's not about the nature of enemies - alien or human. It's not about how many Terran factions there are. It's not even about whether you can empathize with your foe or not. It's about the quantity, detail, and quality of information about the game universe, and how the plot takes advantage of it.
FreeSpace has plot, but very little lore. If you compare the amount of lore provided as backing material to FreeSpace with that of Wing Commander, Wing Commander wins by a landslide (it provides massive star maps, historical time lines from the start of the Human-Kilrathi War to the end of it, dates and times, important political characters and their motivations and personalities). Volition barely bothered by comparison.
Volition skipped the entire Terran-Vasudan War to get straight to the Shivan aspect of things. Vasudans are people too -- :v: could have spent an entire game fleshing out the Terrans and Vasudans, providing backstories, factions, politics, leaders, peoples, their hearts, minds and (very differing) philosophies. After playing that game, the player might object to the alliance with the Vasudans just like other pilots by the time the Shivans showed up - or even empathize with the Vasudans. Volition didn't bother.
Volition focused on a very simple plot - two sworn enemies unite against a common, completely unreasonable foe, vanquish it, think they're awesome, and get humbled by that same common foe later. Unreasonable foes like Shivans do make easy to write plots, but mainly because when the plot is "for humanity's survival," it's easy to dodge the question "Why am I fighting? What am I fighting for?" with the answer "To save mankind," rather than "for moral value X or moral value Y."
"Aliens are attacking, go save Earth" stories are easy to write. You don't necessarily need a whole lot of lore or backstory for this to be exciting, and it's difficult to cram lore into a mission based format without having too much exposition. The fact that Wing Commander bothered to provide the informational lore that it did (via game manuals, tech databases, cutscenes, etc.) is admirable; it went above and beyond the call of duty required to keep a player mindlessly fighting towards the next mission. It gave them a universe.
It was Volition's choice to make their universe so simplistic. Don't blame the Shivans - blame Volition. Volition still could have provided information about the Terrans during the war against the Shivans which would have made the player wonder who they are fighting for. They sort of touched upon this in FreeSpace 2, but never got much further than a single pilot complaining about the Iceni.
I do believe that the Terrans could have been explored a little more. Some of the biggest depth we got was knowing that corporations still exist in the GTA / GTVA, the GTI Rebellion, and the motivations of Admiral Aken Bosch and the NTF. I spent a lot of time poring over the Tech Database's descriptions of Earth and Humans, wanting far more than it gave. What about how planets are governed? What are the people's rights? Are people happy in the GTVA? What about civilians?
The lack of information like this tends to force us to make up our own. And that's what we do with our user-made campaigns...
-
I kind of don't like you.
-
Hey, I like his post. :)
-
Well I don't.
-
Well I don't.
I'm with Snail
And I also don't agree with 90% of Gregster's post.
But hey, agreeing to differ and all that, his opinion and mine don't have to sync up.
-
It's not about the nature of enemies - alien or human. It's not about how many Terran factions there are. It's not even about whether you can empathize with your foe or not. It's about the quantity, detail, and quality of information about the game universe, and how the plot takes advantage of it.
FreeSpace has plot, but very little lore. If you compare the amount of lore provided as backing material to FreeSpace with that of Wing Commander, Wing Commander wins by a landslide (it provides massive star maps, historical time lines from the start of the Human-Kilrathi War to the end of it, dates and times, important political characters and their motivations and personalities). Volition barely bothered by comparison.
Volition skipped the entire Terran-Vasudan War to get straight to the Shivan aspect of things. Vasudans are people too -- :v: could have spent an entire game fleshing out the Terrans and Vasudans, providing backstories, factions, politics, leaders, peoples, their hearts, minds and (very differing) philosophies. After playing that game, the player might object to the alliance with the Vasudans just like other pilots by the time the Shivans showed up - or even empathize with the Vasudans. Volition didn't bother.
Volition focused on a very simple plot - two sworn enemies unite against a common, completely unreasonable foe, vanquish it, think they're awesome, and get humbled by that same common foe later. Unreasonable foes like Shivans do make easy to write plots, but mainly because when the plot is "for humanity's survival," it's easy to dodge the question "Why am I fighting? What am I fighting for?" with the answer "To save mankind," rather than "for moral value X or moral value Y."
"Aliens are attacking, go save Earth" stories are easy to write. You don't necessarily need a whole lot of lore or backstory for this to be exciting, and it's difficult to cram lore into a mission based format without having too much exposition. The fact that Wing Commander bothered to provide the informational lore that it did (via game manuals, tech databases, cutscenes, etc.) is admirable; it went above and beyond the call of duty required to keep a player mindlessly fighting towards the next mission. It gave them a universe.
It was Volition's choice to make their universe so simplistic. Don't blame the Shivans - blame Volition. Volition still could have provided information about the Terrans during the war against the Shivans which would have made the player wonder who they are fighting for. They sort of touched upon this in FreeSpace 2, but never got much further than a single pilot complaining about the Iceni.
I do believe that the Terrans could have been explored a little more. Some of the biggest depth we got was knowing that corporations still exist in the GTA / GTVA, the GTI Rebellion, and the motivations of Admiral Aken Bosch and the NTF. I spent a lot of time poring over the Tech Database's descriptions of Earth and Humans, wanting far more than it gave. What about how planets are governed? What are the people's rights? Are people happy in the GTVA? What about civilians?
The lack of information like this tends to force us to make up our own. And that's what we do with our user-made campaigns...
The thing is, though, that worldbuilding and exposition can be a sandpit. After a decade of contemplation and discussion it's easy for us to say that :V: didn't provide much in the way of canon background, but upon first play (or hell upon just about any play) I think FreeSpace is ultimately more immersive and narratively successful than Wing Commander ever was specifically because it only provides the information required to tell the story. (You can also glean a vast amount of information simply by raking through the intelligence they provided, which was beautifully efficient in sketching the setting.)
It's like the difference between a great novel (Valente's Palimpsest) and one of those fantasy tomes with a map inside the cover and a lot of names that sound like someone with a cold trying to pronounce Tolkien (or, to extend the metaphor, a map of Palimpsest with all the districts and weird species detailed, plus rules on how to immigrate to the city and a history of the war about immigration). All the added cruft that's been shoved into worldbuilding the latter doesn't do much to make it better.
-
Well I don't.
Bah, it was my way of saying 'Be Nice'. :P
EDIT: TBH, I've never even played wing commander and didn't know what on Earth he was going on about for most of it.
-
Most of that post said to me "Gregster2k thinks WCS > FS2".
-
Simple question, really. Does WCS have a more elaborate story? Yes. Because they had 4+ games and several novels to fill it out. The FS Universe, on the other hand, is totally defined by 2 Games. And that is it.
Now, as Battuta said, it's a testament to Volitions' writing that those two games provide a fertile enough ground that we are still here 10 years after FS2, still making additions to the plot, still discussing the mysteries of its story.
-
Most of that post said to me "Gregster2k thinks WCS > FS2".
please no to a fs - wc debate I happen to hold both series in high regard.
as to Gregster2k's post there is stuff in there which makes me think 'yer I'll go with that' but when I think about it some more I'm not sure, I mean like General Battuta says we are now analysing the background story with 14 years of hindsight (back to fs1) with analysis (posted or not) by countless people. Also I wonder how much time the team had to spend on the games.
Also as General Battuta says when playing both games for the first few times the game and the story is very immersive and does make you feel part of the events told.
Here is another thing the holes in cannon knowledge is only a PITA or even seriously noticed because of the community's desire to take the story to places never imagined by the devs. Community interest in a game like has been seen in FS is fairly rare in that 12 years after the final game has been released the community is still going strong and possibly still growing and not something :v: could be reasonably expected to plan for especially with commercial pressures involved.
I suppose it comes down to once you have looked at the blue print of the Raptor heavy fighter and flicked through Claw Marks while installing the game how much does that help immerse you in the game when your wingman has been shot down and you are dancing with 3 Jalthi.
-
Clarification
- Volition not bothering to provide lore / worldbuilding information is not necessarily a bad thing
- FS was successful without it
- FS is enjoyable and immersive without it
- WCS and FS are both great games in their own right
- WCS went above and beyond by providing background info they didn't have to provide
- I am not arguing in favor of including an encyclopedia with every game/campaign/mod
- I am not arguing in favor of Sync-style expository missions
- I am not arguing in favor of Derelict-style expository mission briefings
@Battuta: Even novels occasionally have expository segments, but expository segments are difficult to pull off in mission-based games like FreeSpace with constant action. As we know, attempts to place exposition within missions are sometimes controversial, such as when Sync had missions made entirely of dialogue. Many people don't like it when a game stops itself to show a 5 minute cutscene (see Metal Gear series).
The community has done other things in user made campaigns that subvert this problem. Pilots are given names and personalities. Areas are made familiar through repetitive visitation. The universe and its people feels comfortable, familiar, known -- making it all the more poignant when Shivans come and blow it to pieces, or when your entire beloved squad gets killed/zombified and you're the only one left.
Where the game cannot provide without breaking its own fun, campaigns include external lore segments (Blue Planet does this). However, they are not required to do so, and the game can usually stand on its own with the assumption that the people did not read those external lore segments.
There are two ways to give people a large amount of lore - stretch small tidbits over a long expanse of many battles and provide it subtly, or go the brute force route and provide it in huge doses in novel form to get it all out as quickly as possible.
I personally prefer the former option, as mentioned by @The_E how WCS managed to get most of its stuff out over the expanse of 4 games.
The question is, how much lore is necessary? For a space game like FreeSpace, not much -- especially for the storyline that we were handed. I realize I was not clear with my point before.
It's not the fact we're fighting Vasudans and Shivans that is why there is a lack of detailed universe background information - it's the type of game we're playing. You can't spend your day scanning things all the time like in Metroid Prime (which pauses that game, by the way). You have bombs heading towards your carrier and you'd better go intercept them. This is a mission based game. As Battuta said, you only need as much lore as is necessary to immerse.
-
I tend to think one of the finer points of FS was that they didn't set in stone how the lower down elements of the GTVA worked. It allows for more variation when it comes to Mods. Hell, entire story's could be told about a single planet, and the writer could run wild because the basis of the planetary government is not very descriptive, thus he doesn't have to confine himself on continuity issues. Same goes for Pre FS1 era campaigns like Cardinal Spear. Don't know if that is FS Cannon, but I didn't care much. It showed me what it might have been like at the height of the fourteen year war. Another campaign may come out and put that era in an entirely new light. Dunno if I'm making sense or not, but Volition gave us plenty to work with, and left us with plenty of Freedom. Also, Freespace as a Story isn't done, so one could expect that details about who/what the Shivans really are, and more about the Vasudan culture as yet another crisis drew our people closer together, could have been on the Horizon. However, we can make plenty of story's/mods with what we have.