[CP5670]

The SP campaign is set up to tell the storyline and the MP missions aren't? That is a rather strange perspective. As I've said before, FS2 is a game above all else, so the purpose of the campaign is to provide a fun gameplay experience, just like the multiplayer missions. The story and anything else is secondary to that. You can't say that some things were done to improve gameplay and can be disregarded for story purposes.

It's interesting that you bring up Alpha 1's supremacy, since that's probably the best example of story realism being ditched in favor of gameplay. Volition isn't doing anything differently in MP when they balance things for multiple players. If the SP campaign was really set up to tell the story over everything else as you claim, they would have just put the player in observer mode at all times and let the AIs fight it out in every mission.

There is no reason that the player couldn't in theory fight a Hecate during the campaign. It's certainly compatible with the story.

I would say that the canonicity of the MP missions is more than "worthy of consideration." It should be a foregone conclusion, as far as this goes.

[Goober5000]

From a logistical standpoint, the NTF fought a war they couldn't win.

I beg to differ.  They were on the verge of winning before the Colossus showed up.

[NGTM-1R]

Yes, but that's not logistical, is it now? It would have been a political victory; the GTVA would have folded not because they lacked the means to continue, but the will. If the GTVA had the political will to prosecute the war as long as necessary they would have eventually ground the NTF down to nothing.

[Sarafan]

Yes, but that's not logistical, is it now? It would have been a political victory; the GTVA would have folded not because they lacked the means to continue, but the will. If the GTVA had the political will to prosecute the war as long as necessary they would have eventually ground the NTF down to nothing.

That's exactly what the NTF wanted, an acknologement of its political dominance of its three sistems, there even a line that admiral Petrarch says that unless they do something the GTVA would be forced to admit the NTF as a political body.

[aldo_14]

The SP campaign is set up to tell the storyline and the MP missions aren't? That is a rather strange perspective. As I've said before, FS2 is a game above all else, so the purpose of the campaign is to provide a fun gameplay experience, just like the multiplayer missions. The story and anything else is secondary to that. You can't say that some things were done to improve gameplay and can be disregarded for story purposes.

How many people bought FS2 and didn't play multiplayer? 

You'll note I didn't say, I said it was possible.  Look at, say, Halo co-op; does that mean there were 2 Master Chiefs?  Of course not.

It's interesting that you bring up Alpha 1's supremacy, since that's probably the best example of story realism being ditched in favor of gameplay. Volition isn't doing anything differently in MP when they balance things for multiple players. If the SP campaign was really set up to tell the story over everything else as you claim, they would have just put the player in observer mode at all times and let the AIs fight it out in every mission.

I'd say it's as much an example of technical limitations in writing AI.  Now you're being silly, anways.  If the single player game isn't setup to tell the story, why not just have a bundle of standalone missions?

There is no reason that the player couldn't in theory fight a Hecate during the campaign. It's certainly compatible with the story.

I would say that the canonicity of the MP missions is more than "worthy of consideration." It should be a foregone conclusion, as far as this goes.

Well, I believe you've just made an assumption there in that 'it's certainly compatible with the story'.   And I believe Goober already pointed out an inconsistency with regards to a Deimos 'launching' fighters.  Or, for example, even the Templar contains an inconsistency, referring to 'Scarab stealth prototypes', when the Scarab is already the name of an escape pod class.

I believe it's worthy, again, of an examination as to whether compromises may have been made to balance multiplayer gameplay.  Is that really that unreasonable?

[CP5670]

How many people bought FS2 and didn't play multiplayer?

There are also plenty of people who bought FS2 and never looked in the tech room intel section. Does that mean that the material there is questionable?

You'll note I didn't say, I said it was possible.  Look at, say, Halo co-op; does that mean there were 2 Master Chiefs?  Of course not.

Okay, but in the FS2 context, there is certainly nothing wrong with having multiple player-controlled ships or anything else the MP co-op missions bring to the table.

I'd say it's as much an example of technical limitations in writing AI.  Now you're being silly, anways.  If the single player game isn't setup to tell the story, why not just have a bundle of standalone missions?

I think you're the one being silly by making nebulous statements about the campaign being a story and the MP missions not being so. The point I'm making is that you can't just say that things were added in for gameplay balance and are therefore not canon, because that is also often the case with the campaign missions. Just about any canon material could be disputed if we started thinking along lines like that.

Well, I believe you've just made an assumption there in that 'it's certainly compatible with the story'.   And I believe Goober already pointed out an inconsistency with regards to a Deimos 'launching' fighters.  Or, for example, even the Templar contains an inconsistency, referring to 'Scarab stealth prototypes', when the Scarab is already the name of an escape pod class.

I mean, there is no obvious reason why it shouldn't be (it could work in theory, like I said). Anyway my assumption is better than what you were suggesting, that Volition may have put it into a multiplayer mission for no other reason than that it wouldn't fit in any singleplayer one.

Regarding the name inconsistency, it's no different from the GVFr Nephthys in the final mission conflicting with the GVS Nephthys class. That doesn't mean we should disregard the entire FS2 campaign as non-canon. As for the Deimos launching fighters, could you refresh my memory on where that occurs? I can't seem to remember it. Although I'm not sure that it's any worse than the tech room explicitly saying that the Mentu has anti-capital beams when it clearly does not.

The fact is that there are minor contradictions in all of the Volition material. That is no reason to discount everything they are contained in.

I believe it's worthy, again, of an examination as to whether compromises may have been made to balance multiplayer gameplay.  Is that really that unreasonable?

Yes, I do think that is unreasonable if you're restricting your analysis to multiplayer missions only. If you're including the campaign missions and any other Volition material, then there is nothing wrong with that.

[Goober5000]

How many people bought FS2 and didn't play multiplayer?

There are also plenty of people who bought FS2 and never looked in the tech room intel section. Does that mean that the material there is questionable?

IMHO yes.  For me, the order of canon priority is the single-player campaign, then the tech room, then the multiplayer missions.  This is why I tend to ignore the "only 24 of these cruisers" comment about the Aeolus; from the way it's treated in the single-player campaign, it's clear that Volition meant for the Aeolus to be the next-generation cruiser.  Whoever wrote the tech entry merely made a mistake based on an incomplete grasp of its tactical capabilities.

I think you're the one being silly by making nebulous statements about the campaign being a story and the MP missions not being so. The point I'm making is that you can't just say that things were added in for gameplay balance and are therefore not canon, because that is also often the case with the campaign missions. Just about any canon material could be disputed if we started thinking along lines like that.

I don't think this is an unreasonable position.  Consider that probably had a team of story designers sit down and hash out the plot for the main campaign.  They had to outline the campaign's plot, and then they had to coordinate with the people who designed the models, wrote the code (e.g. nebula, supernova), rendered the cutscenes and cbanis, FREDded the missions, wrote scripts for the voice actors, and so on.  A lot of thought went into the single-player campaign.  In contrast, the multiplayer missions were probably just the result of the lead mission designer telling his minions, "Okay, just make a bunch of cool missions where you get to blow a lot of stuff up."

I don't mean to say that none of the material outside of the single-player campaign should be considered canon.  I just think that certain parts of the game should be ranked more strongly than others.  We already ignore much of the inconsistencies in the FS2 intro cutscene, even though it's canon as well.

[CP5670]

IMHO yes.  For me, the order of canon priority is the single-player campaign, then the tech room, then the multiplayer missions.  This is why I tend to ignore the "only 24 of these cruisers" comment about the Aeolus; from the way it's treated in the single-player campaign, it's clear that Volition meant for the Aeolus to be the next-generation cruiser.  Whoever wrote the tech entry merely made a mistake based on an incomplete grasp of its tactical capabilities.

I also find that number a little dodgy (in my campaign I added in some crap about a new, cheaper Aeolus revision being introduced, so I could use more than two new ones in my own missions), but it's hardly because people don't look in the tech room, as aldo was suggesting with the MP missions. I mean, if people don't want to play the MP missions, that's their problem.

I don't think this is an unreasonable position.  Consider that probably had a team of story designers sit down and hash out the plot for the main campaign.  They had to outline the campaign's plot, and then they had to coordinate with the people who designed the models, wrote the code (e.g. nebula, supernova), rendered the cutscenes and cbanis, FREDded the missions, wrote scripts for the voice actors, and so on.  A lot of thought went into the single-player campaign.  In contrast, the multiplayer missions were probably just the result of the lead mission designer telling his minions, "Okay, just make a bunch of cool missions where you get to blow a lot of stuff up."

But there isn't any evidence at all to suggest this. On the contrary, I would argue that several of the co-op missions are of the same level of quality as the SP campaign missions, indicating that there was probably just as much thought put into them.

I don't mean to say that none of the material outside of the single-player campaign should be considered canon.  I just think that certain parts of the game should be ranked more strongly than others.  We already ignore much of the inconsistencies in the FS2 intro cutscene, even though it's canon as well.

I agree there - this makes perfect sense to me - but remember that you can also extend this reasoning to different aspects of the SP campaign. The 6000 crew of the Sobek, for example, can be considered less canonical in this sense than, say, the destruction of the Colossus.

[Goober5000]

But there isn't any evidence at all to suggest this. On the contrary, I would argue that several of the co-op missions are of the same level of quality as the SP campaign missions, indicating that there was probably just as much thought put into them.

*smacks CP*

Because they were FREDded by the same mission designers who worked on the main campaign, that's why.

Don't confuse quality with canonicity.  They're professionally-made missions, just like the ones in the main campaign.  However it's quite likely that the multiplayer missions did not have the same thought and effort put into their back stories.  Conversely, the mission designers had a lot more freedom to fudge the plots behind the multiplayer missions.

I don't mean to say that none of the material outside of the single-player campaign should be considered canon.  I just think that certain parts of the game should be ranked more strongly than others.  We already ignore much of the inconsistencies in the FS2 intro cutscene, even though it's canon as well.

I agree there - this makes perfect sense to me - but remember that you can also extend this reasoning to different aspects of the SP campaign. The 6000 crew of the Sobek, for example, can be considered less canonical in this sense than, say, the destruction of the Colossus.

And I agree with that too.

[CP5670]

*smacks CP*

Because they were FREDded by the same mission designers who worked on the main campaign, that's why.

Don't confuse quality with canonicity.  They're professionally-made missions, just like the ones in the main campaign.  However it's quite likely that the multiplayer missions did not have the same thought and effort put into their back stories.  Conversely, the mission designers had a lot more freedom to fudge the plots behind the multiplayer missions.

Again, why is it "quite likely?"  You guys keep repeating this without backing it up. What characteristics are unique to the MP missions that make this likely in your view?

And I agree with that too.

Ah, then there is nothing left to argue about.

[TrashMan]

You are encouraged during SP to look int the techroom several times. So the Tech Room IS part of the SP wether you like it or not..and it too has some OBVIOUS mistakes (like the Mentu's missing beam cannon) and some possible  ones (Aeolus numbers).

Is it so hard to acknowledge taht if mistakes can be found in the tech room, then it is possible that a few of them might allso found their way into single-player...maby in a unimportant debrief...maby in a mission text..

I know I recall seeng wrong head ani's on 2 ocasions in the SP..so mistakes can obviously happen. Yet some outright dismiss even the POSSIBILITY of a mistake.

Is the Sobek crew number wrong? Maby..maby not.. but it surely is a strange number.

Is the Maxim range a fluke? Maby..probably not, but it really doesn't make logical sense in the FS universe.

I choose to treat things that contradict (or are illogical in) the game universe as not thrustworthy.

[aldo_14]

You say it's a strange number, but you can't justify that without using your own assumptions.

[Nuclear1]

You are encouraged during SP to look int the techroom several times.

Hardly. The TechRoom is mentioned twice throughout the whole campaign; by Loukakis when introducing the Subach, Tempest, and Rockeye, and again by Petrarch when introducing the Rakshasa and Mara.

And yes, the TechRoom is known for having errors in it. It did that in FS1 as well. Most of the errors are reasonably minor or insignificant (84 turrets vs 63 on the Collie, for example), though it's probably more acceptable to go off whatever the player sees in action during the campaign or is told in briefings than what is said in the TechRoom.

Yet some outright dismiss even the POSSIBILITY of a mistake.

We're not denying that mistakes happen. We've seen the intro, Collie cutscene, the GTA Monitor, a Mentu preceeded by GTC (King's Gambit CB), etc. etc. They're all minor things though. I would assume that got the significant things right, since the Maxim, Mentu, and Collie remained the same after two patches.

[TrashMan]

You say it's a strange number, but you can't justify that without using your own assumptions.

No, I can justify it...when looking  the bigger picture with all ship classes, the internal volume, weaponry/fighters and crew numbers don't add up.

[aldo_14]

You say it's a strange number, but you can't justify that without using your own assumptions.

No, I can justify it...when looking  the bigger picture with all ship classes, the internal volume, weaponry/fighters and crew numbers don't add up.

You've just defined it for yourself there, assuming - ooh - all the crew 'counts' for fighters, weaponry, and the internal structure.  That's what I meant by 'without using your own assumptions'; the arguement you make against it is based entirely on what you think, not anything said or shown in the game.

[NGTM-1R]

That's exactly what the NTF wanted, an acknologement of its political dominance of its three sistems, there even a line that admiral Petrarch says that unless they do something the GTVA would be forced to admit the NTF as a political body.

That's also completely beside my point. The NTF was doomed from the word go, logistically and hence militarily. Their only hope lay in a lack of intestinal fortitude among the GTVA General Assembly.

[Sarafan]

No, what I said was that the NTF was aiming for a political victory like you said. How they can be doomed logistically? They have shipyards to replenish their material losses and enough forces to defend their 3 main systems very effectively, in the hands of a capable admiral like Bosch, they would be able to achieve victory. The only problem that I see is that if they spread their forces or supply lines too thin, then they're dead. Of course, I'm saying this not counting the Colossus because the flying brick already assures victory for the GTVA.

[aldo_14]

The NTF was created to raid Vasudan systems where there were Ancients relics, so the inevitable consequence would be that they'd be overstretched and operating in hostile territory.  Of course, you could play hypotheticals about a simply rebellious NTF, but in that case how many of the top level people would have defected to them?  (it seems to me pretty likely the command staff knew Bosch' plan, for example, and I'm sure they'd be quite high level and thus take a few important ships with them).

[NGTM-1R]

No, what I said was that the NTF was aiming for a political victory like you said. How they can be doomed logistically? They have shipyards to replenish their material losses and enough forces to defend their 3 main systems very effectively, in the hands of a capable admiral like Bosch, they would be able to achieve victory.

Because, quite simply, they have three systems. The GTVA has 20-odd systems, with all that goes with that: greater industrial capacity, greater population, greater resources of all kinds, as well as a significantly larger fleet composed of ships of a more recent vintage. The proof the NTF can't win is in the disappearance of newer ships from their ranks. They could neither repair nor replace them; they fell back upon older craft, of which they have greater stockpiles and so can keep going longer, but they lack the ability to sustain them indefinitely.

[aldo_14]

Although, do we actually know if the NTF even had 'new' ships (beyond the obvious Deimos)?