Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on February 22, 2014, 02:58:14 pm
-
Out of curiosity, why are you opposed to FreeSpace Open? Particularly if you're interested in user-made content? It seems like a completely positive-sum game for you - you gain a lot at zero cost.
-
Out of curiosity, why are you opposed to FreeSpace Open? Particularly if you're interested in user-made content? It seems like a completely positive-sum game for you - you gain a lot at zero cost.
I'm not so opposed to FS Open anymore. The only thing I would dislike would be the new ship models (specifically of the Cain/Lilith and Typhon) but I could get over that very quickly. I just don't own Freespace 2.
I was going to buy it to get FS Open but the I realized I could just get FS 1 for the same price. I didn't even need to do that because I was able to fix my original problem in my retail copy.
-
I'm not so opposed to FS Open anymore. The only thing I would dislike would be the new ship models (specifically of the Cain/Lilith and Typhon) but I could get over that very quickly. I just don't own Freespace 2.
I was going to buy it to get FS Open but the I realized I could just get FS 1 for the same price. I didn't even need to do that because I was able to fix my original problem in my retail copy.
How could you honestly dislike more detailed ship models? Isn't that why we play more and more advanced games so we can enjoy better graphics that our newer computers can handle? After playing FSPort (the FS1 port for FSOpen) I find the retail models laughable now in comparison. The amount of painstaking detail that someone lovingly crafted into the ship models is really awe-inspriring in most cases (the new Arcadia model is absolutely stunning).
Trust me when I tell you, that, even if you're a die-hard FS1 purist in the most sacred sense (it was a decade before I even played FS2 retail since I thought "how can you improve on the FS1 storyline?" - so I get where you're coming from) once you start experiencing the improvements of FSOpen (for both the FS1 and FS2 campaigns) and really become immersed in the graphical glory that the new models provide and the raw realism they seem to impart, you'll come to see the vision that this talented team had for improving an already stellar game in the only way they could - by taking a great story and making it even better by improving the look and feel of the game by leaps and bounds.
As Howard Cosell once said - "Truly an awesome spectacle". ;7
-
S/he might not like the artistic decisions the MVPs made. *shrug* Remember, the graphical upgrades are completely optional.
Not liking FreeSpace 2 leaps and bounds more than FreeSpace 1 is probably the more alien opinion to me, but that's a debate we've had at length. :nervous:
-
I suppose some like the completely unadulterated experience of the original game and I get that (nostalgia is what it is). But to say a flat, plain, blocky model is somehow nicer or more acceptable than a intricately crafted and detailed model is a bit odd.
As far as stories go - I might have to agree with the OP in the sense that I really feel that FS1's storyline was a bit more compelling that FS2's. Maybe due to the fact the that, to me, the Shivans were so different in the two stories. In FS1 the Shivans seemed to be a xenophobic race focused on one thing and one thing only - the eradication of all other subspace-capable races they encountered (Including our own). While in FS2 they seemed to lose their focus and had their own strange, mysterious agenda - and we just happened to be in their way at the time.
I liken the story comparison to:
FS1 being like Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope
FS2 being like Star Wars Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
Of course, that's just my opinion. YMMV.
-
*resists with all might*
-
I was gonna say...
-
FS1 being like Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope
FS2 being like Star Wars Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
BP: Episode VI: Return of the Earthers
-
*resists with all might*
I'm sure you've discussed this subject ad-nauseum with many others over the years and I assure you, I'm certainly not here to dredge up the whole "FS1 vs FS2 - which story is better" debate all over again. I simply offered my preference based on my personal experience - how each story affected me personally (and yes, not everyone will agree).
My point was - each story, when told, will be experienced by different people in different ways based on how each story touches both their intellect and emotions. Now, whether FS1 or FS2's story is better than another based on some literary criteria has a basis for fact (in that sense I would concede FS2 as the better literary work), but that doesn't negate the fact that, while FS2 wins on an intellectual level story-wise, what it lacked for me were the raw emotions of fear, survival and triumph that FS1 invoked in me. Thus, on an emotional level, I found FS1's story to be more compelling (expanding on what I meant in my previous post). And once again, that is simply my opinion - and certainly not meant to detract from how others experienced these games.
And regardless of how each of us personally experienced these games for the first time back in the day, I believe this truism remains (and I'm sure most would agree): FS1 and FS2 were both some of the finest space-sim stories ever told.
-
I think FreeSpace 1 works on the same level as Independence Day or D&D novels - entertaining in a shallow sense, but ultimately a monomyth banality valuable mostly as meat for the engine of FS2.
-
I think FreeSpace 1 works on the same level as Independence Day or D&D novels - entertaining in a shallow sense, but ultimately a monomyth banality valuable mostly as meat for the engine of FS2.
Wow - I take it you really don't care much for FS1, do you? :p
D&D novels, heh heh. I used to buy them for the half-naked female cover art.... ;7
-
Yeah, I read a ton of them, and they're part of the reason I don't think subjectivity is the only valuable metric of artistic worth: I loved them! But they're really, really, really bad, and going back to them I can see that now. I think FS1 is a story that gets less interesting the more you think and look at it, and FS2 is the opposite.
-
I suppose some like the completely unadulterated experience of the original game and I get that (nostalgia is what it is). But to say a flat, plain, blocky model is somehow nicer or more acceptable than a intricately crafted and detailed model is a bit odd.
As far as stories go - I might have to agree with the OP in the sense that I really feel that FS1's storyline was a bit more compelling that FS2's. Maybe due to the fact the that, to me, the Shivans were so different in the two stories. In FS1 the Shivans seemed to be a xenophobic race focused on one thing and one thing only - the eradication of all other subspace-capable races they encountered (Including our own). While in FS2 they seemed to lose their focus and had their own strange, mysterious agenda - and we just happened to be in their way at the time.
I liken the story comparison to:
FS1 being like Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope
FS2 being like Star Wars Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
Of course, that's just my opinion. YMMV.
where episode v is the one that's unquestionably the better film. you see, we're all in agreement on this!
-
Also I'd add that from a gameplay perspective it's very hard for me to prefer FS1, with its capships that do nothing but shoot ineffective blob turrets and soak up torpedoes and its often very shoddy mission design.
-
this thread's done son
-
Yeah, I read a ton of them, and they're part of the reason I don't think subjectivity is the only valuable metric of artistic worth: I loved them! But they're really, really, really bad, and going back to them I can see that now. I think FS1 is a story that gets less interesting the more you think and look at it, and FS2 is the opposite.
Agreed. There's more to a story than just how we see it - and the less value it tends to have the more we see it. We could, in fact, take any story and by employing a bit of critical thinking, take it apart piece by piece and find all of it's flaws and plot-holes (and in this case, game inconsistencies and bad mission design). But of what benefit is it now? We can't rewite either FS1 or FS2 without making them completely different games so they are what they are - warts and all.
Now think back to a simpler time, 15 or so years ago. Do you remember that very first time you played FS1 (and later FS2), before you knew what you now know about them? How did they make you feel? The rush you felt, the battle stress, the hyper-awareness? What I'm sure you weren't doing at the time was picking the story apart - you were just enjoying it.
Sadly, it seems, if all we have left after so many years of playing this game is picking it apart, where's the joy in playing it anymore? When all we can think while playing the game is "bad mission design", "poor weapons placement", "cheap model texturing", etc... where's the fun, the wonder, the thrill coming from? Is there any left?
Seems one of the truths of getting older is that no story is ever going to be as engaging as when you experienced it the first time. It's true in games, books, movies, love and life. And there are fewer and fewer "first times" we can enjoy as we get older. So as I get older, as far as the Freespace stories are concerned, I like to put a real effort into trying to recapture that thrill I got while playing these games for the first time, as many times as I can (with both FS1 and FS2).
So for me, I could care less about plot holes and mission design (good or bad), I just want to enjoy the game - and for that familiar fleeting second feel the exhilaration of firing that last shot into the belly of the Lucifer and watching the (upgraded) cut scene play as it breaks apart again, just outside of the moons orbit. Have I seen it happen a 1000 times now? Yes. But if this is what Luke Skywalker felt like watching the Death Star come apart (and how I felt watching him do it), well then that's a feeling a want to keep experiencing as often as possible by way of these stories (warts and all) for as long as I'm able.
Ok, so maybe I don't look at the Freespace story lines from an intellectual or critical point of view - but I'm still having fun with them and to me that is the point of the game.
Ok, now the thread is done. ;)
-
I'm not really concerned with plot holes - I think some logical gaps are generally a part of fiction, though I try to steer clear of them in my own - but the very first thing I noticed about FreeSpace 2 was that it had really high-quality sentence-level writing, and the first thing I noticed about FreeSpace 1 was that it didn't. FS1 is poorly written at a very basic craft level. Whatever else FS1 was going for, that torpedoed it for me.
It's great that you have fun with it, though, more power to you.
-
I'm not really concerned with plot holes - I think some logical gaps are generally a part of fiction, though I try to steer clear of them in my own - but the very first thing I noticed about FreeSpace 2 was that it had really high-quality sentence-level writing, and the first thing I noticed about FreeSpace 1 was that it didn't. FS1 is poorly written at a very basic craft level. Whatever else FS1 was going for, that torpedoed it for me.
Sure, FS2 has far superior "mission-speak" and voice acting - no contest there. But humor me for a moment. If you had never played FS2 - do you think it you'd feel differently about FS1? What would you have to compare it to? If FS2 was never made, FS1 would just be a story that encapsulates itself - and in a somewhat shallow sense, yes (much like, as you mentioned, Independence Day). No sequels, no history, just a single, simple triumphant story. Aliens come, aliens threaten, aliens attack and, with typical human adaptive ingenuity and a little luck, we persevere and stick it to the aliens (or insert other enemy here) and destroy them/send them packing.
Yes, it's the same old tired plot line used over and over again with different characters different enemies and different way of achieving the same outcome but the bottom line is - the story line works. Who doesn't want to be a part of humanity's overcoming annihilation by an evil/faceless invading army? It's great fun! And I believe when you played it the first time you really liked it - until FS2 came along and jaded you with Roger Loggia's gritty and gripping mission briefs. Game over FS1. ;)
Anyway, thanks to everyone here who have worked so hard over the years to keep breathing new life into this well-worn story line by at least keeping the imagined view fresh and inventive. I have the utmost respect for all you are able to accomplish.
And thanks, General Battuta, for having this civil and honest exchange with me - I appreciate your candor.
-
Cheers!
-
Wow, was not expecting a tech thread to derail in such an engaging way. And to those questioning my graphical tastes, it is a mix of nostalgia and canon. For example, the Cain/Lilith class cruisers in their upgraded forms look nothing like how they originally did. I just can't accept that, it irks me. The same goes with the Typhon and many of the freighters.
I admit, some ships did get a bad ass upgrade though.
-
Going back to the retail bit, I think running the Silent Threat installer reverts FS back to 1.04 for some odd reason, even if you've already patched it to 1.06. You'd need to apply the patch a second time in order to get things straightened out. (Ah, the pre-Steam joys of ridiculous patch dependencies...)
QFT. Reason being, ST requires 1.04+, and will patch the game to ensure it is compatible. Unfortunately, this downgrades you if you had anything newer than 1.04 Re-apply the 1.06 (and then 1.06EAX if you want it) patch(es) after ST to solve the problem.
-
Wow, was not expecting a tech thread to derail in such an engaging way. And to those questioning my graphical tastes, it is a mix of nostalgia and canon. For example, the Cain/Lilith class cruisers in their upgraded forms look nothing like how they originally did. I just can't accept that, it irks me. The same goes with the Typhon and many of the freighters.
I admit, some ships did get a bad ass upgrade though.
I suppose I could argue at length about those particular ships (they're actually among my favorite HTLs, and I think they really bring out what the ship would have looked like if [V] had had a bigger polygon budget), but that's your preference.
But I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about what FSOpen is. FSO is the new engine, with tons of awesome new features, but you don't need to use them. The MediaVPs are the shiny new ships and effects that take advantage of FSO's features, and this seems to be what you're objecting to. You absolutely do not need the MediaVPs to run FSO- one of the core design patterns of FSO is that it must run correctly with the original FS2 data.
-
But I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about what FSOpen is. FSO is the new engine, with tons of awesome new features, but you don't need to use them. The MediaVPs are the shiny new ships and effects that take advantage of FSO's features, and this seems to be what you're objecting to. You absolutely do not need the MediaVPs to run FSO- one of the core design patterns of FSO is that it must run correctly with the original FS2 data.
This is exactly what I was thinking of posting. I would also like to add that FSPort is almost exactly the same as original retail FS1. Only if you also use FSPort-Mediavps you get new, upgraded ships.
-
In addition, some of the ships that have received hi-poly reinterpretations have had multiple models created for them over the years, with only one particular set making it into the MediaVPs. If you ever find that you prefer one upgrade over another, it's a fairly-straightforward matter to set those models up as their own separate mod.
-
I haven't played the FS1 mediavps much (and I'm assuming many of you haven't either), but I don't have any problems with the design path the dev team of FSO chose to go with (in regards to FS2). I like the new models, the new graphics and everything. Makes the game much more epic than V could've hoped it to be.
However, as a side note, I do remember the plot of FS1 fairly well, and yes it was typical, but how else can an interstellar war play out? It's always the overwhelming bad guys, the inferior yet ingenious humans, insert clever ploy here, then victory.
In fact, most video games revolving around conflict follow, to some extent, that generalized example. Atleast in FS1's case, it had awesome gameplay and a gorgeous soundtrack to compliment what could be considered a stale storyline...
-
Well FS2 certainly didn't stick to the formula.
-
Well FS2 certainly didn't stick to the formula.
Mate, it's a very generalized formula. It doesn't have to be strictly followed.
Freespace 2 did adhere to the formula somewhat when referring to the Shivans. Big alien race reappears, not an immediate threat however, become an unstoppable immediate threat, clever use of jump node destruction by inferior humans and vasudans, victory.
Sure, there was the whole NTF fiasco, but as I said, the formula is generalized and doesn't have to be followed.
-
Wow, was not expecting a tech thread to derail in such an engaging way. And to those questioning my graphical tastes, it is a mix of nostalgia and canon. For example, the Cain/Lilith class cruisers in their upgraded forms look nothing like how they originally did. I just can't accept that, it irks me. The same goes with the Typhon and many of the freighters.
I admit, some ships did get a bad ass upgrade though.
I suppose I could argue at length about those particular ships (they're actually among my favorite HTLs, and I think they really bring out what the ship would have looked like if [V] had had a bigger polygon budget), but that's your preference.
But I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about what FSOpen is. FSO is the new engine, with tons of awesome new features, but you don't need to use them. The MediaVPs are the shiny new ships and effects that take advantage of FSO's features, and this seems to be what you're objecting to. You absolutely do not need the MediaVPs to run FSO- one of the core design patterns of FSO is that it must run correctly with the original FS2 data.
Oh I see. The only time I've seen FSO showcased was via a let's play on youtube. The LPer never specified what media-VPs he/she was running other than the upgraded cut scenes.
-
Wow, was not expecting a tech thread to derail in such an engaging way. And to those questioning my graphical tastes, it is a mix of nostalgia and canon. For example, the Cain/Lilith class cruisers in their upgraded forms look nothing like how they originally did. I just can't accept that, it irks me. The same goes with the Typhon and many of the freighters.
I admit, some ships did get a bad ass upgrade though.
I suppose I could argue at length about those particular ships (they're actually among my favorite HTLs, and I think they really bring out what the ship would have looked like if [V] had had a bigger polygon budget), but that's your preference.
But I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about what FSOpen is. FSO is the new engine, with tons of awesome new features, but you don't need to use them. The MediaVPs are the shiny new ships and effects that take advantage of FSO's features, and this seems to be what you're objecting to. You absolutely do not need the MediaVPs to run FSO- one of the core design patterns of FSO is that it must run correctly with the original FS2 data.
Oh I see. The only time I've seen FSO showcased was via a let's play on youtube. The LPer never specified what media-VPs he/she was running other than the upgraded cut scenes.
Wow, somehow I didn't finish what I was typing.
Anyway, the LPer never did specify what media-VPs they were running but it was clear that all the ships in the game were upgraded models either from FS 2 or some kind of community production here on HL.
-
oh for -- look if battuta's not going to link it i will, it's The Best Summary of why fs2 is different and better: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84744.msg1692461#msg1692461
-
I've always felt that FS1 had a (slightly) better storyline, but FS2 had (much) better storytelling. Between the squadron aspect, the SOC loops, & better mission design, the storyline feels more alive. Throw in small aspects like the training missions being computer sims vs. live training and issuing weapons when you are ready for them, not when they are all developed, you get a better platform for telling a story.
-
As per the post Phantom linked (which I'm quite proud of) I think FS1's storyline is a slightly overdone cheeseburger and FS2's is a genuine literary work. It's one of the only games I've ever played that I think tells an absolutely vital story, regardless of medium: a rebuke against the anthropocentric vanity that nests at the very heart of science fiction.
I'd ship FreeSpace 2 and Blindsight in some kind of weird omnibus.
-
Yep. Had Freespace 1 been the only "Freespace game", I wouldn't be here now.
-
FS1's story is the story that the player wanted to be told, more or less in a simple non-literary way - it appeals to and affirms the typical and deeply-ingrained notions, being anthropocentric we're-the-good-guys-and-we-win sort of way. Something we're comfortable with. Not that there's anything wrong with this - it's fun, it's a great game, but not an intellectually stimulating literary work.
FS2 on the other hand is much "deeper" and on top of that the story really is told in a better way. However, initially it doesn't sit quite as well since it kind of upsets what we (and by 'we' I mean the average human) want to believe. So we go 'it doesn't make sense' 'suddenly, supernova!' etc. until we look at it closer and think about it and all the pieces fall into place together. This depth isn't necessary for a great game but it sure is cool when it's there.
Mhm it's great (and now to think of it, I could probably draw parallels in this sense to BP, and why I initially liked AoA a lot more is probably something to do with how much simpler and easier to simply accept it is, much like how many people like FS1 for the same reasons...)
-
I kind of see your point there Droid, in FS1, we win! in FS2 we lose, in an epic fashion! But I find that is the greater story, it almost ends with a cliffhanger that we all want to see ended, yet don't because if we had a resolution, we wouldn't have all these fan made campaigns giving us their idea of how it would have ended/continued!
-
I would agree that, all things taken into account, FS2 is a greater literary work. FS1 does, however, have some things in its favor. Really, it comes down to what kind of story appeals to the reader. FS1 is simple, and, like AV8R mentioned, plays very strongly on emotions of fear, dread, heroism and triumph. FS2 is a darker, more complex story that raises the threat level of the Shivans... to the point where we ask, "In the long run, do we have any hope?" If the series had stopped at FS1, I think that we would never have seen so many fan campaigns, for the simple reason that FS1 satisfies itself, while FS2 leaves us hanging, wondering what will happen next. Truth to tell, very few campaigns actually answer the big question: "Is there hope?". Because an answer epic enough to meet the question seems impossible to deliver.
One reason Derelict is so fun is that it's halfway in between. Yes, the Shivans are back. Still mysterious, still unstoppable. Yet you still get the chance, at least for now, to win, to feel that victory, to see the Nyarlathotep explode. We might be ants to them, but we still bite. Is there hope? We don't know. But for now we can celebrate.
In fact, I would argue that one of the strengths of Blue Planet is that it plays on the strengths of both original games and improves them with top-notch writing. Age of Aquarius is a very FS1-like story but with much better writing: "We CAN win, there IS hope. The Shivans are powerful, but there IS a chance we can get past their threat, if we can meet the challenge." War in Heaven, especially Tenebra, proceeds to cast doubt on that conclusion: "Is there really hope?" The Vishnans, who seemed to be offering us a chance to prove ourselves worthy, begin to look much less friendly. This is part of the reason that, despite a few things that bugged me about BP, I'm a fan and I'm eager to see it finished. Because If AoA mirrors FS1, and WiH resembles FS2, the third Blue Planet just might replace the conclusion we lost when Volition went under.
-
I don't think AoA had a very FS1-like story at all IIRC. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but to me it seemed to ask whether we were worthy to stand alongside the gods, and then kind of definitively answered that (at least as we are now) we aren't even worthy to stand alongside each other. It's not about putting aside our differences to work towards a greater goal, it's about there being something fundamentally wrong with us, or at least incompatible with the way the universe works. All the stuff in WiH about shedding your identity along with your illusions is natural extrapolation from AoA IMO.
-
One of the things that's always struck me in these arguments is that people who make them forget that FS1 actually managed to be considerably darker at times than FS2 ever does.
In FS1 there is a point where nobody has a plan, where it's full panic mode WE ****ED NOW. It passes, but it is there.
That point is never reached in FS2. You always have hope. Somebody always has a plan that can save humanity. Some of these plans fail, but there are backups for them.
You never actually fall as low in FS2 to as you do in FS1. A similar discussion can be made about the ending and the very real possibility prior to Silent Threat that Earth was all that's left in a sea of Shivans.
-
FS1 never manages to be dark so much as comic. It's full of odd malapropisms that undermine the tangibility of the setting and prevent it from really evoking emotion.
-
Quick input here, FS3 is essentially a noodle incident now, I feel that anything, while extremely well made/done/voice acted/etc. won't really live up to what we're expecting.
Back to the topic at hand however, I never really got into FS1 like I did with FS2, I think it was the 2-D way the story felt to me, it was all fairly standard story telling, sure it may have been good but it's essentially a tale that's been told a thousand times, each one different but the same nonetheless. The comparison to Star Wars is completely valid, characters from across the galaxy came together to fight the big bad and triumphed (This gets muddled in books and comics but for the sake of things leave comparison at the movies). You can also compare it F:NV in a way, while technically there really is no big bad in the main questline (Exclude the DLC's) yet there is still the element of coming together through unity to fight off someone (even more so when fighting for the NCR or an independent New Vegas) however there, in F:NV, there was still the element of choice, choices that could affect where the story went, sometimes they may change the way certain events happen, for better or worse, in FS1 there was no element as such, it was just telling a story, sure taking out that shivan fighter a few missions into the game may have netted you a positive review from command yet that still doesn't change much, same with the vasudan ace from mission 2, they didn't affect the story outside of the Command briefings.
-
FS1's soundtrack has a distinct atmosphere though, a lot more B5'ish (and 80ish) than FS2 in a weird exotic way. It took the player to a different dark and cruel universe filled with mysteries and secrets in a way that FS2's didn't. I think that's the main drive for FS1's nostalgia.
In a way, they were still trying to understand the world they were creating and overall things are still quite heterogeneous in quality. FS2 is a lot more coherent, impressive, exciting, top-notch quality in all distinct areas of the game. And they didn't just make a "better FS than FS1", they actively seeked to subvert and undermine FS1 along with it. Both products and the path that took them from making the first to the second make me very respectful of their development team.
-
At the end of the day, FS2 is, in fact, a better game. Story, gameplay, VAs, writing, are all better. But FS1 has a certain appeal to it as well. The comparison between Star Wars episodes is really good, but I think A New Hope has a certain type of fun that The Empire Strike Back doesn't.
-
I just hope the parallels between BP and FS are false. For it would mean that BP3 would never be finished. :(
-
While I think FS2 is on the whole a considerably better game, FS1 was superior in a few ways. The most notable, IMHO, was that the Terran ships of the GW were much better looking than their Second Shivan Incursion-era counterparts. The inverse is true for the Vasudan ships.
There are exceptions, of course. The Deimos and Typhon are both sexy ships, particularly in comparison to almost everything else in their respective fleets.
-
I agree. The Orion especially seems a lot more well designed and cared than the Hecate.
-
General Battuta, I am sincerely sorry about all of this.
I never meant for this to occur.... again. :(
-
No, it's been a pretty good thread!
-
If you say so. Some good points were made, I suppose. I am surprised by the outpouring of FS1 support too. It shows that simplistic storylines can work - albeit in a limited way. I guess our wives are right - sometimes emotional content trumps intellectual logic. Don't tell her I said that.... ;)
-
FS1 never manages to be dark so much as comic. It's full of odd malapropisms that undermine the tangibility of the setting and prevent it from really evoking emotion.
I'm...really failing to grasp what's comic about the mission where you're escorting Vasudan refugees away from the destruction of their homeworld, and your wingmen are pointing out that it doesn't matter, because there's no place safe to take them if the Lucifer can't be stopped and nobody has a way to stop the Lucifer.
Every time the plan failed in FS2, by contrast, we are immediately introduced to the next one. The whole concept of "we can't win" is never even touched on or explored in FS2; it may be deconstructive on a micro scale, but on a macro one, as I said, there's always another plan and another hope. There's never despair the way FS1 at least made an attempt.
-
I thought the arrival of the 2nd Sathanas was the moment where "we can't win, we can only survive" started to be explored?
-
I thought the arrival of the 2nd Sathanas was the moment where "we can't win, we can only survive" started to be explored?
I dunno, locking the Shivans in with their supernova sounds kinda winning to me. So does the mere fact of survival, which as I pointed out FS1 made a point to have a period where even that wasn't a possibility.
-
FS1 never manages to be dark so much as comic. It's full of odd malapropisms that undermine the tangibility of the setting and prevent it from really evoking emotion.
I'm...really failing to grasp what's comic about the mission where you're escorting Vasudan refugees away from the destruction of their homeworld, and your wingmen are pointing out that it doesn't matter, because there's no place safe to take them if the Lucifer can't be stopped and nobody has a way to stop the Lucifer.
Every time the plan failed in FS2, by contrast, we are immediately introduced to the next one. The whole concept of "we can't win" is never even touched on or explored in FS2; it may be deconstructive on a micro scale, but on a macro one, as I said, there's always another plan and another hope. There's never despair the way FS1 at least made an attempt.
Huh. I finished FS2 with the very, very clear message that we couldn't win. We could only run. And then it was just a matter of time before we were faced with the Shivans again. Once the second Sath enters the game, it is a feeling of pure dispair. That is amplified by the contrast of a recent success in destroying what we thought was the ultimate threat, only to find out that we weren't even close. To top it off, we then watch the Colly get dusted. It's also very clear that some Shivan's escaped the super nova, have access to other Knossos devices, and are still present and possibly even abundant in the nebula.... hardly a win.
-
Sounds as much "winning" as managing to escape a fight you first thought you could win hands down and now are desperate to run away as fast as possible from. And after "winning" you slowly realise that even your escape was just possible because you were ignored / let escape.
That's even worse than defeat in some ways.
-
hardly a win.
You're going to live. I dunno man, that's terrible, right? We should all die. (Come on, does nobody actually read?)
In FS2 there is always a plan that meets some definition of "win condition" and a way to get there. The win condition might change, but in the end there's always one that's recognizable and thwarts the Shivan's objectives (any discussion that they didn't want to kill us can be safely ignored since they continued to kill us even after all we were doing was running away).
In FS1 there is a period after the destruction of Vasuda Prime where there's no plan and no win condition; you're all dead. It's just taking time to show.
-
I dunno, FS1's cliche-ness kinda spoils that no matter what, you'll find a way to stop the unstoppable supership just in the nick of time. I would have been impressed if the Lucifer actually managed to glass Earth before going kaboom, but it gets isolated instead.
EDIT - to elaborate: I agree with you that from an ingame perspective, there is point where the Alliance and the Empire don't have any option to actually stop the Shivans.
However, at the end of the game, the unbeatable is now beatable. Humanity (and Vasudanity) is triumphant. Silent Threat further cements that by showing that the Shivans outside Sol gets beaten as well.
At the end of FS2, the beatable is now unbeatable. The Alliance is in full retreat, wondering why the Shivans didn't steamroll them before making Capella go kaboom. You are left wondering what the heck happened, with the very real possibility that the Shivans might just repair the nodes and finish the job.
EDIT 2 - If not for Silent Threat, the situation at the end of FS1 would be pretty bad too, since there is the very real possibility of the Shivans repairing the node and roll in another Lucy, and Humanity would have nowhere to run.
-
I think where the Ancients were done in is (possibly) they were so large they tried to use their insane numbers / existing tech to beat the Shivans. Then, after being worn down, the Lucy comes in and cleans their clock, and they only realize how to defeat that after it's too late (they don't have the advanced missile / bomb tech to take down the Lucy, if they even had any ships that they could scrape together to mount an offensive).
Terrans / Vasudans, however, immediately started advancing their tech and cloning Shivan tech. Thus, when they found the weakness in the Lucy, they could defeat it. This brings up the point of my post: Terrans / Vasudans probably could defeat another Lucy in short order. Track it through subspace, clobber it there. The Colossus could probably have one-shotted a Lucy in subspace, who knows. Even with the tech available shortly after the start of the Shivan incursion, if we had know to attack the Lucy in subspace, it would have slowly been worn down and destroyed after a few systems.
Come to think of it, the tech buildup for the Terran-Vasudan War probably saved both races...
/end opinion
-
I think Xeno makes a good point. In addition to FS1's aforementioned tragicomedy (the script is just too full of bloopers at the prose level to really work), it's always working on familiar territory. There's always a plan because we all know what's going to happen next.
-
Yeah, in FS1 the situation isn't 'hopeless' at all on a metanarrative level, because we've been here in countless other action movies and we know that there will be some kind of last-minute solution which may exact some dramatically-significant price in its execution but will still save the day. Whereas in FS2 both the player's and the GTVA's control of the situation is completely broken when SJ Sathanas 02 jumps out of that node and is continually worn down from that point forward, culminating in the ultimate indignity of the supernova: not only are we incapable of beating the Shivans once more, our last-ditch contingency to blockade them from our systems can't even confound them because they were never here for that in the first place.
-
I'd say that, all things taken into account, FS1 and FS2 complement eachother in much the same way that A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back, or AoA and WiH, complement eachother. They have very different tones, and as a result appeal to different parts of the emotions. Neither make much sense without the other. Ultimately, FS2 takes the prize (the only FS1 blooper that particularly bothered me was when Wolf brought up my recon of the Lucifer too early... but yes, it had a lot of goofups now that i read of them, mainly with the nodes)
-
hardly a win.
You're going to live. I dunno man, that's terrible, right? We should all die. (Come on, does nobody actually read?)
In FS2 there is always a plan that meets some definition of "win condition" and a way to get there. The win condition might change, but in the end there's always one that's recognizable and thwarts the Shivan's objectives (any discussion that they didn't want to kill us can be safely ignored since they continued to kill us even after all we were doing was running away).
In FS1 there is a period after the destruction of Vasuda Prime where there's no plan and no win condition; you're all dead. It's just taking time to show.
I agree with the FS1 point, but I still disagree with your evaluation of win, which is essentially, "Hey, we delayed being wiped out!" Just because the Shivans were killing us as we left Capella, it doesn't signify that was their only goal. If it was, it would have been far more effective for them to simply invade our systems with the 80 Saths before we could close the nodes, which they had time to do. So if it was their only goal, they certainly didn't wish to dedicate the appropriate (and abundant) resources to it.
Even if you disregard that, a portion of the Shivan armada clearly left Capella before it exploded and is far from defeated. Again, its clear we didn't defeat the Shivans. The only clear truth is that we are not dead, which isn't exactly defeat, but it is hardly a happy note.
Are you saying FS2 ended with hope for success? Was the something about fleeing for our lives through the Capella node that said "We're nailing this!"?
-
Yep, what NGTM is missing is that the definition of 'win condition' in FS2 undergoes a sickening downwards spiral, from "eradicate the Shivans in their own space" eventually to "get as many civilians as we can out of one of our core systems before we blow the nodes" and finally "just... hope the Shivans don't come back and that we can maybe get back to Earth".
-
I think the last moment of FS2 is a brilliant formal touch because it even removes the one universal minimal win condition of forced fail missions past.
-
Heya all.
Here is another angle:
After You finished FS1, how did You feel about it?.
I felt along the lines of: Cool game, I kind off knew its going to end up well. Bummer about homeworlds, but if they make another one, we will prolly get back to Earth.
If they don't make FS2, its ok, I will live.
And how did You felt after FS2?
I was , and after 15 years still em ( got FS2 in December 1999) dying to get the answers to so many questions. Game was finished, we survived, but WTF.
I can't f****ng wait for next one. ( They killed FS, You basterds :p).
Did any other game made You feel even remotely same way?
My answer is FS2 , all da way, hands down, no contest, superior to FS1 just for that.
My favorite game of all times btw.
-
Overall, I think FS2 had a better story than FS1. However, FS1 is getting more flak than it deserves IMO. While FS1's story was standard, it did do a few things right. Collapsing the jump node to Sol was a good move for setting up a sequel and for developing the story. The Shivans were executed properly; they came off as being terrifying. And it did give a sense of dread even if it followed a predictable plot setup. I'd love to see a "re-imaging" of the entire FS saga. Iron out some of the inconsistencies.
I'd start by retconning beam weapons and letting the Shivans have them from the start. There hasn't been any convincing argument for the first Shivan fleet to not have them.
-
I'd start by retconning beam weapons and letting the Shivans have them from the start. There hasn't been any convincing argument for the first Shivan fleet to not have them.
Totipotent threat response capability prioritized, yo
-
I think the issue is more of that in FS2, everyone acts as if the Shivans always had beam weapons and all. No surprise, no concern, nothing. I mean, if beams were newly encountered would they still be so confident in "showing them what firepower is all about"? Because nothing in the FS2 texts implies that the Shivans have actually been observed to advance in technology between the FS1 and FS2 - the game seems to treat things (to me at least), as if that's how the Shivans always were like - flak, beams, etc. It's not explicitly stated by it's what the presentation seems to heavily imply.
In a complete aside, what exactly was this thread split from? :confused:
-
I'd change a load of things:
Would take place post year 10'000;
Would start before the Terran-Vasudan War;
Would talk about the spread of man among the stars;
Would then jump to focus on the miracle and burden of first contact with aliens;
Would have heavy "political drama" regarding the decadent and byzantine Vasudan Parliament and the events leading to the War;
Would go into more detail regarding the pre-Great War Shivan contacts GTI had;
Would then do a remake of the Great War. Casualties, realistically, would be in the billions. All those Civilian evac missions would be filled with panic transmissions when Shivan show up.
Lastly, I'd figure out how the heck do you do something like this subtly.
And loads of other changes. To the point I begin to wonder why I don't just make a story of my own and leave FS as is.
Also, the beam thing would be resolved by
-
In a complete aside, what exactly was this thread split from? :confused:
IIRC it was a support thread for FS1
-
I think the issue is more of that in FS2, everyone acts as if the Shivans always had beam weapons and all. No surprise, no concern, nothing. I mean, if beams were newly encountered would they still be so confident in "showing them what firepower is all about"? Because nothing in the FS2 texts implies that the Shivans have actually been observed to advance in technology between the FS1 and FS2 - the game seems to treat things (to me at least), as if that's how the Shivans always were like - flak, beams, etc. It's not explicitly stated by it's what the presentation seems to heavily imply.
In a complete aside, what exactly was this thread split from? :confused:
The Lucifer did have beams; they were implemented differently due to engine limitations, but the Lucifer's main weapons were always beam weapons.
-
And that would be enough for nobody to question the sudden appearance of beams on everything else right down to the lowly Cain cruiser? (and flak guns? and AAA beams, which just appeared out of nowhere/developed at the same time (!) as the GTVA?)
-
That's the kind of thing best left out from the rational analysis and be dismissed as "rule of cool" thingy.
-
NEVER~
-
And that would be enough for nobody to question the sudden appearance of beams on everything else right down to the lowly Cain cruiser? (and flak guns? and AAA beams, which just appeared out of nowhere/developed at the same time (!) as the GTVA?)
I've accepted this as an intentional oversight for game play. Command does mention new fighters and cruisers specifically in a briefing, just not their weapons.
There really is no logical/believable explanation for the Shivans developing flak and AA beams suddenly, yet V had to do something to add to the gameplay, so they sorta lumped it in with fighters traveling through space at the speed of cars... Just ignore it, cuz it's fun.
-
There are logical and believable reasons. They just require some infrastructure.
-
Shivans had "beams" in FS1. Just on the Lucifer though.
I do think it a little bit weird that after 32 years of no contact the two species would have THIS much in common in their technology development.
I mean maybe what should have happened is a mission where the Terrans capture a Shivan warship after taking hits from flak guns and AAA guns and then reverse engineer em up into their own ships. Could have made a few missions of it.
I always looked at the Shivans as way more technologically advanced than the Terrans (They blow up stars for win!) but I could be wrong of course.
Overall I would have to say that FS2 has the better story. My experience with FS1 was awesome of course, but the voice acting, writing, and plot just aren't as refined as they are in FS2.
When I finished FS2 I could have cried just because it was over.
-
There are logical and believable reasons. They just require some infrastructure.
Which, unless I missed something, we aren't really provided with.
-
Which is where mods with extensively developed Shivan backstories come in!
-
Which is where mods with extensively developed Shivan backstories come in!
Machaka!
-
There are many differences between the two fleets:
1. No beams(except for Lucifer) or flak guns on Lucifer fleet.
2. New ships in the Sathanas fleet.
3. Old ships in the Lucifer fleet not used in the Sathanas fleet (Scorpions, a few bombers (I think), and the Lucifer of course).
4. Apparent size of the fleet.
5. Apparent goal of the fleet (destroying civilizations vs. destroying stars).
6. Entry point into T/V space.
So there seems to be enough evidence to say that the two fleets were isolated from each other for some reason. Maybe the Lucifer fleet was trapped in this region of space (which still extended far beyond T/V space). The only way to reconnect with the other Shivans was to activate the Knossos, which they didn't know how (or maybe didn't care) to do. So the Sathanas fleet could have had access to some R&D while the Lucifer fleet didn't. The Lucifer could have been a prototype sun crusher, but then the Shivans developed the Sathanas which was better at crushing suns. To put beams back on FS1 Shivan capital ships would completely ruin the balance of power in individual missions and overall. I mean, good luck getting through Clash of the Titans with a beamed Tantalus.
-
There's evidence that suggests that the fleets were separate from each other, but little that makes much sense for the technological gap between the two Shivan fleets.
The Shivans have apparently been around for milleniums. For the technology gap between the two fleet to be ~20-40 GTVA years (based on how long it took the GTVA to develop beams/flaks) suggests an incredible alignment of technological progression. This Lucifer fleet which has been around long enough to destroy the Ancients and probably other civilizations before it was apparently splintered off from the main (FS2) Shivan fleet just before beams/flaks became standard. The Shivans being stagnant in technology and new Shivan tech is simply stuff we haven't seen makes it all the more believable as it would otherwise imply that the Shivans have a really weird technological progression rate, one that matches the GTVA to an incredible extent at some time frame seemingly without contact. It makes more sense if take the notion that A) there's some other entity that's giving the Terran and Vasudans a fighting chance or B) :v: didn't have the resources to implement beams and flak at the time of FS1, implying that they should have been there the entire time. The latter seems much more likely to be believable.
On this note though, I'd be curious to play some campaigns that attempt to rectify these discrepancies. Any suggestions?
-
This Lucifer fleet which has been around long enough to destroy the Ancients and probably other civilizations before it was apparently splintered off from the main (FS2) Shivan fleet just before beams/flaks became standard. The Shivans being stagnant in technology and new Shivan tech is simply stuff we haven't seen makes it all the more believable as it would otherwise imply that the Shivans have a really weird technological progression rate......
But that's what I'm saying (I think). Sometime around the destruction of the Ancients, the Lucifer fleet became separated from the Sathanas fleet. Maybe the Ancients let the Shivans in via the Knossos and then later deactivated it, but it was too late. The Sathanas fleet had access to some R&D the Lucifer fleet didn't. The Sathanas fleet created new ships and retired old ones. They could have improved on the prototype beam cannons that were on the Lucifer and made it so a ship didn't have to have five reactors to mount them. Maybe they improved on the Lucifer and created the Sathanas. A lot of this is speculation of course, but it fits what we have without adding beams to FS1.
-
The Shivans have apparently been around for milleniums. For the technology gap between the two fleet to be ~20-40 GTVA years (based on
On this note though, I'd be curious to play some campaigns that attempt to rectify these discrepancies. Any suggestions?
Blue Planet goes into detail on it. Ancient-Shivan War touches on the matter. Derelict at least brings it up.
One theory I find interesting: The Shivans deliberately avoid using technology that's too far superior to their opponents... because they don't want their opponents copying the technology. Just over the course of the first war, the Terrans and Vasudans stole the shield tech and used Shivan technology to improve their own weapons designs. GTI, with even more access to Shivan material, was able to build their own knock-off of the Lucifer. Over several years they even figured out how to build their own beams (something I'm sure the Shivans didn't want to happen.) Perhaps Shivan fleets deliberately limit themselves to technology that's only slightly better than the species they're attacking (compensating with their sheer numbers). A Sathanas isn't that much better than a Colossus, but 80+ of them is a curbstomp.
-
One theory I find interesting: The Shivans deliberately avoid using technology that's too far superior to their opponents... because they don't want their opponents copying the technology. Just over the course of the first war, the Terrans and Vasudans stole the shield tech and used Shivan technology to improve their own weapons designs. GTI, with even more access to Shivan material, was able to build their own knock-off of the Lucifer. Over several years they even figured out how to build their own beams (something I'm sure the Shivans didn't want to happen.) Perhaps Shivan fleets deliberately limit themselves to technology that's only slightly better than the species they're attacking (compensating with their sheer numbers). A Sathanas isn't that much better than a Colossus, but 80+ of them is a curbstomp.
I don't agree...
I would expect that if you went to fight a war, you would use the most recent tech you could get your hands on.
If the Shivans had better tech than those insanely OP beams the Sathanas had during the second incursion, they should have and would have used it because the Terrans would have been obliterated, there would have been no time to mount a defense line and blow up the node, as the Terran quick response defense set up by the Aquitaine would have melted away.
I don't think that the Shivans would hold back tech just so we don't copy them.
-
Have you played the most recent release of Blue Planet? Because it proposes a very interesting explanation of why the Shivans might avoid deploying their most potent weapons at all times.
-
But that's what I'm saying (I think). Sometime around the destruction of the Ancients, the Lucifer fleet became separated from the Sathanas fleet. Maybe the Ancients let the Shivans in via the Knossos and then later deactivated it, but it was too late. The Sathanas fleet had access to some R&D the Lucifer fleet didn't. The Sathanas fleet created new ships and retired old ones. They could have improved on the prototype beam cannons that were on the Lucifer and made it so a ship didn't have to have five reactors to mount them. Maybe they improved on the Lucifer and created the Sathanas. A lot of this is speculation of course, but it fits what we have without adding beams to FS1.
But that's the thing. By that logic, the Shivans were using something like kinetic projectiles against the Ancient. And isn't it odd at all that the Shivans would have the same path of technological development despite having no contact? The Shivans have been around for much longer time than the 20 or so years between the two Shivan fleets. Why didn't they develop all those technologies in the other vast spans of time they had?
Have you played the most recent release of Blue Planet? Because it proposes a very interesting explanation of why the Shivans might avoid deploying their most potent weapons at all times.
I've played through AoA, but I'm waiting for voice acting on WiH.
-
I'll avoid explaining it for spoiler reasons, then.
-
The Shivans have been around for much longer time than the 20 or so years between the two Shivan fleets. Why didn't they develop all those technologies in the other vast spans of time they had?
I am saying that. In the ~8000 years between the Ancient/Shivan War and the Second Shivan Incursion, the Sathanas fleet had time to develop new stuff, like non-Lucifer beams, flaks, new ships, etc. However, since I am postulating that the Lucifer fleet was cut off around the time of the A/S War, they didn't have access to that new technology. The Lucifer fleet might have developed new stuff (like the Lucifer's shields), but at a much slower pace because of fleet size, little/no "research ships", infrastructure, etc.
Also, we have no idea how old the Shivans really are. For all we know, the Shivans were unleashed/evolved/whatever just before their contact with the Ancients. The Shivans could be on their second or third "cycle" of destruction instead of their 100th. They could have taken the reigns of "Great Destroyers" from another species, the first they destroyed. If this is true, that would explain how the Shivans haven't already developed everything yet. Or they could just be less intelligent then us in R&D and destroy their enemies with pure numbers (unlikely).
-
Here's a weird one worth thinking about.
Given the speed with which the GTVA developed shields and weapons based on the Shivans, maybe the same thing the other way round happened with the Shivans. We don't know exactly how long the NTF were in the nebula before the Trinity was discovered there or if the Trinity was the ship that went through on the initial sortie through the gate. So for all we know, the Shivans could have captured an NTF ship and retro-engineered flak and capship beam weapons. Hell, the capture of an NTF ship might have been what convinced Bosch that he needed ETAK.
Hell, it might be what convinced him that he needed the NTF in the first place (giving the Shivans 18 months to retrofit their fleet).
-
We don't know exactly how long the NTF were in the nebula before the Trinity was discovered there or if the Trinity was the ship that went through on the initial sortie through the gate.
Actually, we do. In "Mystery of the Trinity", command says that the Trinity defected to the NTF less than a week before (I forget the number but it was very low). And we know later on in the campaign that the Trinity was the one to activate and enter the Knossos. So unless the Shivans can retrofit their entire fleet in a week, this seems unlikely.
-
Unless of course the Trinity reactivated the portal. :p
I'm not saying this is the likely explanation, but consider this. We assume Bosch probably knew about the portal and what it was for before the NTF revolution. It would seem pretty stupid to kick off the revolution so that he could ally with the Shivans if he had no way to find them. So suppose Bosch finds the portal powered down but in such a way it can easily be activated. Ships are sent through but the gate closes and this time it locks, leaving whatever ship he sent through stuck on the other side.
Why would it lock? Well off the top of my head, suppose the ancients decided that they might want to send a ship through to see if the Shivans were gone, they might set the gate to work from their side but lock if something came through the other way. Bosch's forces, finish their reccy and try to go through only to find they've now locked the gate on both sides. Bosch has no choice but to try to find the ancient artifacts in Deneb that will unlock the gate again.
Like I said, weird theory worth considering rather than what I think actually happened. :D
-
Ironically all I can ever think of when contemplating the plot of FS2 is some american military. "WE'RE TEH GREATEST, WE'RE TEH BIGGEST, WE'RE TEH WIN, OUR COUNTRY IS GOD-BLESSED - HOLY **** WHAT JUST HAPPEN?"
That's pretty much the entire game.
FS2 really really irks me on a game play level too, and, while admittedly, it's a fredding problem 99% of the time, in FS1 if you were good enough to break the mission, with the exception of the plot explained lucifer you could kill anything, given enough time.
FS2 you can break the mission by being too good, kill everything except the big ships which you can disable, disarm, make blind, deaf, and dumb, but will sit there like a boulder - except even the boulders blow up when you shoot them, doesn't matter hot many tones of explosive you put into it - it'll stay there unless you happen to have something with a "magic massive damage tag." Just retarded.
-
it's almost like it makes no sense to be able to destroy a warship the size of a small island with small arms! personally i think it's great that fs2 values harmony between gameplay and narrative more than satisfying your power fantasies
-
I would definitely not use the word "retarded" there to describe that situation.
-
it's almost like it makes no sense to be able to destroy a warship the size of a small island with small arms! personally i think it's great that fs2 values harmony between gameplay and narrative more than satisfying your power fantasies
Right, but you fail to mention your small arms fire is nuclear-tipped... ;) It would still take a while to down the island, and I wouldn't expect you to be able to super-crit the island's reactors, except 0.01% chance hit or failure in failsafe reactor shutdown system.
-
I would definitely not use the word "retarded" there to describe that situation.
Or any situation really. Just as a general friendly request, can we maybe try to avoid using that term pejoratively?
-
I am with you and will back you up in any argument on the topic.
-
Specially when you can use fantastic words like moronic & its poecilonyms.