Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Rampage on December 21, 2001, 11:54:00 am

Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Rampage on December 21, 2001, 11:54:00 am
It would be cool if you're a soldier boarding a hijacked executive transport or a Shivan Azrael (See Hallfight) with a armed mass driver.  Kinda' like the thing that Westwood is doing to Command and Conquer with their new 3D Shooter (T-Rated: Less Gore) version of CnC: Tiberian Dawn.  Volition should use the Red Faction engine to make their 1ST person Shooter FS3.

Guys, keep my wish of boarding NTF and Shivan vessels alive!  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

------------------
Christ
Redeems
All
People

God is Life
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on December 21, 2001, 11:55:00 am
there's the RF mod.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Rampage on December 21, 2001, 12:10:00 pm
But that's only developing from the Freespace engine.  I mean something developed from an engine like the Red Faction or Quake engine.  Oh, did I mention hijacking fighters in the 3D Shooter FS3?

------------------
Christ
Redeems
All
People

God is Life
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: CP5670 on December 21, 2001, 12:15:00 pm
Yeah, it's being done as a mod for RF. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)

But who would really want to go into the Azrael in Hallfight? I mean, knowing that they would get blown to pieces in ten seconds... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on December 21, 2001, 12:49:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Rampage:
But that's only developing from the Freespace engine.  I mean something developed from an engine like the Red Faction or Quake engine.  Oh, did I mention hijacking fighters in the 3D Shooter FS3?


 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/confused.gif) no, it's a freespace mod for red faction

Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Zeronet on December 21, 2001, 01:38:00 pm
Why would someone use the freespace engine to make a mod for Red Faction?! Freespace:FPS is a mod for RF, using the geo-mod engine for some quite good effects i hope. Its set before FS1.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Ace on December 21, 2001, 11:10:00 pm
FS:FPS is set during the 10th year of the Terran-Vasudan war. You're an operative in the GTI's marine branch and what is a rebellion in the core GTA systems turns out to be part of a greater rouse for the ultimate weapon against the Vasudans...

Okay so I spoiled a little more then is said on the site...  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/tongue.gif)

------------------
Ace
Staff member FreeSpace Watch
 http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/ ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/")
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Shrike on December 21, 2001, 11:12:00 pm
Oh well.  I don't have RF anyhow so feel free to spoil me.   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Zeronet on December 22, 2001, 06:02:00 am
I might buy RF on the basis of getting this.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Unknown Target on December 22, 2001, 10:58:00 am
It seems to be stuck however.....
Actually, I think a FS3 MOD, or during FS2 for Unreal Tournament would be much better  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif).
Yes, it is possible to turn UT into a SP experience...
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: CP5670 on December 22, 2001, 11:49:00 am
A UT modification would be quite nice. Or how about one for Deus Ex; the overall game mechanics there lend themselves very well to singleplayer gaming. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)

 
Quote
I might buy RF on the basis of getting this.

Same here...
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Ace on December 22, 2001, 03:04:00 pm
RF can handle everything UT and Deus Ex does, it's just that Volition didn't show half of the engine features in-game.

The widescreen dialogue in DEx? Can be done with an in-game cutsceen in RF.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)

...and when level design is done properly, geo-mod is p1mp numero uno...

------------------
Ace
Staff member FreeSpace Watch
 http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/ ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/")
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Fafner on January 08, 2002, 07:44:00 pm

Any word on how things are progressing with Freespace FPS? Their homepage hasn't been updated since october.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/frown.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Turnsky on January 09, 2002, 05:58:00 am
OOOOOOO, A shivan model for Q3 or UT
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Alikchi on January 09, 2002, 06:48:00 am
Hum, you'd need an extremely good engine to render a Shivan.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 09, 2002, 07:02:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by Alikchi:
Hum, you'd need an extremely good engine to render a Shivan.

I dunno... I think its possible to render a shivan for RF. You would just have to restrict some of its movements with all the limbs it has. Texturewise not a problem. They also have only one weapon, if I'm correct. That plasma cannon that was part of its own body or something? It would be hard, but possible. The RF engine is REALLY sweet, too bad the game didn't do it any justice. I've made a couple of open ground levels, with lots of buildings and it works beautifully with little slow down. I even did a couple of levels for my TOTAL RECALL MOD that died out for lack of enthusiam, IE the Terraforming cavern and command room, red light district, and some of the space port. If any engine can do a FS Mod, RF can.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Fafner on January 09, 2002, 07:56:00 am

I imagine that Alien vs. Predator 2 would be good for a shivan mod, a shivan is not so unlike an alien when it comes to complex shape and movement.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 09, 2002, 08:08:00 am
I don't really see the pb anyway. Shivan can't climb walls, dudes!
they moved like that coz they were in a noG environment, they were jumping from walls to walls. if you look carefully at a shivan render or the concept pics, it just has an additional leg, nothing more.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 09, 2002, 10:40:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by venom2506:
I don't really see the pb anyway. Shivan can't climb walls, dudes!
they moved like that coz they were in a noG environment, they were jumping from walls to walls. if you look carefully at a shivan render or the concept pics, it just has an additional leg, nothing more.

I doubt a Shivan can stand in anything approaching normal human gravity. If they are totally ZG adapted, as I think they are, they don't have the sort of muscles required to stand under normal G.

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 09, 2002, 10:40:00 am
Yeah I know they don't climb on walls,but when they walk, alot is happening. But thats just animation. So I guess it wouldn't be too hard. Using the AVP2 engine, it would be cool to blow a shivan to pieces. But I doubt that they'd be so easy to kill. RF is still the safest and easiest bet. I mean, what could be cooler than in the midst of fiting in some sort of hangar, you spot a unoccupied Mara fighter and hijack it?!   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

I think they could walk in a human G enivorement, because I think their exoskeleton would be more of a power suit, hiding a more mushier shivan inside. (ala ID4) But thats just me...  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)


[This message has been edited by Dark_4ce (edited 01-09-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 09, 2002, 10:49:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
... I think they could walk in a human G enivorement, because I think their exoskeleton would be more of a power suit, hiding a more mushier shivan inside. (ala ID4) But thats just me...   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

As someone pointed out in the Shivan Sociology thread, what we saw in the Hallfight were actual shivans, not power suits, mecha, armor, etc. They might be crispy on the outside and tender and juicy on the inside, but as with real world arthropods, if they were that big, they wouldn't be able to support themselves in a 1G field. Fractions of 1G, perhaps. Microgravity (orbital) situations, sure.

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 09, 2002, 11:06:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
As someone pointed out in the Shivan Sociology thread, what we saw in the Hallfight were actual shivans, not power suits, mecha, armor, etc. They might be crispy on the outside and tender and juicy on the inside, but as with real world arthropods, if they were that big, they wouldn't be able to support themselves in a 1G field. Fractions of 1G, perhaps. Microgravity (orbital) situations, sure.


Yeah I read the thread now. Hmmm... Well, since they're advanced in technology, I'm pritty sure that they would come up with some sort of implimentaion to help them survive in a 1G enviroment. Surely there would be some reason for them to land on planets?
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 09, 2002, 11:38:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
Yeah I read the thread now. Hmmm... Well, since they're advanced in technology, I'm pritty sure that they would come up with some sort of implimentaion to help them survive in a 1G enviroment. Surely there would be some reason for them to land on planets?

Yes, but WHY? They don't seem to occupy planets. The glass them from orbit. I think the most G they ever deal with is accelleration induced.

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 09, 2002, 12:13:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
Yes, but WHY? They don't seem to occupy planets. The glass them from orbit. I think the most G they ever deal with is accelleration induced.


why? hey... I think a mara at full accelerations pulls more than one G  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Isn't it obvious that shivans are strong? they take that marine and punch him against the walls! I think the antiG evolution is wrong, now that I think of it.They may haven't evolved on a planet, but even in a capship moving forward, there's an acceleration. Shivans are just evolved apes, motion-wise, they move better than us on accidented grounds, but there's no proof they would run faster than a terran on flat ground (hey, maybe shivans lives in trees lol). They are made for close combat (the plasma gun is used onlt at close range, and they have those super claws), you can't have a weak creature do that in an army. And a creature that can stand a 1G environment IS weak.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 09, 2002, 12:45:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by venom2506:
why? hey... I think a mara at full accelerations pulls more than one G   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Isn't it obvious that shivans are strong? they take that marine and punch him against the walls! I think the antiG evolution is wrong, now that I think of it.They may haven't evolved on a planet, but even in a capship moving forward, there's an acceleration. Shivans are just evolved apes, motion-wise, they move better than us on accidented grounds, but there's no proof they would run faster than a terran on flat ground (hey, maybe shivans lives in trees lol). They are made for close combat (the plasma gun is used onlt at close range, and they have those super claws), you can't have a weak creature do that in an army. And a creature that can stand a 1G environment IS weak.

As I said, I think the only gravity they ever feel is accelleration induced. You are correct though, that they have to be reasonably strong (overcoming the inertia of a 100K human with full kit is not lessened by zero-g after all) to toss people about.

On the other hand, they might be able to stand in 1G, but not move effectively. If they are arthropod in nature, there's no way they could stand in 1G. If, instead, they are vertebrate in nature and have external chitinous armor, they may be functional. The key is whether or noth they have an internal support structure that goes beyond the exoskeletal armor.

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Fafner on January 09, 2002, 12:45:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Fafner:
Any word on how things are progressing with Freespace FPS?

Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 09, 2002, 01:23:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
As I said, I think the only gravity they ever feel is accelleration induced. You are correct though, that they have to be reasonably strong (overcoming the inertia of a 100K human with full kit is not lessened by zero-g after all) to toss people about.

On the other hand, they might be able to stand in 1G, but not move effectively. If they are arthropod in nature, there's no way they could stand in 1G. If, instead, they are vertebrate in nature and have external chitinous armor, they may be functional. The key is whether or noth they have an internal support structure that goes beyond the exoskeletal armor.


well, I think in the techroom they say they have enhanced abilities thanx to implants. That can very well be servomotors or equivalent stuff. Shivans are cyborgs for sure (they are organic, but they have the energy claws and the plasma gun, plus I suspect those glowing eyes aren't natural lol), so one of the logical enhancement is to make them stronger than they already are (and I bet they're naturally damn strong, a beast of that size has to be strong, remember, any movement is exhausting for cosmaunots, i think zero G doesn't really helps, moving in such an environment requires a lot.
A closer exemple: fishes and other aquatic animals are to the vast majority very strong. The water resistance is not the reason, scientists have proven that in most cases their shpae, their skin etc allowed them to consider water density the same we consider air. They're strong because any movement requires a lot of energy.
Lol, i'm making all that stuff the same tiome I write it, and I'm convincing myself in fact  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/lol.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 09, 2002, 01:29:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by venom2506:
well, I think in the techroom they say they have enhanced abilities thanx to implants. That can very well be servomotors or equivalent stuff. Shivans are cyborgs for sure (they are organic, but they have the energy claws and the plasma gun, plus I suspect those glowing eyes aren't natural lol), so one of the logical enhancement is to make them stronger than they already are (and I bet they're naturally damn strong, a beast of that size has to be strong, remember, any movement is exhausting for cosmaunots, i think zero G doesn't really helps, moving in such an environment requires a lot.
A closer exemple: fishes and other aquatic animals are to the vast majority very strong. The water resistance is not the reason, scientists have proven that in most cases their shpae, their skin etc allowed them to consider water density the same we consider air. They're strong because any movement requires a lot of energy.
Lol, i'm making all that stuff the same tiome I write it, and I'm convincing myself in fact   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/lol.gif)

 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

It sounds good to me.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) Very convincing.



------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 09, 2002, 02:57:00 pm
Duh, I should of thought of this before; If they couldn't be able to even walk in an 1G enviroment, why have legs? Let alone THREE!  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/rolleyes.gif)  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 09, 2002, 03:15:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
Duh, I should of thought of this before; If they couldn't be able to even walk in an 1G enviroment, why have legs? Let alone THREE!   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/rolleyes.gif)   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)

You need legs--or extra arms--in zero G, else you can't move things. You have to have leverage and for leverage you have to anchor to something or push off from something. Legs allow for a wide base for pushing, and more contact points for pulling.

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 09, 2002, 04:02:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
You need legs--or extra arms--in zero G, else you can't move things. You have to have leverage and for leverage you have to anchor to something or push off from something. Legs allow for a wide base for pushing, and more contact points for pulling.


Yes, but the intelligence film of them clearly show that those legs were meant to be walked on. They are even placed in a tri formation to give maximum support. Why do that if they were not meant to walk on ground?

I would think a ZG entity would have softer appendages for which to use. IE tentacles. Easy to use and controllable. Like an octopus or jellyfish. They exists in a near ZG enviroment and have evolved to live it that sort of enviroment, through evolution. So if evolution had anything to do with Shivans, they would evolve to be the most efficient in a ZG enviroment right?. But the images of the shivans prove otherwise atleast for me.

But hey, I'm not saying that they're NOT meant for ZG, hell they must have redesigned themselves to be efficient in ZG as well, but I think the images show them to be land walking creatures as well.

 Most things also with exoskeletons happen to be very strong. IE, the ant, it can carry 40-50 its own body weight.So if we were to believe that the Shivans would be close to arachnids or dry land insects, wouldn't it be plausible that heatlhy adult shivans could carry their own weight? But on the other hand, if we would think that the Shivans were crustacean, IE crabs and lobsters, then there could be some other explanations. I personally believe that the Shivans might be closer to crustaceans because they could hold their own on land, but move exeptionally well in a ZG enviroment. Exoskeletons themselves are meant for support and/or protection, and most animals on Earth that have an exoskeleton walk or crawl, either on dry land, or on the sea bottom. (INHALE) So... What we got here are GIANT LOBSTERS!!   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by Dark_4ce (edited 01-09-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 09, 2002, 04:58:00 pm
hehe, look at that:
  (http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/ott/variouspics/Crim14.jpg)  
if with that you tell me shivans are not made to run on the ground, and still think they're meant to swim in the void like octopus... can't help you   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

About that ant thing, there's no way the shivan could carry a thing 50 times bigger than themselves. At this size, the weight ratio is completly different.
An exemple? wings couldn't support a man if they were not at least 5 or 6 meters large. a small sparrow can use small wings to carry his body, but notice that even idf the body isn't much bigger, the bigger the bird, the larger the wings (at exponentional rate, I mean). voila voila   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)


[This message has been edited by venom2506 (edited 01-09-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 09, 2002, 09:30:00 pm
I'll stipulate to running and standing in gravity (but not in full gravity as I'll explain presently). That pic clearly shows them designed to lope along like a very angry mountain cat (minus a leg of course).

However, Dark 4ce, you forget that squids and the like don't ever real mass with those tentacles. You don't push loads with rope. You pull them, because you have no rigidity with which to push them. Bones and exoskeletons provide that.

Whilst an exoskeletal beast like an ant can indeed push up and carry a ridiculous multiple of its own mass, this has something to do with the size of the creature to begin with. Take a look at crabs sometime. You'll notice that hard shelled crabs don't get very large, and those that do are ponderous and slow. Shivans are not ponderous and slow. If you further examine arthropoda, you'll find very large creatures, like South American bird-eating spiders. Those can be as much as a foot long, but they lack an exoskeleton. They couldn't catch birds if they had one because their own exoskeleton would slow them down--or even render them immobile.

When dealing with the motive capacity of animals (humans and Shivans included) you deal with something called the square-cube rule. As the linear size of a volume increases, the rate of surface increase is the square of the linear increase, and the volume is the cube of that linear increase.

Imagine a 1m square. If you double its size to 2m*2m, the surface area doesn't go up linearly. The progression is a square function. When you start dealing with volume, it gets even uglier, as the progression is a cubic. when you double the dimensions of a 1m cube to 2m, you end up with eight times the volume, and consequently eight times the mass (2^3=8). Imagine the increase in mass required to bring your ant up to the size of a Shivan. Now imagine the how much more muscle tissue would be required to move that mass. At a certain point, no matter how much muscle you add, its own mass outstrips its own ability to move itself. Thats why there aren't any human sized exoskeletal beasts on the surface of the earth.

Venom pointed out the possibility of cybernetic enhancement as possible explanation, but I don't buy this theory. I agree, indeed, that Shivans probably tote around cybernetic enhancements in their bodies, but servo-motors for asissted movement? I think not. Imagine a growing shivan. He would have to have his servos replaced year after year. As there is no external evidence of these motors, they must be internal, and thus a shivan undergoes surgery regularly to upgrade his internal motive systems. Further, a Shivan whos cybernetic enhancements fail is stuck, unable to move under his own weight until his buddy, Carl the Shivan (not to name names) comes along and helps him to a doctor/mechanic.

All of that can be avoided, however, if you look to the example of ocean going arthropoda, such as giant sea crabs. When I lived in West Germany (for such was it called back in my day), we went to a natural science museum and saw a crab with legs longer than my entire body! How could such a beast support itself? Water is buoyant and sea water especially so. The water helps the sea crab support itself by lowering its effective weight. A shivan, adapted to low gravity, would not need water or servo-motor implants to move because he would not weigh as much. He would still have to overcome his own mass and inertia, but that's a different thing entirely.



------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 10, 2002, 01:25:00 am
when i said servomotors, I gave a name that you would know. Probably the shivans have  way better tech than metal tubes put the ones in the others and little pumps. They could use organic enhanced structures greffed (sp?) opn their own  body, or they could actually use metal stuff, and nano botswould handle all the growing pbs, the failures and so on. I'm surprised you didn't think about such simple stuff, you seem to be a real scie fi reader  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif).
About your crab, look at the condor (sp?). The wings of this bird are wider than I'm tall, still the thing is way smaller than me (the body I mean). your arthropod can really weell support himself even out of water, I guess. I've seen industrial tools working on the same structure, coz it really gives them much stability in a "moving" environment (shakings, stuff like that in factories). They are on very long and very thin "legs", wide open, and they won't feel any shock even if you give a kick against the ground near them.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 10, 2002, 04:00:00 am
Yeah, I've always agreed that the Shivans were supposed to be land based creatures. IE the three legs in a tri formation to allow maximum support. And I fully agree with the technological enhancements to allow themselves to support their own weight.

When I started talking about squids crabs, I was just looking at the question from another point. How would they survive if they really were evolved to live in a ZG enviroment. Seeing what a ZG entity MIGHT look like. But hey, this is FUN!  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) Look at all the biology were going into for a couple of pictures of an interely imaginary creature! So that it could be placed in a mod... heheheheh  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) I love it!
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 10, 2002, 05:38:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
Yeah, I've always agreed that the Shivans were supposed to be land based creatures. IE the three legs in a tri formation to allow maximum support. And I fully agree with the technological enhancements to allow themselves to support their own weight.


In fac, reading that, I begin to believe that in fact, shivans evolved in an enviroment with more gravity than on earth...
And that could actually explain some thing: first, their incredible strengh: in space, they don't have the problem of gravity. But they would also have pbs with that, heart beating too strong and stuff like that ( same pb with our cosmonauts, but for a shivan, it would be even worse). So maybe the exosquelettons are not made to make them stronger, but to avoid them from going apart, to regulate their intern organs, stuff like that?
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Shrike on January 10, 2002, 05:57:00 am
A biological spaceuit, in other words.  Armor, muscle attachment and cool shiny bits, all in one package.   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 10, 2002, 08:49:00 am
EXACTLY!
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 10, 2002, 10:54:00 am
I simply cannot buy the nanotech/cybernetic/augmented approach, unless that enhancement were engineered into the body genetically and was therefore part of the main germline and would be reproduced in children at conception. Any other means would be ridiculous, as there would be too much post-partem maintenence of the body. Further, nanotechnology comes at a ridiculous cost and risk. Nanomachinery builds up heat and are small. How do nanoscale machines exert macroscale forces? How do they provide strength?

As to your example of the condor (and your corollary about the crab), you are mistaken. Yes, a condor has a huge wingspan (the largest in the world, as I recall), but as you said, it has a body smaller than you. The square-cube law comes into effect again, this time combined with laws of aerodynamics. The larger the mass of the bird in question, the larger its wingspan must be to allow it enough lift for flight. The larger its wings get, the more massive it becomes. The more massive it becomes, the faster it must move to generate enough lift on its wings to hold it up. Birds take care of part of this problem by having hollow bones, to reduce mass. Jet liners solve this problem by attaching jets to provide speed to increase airflow to allow more lift, rather than increasing merely increasing wingspan. A bird cannot similarly achieve more lift or speed, because its paltry biological systems could not handle the effects. Air resistance would rip the feathers from the wings. The condor is near the limit of natural engineering. It could get a bit larger, but not too terribly much. The giant sea crab is still subject to its own weight without the buoyant effect of sea water, and still cannot walk on land.

The concept of a biological spacesuit is interesting. If this conjecture is true, it would mean that Shivans have gone back and reengineered themselves to have such a spacesuit, and thus are free from the constraints of landbound evolution. They may have started out as an endoskeletal creature, like a Terran ape, but redesigned themselves for space.

The principle of parsimony (also known as Occam's Razor) states, "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". In this case, nanotech, cybernetics, endoskeletal reinforcement of an existing exoskeleton, or fanciful genetic reengineering of the species is not necessary  to explain the biological nature of a Shivan. All we need is a low gravity, possibly arboreal, evolution. Arthropods can be larger in a low gravity without artificial aid. They would still need multiple legs to make their relatively low weight stable--three might be sufficient. They don't need to be especially strong, but like humans, would seem so in a microgravity environment. The exoskeleton would be a natural adaptation, rather than something engineered. Luminescent eyes are perfectly possible too, as many organisms are electrophorescent (fireflies, for example).

------------------
--Mik http://www.404error.com ("http://www.404error.com")
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline


[This message has been edited by mikhael (edited 01-10-2002).]

[This message has been edited by mikhael (edited 01-10-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 10, 2002, 12:01:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
I simply cannot buy the nanotech/cybernetic/augmented approach, unless that enhancement were engineered into the body genetically and was therefore part of the main germline and would be reproduced in children at conception. Any other means would be ridiculous, as there would be too much post-partem maintenence of the body. Further, nanotechnology comes at a ridiculous cost and risk. Nanomachinery builds up heat and are small. How do nanoscale machines exert macroscale forces? How do they provide strength?

As to your example of the condor (and your corollary about the crab), you are mistaken. Yes, a condor has a huge wingspan (the largest in the world, as I recall), but as you said, it has a body smaller than you. The square-cube law comes into effect again, this time combined with laws of aerodynamics. The larger the mass of the bird in question, the larger its wingspan must be to allow it enough lift for flight. The larger its wings get, the more massive it becomes. The more massive it becomes, the faster it must move to generate enough lift on its wings to hold it up. Birds take care of part of this problem by having hollow bones, to reduce mass. Jet liners solve this problem by attaching jets to provide speed to increase airflow to allow more lift, rather than increasing merely increasing wingspan. A bird cannot similarly achieve more lift or speed, because its paltry biological systems could not handle the effects. Air resistance would rip the feathers from the wings. The condor is near the limit of natural engineering. It could get a bit larger, but not too terribly much. The giant sea crab is still subject to its own weight without the buoyant effect of sea water, and still cannot walk on land.

The concept of a biological spacesuit is interesting. If this conjecture is true, it would mean that Shivans have gone back and reengineered themselves to have such a spacesuit, and thus are free from the constraints of landbound evolution. They may have started out as an endoskeletal creature, like a Terran ape, but redesigned themselves for space.

The principle of parsimony (also known as Occam's Razor) states, "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". In this case, nanotech, cybernetics, endoskeletal reinforcement of an existing exoskeleton, or fanciful genetic reengineering of the species is not necessary  to explain the biological nature of a Shivan. All we need is a low gravity, possibly arboreal, evolution. Arthropods can be larger in a low gravity without artificial aid. They would still need multiple legs to make their relatively low weight stable--three might be sufficient. They don't need to be especially strong, but like humans, would seem so in a microgravity environment. The exoskeleton would be a natural adaptation, rather than something engineered. Luminescent eyes are perfectly possible too, as many organisms are electrophorescent (fireflies, for example).



you read my post bad  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) (bad english, I know, don't know how to right that the right way) What you said about condors is what I said  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) (but you're wrong about the condor being at the limit of size for a flying creature, the prehistoric Quetzacoaltlus (sp?) spaned about 18 meters wide , and the body itseld was also very large ( bigger than a sheep, if I recall right )
For the nanobots, it was just a mean to check the mmechanical enhancements and make them "grow" with the shivans, nothing else (I don't buy either nanobots to make by themselves someone stronger, I don't even see how it could be possible, and you'd need huge amounts of them, as you said  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) )
For cost, I think shivans don't care about that  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
And I don't see what would be the use of eyes illuminated like fireflies, would be rather annoying if you ask me  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) anyway, it's stated in the techroom that they do have mechanical stuff, and sight is probably one of the stuff you want to upgrade (night vision, farther sight, heat/UV/etc sight? )
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 10, 2002, 12:11:00 pm
Such large creatures as Quetzalcoatlus, and even the Pterandons and Pterydactyles could not fly. They would climb things and glide. There is no way such massive things could lift off from the ground under their own power.

I'm sorry I misinterpretted your post, however. *heh*

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 10, 2002, 12:33:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
Such large creatures as Quetzalcoatlus, and even the Pterandons and Pterydactyles could not fly. They would climb things and glide. There is no way such massive things could lift off from the ground under their own power.

I'm sorry I misinterpretted your post, however. *heh*


mmh, dunno, lots of things have been proved wrong, and climbing stuff really souns unlikely: i don't imagine those beasts walking for hours with two ridiculous legs and two gigantic but useless arms to climb anything, just to fly for a few minutes. This is so inefficient, a species like that would not have developped so many varieties, they would have either disappeared or evolved. And those flying lizards existed from Trais to Cretace (dunno names in english) so...
Anyway, it's not a thread about flying crocodiles  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)

Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 10, 2002, 12:35:00 pm
I read somewhere, and this is TRUE, that they have scientifically proven that bees CANNOT fly, nor that Kangaroo's can jump. It was in some sort of article saying that science still doesen't have means to solve all the questions on Earth. I dunno where I read it, but it was funny as hell.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/lol.gif)

On the shivan-suit theory, I'm thinking more on the lines of a bio-engineered suit. Like in ID4. Like being an actual extension of the body. I read in another post when someone said that the shivans might actually meld and become one with the fighter, giving them greater control, etc. Even the ships themselves seem to look somewhat "grown" so it would be plausible, that the bio-suit that they would wear, would in fact be either a seperate organism that the actual shivan would occupy or be some sort of bio-engineered extension, that would be given to them at a young age, and would grow with the Shivan inside. Meintenance would be kept at a low, since it would itself be "alive" so it could practically take care of itself. It would also lower the cost of producing these things (if they evn worry about) since they are grown.  
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 10, 2002, 12:46:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by venom2506:
mmh, dunno, lots of things have been proved wrong, and climbing stuff really souns unlikely: i don't imagine those beasts walking for hours with two ridiculous legs and two gigantic but useless arms to climb anything, just to fly for a few minutes. This is so inefficient, a species like that would not have developped so many varieties, they would have either disappeared or evolved. And those flying lizards existed from Trais to Cretace (dunno names in english) so...
Anyway, it's not a thread about flying crocodiles   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)


Triassic to Cretaceous. They didn't always have to climb up. Have you ever watched condors on wing? They glide on thermals. They don't necessarily climb all the way back up the mountain. They just don't land on flat ground where there's no nearby cliff from which to leap. Pterydactls and the like would like berhave similarly, climbing only when absolutely necessary.

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 10, 2002, 02:54:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
I read somewhere, and this is TRUE, that they have scientifically proven that bees CANNOT fly, nor that Kangaroo's can jump. It was in some sort of article saying that science still doesen't have means to solve all the questions on Earth. I dunno where I read it, but it was funny as hell.   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/lol.gif)

On the shivan-suit theory, I'm thinking more on the lines of a bio-engineered suit. Like in ID4. Like being an actual extension of the body. I read in another post when someone said that the shivans might actually meld and become one with the fighter, giving them greater control, etc. Even the ships themselves seem to look somewhat "grown" so it would be plausible, that the bio-suit that they would wear, would in fact be either a seperate organism that the actual shivan would occupy or be some sort of bio-engineered extension, that would be given to them at a young age, and would grow with the Shivan inside. Meintenance would be kept at a low, since it would itself be "alive" so it could practically take care of itself. It would also lower the cost of producing these things (if they evn worry about) since they are grown.  

V stated that what we see are actual shivans, they're not inside anything and really looks the way they are. They don't have built suits or anything.
I'll still wonder where people find that shivans ships looks like they're being grown. I looked at those ships in every way, I looked at the hall fight cutscene many time. Nothing looks grown to me. that's built stuff.
Oh well, never mind.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 10, 2002, 03:54:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
I read somewhere, and this is TRUE, that they have scientifically proven that bees CANNOT fly, nor that Kangaroo's can jump. It was in some sort of article saying that science still doesen't have means to solve all the questions on Earth. I dunno where I read it, but it was funny as hell.   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/lol.gif)
...  

I don't know about kangaroos but bees and other such small insects do not 'fly' in the way birds and the like do. They do not produce aerodynamic lift. Instead they scoop air straight down or behind in order to produce vectored thrust (think of Harrier jet VTOLS).

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Ace on January 10, 2002, 05:28:00 pm
The low G, low light, arboreal planet was an idea I had for a while on the Shivans. About all we do know about the Shivans' environment is that they can operate in zero-gravity and within a hard vaccum.

On Shivan ships being grown, I do not see and have never seen any organic traits on Shivan ships. The hulls are metallic, and the luminous regions of the hull appear electronic in nature.

Now organic grafting and such I do think are likely technologies to be used by the Shivans, so minor adjustments might be common.


------------------
Ace
Staff member FreeSpace Watch
 http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/ ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/")
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Zeronet on January 10, 2002, 05:49:00 pm
Asteroids? Non-carbon lifeforms do not require oxygen to breathe nor water to drink, although Asteroids can contain water.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 10, 2002, 06:08:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet:
Asteroids? Non-carbon lifeforms do not require oxygen to breathe nor water to drink, although Asteroids can contain water.

how do you know? We know no non-carbon based life forms, there's none on earth, as far as we know.

Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Starwing on January 11, 2002, 03:43:00 am
What do you mean by non-carbon lifeforms? If you're talking about silicon based life, there is no difference between them, except of the Si used in their biochemical processes , unlike the C we use.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Slanker on January 11, 2002, 06:44:00 am
BTW: [V] can´t make anything FS anymore, because of Interplay...
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 11, 2002, 06:46:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by venom2506:
V stated that what we see are actual shivans, they're not inside anything and really looks the way they are. They don't have built suits or anything.
I'll still wonder where people find that shivans ships looks like they're being grown. I looked at those ships in every way, I looked at the hall fight cutscene many time. Nothing looks grown to me. that's built stuff.
Oh well, never mind.

Ok, so they don't have a powersuit. But the tech room said that they had some sort of technology graphted into them! And on the ships being grown, they don't neccesarily need to look like giant potatoes in order to be grown. Metals can be "grown" if you use some sort of of nano-technology. We don't know exactly what kind of production technology they might have. But to me, some of the ships definitaly look like insects. (IE Mara) But I'm not ruling out, that the Shivans were just inspired to design their ships after them. I'm just speculating.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 11, 2002, 10:43:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by Starwing:
What do you mean by non-carbon lifeforms? If you're talking about silicon based life, there is no difference between them, except of the Si used in their biochemical processes , unlike the C we use.

Except that when silicon forms those same sorts of chemicals as carbon does, the silicon based molecules are not as stable. The same broad categories of chemical reactions are possible, but not the exact same ones in all cases.


------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 11, 2002, 11:00:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
Ok, so they don't have a powersuit. But the tech room said that they had some sort of technology graphted into them! And on the ships being grown, they don't neccesarily need to look like giant potatoes in order to be grown. Metals can be "grown" if you use some sort of of nano-technology. We don't know exactly what kind of production technology they might have. But to me, some of the ships definitaly look like insects. (IE Mara) But I'm not ruling out, that the Shivans were just inspired to design their ships after them. I'm just speculating.

You're adding complexity in an attempt to explain things. The Mara and the Sathanas are indeed very insectile in appearance, indeed, but consider that the Shivans are rather insect-like in appearance. They didn't have to grow ships, merely build them. For organic, grown-looking ships, no one beats the Vasudans.

We don't have to add nanotechnology into the solution. Rather, adding nanotech makes the Shivans more powerful than we know them to be. Why send a Sathanas, Lucifer or Ravana and why lose wing after wing of strike fighters and bombers when simple nanophages programmed to devour and replicate would be beyond the GTVA's means to counter? Grey goo would conquer in the absence of blue goo.
As far as technology grafted upon them, I'm willing to bet that the in-built plasma beam was the best, and most signifigant such addition. I believe the rest to be such things as personal communicators, medical telemetry devices, energy storage arrays, retinal projected HUDs and the like. They would be things that have a use outside of the fighter or combat, that have a use in society at large.

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 11, 2002, 01:48:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
You're adding complexity in an attempt to explain things.

Uhh... No. I'm not purposefully trying to make things complex in order to explain things. But if it sounded like that, I didn't mean to. I'm just interested thats all. Throwing in an idea here and there.

 Ok, I get you're point about the shivans using nanotechnology, that they could create some kinda cloud to digest everything, so we can forget about it. And you're also right about the Vasudan ships looking more grown than the Shivan's, I should have realised that. In all truth, all we got to go on is the HALLFIGHT, some techroom notes and some pics. So there's alot of room for speculation and theory. But I doubt were ever going to really find out what they're made of and who they really are. Except that they're the bad guy, they're ugly, and they got some cool ships. Maybe we should just cherish the mystery?  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/tongue.gif)

[This message has been edited by Dark_4ce (edited 01-11-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 11, 2002, 01:59:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
...But I doubt were ever going to really find out what they're made of and who they really are. Except that they're the bad guy, they're ugly, and they got some cool ships. Maybe we should just cherish the mystery?   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/tongue.gif)

But.. but... that's no fun! Besides, to REALLY cherish the memory, we have to discuss it, and come up with all kinds of wierd comparitive xenobiological theories to explain it. *grin*

These drawn out speculative threads are what I like about a good board, like HLP. We've gone for several days now, discussing the possible biology and evolution of an alien that had, all up, less than a minute of screen time. The fact that the discussion is possible is a testament to  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/v.gif)'s ability to create something with meaning and value to it's audience and the fact that the discussion has remained civil and thought out is a testament to HLP's basic maturity and intelligence.

Don't stop speculating! *heh*

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 12, 2002, 04:50:00 am
 
Quote

Don't stop speculating! *heh*


Heheheh   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) ok! So, how about reproduction? Do think theres a hive queen? Or via the good ol' fashion way? Since I'm still sticking to my theory that they're atleast in some parts mechanical, that the queen would lay the eggs, and when they would hatch, a worker drone would outfit the Shivan accordingly. But I don't personally think there would be a hive brain, either.

[This message has been edited by Dark_4ce (edited 01-12-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 12, 2002, 09:59:00 am
Hmm, probably the cloning would sound the most likeliest. Since it would lower or zero the chances of any genetic mutation or flaws to the species.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/eek.gif) That would be quite scary to look at too. Rows upon rows of cloning vats with shivans inside. Why does the human crops scene in "the Matrix" come to mind?...
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Starwing on January 12, 2002, 12:14:00 pm
They would need very good cloning technologies to make sure that no genetical defects would appear. After all, you are playing around with DNA (or whatever Shivans have  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)) and mechanical devices.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 12, 2002, 01:54:00 pm
The subject of a 'queen' is a hard one, as it is almost inexorably linked to the 'hive' concept.

Lets look at behaviour: do we ever see Shivans retreat? They throw ship after ship after ship at the GTVA. Sometimes they're badly outnumbered, but they don't run (that I can remember!). They are willing to die for their cause, whatever it is.

The queen-and-hive and the hive-mind concept works well with that. Neal Stephenson wrote that 'for ants, there are only two numebers: some and none'. In social or biological structure in which individual welfare is less developed than societal/biological welfare, 'some or none' is a valid model. Shivans can kill themselves wantonly, because individually they are 'none' and they need to die in larger numbers to become 'some'.

In a more individualised, less specialised society, one in which biological reproduction isn't centralised in a queen, any pair of individuals can produce offspring and thus continue the species. The problem with this is that individualised/unspeciaised species reproduce more slowly, due to the fact that there are no dedicated biological factories (queens). Slower reproduction means more incentive to live to reproduce. Shivans who were more individual would be more apt to retreat.

The final problem that comes into play is that collective biologies have is that there is not evolutionary pressure toward individual sentience. As has been pointed out in the Shivan Sociology thread, ants and bees and other collective biologies exhibit traits, practices and abilities found in individuals of generalised species (like humans). This is a case of the hive adapting to circumstances, not the individuals. Again, 'some or none' comes into play.

I'd like to think that somehow the Shivan's bucked the trend of hive biology. I think they started out as a hive biology but changed over time to adapt to a larger, more dangerous universe. Imagine that they are a hive species, but that the hives are smaller, maybe a few dozen or so. They aren't a hive mind, but more like a family unit. In such a system, the 'some or none' concept breaks down completely and real numbers, and therefor individual survival, becomes of benefit to the species. Small hives can specialise but the species as a whole becomes generalised, and thus more robust.

A step further, a mini-hive structure allows for a development of cooperation between hives. Eventually this cooperation becomes reliance and could lead to a hive-of-hives (nation) model. In this way, we can have biological 'queens' of hives, but avoid the it for the species. We can avoid the 'hive-mind' idea as well.

All of this dovetails nicely with my belief in a low-gravity, arboreal, insect-like development for Shivans.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)


------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 12, 2002, 02:13:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
The subject of a 'queen' is a hard one, as it is almost inexorably linked to the 'hive' concept.

Lets look at behaviour: do we ever see Shivans retreat? They throw ship after ship after ship at the GTVA. Sometimes they're badly outnumbered, but they don't run (that I can remember!). They are willing to die for their cause, whatever it is.

The queen-and-hive and the hive-mind concept works well with that. Neal Stephenson wrote that 'for ants, there are only two numebers: some and none'. In social or biological structure in which individual welfare is less developed than societal/biological welfare, 'some or none' is a valid model. Shivans can kill themselves wantonly, because individually they are 'none' and they need to die in larger numbers to become 'some'.

In a more individualised, less specialised society, one in which biological reproduction isn't centralised in a queen, any pair of individuals can produce offspring and thus continue the species. The problem with this is that individualised/unspeciaised species reproduce more slowly, due to the fact that there are no dedicated biological factories (queens). Slower reproduction means more incentive to live to reproduce. Shivans who were more individual would be more apt to retreat.

The final problem that comes into play is that collective biologies have is that there is not evolutionary pressure toward individual sentience. As has been pointed out in the Shivan Sociology thread, ants and bees and other collective biologies exhibit traits, practices and abilities found in individuals of generalised species (like humans). This is a case of the hive adapting to circumstances, not the individuals. Again, 'some or none' comes into play.

I'd like to think that somehow the Shivan's bucked the trend of hive biology. I think they started out as a hive biology but changed over time to adapt to a larger, more dangerous universe. Imagine that they are a hive species, but that the hives are smaller, maybe a few dozen or so. They aren't a hive mind, but more like a family unit. In such a system, the 'some or none' concept breaks down completely and real numbers, and therefor individual survival, becomes of benefit to the species. Small hives can specialise but the species as a whole becomes generalised, and thus more robust.

A step further, a mini-hive structure allows for a development of cooperation between hives. Eventually this cooperation becomes reliance and could lead to a hive-of-hives (nation) model. In this way, we can have biological 'queens' of hives, but avoid the it for the species. We can avoid the 'hive-mind' idea as well.

All of this dovetails nicely with my belief in a low-gravity, arboreal, insect-like development for Shivans.   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)



The only pb is that a species like ants are not evolved enough (yet), to make technology like ships.
Electronics, stuff like that, you can't make it up by instinct, you have to search for it, and you need to have knowledge of yourself has an indivicual to do so.
I really don't think shivans lack that. I'm pretty sure there's another reason why they won't give up. Just don't know what.

Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 12, 2002, 02:14:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
The subject of a 'queen' is a hard one, as it is almost inexorably linked to the 'hive' concept.

Lets look at behaviour: do we ever see Shivans retreat? They throw ship after ship after ship at the GTVA. Sometimes they're badly outnumbered, but they don't run (that I can remember!). They are willing to die for their cause, whatever it is.

The queen-and-hive and the hive-mind concept works well with that. Neal Stephenson wrote that 'for ants, there are only two numebers: some and none'. In social or biological structure in which individual welfare is less developed than societal/biological welfare, 'some or none' is a valid model. Shivans can kill themselves wantonly, because individually they are 'none' and they need to die in larger numbers to become 'some'.

In a more individualised, less specialised society, one in which biological reproduction isn't centralised in a queen, any pair of individuals can produce offspring and thus continue the species. The problem with this is that individualised/unspeciaised species reproduce more slowly, due to the fact that there are no dedicated biological factories (queens). Slower reproduction means more incentive to live to reproduce. Shivans who were more individual would be more apt to retreat.

The final problem that comes into play is that collective biologies have is that there is not evolutionary pressure toward individual sentience. As has been pointed out in the Shivan Sociology thread, ants and bees and other collective biologies exhibit traits, practices and abilities found in individuals of generalised species (like humans). This is a case of the hive adapting to circumstances, not the individuals. Again, 'some or none' comes into play.

I'd like to think that somehow the Shivan's bucked the trend of hive biology. I think they started out as a hive biology but changed over time to adapt to a larger, more dangerous universe. Imagine that they are a hive species, but that the hives are smaller, maybe a few dozen or so. They aren't a hive mind, but more like a family unit. In such a system, the 'some or none' concept breaks down completely and real numbers, and therefor individual survival, becomes of benefit to the species. Small hives can specialise but the species as a whole becomes generalised, and thus more robust.

A step further, a mini-hive structure allows for a development of cooperation between hives. Eventually this cooperation becomes reliance and could lead to a hive-of-hives (nation) model. In this way, we can have biological 'queens' of hives, but avoid the it for the species. We can avoid the 'hive-mind' idea as well.

All of this dovetails nicely with my belief in a low-gravity, arboreal, insect-like development for Shivans.   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)



The only pb is that a species like ants are not evolved enough (yet), to make technology like ships.
Electronics, stuff like that, you can't make it up by instinct, you have to search for it, and you need to have knowledge of yourself has an individual to do so.
I really don't think shivans lack that. I'm pretty sure there's another reason why they won't give up. Just don't know what.

Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 12, 2002, 02:29:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by venom2506:
The only pb is that a species like ants are not evolved enough (yet), to make technology like ships.
Electronics, stuff like that, you can't make it up by instinct, you have to search for it, and you need to have knowledge of yourself has an individual to do so.
I really don't think shivans lack that. I'm pretty sure there's another reason why they won't give up. Just don't know what.

I think you misunderstood me. They DO have individuality and they are NOT subsumed into a hive mind. They do NOT do things on instinct. As a species, they have evolved past that into individuals that are parts of small groups.

They are sentient and they do learn skills, etc. Its just that some hives have individuals that are better suited for some things than others. Some hives produce physically superior shivans which become warriors. Some produce smaller shivans that have more delicate grasping limbs.



------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 12, 2002, 02:52:00 pm
hehe, it's my turn to misunderstand you it seems  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Anyway, I don't buy the Hive theory. Why?
Easy: I don't like it  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/lol.gif)
I can't explain, to me, it's just not that  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 12, 2002, 02:54:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by venom2506:
hehe, it's my turn to misunderstand you it seems   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Anyway, I don't buy the Hive theory. Why?
Easy: I don't like it   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/lol.gif)
I can't explain, to me, it's just not that   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)

I don't like it either. That's why I suggest the hybrid-hive theory above.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)


------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Zeronet on January 12, 2002, 04:35:00 pm
But Shivans do retreat, they warp out when you wack everything else in the area. Also has everyone totally forgotton the Iceni?!! If Shivans cant handle 1g then how the hell did they invade a NTF vessel take Bosch and then slaughter the crew. As for non-carbon based lifeforms, one would be wise to assume we do not know every single element, we could just be at the tip of the iceberg.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Starwing on January 12, 2002, 05:18:00 pm
We DO know that all elements beyond a certain number (dunno what exactly) are HIGHLY unstable, and could only be produced in laboratories. A lifeform made of those elements would be a big bad A-bomb. Not the perfect conditions for a long life.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 12, 2002, 05:43:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet:
But Shivans do retreat, they warp out when you wack everything else in the area. Also has everyone totally forgotton the Iceni?!! If Shivans cant handle 1g then how the hell did they invade a NTF vessel take Bosch and then slaughter the crew.

They could have disabled the main subsystems that might control the artificial gravity, and that way managed to get in. BUT, I believe they didn't have to...

On the Hive-mind theory, I don't like it either. But the idea that they actually "evolved" out of it is quite interesting. Or that there is a hive-mind hybrid. Much like the Zerg in Starcraft. Weren't there like four hive-minds and then the ûber-mind that controlled them all?

But then that would mean there were a queen at least in some point of their evolution or lives. Unless, when they began to advance technologically, they practically got rid of her, and her kind.

BUT, we cannot forget that the techroom does state that the Shivans could have been, either made or "redesigned" by a third-party. That would answer atleast the gravity question. Because they could have been a ZG entity to begin with, with a hive-mind. But the third-party added that third leg for more stability, and made them stronger for atleast a 1G enviroment, AND that they genetically advanced them above the Hive-mind. Maybe in an attemp to allow them to to start to redisng themselves. Like what scientists are trying to do with AI that are designed to rewire themselves. But what they didn't expect was that the Shivans, became TOO advanced. Then ate the third-party.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 12, 2002, 05:48:00 pm
Lol, I don't like the "shivans have been created by another species" theory either (I know, i'm boring  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) ).
Why? That kills all their "frightening" side. They sound inferior... An unknown species that wages war and is unstoppable, one you can't understand, that is frightening. Now a subspaceies made by another race, ok, that's just a weapon, they're still scary looking, but really, they just become evolve toys. They can rebel, so waht? they're just a "product". It doesn't take anything off to their "deadlyness", but it's all in the mood, and somehow, it really kills the feeling. So no "inferior being" stuff for me, thanx  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 12, 2002, 08:30:00 pm
 
Quote
From Dark_4ce:
On the Hive-mind theory, I don't like it either. But the idea that they actually "evolved" out of it is quite interesting. Or that there is a hive-mind hybrid. Much like the Zerg in Starcraft. Weren't there like four hive-minds and then the ûber-mind that controlled them all?

I specifically draw a distinction between hive-mind and hive-society, for exactly this reason. I do not believe that the Shivans were ever a 'hive-mind', as there would be no reason for such a conciousness to split itself. I distinctly postulate a hive society in which the societal needs outweigh all individual needs, and in fact subsume them. I believe that Shivans started out as many large hives (much like bees or ants) and slowly evolved into many smaller micro-hives. At all times, however, there was an individual mind to each Shivan.

 
Quote
From Zeronet:
... Also has everyone totally forgotton the Iceni?!! If Shivans cant handle 1g then how the hell did they invade a NTF vessel take Bosch and then slaughter the crew. As for non-carbon based lifeforms, one would be wise to assume we do not know every single element, we could just be at the tip of the iceberg.

To your first point, no one has forgotten the Iceni. I suggest you an alternate solution that fits just as well.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/v.gif) has stated that the Shivans in the hall fight are definately, Shivans and not power suits or space suits or robots. When have they ever said that Shivans CANNOT wear power suits or space suits or have robots? What if they, like Terran marines, went into the Iceni with full battle kit, consisting of hoplite smart-plate armor with servo assisted joints? Something they could take off when not actively going into battle. Before anyone argues "Why weren't the Shivan's in the hall fight wearing such combat suits then?", I have an answer. The Shivans in the hall fight weren't soldiers. They were the equivalent of comms techs or even if they were soldiers, they were second echelon infantry, rather thant the sorts you send to the front line in a boarding action. They wouldn't have heavy armor handy.

Too your second point, you are correct that we might be at the tip of the veritible iceberg with Mendelyev periodic table of elements. However, there is a slight hitch. From what we know of subatomic particles, and indeed, the quanta that they built from, there are a finite number of stable, valid configurations. That means there are a finite number of types of stable subatomic particles. This in turn means, that ther are a finite number of stable elements. So no, there is no chance life arising from chemical compounds based much further up the chart into realms we do not know. I sincerely doubt (given certain other limits imposed by energistic interactions) that any such compound could form above the iron barrier, and more likely, not even past the realm of silicon.


 
Quote
Back to Dark_4ce:
BUT, we cannot forget that the techroom does state that the Shivans could have been, either made or "redesigned" by a third-party.

I don't think they were redesigned or made by anyone. They evolved naturally on a low gravity, arboreal planet. While they initially started as a hive-society, like ants, they eventually evolved into a society of sentient individuals organized into small family-hives. These hives prosper by cooperation, not by conquest. They are dangerous because they understand that the individual is helpless alone and therefore are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their hive and their hive is willing to sacrifice itself for the good of the society. They don't retreat, so much as leave when they are done with a task.


------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Su-tehp on January 12, 2002, 09:40:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
But what they didn't expect was that the Shivans, became TOO advanced. Then ate the third-party.   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

**BURP!**  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

Excuse me.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/redface.gif) (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/redface.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Ace on January 13, 2002, 12:39:00 am
I really don't think shivans lack that. I'm pretty sure there's another reason why they won't give up. Just don't know what.

Because the alternative of their not fighting is by far worse. What do the Shivans want? Neutralization of sub-space travel and holding sub-space nodes. Somehow this connects to a "horrible alternative."

How Venom handles it in OTT is an excellent way without changing much of the FS universe. Aldo's handling in Reciprocity with the Nightmares is another way as well.

As for the semi-hive mind, that could be a feasible idea.

We do know though from even FS1 that Shivans do have cockpits in their fighters, and that the GTA and GTVA can retrofit them for allied use. This may not seem directly connected to the discussion, but it does show that they do not use robotic drones for fighters, so that "Shivan sacrifice" for whatever cause is something of massive importance.



------------------
Ace
Staff member FreeSpace Watch
 http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/ ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/")
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 13, 2002, 05:38:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
I specifically draw a distinction between hive-mind and hive-society, for exactly this reason. I do not believe that the Shivans were ever a 'hive-mind', as there would be no reason for such a conciousness to split itself. I distinctly postulate a hive society in which the societal needs outweigh all individual needs, and in fact subsume them. I believe that Shivans started out as many large hives (much like bees or ants) and slowly evolved into many smaller micro-hives. At all times, however, there was an individual mind to each Shivan.



Aaaah... Now I get it. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. But I like my theory better! (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)


Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Zeronet on January 13, 2002, 07:30:00 am
I doubt the Shivans would have a need for a battlesuit, because Shivan bodies were among the dead and the GTI kept them in pens and stuidied them, probably with normal gravity. I bet Shivans can handle G's in excess of 1.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 13, 2002, 11:24:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet:
I doubt the Shivans would have a need for a battlesuit, because Shivan bodies were among the dead and the GTI kept them in pens and stuidied them, probably with normal gravity. I bet Shivans can handle G's in excess of 1.

Yeah it was all ready cleared up that they infact didn't have any powersuits. The boys at  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/v.gif) said that the pictures of the Shivans are infact true Shivans, and not inside a powersuit.

Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 13, 2002, 11:59:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
Yeah it was all ready cleared up that they infact didn't have any powersuits. The boys at    (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/v.gif) said that the pictures of the Shivans are infact true Shivans, and not inside a powersuit.


I believe   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/v.gif) was talking about the hall fight on the captured Shivan ship, not the events aboard the Iceni. We don't know anything about what happened aboard the Iceni except they got in, got Bosch and got out. I don't see any reason why they could not have had powersuits or other gear.

In the case of them being able to handle in excess of 1G, I should point out that the average human can withstand 10G--he just can't function very well. Sure, they might be able to drag themselves about at 1G, they might be able to do so at 2G, but not any of the superhuman capabilities they display in the Hall fight scene. They're LowG creatures.

------------------
--Mik http://www.404error.com ("http://www.404error.com")
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline

[This message has been edited by mikhael (edited 01-13-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 13, 2002, 12:43:00 pm
of course not, otherwise they would not be able to control a dragon when it makes a U-turn  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/tongue.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Rampage on January 13, 2002, 05:08:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Ace:
I really don't think shivans lack that. I'm pretty sure there's another reason why they won't give up. Just don't know what.

Maybe the Shivans sinned against their "deity" and their "deity" requires sacrificing entire races to atone for their [the Shivans] sin.

If you read the Descent series by Peter Telep, you'll know what I'm talking about.

------------------
Christ
Redeems
All
People

God is Life
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 13, 2002, 07:49:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Rampage:
Maybe the Shivans sinned against their "deity" and their "deity" requires sacrificing entire races to atone for their [the Shivans] sin.

If you read the Descent series by Peter Telep, you'll know what I'm talking about.


That's a poor sort of sacrifice, isn't it? You cannot sacrifice something you don't value, something that is meaningless to you.

I don't think that Shivans kill without reason. In fact, I think an individual Shivan--Let's call him Carl for the sake of reference  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)--is just like you or me. Carl goes through his life playing the Shivan equivalent of video games, shopping for groceries, looking for a suitable micro-hive with whom to share his genetics, and going to work for McShivans, flipping burgers (or whatever they eat). He's not a killer. He's not some sort of monster. In fact, when Carl sits down on his couch after work and flips to the Shivan News Network on his media unit, he shakes his head and wishes the killing would stop. Carl's hive-cousin, Mike, however, is a warrior in the Shivan Navy. He serves on one of those Sathanas that scare the bejeebus out GTVA sorts. He pushes the war and he kills Terrans because he has to. Its his job.

Whatever reason Shivans fight and kill, its at least as rational as any Terran reason for fighting. I could put forward a few, but I'm afraid they would all be based in my own pure speculation.

Lots of people put forth the idea that the Shivans are running scared from something else, something coming behind them that is so ugly, that they are willing to fight through us to get away from it. I don't buy it. If you had serious war taking place, would you divert some of your Navy from the front and send it off to some distanct front in order to clear the way for your retreat? I don't think so. I think the Shivans would have dropped out of subspace, asked for help and gone back to the battle. This idea of them running scared also doesn't fit at all with the Ancients' monologues in FS2.



------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 14, 2002, 02:46:00 am
The Shivans aren't running scared. But, I don't see them as socially organized to the point that they're playing videogames and fliping shivan equivelant of burgers. I think they're whole society goes around expansion and conquest.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 14, 2002, 01:56:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
The Shivans aren't running scared. But, I don't see them as socially organized to the point that they're playing videogames and fliping shivan equivelant of burgers. I think they're whole society goes around expansion and conquest.

To describe Shivan society as being based 'around expansion and conquest' is to reduce them back to one dimensional beasts, the boogeymen of the interstellar closet and the yawning void of Under the Bed. I must disagree with this, because it makes them into cardboard cutouts, mere monsters.

Using earth as a basis for comparison, I have to think that you are entirely incorrect. Never in the entire history of civilisation on our little backwater of a planet, has there been a culture that was devoted entirely to the military. All cultures have had civilians, even the Spartans of Greece.

The best option for an entirely militaristic society is either a hive mind (in which we have no dissent) or a brutal military dictatorship. I think we've determined that the first is distasteful. As for the second, it doesn't fit in with the Ancients' monologues either. Where does 'Great Preservers' come in when describing a race bent on expansion and conquest? Besides that, if they were bent on conquest, why have they not occupied the systems they have defeated?




------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 14, 2002, 03:22:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:

Using earth as a basis for comparison, I have to think that you are entirely incorrect. Never in the entire history of civilisation on our little backwater of a planet, has there been a culture that was devoted entirely to the military. All cultures have had civilians, even the Spartans of Greece.


I just can't compare the Shivans to humans. But I guess I just see them as monsters. Very smart and rutheless mosnters. Monsters with advanced technology... I don't see them as having a very complex social structure. All thats enough for me on their sociology is that THEY'RE EVIL!! For me at least. Dunno if they really are, but anyway...

Back to the original reason why this all started, would the RF engine be good enough to render a Shivan?  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) ;D
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Zeronet on January 14, 2002, 03:23:00 pm
They conquer Nodes, not planets.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 14, 2002, 10:14:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet:
They conquer Nodes, not planets.

We have no real proof of that. Did they maintain a presence at the node near Vasuda Prime? They certainly 'conquered' that one. We don't know why they do what they do, and I, for one don't think it has any thing to do with conquest.

Dark_4ce, if they're just monsters, than where's the meat? As monsters, Shivans are like the antagonist in a ghost story told around a campfire. They're scary when the only light is the flickering flames between you and the story teller and the night is at your back, but they lose their potency when the sun rises.

I want my Shivans to be complex, powerful and disturbingly familiar. I want them to be so human that I identify with them a little, even whilst they drop out of the inkyblack and rip my wingmen to shreds. Villains are always better when you can see the good bits about them and still see them do horrible evil things anyway.
------------------
--Mik http://www.404error.com ("http://www.404error.com")
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline

[This message has been edited by mikhael (edited 01-14-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 15, 2002, 06:35:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:

I want my Shivans to be complex, powerful and disturbingly familiar. I want them to be so human that I identify with them a little, even whilst they drop out of the inkyblack and rip my wingmen to shreds. Villains are always better when you can see the good bits about them and still see them do horrible evil things anyway.

Yeah, I can see what you mean. Like the quote "The most dangerous man, is the man who believes he's doing the right thing."
But you've reminded me of that tv series that was on a couple of years ago, called Space: Above and Beyond. Actually, come to think of it, the plot in that series is really quite similar to the FS plot. For those who have not seen Above and Beyond, the plot in a nut shell is this:

A deep human colony is attacked by an alien threat. Soon afterwards, the attacking alien force heads towards Earth, and an all scale war breaks out between the humans and the "chigs"(aliens). Yada yada yada, a bunch of recruits join the army, learn how to fly in hammerhead fighters (damn cool, tried to start a campaign on FS on it, but had little support. Still have a couple of ship renders though) and take on the chigs. Actually, many episodes are done as if they were ripped out of a game, lots of briefings, detail instruction, and then kickass space battles. Ofcourse they had other developments in the series, but the dogfighting had to be the best.
 http://www.alphacompany.com/images/kschig5.jpg ("http://www.alphacompany.com/images/kschig5.jpg")

As you can see these Chigs are covered in armour from head to toe, so you're only left with you're imagination as to what lay inside. Also, very little, is known about them, social wise and biology wise. HOWEVER, in the end of the season a ground braking discovery is made. First, the Chigs did not infact attack. They deffended themselves, because the planets that were being colonised were all ready inhabited by Chigs, and Earth Intelligence knew this, yet said nothing. Second, the Chigs happened to be very similar to humans after all, having the same genetic makeup as a human(I forgot why). Third, you get to see what one looks it, kinda ugly, but nothing like you'd expect.

Before, when you didn't know what they were like, you knew them to only be evil and didn't mind seeing them getting shot to hell... But after this event, it became clear who and what they were, and most importantly Why they were doing the things they did.

Anyway, we discover that the Chigs are not evil, which is not the case with Shivans, I think. But I understand what you mean, if they are like us, and WE know what WE can do, yeah, I'd be running scared. But I dunno, I like to think that we are still better than them.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Starwing on January 15, 2002, 06:44:00 am
The moon they originate from had it's origin in a collision of an asteroid with earth. They fought for Earth because of the same reason humans did, because it's their origin.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 15, 2002, 09:04:00 am
Oh yeaaaah!  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 15, 2002, 10:04:00 am
Yeah, Space above and beyond  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
It was shown in France too (tho it was called Space 2051 I think). Well, we did know they weren't "pure" evil before the end, anyway: in one episode, there's that guy (the in vitro) on his own on a planet, he's attacked by the chigs, and don't remember what happens, but he saves one of them, and this one did behave friendly (but, of course, he was killed at the end). The shig ships reminds me a lot of shivan ships, no?  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) They're all converted for Starlancer ( hammerhead included). They had some nifty weapons, like this missile that had a gun in it as well as a warhead  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 15, 2002, 01:37:00 pm
Yeah, I remember that episode. The Chig gave him those ID tags the wear, as a gift or something. But then in the end, when he died, the In vitro put it back on him, when he buried him. That was a sad one. It also had a few scenes where you start to question if the Chigs in fact were evil. Like looking up at the birds and enjoying the scenery. This might make you go "so what" but if you think about it, most of the time the aliens are portraid as beings who don't give a rat's ***  about the scenery, or just being plain old evil and start taking pot shots at the birds. Yeah it was also called Space 2043 here.

My favorite had to be the Ace Chig's Stealth Fighter, with the "Abandon all hope" written on the side and crude skull painted on the front.

 (http://www.gulliver.cc/td/chig.jpg)  

Yeah, you're right they do remind me of Shivan designs. Except the Chig's cap ships were damn aweful. Like giant diamonds, flying slowly. They could have added a bit more "variety" to them.
But I still think that it would make one kickass campaign. I even remember being asked to put it up into HLP, but I couldn't get anyone to help me out with the campaign, and I didn't want to give an empty promise. *sigh* But... Maybe if I don't bother to start on my Shivan campaign, maybe I'll start on S:AAB instead. If anyone is bothered that is.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Zeronet on January 15, 2002, 01:43:00 pm
Chig's were scary, i didnt get to see the last epsiodes but one sticks in my mind. Where they are hiding in dead bodies and the Chigs are cutting them up making sure the humans are all dead.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 15, 2002, 02:00:00 pm
yeah, the whole idea around "abandon all hope" was damn cool, but I prefer the normal fighter designs actually, w/o round parts. I don't remember quite much the capships, but what I remember didn't look like diamonds? My memory may mess up completly on this one ( was quite some time ago), but IO remember them as two building like structures with a dent between them, all vertical stuff. I thought they looked original, and well, I like originality  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
The shuttle they use in one mission, too, looks cool (damn, it was a two parts episode, I missed the second one hargh!).
Mmh, I still wonder what happened to, Vansen... Aaaah, Vansen  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Starwing on January 15, 2002, 02:25:00 pm
Vansen is death, I think. The only two that survived were Hawkes (the In Vitro) and the guy who was searching for his girlfriend. The others died while rescuing the girlfriend and the other POWs.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 15, 2002, 02:35:00 pm
mmh, Dempouss and the asian guy died for sure, but vansen crashed on the planet. It already happened before in the series I think and they didn't die.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 15, 2002, 02:35:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dark_4ce:
...It also had a few scenes where you start to question if the Chigs in fact were evil. Like looking up at the birds and enjoying the scenery. This might make you go "so what" but if you think about it, most of the time the aliens are portraid as beings who don't give a rat's ***  about the scenery, or just being plain old evil and start taking pot shots at the birds...

That's it right there: the very essence of what I want in a villain, and why I think the Shivans aren't just monsters. Nothing is scaryier than a man with a cause, with the righteous belief (however wrong it may be) that what he is doing is the Right Thing (tm, patent pending).

I earnestly believe that the Shivans aren't monsters, but people, and that they believe that wiping us out of the universe is the Right Thing (tm, patent pending). We're feral. We kill other races for territory and resources. I think they look at us as  some diseased hive that has lost its collective mind and needs to be put down before it harms anything else. I think the Ancients' were the same and that's why the Monologues say 'Great Preservers' as well as 'Great Destroyers'.

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 15, 2002, 02:53:00 pm
I know what you mean. But if I start to think that the Shivan's are any less Evil, than I think they are, I'll start to feel sorry for them. And I might hesitate when I pull the trigger. Oh no... Now when I close in for the killing blow of a Shivan Cap-ship I'll start to think of all the little Shivan's who won't see their father's anymore, and all those family's getting the "We regret to inform you that you're son/daughter/husband/wife/mate/drone was killed/blown up/de-exoskeletized/MIA after fighting the enemy/Vasudans/Terrans. He/She died in the name of the great Cockroach and/or his/our cause. Sorry."   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by Dark_4ce (edited 01-15-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 15, 2002, 04:12:00 pm
mmh, a thing about that great preservers/destroyers story. That's just Ancient stuff. I think the one who was talking was a bit high... They didn't know anything. It's pure speculations, just like we do right now.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Ace on January 15, 2002, 10:36:00 pm
They conquer Nodes, not planets.

We have no real proof of that. Did they maintain a presence at the node near Vasuda Prime? They certainly 'conquered' that one. We don't know why they do what they do, and I, for one don't think it has any thing to do with conquest.


It is stated extremely clearly in FreeSpace 1 that the Shivans secure sub-space node clusters.

Shivans have never been seen landing on a planet or using them for any purpose, they seem to have no interest in collecting resources.

Generally the Shivans outright annihilate planets, such as with Vasuda Prime and the planet in the Deneb system we see in the FS2 intro.

------------------
Ace
Staff member FreeSpace Watch
 http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/ ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/")
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 15, 2002, 11:13:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Ace:

It is stated extremely clearly in FreeSpace 1 that the Shivans secure sub-space node clusters.

Shivans have never been seen landing on a planet or using them for any purpose, they seem to have no interest in collecting resources.

Generally the Shivans outright annihilate planets, such as with Vasuda Prime and the planet in the Deneb system we see in the FS2 intro.


Which is exactly my point. They don't take the systems. They clean them out. And then all they do is prevent anyone from coming through. They can hardly be said to 'conquer' in the classic sense. You don't 'conquer' a river. You conquer nations, or in this case, planets. They're defending the passes and the rivers to prevent others from using them. Its a semantic difference, but one which I believe is critical to understanding the Shivans (at least the way I picture them).

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: TDM/JM on January 15, 2002, 11:32:00 pm
Bloody heck, people, it's obvious: The Shivans are AI smartweapons for an extremely sophisticated species coreward -- who have examined all of the options for security, and have determined that the safest galaxy is one empty of intelligent (and threatening) life.

So now you've got plots for FS3 through FS5, at least.

Been out of the USA and away from the keyboard for over a month. What's happening?

A.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 16, 2002, 03:09:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by TDM/JM:
Bloody heck, people, it's obvious: The Shivans are AI smartweapons for an extremely sophisticated species coreward -- who have examined all of the options for security, and have determined that the safest galaxy is one empty of intelligent (and threatening) life.

So now you've got plots for FS3 through FS5, at least.

Been out of the USA and away from the keyboard for over a month. What's happening?

A.

Hmmm... Even though I consider them more of a expand/conquest species, They're surely not AI smart weapons. They're living breathing creatures. Yes, with some engineered advances, but no the less alive. And I don't we've been discussing plot in any case. Only what and who the Shivans are.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Sandwich on January 16, 2002, 07:33:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by TDM/JM:
Been out of the USA and away from the keyboard for over a month. What's happening?

A.

Hey! Glad to see you again, dude(s)!  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)

Out of the USA, eh? Travel to Israel, by any chance?  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

------------------
America, stand assured that Israel truly understands what you are going through.

Know how to use Rhino3D? Want to put your ships into Freespace 2? You've come to the right place ("http://www.geocities.com/sandvich/fs2/rhino_fs2/")!

"He who laughs last thinks slowest."
"Just becase you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
"To err is human; to really screw up you need a computer."
Creator of the Sandvich Bar ("http://www.geocities.com/sandvich/index.html"), the CapShip Turret Upgrade, the Complete FS2 Ship List and the System Backgrounds List (all available from the site)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 16, 2002, 08:17:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by TDM/JM:
Bloody heck, people, it's obvious: The Shivans are AI smartweapons ...

I disagree completely. Explaining away Shivans as automotons bent on murder takes them back to being monsters under the bed. Robots just aren't scary, there's no visceral and hormonal dread. This idea just makes them cartoons.


------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 16, 2002, 08:27:00 am
Me too, and this point has been debated many times. Sorry, but I won't again.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: TDM/JM on January 16, 2002, 09:55:00 am
OK, we can disagree. But an AI smartweapon is not necessarily mechanical or solid-state. Here, we're talking about an engineered biological system, indistinguishable in many ways from an evolved one, except for certain built-in features, and the programming, of course.

No, not Israel. Singapore & Japan.

A.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: TDM/JM on January 16, 2002, 09:58:00 am
One more thought -- such engineered biological systems may not even know about their own origins or nature. Convincing cultural and historical contexts could be created for them. Greg Bear wrote about this in a novel called ANVIL OF STARS. There are other examples, too.

*We* could be such a species.

A.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 16, 2002, 01:30:00 pm
 
Quote
From TDM/JM:
OK, we can disagree. But an AI smartweapon is not necessarily mechanical or solid-state. Here, we're talking about an engineered biological system, indistinguishable in many ways from an evolved one, except for certain built-in features, and the programming, of course.

One more thought -- such engineered biological systems may not even know about their own origins or nature. Convincing cultural and historical contexts could be created for them. Greg Bear wrote about this in a novel called ANVIL OF STARS. There are other examples, too.
*We* could be such a species.

We could, but that's not relavent.

If the Shivans are weapons, they're boogymen, ghosts under sheets. If they have a convincing artificial background (which would be adding complexity to allow for the idea, failing Occam's Razor), then we are back to my conjecture of a species that believes it is doing the right thing for the right reasons. By making them unaware of their artificial construction and history, you render the artificial nature of that construction of that history irrelevent to the them and us. Revealing this knowledge to the GTVA or the Shivans, just reverts us back to the monster under the bed setup.



------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: TDM/JM on January 16, 2002, 02:17:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
We could, but that's not relavent.

If the Shivans are weapons, they're boogymen, ghosts under sheets. If they have a convincing artificial background (which would be adding complexity to allow for the idea, failing Occam's Razor), then we are back to my conjecture of a species that believes it is doing the right thing for the right reasons. By making them unaware of their artificial construction and history, you render the artificial nature of that construction of that history irrelevent to the them and us. Revealing this knowledge to the GTVA or the Shivans, just reverts us back to the monster under the bed setup.



"Not relevant"? Not quite. The point is that the distinction between artificiality and a natural evolution can be imprecise, at best -- an example is the effect of tools and culture on human cognitive development, both in the physical and intellectual sense. I would argue that the Shivans, by their displayed behavior in FS1 & FS2, would have to be artificial and "programmed" to some degree. And that argues, of course, for an unknown programmer.

You misuse Occam's Razor, which does not argue against complexity, but against recursive devices that "complexify" a solution without the need. In this case there is a very convincing need for contexts such as history and culture.

But I'll grant your critique of the "monster under the bed" agenda. I don't find it so troublesome, however.

A.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 16, 2002, 02:43:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by TDM/JM:
"Not relevant"? Not quite. The point is that the distinction between artificiality and a natural evolution can be imprecise, at best -- an example is the effect of tools and culture on human cognitive development, both in the physical and intellectual sense. I would argue that the Shivans, by their displayed behavior in FS1 & FS2, would have to be artificial and "programmed" to some degree. And that argues, of course, for an unknown programmer.

You misuse Occam's Razor, which does not argue against complexity, but against recursive devices that "complexify" a solution without the need. In this case there is a very convincing need for contexts such as history and culture.
...
A.

First, to Occam's Razor: The principle of parsimony (also known as Occam's Razor) states, "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". Your interpretation is incorrect. Their behavior is explicable without introducing artificial construction or unknown programmers. I see no evidence of either programming, nor artificial behavior. They, in fact, act like more technologically advanced, and angrier, versions of GTVA pilots.

I have very specific reason for disliking, and therefore challenging, the boogeymen theory. Simply put, I have more faith in Volition's ability to create a satisfying enemy. If the Shivans are as one dimensional as the monster under the bed, how can we take them as a credible threat? I for one can't, and my satisfaction with the game would be diminished. If they're such one dimensional beasties, I might as well play Space Invaders, for all the satisfaction I will recieve from defeating them.



------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 17, 2002, 03:49:00 am
Well... If you think about it, the Shivans "were" programmed by the  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/v.gif) boys...  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Starwing on January 17, 2002, 04:25:00 am
As was Command. And, if you really think about it, Command can be quiet scary  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 17, 2002, 12:01:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Starwing:
As was Command. And, if you really think about it, Command can be quiet scary    (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

Command is only scary when they say things like "This will be a routine patrol. Alpha Wing you'll be flying our newest interceptor, the PaperAirp--er..."


[This message has been edited by mikhael (edited 01-17-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Sandwich on January 18, 2002, 08:42:00 am
Y'know, it's probably threads like this that make  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/v.gif) hesitant of doing an FS3 - they'd hate to reveal something as simple as the Shivans being a standard antagonist.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/tongue.gif)  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

Back to the topic, I tend towards the "saftey valve" analogy - Shivans, whether engineered, modified, created or evolved, are ultimately around to protect the fabric of existance from ruin. We can possibly think of subspace as the bones of reality, and if subspace goes kaput - so does reality.

Shivan travel through subspace is different then ours, and perhaps their way does not damage subspace. But they have a special sensitivity to subspace, and are "attracted" - not in a friendly manner - towards any use of subspace by other races.

They then seek and destroy those subspace-capable races who are, by their very lack of true understanding of subspace, damaging it.

Thus, they fit both the role of "Great Destroyers" and of "Great Preservers".  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)

------------------
America, stand assured that Israel truly understands what you are going through.

Know how to use Rhino3D? Want to put your ships into Freespace 2? You've come to the right place ("http://www.geocities.com/sandvich/fs2/rhino_fs2/")!

"He who laughs last thinks slowest."
"Just becase you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
"To err is human; to really screw up you need a computer."
Creator of the Sandvich Bar ("http://www.geocities.com/sandvich/index.html"), the CapShip Turret Upgrade, the Complete FS2 Ship List and the System Backgrounds List (all available from the site)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 18, 2002, 09:03:00 am
Thus keeping the Circle of Life going... (cue the music from Lion King)  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: TDM/JM on January 18, 2002, 10:27:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
First, to Occam's Razor: The principle of parsimony (also known as Occam's Razor) states, "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".


Uh, then we are in agreement, for this was exactly my point. I think the key didactic in your comment is "beyond what is necessary." It's necessary, but you disagree with that assessment. And often that is the point where the utility of the Razor becomes limited -- an issue that many people fail to recognize.


Quote
Their behavior is explicable without introducing artificial construction or unknown programmers. They, in fact, act like more technologically advanced, and angrier, versions of GTVA pilots.
[/b]

On the contrary. The Shivans make no sense in any other context. You have a vastly technically and experientally superior species, and yet the Pilot takes out hundreds of them in the games. The AI has little initiative or creative intelligence, certainly not enough to convince the player that this is a bonafide species that has evolved in the face of natural selection. They show no evident cultural artifacts beyond their ships, which envince a chaotic and formless aesthetic. Apparently they behave instinctually, which raises the question of how instinctual intelligence can develop advanced industry, information systems, and starflight.

Frankly, there are very few convincing ways you could explain the Shivans without invoking artificiality. (Of course, all of these characteristics are the results of technical limitations within the games, but I guess we're assuming that we are advancing the story line by discussing ways to take advantage of these limitations.)

Ascraeus
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 18, 2002, 10:51:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by TDM/JM:
... You have a vastly technically and experientally superior species, and yet the Pilot takes out hundreds of them in the games. The AI has little initiative or creative intelligence, certainly not enough to convince the player that this is a bonafide species that has evolved in the face of natural selection.
You're confusing the poor programming for literary personification. There are no good combat AIs. Anywhere. The only way to have a good computer pilot is to ditch the artificial part and put in a human pilot. Wingman AI and enemy pilot AI is always inferior to human piloting.

 
Quote
They show no evident cultural artifacts beyond their ships, which envince a chaotic and formless aesthetic. Apparently they behave instinctually, which raises the question of how instinctual intelligence can develop advanced industry, information systems, and starflight.
To the contrary, Shivan ships are not 'chaotic and formless'. They are in fact, very distinctly designed. How else to explain the Sathanas and the Mara? Both of them are designs that are quite distinctly unnatural, but very structured and ordered. This is in direct contradiction of the 'chaotic and formless' arguement. Further, on what basis to you argue for Shivans "Apparently they behave instinctually"? I see no proof of instictual behavior. You give no supporting evidence for this conclusion, and then move on as if it were fait accompli.

 
Quote
Frankly, there are very few convincing ways you could explain the Shivans without invoking artificiality. (Of course, all of these characteristics are the results of technical limitations within the games, but I guess we're assuming that we are advancing the story line by discussing ways to take advantage of these limitations.)

Ascraeus

If you merely define Shivans by the inherent limitation of the media through which they are presented to us, then yes, they are absolutely artificial.  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/v.gif) are the hidden programmers and they have sent them to murder the GTVA for the sake of a story. Good bye central conflict, for the player can win, anytime, by killing all the Shivans with his might ON/OFF button.

I would rather assume that the media is imperfect and unable to represent the Shivans properly (as witnessed by the abhorrent combat AI that plagues all space combat games and sims). I'll take the scary, powerful, intelligent, naturally evolved and fully civilized Shivans over the pathetic, weak, unintelligent, constructed and badly simulated video game Shivans for which you argue.

------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Zeronet on January 18, 2002, 01:56:00 pm
Shivans ships are designed very orderly, they strike fear into the enemy and breed terror because 90% of beams on most ships are located at the front. I see no Chaos in a Mara, i see a refined design, one that maximise's fear and terror.


Also about nanobots, yet usually to achieve an effect there are millions of them. Nanobots can literally change substances by rearranging stuff  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif).
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: TDM/JM on January 18, 2002, 02:27:00 pm
I fear this has become one of those arguments where folks began to talk past each other. To whit:

"You're confusing the poor programming for literary personification."

No, I'm using literary personification to augment the aesthetic value of programming, poor or otherwise. That's one of the reasons why game creation is an art.

"To the contrary, Shivan ships are not 'chaotic and formless'. They are in fact, very distinctly designed. How else to explain the Sathanas and the Mara? Both of them are
designs that are quite distinctly unnatural, but very structured and ordered."

It's in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. There's no reason I can see why a Mara should look like a frightening beetle complete with (useless)legs, or a Sathanas like tarantula ready to strike. These earthly denizens would not exist in the Shivan milieu, nor would the Shivans recognize their shock value to humans (to say nothing of their irrelevance to Vasudan allies). Shivan vessels appear to be organic in character, "grown" and not mechanically engineered. As such, they appear quite "natural". Maras and Sathanas aside, they are one of the few artifacts that can give clues to Shivan character.

"I see no proof of instictual behavior. You give no supporting evidence for this conclusion, and then move on as if it were fait accompli."

I defer to the V-people, who have implied as such.

"I'll take the scary, powerful, intelligent, naturally evolved and fully civilized Shivans over the pathetic, weak, unintelligent, constructed and badly simulated          video game Shivans for which you argue."

Well, of course you've characterized my Shivans for me, in a way that best suits your argument. It's a tactic, not a conclusion. And it's really not relevant. Personally -- again, *personally* -- I think the idea of a mysterious element capable of constructing and manipulating biological species to function as "defense grids", without their knowledge, is a horrifying and fascinating concept. Conceiving the Shivans in the same way as the aliens were conceived in "Independence Day" -- destruction according to some "territorial imperative", be it resources or ritual preference -- lacks originality; frankly it's been done to death.

But again, it's an eye-of-the-beholder thing, and reason wouldn't necessarily apply here. Those who argue that the Shivans should remain mysterious do have a point.

A.

[This message has been edited by TDM/JM (edited 01-18-2002).]
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 18, 2002, 03:06:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by TDM/JM:
No, I'm using literary personification to augment the aesthetic value of programming, poor or otherwise. That's one of the reasons why game creation is an art.
No, you're explaining away a well known fact: Computers can't simulate living things with current technology. Wingman/enemy AI is inferior to the player's own organic reactions. This isn't part of the art of game design, its a limiting factor.

 
Quote

It's in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. There's no reason I can see why a Mara should look like a frightening beetle complete with (useless)legs, or a Sathanas like tarantula ready to strike. These earthly denizens would not exist in the Shivan milieu, nor would the Shivans recognize their shock value to humans (to say nothing of their irrelevance to Vasudan allies). Shivan vessels appear to be organic in character, "grown" and not mechanically engineered. As such, they appear quite "natural". Maras and Sathanas aside, they are one of the few artifacts that can give clues to Shivan character.
Shivan vessels, as already discussed in this thread, are not grown, and show no evidence of being so. They are in fact, on close inspection distinctly artificial. I refer you to the texture files for FS1 and FS2. Further, by assuming that there are no arthropoda in a natural Shivan environment, you set up a circular arguement. To whit, they are not natural, so they have no natural environment, so they don't have bugs, so their ship designs are artificial, so they must be artificial. I will counter with my own viewpoint: they are arboreal arthopods from a low gravity world. Such a world would have other arthropods, such as beetle- and spider-like organisms.

 
Quote

"I see no proof of instictual behavior. You give no supporting evidence for this conclusion, and then move on as if it were fait accompli."
I defer to the V-people, who have implied as such.
[/b]
You've got me there. I've not seen  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/v.gif) say anything for or against 'instinctual behavior' for the Shivans. As I don't see any
 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/v.gif) people weighing in, I'm going to have to stick with my own assesment. Shivan behavior is intelligent. It is too complex and planned to be 'instinctual.

 
Quote

Well, of course you've characterized my Shivans for me, in a way that best suits your argument. It's a tactic, not a conclusion. And it's really not relevant. Personally -- again, *personally* -- I think the idea of a mysterious element capable of constructing and manipulating biological species to function as "defense grids", without their knowledge, is a horrifying and fascinating concept.
Last I checked, dog breeding is not a "horrifying and fascinating concept". Its old hat. Humans have been doing this to dogs without their knowledge or permission for millenia.

 
Quote

Conceiving the Shivans in the same way as the aliens were conceived in "Independence Day" -- destruction according to some "territorial imperative", be it resources or ritual preference -- lacks originality; frankly it's been done to death.
Did I miss the scene in Independence Day where Will Smith sat down and asked the invading aliens about their motivations? Is that some DVD extra? I don't think the Shivans are interested in territory (they don't seem to conquer, only secure nodes, preventing transit), resources (again, they leave resources behind) and we don't know anything about them socially to even consider ritual. In short, I dont' see your link between the characterization of Shivans and the aliens in ID4. My take on Shivan motivation has a very simple parallel in modern medicine. When you cut out a tumor, you take some healthy tissue with it to insure that no unhealthy cells remain.

As for the question of originality: if its scifi, its been done to death. We've had five limbed aliens, we've had insect like ships, we've had unknown aliens interceding in an ongoing war between species, we've had ancient civilizations destroyed by an unknown enemy destined to come back... so where was the originality again? Every story, plot thread, twist, MacGuffin and red herring has already been used at least once somewhere. Let us not talk of originality, please.

Shivans can remain mysterious and deadly, but they don't have to be unbelieveable.


------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Rampage on January 18, 2002, 06:56:00 pm
I have another question:  Do Shivans breathe oxygen?

Answer #1:  Yes they do because some of their captured ships have the capability to house Terran and Vasudan pilots. (I.E.  The Dragon fighter captured in Freespace and you flying it some hours later.  The techies couldn't have installed a life-support system in several hours.)

Answer #2:  No they don't because they live in a zero-gravity atmosphere (a.k.a. space) and their is no known breathable gas in space. (I don't think they breathe hydrogen.)  And if they DO breathe, then they MUST have been created (or evolved) on a planet with gravity.  (Maybe their bodysuits had lifesupport.)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Zeronet on January 18, 2002, 07:08:00 pm
Who said they lived in space(outside the hull)?!
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 18, 2002, 10:15:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by Rampage:
I have another question:  Do Shivans breathe oxygen?

Answer #1:  Yes they do because some of their captured ships have the capability to house Terran and Vasudan pilots. (I.E.  The Dragon fighter captured in Freespace and you flying it some hours later.  The techies couldn't have installed a life-support system in several hours.)

Answer #2:  No they don't because they live in a zero-gravity atmosphere (a.k.a. space) and their is no known breathable gas in space. (I don't think they breathe hydrogen.)  And if they DO breathe, then they MUST have been created (or evolved) on a planet with gravity.  (Maybe their bodysuits had lifesupport.)

I'd say that they do breath, but they likely don't have lungs the way vertebrates do. They probably breathe through several spiracles spread across the body, like arthropoda of Earth.

I don't think that the Terran engineers did retrofit the life support systems in the missions where you fly Shivan fighters. I believe that the pilots were simply in space suits hooked up to a portable rebreather, much like a scuba system.

I don't know what gasses Shivans breathe, but its probably a fair mix (even terran air is largely nitrogen, not oxygen).


------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Setekh on January 19, 2002, 12:50:00 am
Yep, a spacesuit would have been much easier to do, rather than installing a fully-fledged life support system. I wonder what they did about the control surfaces, though... interfacing that with Terran technology so quickly? Must've been pretty darn smart. I bet they had previous knowledge from the GTI experiments.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Dark_4ce on January 19, 2002, 04:07:00 am
How about if the Shivan's would capture GTVA fighters and retrofit them for their needs? You know for Their "deep cover" operation. If indeed they have any. Actually. I doubt that they'd fit in them, but still, would'nt it be very useful to have a couple stashed away just in case?
 
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Sandwich on January 19, 2002, 06:38:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
I don't think the Shivans are interested in territory (they don't seem to conquer, only secure nodes, preventing transit)...

...Thus reinforcing the theory that they are interested in subspace territory. Which leavs us with the question: why?  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)

------------------
America, stand assured that Israel truly understands what you are going through.

Know how to use Rhino3D? Want to put your ships into Freespace 2? You've come to the right place ("http://www.geocities.com/sandvich/fs2/rhino_fs2/")!

"He who laughs last thinks slowest."
"Just becase you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
"To err is human; to really screw up you need a computer."
Creator of the Sandvich Bar ("http://www.geocities.com/sandvich/index.html"), the CapShip Turret Upgrade, the Complete FS2 Ship List and the System Backgrounds List (all available from the site)
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: Nico on January 19, 2002, 06:53:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by sandwich:
...Thus reinforcing the theory that they are interested in subspace territory. Which leavs us with the question: why?   (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)


nope, not even more: look at fs1 and fs2. Do they hold nodes? nope, they conquer them, then just leave them behind. Only sexeption is behind the nebula knossos, and nothing proves they will stay there anywhere. May just be a rendezvous point.

Anywway, this thread is realy going backward now, all this has already been discussed one or two pages ago.

Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: aldo_14 on January 22, 2002, 11:28:00 am
 
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael:
I'd say that they do breath, but they likely don't have lungs the way vertebrates do. They probably breathe through several spiracles spread across the body, like arthropoda of Earth.

I don't think that the Terran engineers did retrofit the life support systems in the missions where you fly Shivan fighters. I believe that the pilots were simply in space suits hooked up to a portable rebreather, much like a scuba system.

I don't know what gasses Shivans breathe, but its probably a fair mix (even terran air is largely nitrogen, not oxygen).



If I remember correctly, the Marines in the hallfight cutscene were wearing spacesuits / breathing apparatus.
Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: aldo_14 on January 22, 2002, 11:56:00 am
 
Quote

Did I miss the scene in Independence Day where Will Smith sat down and asked the invading aliens about their motivations? Is that some DVD extra? I don't think the Shivans are interested in territory (they don't seem to conquer, only secure nodes, preventing transit), resources (again, they leave resources behind) and we don't know anything about them socially to even consider ritual. In short, I dont' see your link between the characterization of Shivans and the aliens in ID4. My take on Shivan motivation has a very simple parallel in modern medicine. When you cut out a tumor, you take some healthy tissue with it to insure that no unhealthy cells remain.

Er, yeah actually.  There's a scene where the captured alien tries to use telepathy on the President,blah blah - revealing them to be a sort of race of intergalactic locusts....

Anyway, my theory on Shivans is pretty simple.  They're evil.  Simple, instinctual animals with a killing instinct, yet also intelligent enough to form plans and identify clear targets.  i think that's their purpose - to kill anything in their way.

Of course, that doesn;t mean they are the only things out there.  And it doesn't mean that they can't be scared, or that they can't run away.

Title: A First Person (T-Rated) Shooter for a FS3
Post by: mikhael on January 22, 2002, 12:47:00 pm
 
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14:
Er, yeah actually.  There's a scene where the captured alien tries to use telepathy on the President,blah blah - revealing them to be a sort of race of intergalactic locusts....

Anyway, my theory on Shivans is pretty simple.  They're evil.  Simple, instinctual animals with a killing instinct, yet also intelligent enough to form plans and identify clear targets.  i think that's their purpose - to kill anything in their way.

Of course, that doesn;t mean they are the only things out there.  And it doesn't mean that they can't be scared, or that they can't run away.

AHA! I recall that now, thank you. It doesn't  match with the my reasoning behind Shivan motivation (as TDM/JM was implying), so I don't see how its relevant.

About Terrans in space suits in the hall fight: Of course they were. They were in an alien environment. That's why I suggest that GTVA pilots flying Maras do so in full spacesuit, rather than swapping out the Mara's in built environmental hardware.


------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM

"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline