Actually, no. I don't even own a TV, there's nothing but garbage on there. Thank you both, however, for completely dismissing it out of hand rather than looking into it.
I take it you've never watched Total Drama.
I've read a lot of stuff about it. It's an interesting hypothesis, but the evidence available can neither prove or disprove it. The evidence is primarily circumstantial. Shakespeare's plays contain a wider vocabularly than that used by 3 average people of the era, does that prove anything? no.
Look, I appreciate that you don't like what I've said, but it's no reason to get hostile and insult me multiple times.
This is not the place for such a conversation. It has nothing to do with doffs or Cryptic making copypasta with other the characters of other franchises. If you wish to have a civil discussion about the authorship of Shakespeare, email me in-game at @metallurgist and I'll give you my outside email address so we can have a back and forth about it. I'd suggest entirely in-game but you can't copy-paste emails in-game for the purpose of citation. Since the venue wouldn't be as limited as here (as in limiting on the patience of others).
I'll be more than happy to elaborate more on my grievances with the traditional narrative, rather than "cherry pick" as you called it. I wasn't cherry picking, I was trying to cram as much in as short a post as possible because this isn't the proper place for such a discussion.
I do have a prepared rebuttal for the majority of your above points. Though frankly you lost me at the whip cream thing.
Just watched part of an episode on YouTube. Maybe it's just the fact that I've been up for 18 hours, but I didn't find it amusing. Actually, when I've been up this long, I usually find everything amusing. So... yeah... Sorry... The animation is sloppy and lazy as heck, the story seems uninspired, the voice acting grates on my ears. It's like the characters aren't talking with eachother, but rather at eachother. As if they're reading lines over a telephone for recording so there's no real interaction between the actors. That's probably exactly what happened even, it's a sad trend in modern animation. It's one of the reasons I can't watch TV anymore.
Agreed, in that this thread is going way off topic. Please keep the original topic in mind as you debate the usefulness of analogies as examples.
On the topic of crossovers...
In my opinion, a crossover event happens when a character from one universe or fictional series enters another, distinct universe or fictional series as themselves.
The non-canon novel where Star Trek TNG actually interacted with members of the X-Men is a true crossover. (And a dumb idea, in my opinion). But if a TNG episode had featured a telepathic or disabled character with the name of Charles Xavier, who was clearly NOT the actual representation of Professor X, that's only a pop-culture reference.
Can we all agree there is a difference there? (Probably not, but it's worth a shot... )
If the game does not specifically state, directly or indirectly, that Martha Smith is the same Martha Smith that was a companion to Doctor Who, then it isn't a true crossover. Perhaps a blatant pop-culture reference to Doctor Who, but not necessarily the same fictional character. Since I'm not familiar with the character and do not possess the DOFF, I'll have to take everybody else's word for it whether it's a real crossover or not.
Whereas, Professor Moriarty was, in fact, the same fictional character who appeared in TNG as himself (albeit as a holodeck program). Is that a crossover, or a pop-culture reference? You could argue convincingly in either direction, if you're inclined to argue about it.
Pop-culture references are meant to amuse, nothing more. They aren't supposed to be taken seriously, except perhaps as tribute or parody.
In a franchise that admits quite frankly to the existence of alternate timelines and universes, I don't really see why this is a controversy even if it is a crossover.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Agreed, in that this thread is going way off topic. Please keep the original topic in mind as you debate the usefulness of analogies as examples.
On the topic of crossovers...
In my opinion, a crossover event happens when a character from one universe or fictional series enters another, distinct universe or fictional series as themselves.
The non-canon novel where Star Trek TNG actually interacted with members of the X-Men is a true crossover. (And a dumb idea, in my opinion). But if a TNG episode had featured a telepathic or disabled character with the name of Charles Xavier, who was clearly NOT the actual representation of Professor X, that's only a pop-culture reference.
Can we all agree there is a difference there? (Probably not, but it's worth a shot... )
If the game does not specifically state, directly or indirectly, that Martha Smith is the same Martha Smith that was a companion to Doctor Who, then it isn't a true crossover. Perhaps a blatant pop-culture reference to Doctor Who, but not necessarily the same fictional character. Since I'm not familiar with the character and do not possess the DOFF, I'll have to take everybody else's word for it whether it's a real crossover or not.
Whereas, Professor Moriarty was, in fact, the same fictional character who appeared in TNG as himself (albeit as a holodeck program). Is that a crossover, or a pop-culture reference? You could argue convincingly in either direction, if you're inclined to argue about it.
Pop-culture references are meant to amuse, nothing more. They aren't supposed to be taken seriously, except perhaps as tribute or parody.
In a franchise that admits quite frankly to the existence of alternate timelines and universes, I don't really see why this is a controversy even if it is a crossover.
Hmm.... that's a good point. I'd go with reference. Why? Moriarty isn't "real". Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is real. His creations are fictional works brought to life by the Holodeck.
Whether it be subtle or blatant, pop culture references from within a pop culture phenomenon are neither new nor out of place. I certainly don't think that our Star Trek is too high brow to include the efforts. I groan at the blatant ones and celebrate the subtle ones. Now that I know about Martha Jones Smith, my side hurt just a little as I groaned out loud. But I don't object to it having been done.
(/\) Exploring Star Trek Online Since July 2008 (/\)
Hmm.... that's a good point. I'd go with reference. Why? Moriarty isn't "real". Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is real. His creations are fictional works brought to life by the Holodeck.
I think a better example of a true crossover is Ambassador Spock and JJ-Trek.
It's obviously the same individual in both the Prime and JJ-Verse, which are also obviously two different universes. That loosely fits the definition I presented.
Other than that, though, I can't think of any other true crossover events in any Trek series. (Excepting possibly the Kzinti and TAS)
After reading Memory Alpha's article on pop-culture references, I don't think anyone can argue that Star Trek wasn't full of them. Even blatant about it. So I'm not sure we should really be roasting the Devs over the same kind of stuff that appears in canon episodes. Anybody's entitled to be disappointed with them, of course.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
After thinking about other TV series and novels that featured crossover events, I think I might need to revise my definition a little.
A crossover event implies that there is a real connection between the two fictional settings, that characters from one can plausibly exist in the other. The connection might be one-way (like time travel or alternate universe) or two-way, but it's there.
And I'll leave it at that.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
It's curious to me that no one has engaged the central thrust of what I said: that the commonality is not Star Trek or anything else but contemporary MMO design trends that favor pop-culture references in lieu of good originality.
After reading Memory Alpha's article on pop-culture references, I don't think anyone can argue that Star Trek wasn't full of them. Even blatant about it. So I'm not sure we should really be roasting the Devs over the same kind of stuff that appears in canon episodes. Anybody's entitled to be disappointed with them, of course.
Most of Star Trek TV was great and original in its own right, the pop references were so subtle they were unnoticeable to any but cult viewers, and Memory Alpha is one of the most overzealous Wikis in overstating any and every case that I've ever seen (e.g., article about the "Dominion Cold War").
None of that applies to STO. Certainly not the former.
If the game does not specifically state, directly or indirectly, that Martha Smith is the same Martha Smith that was a companion to Doctor Who, then it isn't a true crossover.
The indirect statement was there. If it was intended, that's what it was. There can't be any dispute that this character was that same one.
To argue otherwise is disingenuous, and to try to break facts down past their smallest elements is dissembling.
Whereas, Professor Moriarty was, in fact, the same fictional character who appeared in TNG as himself (albeit as a holodeck program). Is that a crossover, or a pop-culture reference? You could argue convincingly in either direction, if you're inclined to argue about it.
There is no argument. It's neither. He didn't enter the Star Trek world seamlessly. They KNOW who he is. He is to the protagonists what he is to us, a 'fictional man' given life.
Pop-culture references are meant to amuse, nothing more. They aren't supposed to be taken seriously, except perhaps as tribute or parody.
The fault in your reasoning is that such is the purpose of the game itself.
Rather, then, the question is what is the best means to that end? Crass crossovers or original content? Hence my whipped cream and chocolate sundae analogy.
In a franchise that admits quite frankly to the existence of alternate timelines and universes, I don't really see why this is a controversy even if it is a crossover.
When you say "I don't see why" what are you really saying?
Do you mean that you don't think it should be a controversy, or do you mean that you literally don't understand the reasons why it is?
If it's the former, then too bad, don't presume to tell people what to approve or disapprove of. It IS a controversy - one can engage that reality or walk away.
If it's the latter, then I find that difficult to accept at face value as the reasons have been adequately explained in the thread.
In my opinion, a crossover event happens when a character from one universe or fictional series enters another, distinct universe or fictional series as themselves...
A crossover event implies that there is a real connection between the two fictional settings, that characters from one can plausibly exist in the other. The connection might be one-way (like time travel or alternate universe) or two-way, but it's there.
This I would agree with. And the acid test is the highlighted portion. A re-creation, or a 'borrow', is not 'existence'. The doffs are clearly on the latter side of that fence.
Let me again summarize the issue, such as it is. Crossovers and pop culture references which might be okay in and of themselves are a nefarious force in MMOs because they have become a shill for good originality and well-developed lore. And apologias instead of communication have undermined the relevance of design to community.
I'm pleased someone agrees with my statements defining what a crossover really is.
So pleased that I don't even feel like arguing about anything else.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Surely if you've said your piece and someone was willing to buy a slice of it, then you owe it to others to do the same, no - examine and engage their arguments in good faith until you internalize them and take or reject what you will?
Isn't it the essence of bias to be willing to convince others but be unwilling to be convinced yourself? What does that demonstrate about the purpose, or intent, of what you say?
It's curious to me that no one has engaged the central thrust of what I said: that the commonality is not Star Trek or anything else but contemporary MMO design trends that favor pop-culture references in lieu of good originality.
That's because we don't disagree this isn't original; we just further don't agree that everything has to be. There are basically three kinds of people:
1) Those who don't care whether there are pop-culture references in doffs. I suspect these make up the vast majority.
2) Those who think the pop-culture references are fun.
3) You.
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
That's because we don't disagree this isn't original; we just further don't agree that everything has to be. There are basically three kinds of people:
1) Those who don't care whether there are pop-culture references in doffs. I suspect these make up the vast majority.
2) Those who think the pop-culture references are fun.
3) You.
Maybe I should be flattered that you think I am special.
Perhaps you're right on the first point. It doesn't matter. Majority opinions about the past seldom lead to creativity in the future. The point made, about the originality deficit in STO and other MMOs, the over-reliance on crossover, and the silly apologias and dissembling used to justify this, is valid. The alternative would be a bit more originality and direct communication.
Don't make this personal (even bizarre). Stick to the topic.
Surely if you've said your piece and someone was willing to buy a slice of it, then you owe it to others to do the same, no - examine and engage their arguments in good faith until you internalize them and take or reject what you will?
Isn't it the essence of bias to be willing to convince others but be unwilling to be convinced yourself? What does that demonstrate about the purpose, or intent, of what you say?
Sure, I do think that I should give others an opportunity to make themselves heard, and to think about what they've said.
As to whether I accept or reject their arguments, well, nothing says I have to make that decision public.
Personally, it doesn't particularly bother me whether MMO's use pop-culture references or "easter eggs", whether they do it clumsily or with style, and what category this particular use falls in. I think it's very subjective, and that everybody is entitled to hold their own opinion. I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer here.
As to certain other points, it seems that alternate universes and timelines and some kind of travel between them are an accepted trope within Star Trek. Since I'm not aware that the writers of Trek have established any real limits on what that means, one could argue that any alternate universe is possible. Is it? I don't have an answer for that.
If it is a possibility, I could conjecture that someone from the Who-verse could indeed travel to the STO-verse and that would be a true crossover event. I could also theorize that a character in one could very well have an analog in the other; also an established factor in Star Trek canon. Neither possibility really "breaks" Trek, though it might be distasteful in the eyes of some fans.
Does this reflect a lack of creativity? No, not as an isolated fact, I don't think it does. In my view, it rather implies that someone was creative enough to find an excuse to slip in an appropriate cultural reference in a humorous way. And I realize perfectly that the acceptability of the reference is completely subjective and that others may have a different view.
Are you arguing that STO lacks creativity because it relies too much on such outside references? Well, okay, I can accept that's how you feel about it and I don't feel the need to argue you out of that.
The only point I am wanting to make is that I don't feel including these temporal DOFFs as in-jokes is all that inappropriate based on the fact that similar things have been done before and that Star Trek does not inherently exclude the possibility. It's not worth arguing about for me, so I choose not to argue about it. I'm suggesting that maybe it's not worth anybody arguing about.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Personally, it doesn't particularly bother me whether MMO's use pop-culture references or "easter eggs", whether they do it clumsily or with style, and what category this particular use falls in. I think it's very subjective, and that everybody is entitled to hold their own opinion. I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer here.
If MMOs aren't really original then what's the point of trotting out new stuff? Selling lockboxes?
As to certain other points, it seems that alternate universes and timelines and some kind of travel between them are an accepted trope within Star Trek. Since I'm not aware that the writers of Trek have established any real limits on what that means, one could argue that any alternate universe is possible. Is it? I don't have an answer for that.
If it is a possibility, I could conjecture that someone from the Who-verse could indeed travel to the STO-verse and that would be a true crossover event. I could also theorize that a character in one could very well have an analog in the other; also an established factor in Star Trek canon. Neither possibility really "breaks" Trek, though it might be distasteful in the eyes of some fans.
Please don't be obtuse. AUs exist within the universe of the lore. Other franchises do not.
Are you arguing that STO lacks creativity because it relies too much on such outside references? Well, okay, I can accept that's how you feel about it and I don't feel the need to argue you out of that.
No, I am arguing the opposite. STO, like many MMOs, relies on outside references because it lacks creativity.
Excessive internal references (such as going back to the Dominion War, or Tribble episodes, or resurrecting obscure characters like Taris) are an aspect of this. Fine as the exception, not fine as the rule.
Does this reflect a lack of creativity? No, not as an isolated fact, I don't think it does. In my view, it rather implies that someone was creative enough to find an excuse to slip in an appropriate cultural reference in a humorous way. And I realize perfectly that the acceptability of the reference is completely subjective and that others may have a different view...
...I am wanting to make is that I don't feel including these temporal DOFFs as in-jokes is all that inappropriate based on the fact that similar things have been done before and that Star Trek does not inherently exclude the possibility. It's not worth arguing about for me, so I choose not to argue about it. I'm suggesting that maybe it's not worth anybody arguing about.
That sounds reasonable - but it isn't.
We arrive back at square one, the hard counter to all that you have said: it's not isolated, it's not unique to STO, and it's certainly not "required" of an online sci-fi game.
The fact is that the topic is worth arguing about for the reasons I have stated: crossovers and references, to the exclusion of originality, are a viciously destructive trend that robs the gaming community of more and better and original content, memorable in its own right.
A closely linked problem is the manner of community engagement in modern MMOs (dissembling and disingenuity). This serves to short-circuit creativity by overselling bad dishes rather than improving them through criticism. Finally, there is the problem of dev teams in different MMOs running a herd mentality straight off the cliff. Bad trends should be recognized and bucked.
Whipped cream is not the problem. The absence of good fudge and an honest sell is.
A scene so incredibly brief that it barely registers, not helped by the fact that it can't really be made out at all without the aid of the pause and zoom buttons respectively.
doesnt make it any less "there"
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
DISCLAIMER: If any of my opinions or what I say hurt/offend you. TOUGH. Either deal with it or go cry like the whiny keyboard warrior you probably are.
I'm not certain I really grok bluegeek's definition of a crossover. If it means th at the episode with moriarty is a crossover, I'm going to have to disagree. Moriarty was spawned on the Holodeck as a fictional character. Obviously everybody on the show is fictional, but even to the characters on the show he was as fictional to them as they are to us. It isn't a crossover, it's incorporating a piece of actual historical literature. The episode was merely illustrating that "yes, indeed, the events you see here take place within your universe." Obviously not literally, but it adds a nice touch to the show when you can feel like it might really happen.
A crossover implies that the characters involved in franchise X make a direct appearance in franchise Y.
DOffs aren't NPCs. They have no lines, no character beyond a flavor text line at best, and have no impact beyond whether or not you crit succeed or crit fumble.
I submit that these are not characters, merely cards with effects. As such, they do not qualify as crossovers, as n two universes have actually collided in any appreciable way. They are only references, no more world-breaking than the Millennium Falcon, the various actors who portrayed The Doctor showing up in a geneology record, a parrot with Gene Rodenberry's face appearing in a colonist manifest, the Nausicaan's race name being a direct reference to a Miyazaki film, or the Akira-class being named after the anime film Akira.
I would further submit that this game is in fact a "theme park" rather than a serious plot-driven story. As a theme park, cohesion isn't of paramount importance so much as including as much content as allowed from the series of origin. With this in mind, the supposition that the game is supposed to be taken seriously falls flat.
That anyone could argue that the game is supposed to be taken seriously with a straight face to start with is simply beyond me, seeing as in this game you can take on Borg Cubes in droves with an NX-class while your entire crew (except your Orion slave girls) are dressed in suits and formal dresses in a bridge the size of a school gym. Frankly as long as we don't start getting Cyberman BOffs or start coming across groups of Nietzscheans in exploration cluster missions, the Trek of this game will remain relatively intact. A few pop-culture in-jokes in a series rife with them to start with is simply status quo for both Trek and MMOs.
I'm not certain I really grok bluegeek's definition of a crossover. If it means th at the episode with moriarty is a crossover, I'm going to have to disagree. Moriarty was spawned on the Holodeck as a fictional character. Obviously everybody on the show is fictional, but even to the characters on the show he was as fictional to them as they are to us. It isn't a crossover, it's incorporating a piece of actual historical literature. The episode was merely illustrating that "yes, indeed, the events you see here take place within your universe." Obviously not literally, but it adds a nice touch to the show when you can feel like it might really happen.
No, I agree Moriarty was a bad example.
Restating my definition of what a crossover really is:
"A crossover event happens when a character from one universe or fictional series enters another, distinct universe or fictional series as themselves. A crossover event implies that there is a real connection between the two fictional settings, that characters from one can plausibly exist in the other."
Based on this definition, the only real crossover event in a Star Trek episode or movie would be Ambassador Spock and the Nerada, crossing over into the JJ-Trek timeline.
I'm tempted to say that the connection must be plausible in both directions.
In other words, it has occurred to me that it's not enough that a Doctor Who character could exist in a Star Trek universe, it must also be true that the Doctor Who series could permit an alternate Star Trek universe to somehow exist or that it can somehow otherwise coexist with the Star Trek timeline.
Otherwise, from the viewpoint of that series the crossover event never could have happened and it's not really a true crossover.
This goes beyond the ability to simply ignore that the crossover event happened (Marvel and DC are good at this), but an impossibility according to the stated "canon" of that series.
Now, I am not a DW fan. I couldn't say whether or not a Star Trek timeline could possibly exist in that series' framework. But I'm reasonably confident that the DOFF wasn't greenlighted by anyone attached to "Doctor Who". So I think it's safe to conclude that it isn't a "crossover" or intended to be one. It's just another pop-culture reference, and nobody's meant to take it any more seriously than a Federation starship named the "U.S.S. Elmer Fudd".
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
That's because we don't disagree this isn't original; we just further don't agree that everything has to be. There are basically three kinds of people:
1) Those who don't care whether there are pop-culture references in doffs. I suspect these make up the vast majority.
2) Those who think the pop-culture references are fun.
3) You.
4) Those who like them but think more subtle is funnier and more clever.
Based on this definition, the only real crossover event in a Star Trek episode or movie would be Ambassador Spock and the Nerada, crossing over into the JJ-Trek timeline.
I'm not certain I agree. JJ-Trek is still Trek. Its timeline was directly created by events within the prime timeline in which the game we all play is supposed to be set. That's not really a crossover, it's more just prime timeline cause and effect, temporal bulls*t. It's not more a crossover than anything Mirror Universe. The point at which Mirror Universe went wrong was back in ancient human history. But the point where it REALLY went wrong was with Cochrane pumping the Vulcan ambassadors that landed during First Contact full of buckshot.
However, I can name some crossovers. Though they're considered highly non-canon, and most of them have made me bang my head into my desk on more than one occasion.
While these crossovers have most certainly happened, the difference is that they were a collaboration between the two companies. Martha Jones Smith is ultimately a trademark violation and BBC can get a bit litigious about that lately. They recently sued a Scottish police department over the use of the blue police box, I'm not even joking. As long as it can be demonstrated that confusion is possible (can someone conceivably confuse any part of Martha Jones Smith for Martha Smith-Jones? I certainly think so) then it's a trademark violation.
Mind you, I don't think BBC will get litigious over it, but if they catch wind they just might send a nasty letter.
It just strikes me as odd that they'd change the Kzinti to being blue and change their name to Ferasan, but when the have no compunctions about directly ripping off Doctor Who. Granted, it's not like the DOFF is as prominent as the Fersasans are, but still.
That's because we don't disagree this isn't original; we just further don't agree that everything has to be. There are basically three kinds of people:
1) Those who don't care whether there are pop-culture references in doffs. I suspect these make up the vast majority.
2) Those who think the pop-culture references are fun.
3) You.
Yeah.
Creativity is over rated in MMOs. What happens if you make a BRAND NEW story? People complain about it not being related in any way to canon. Probably not Aestu, but someone.
To me, this is the bottom line: What would they have put in if they hadn't put in Martha? There's several possibilities. Let's examine them!
1: Another Time Agent, such as TI Agent Koro. These bore me. They have no more character than regular doffs. They have a cool name and might be useful, but they bore me all the same. Also, it's LESS creative than using Martha. It's just a bunch of random stats on a random chump.
2: someone like Parell. The Parell in DS9 is a random minor character who barely has a name. Also she came from a timeline that shouldn't exist any longer.
3: a different out of universe character, such as Jane Zombie
It's really rather trivial which they actually do. There's very little you can do with a single Doff to make them interesting.
Introducing pop culture references to the Star Trek universe is just another outgrowth of that lack of comprehension of the Star Trek franchise culture.
The constant is not Star Trek or sci-fi or this being an online game. This is a contemporary fad, a really bad one, that grows out of a lack of imagination and 'intellectual inbreeding' amongst devs. To argue otherwise is disingenuous and originates from the standpoint that 'the franchise I work for is the only franchise'.
Let''s see..... we have had Star Trek episodes in multiple franchises that use the holodeck to incorporate all sorts of "non Trek" stuff, from Robin Hood to 60's Vegas. The original series made frequent blatant references to contemporary life, from space hippies to Comms v Yangs. A game wants to have a little fun by incorporating a nod to another great sci fi series and suddenly they don't understand the franchise? Life is serious - TV, movies and games are not. Geesh.
I agree it's a fuzzy, fuzzy line. But aside from the inclusion of Ambassador Spock and the Nerada, JJ-Trek is completely separate from the other series and movies. So I consider it borderline.
It's the only possible example of a 'hard canon' crossover that I can think of. I don't count the 'crossover' novels and comic books as true crossovers, but you can make a case for them if you want to.
Me, I choose to ignore them
(I really don't want to open the door for a Champions/Neverwinter crossover with STO!)
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I agree it's a fuzzy, fuzzy line. But aside from the inclusion of Ambassador Spock and the Nerada, JJ-Trek is completely separate from the other series and movies. So I consider it borderline.
It's the only possible example of a 'hard canon' crossover that I can think of. I don't count the 'crossover' novels and comic books as true crossovers, but you can make a case for them if you want to.
Me, I choose to ignore them
(I really don't want to open the door for a Champions/Neverwinter crossover with STO!)
JJ is like MU. It exists parallel to the main universe.
JJ is like MU. It exists parallel to the main universe.
What? You can't cross over to a parallel universe?
If you can't cross over, how did Ambassador Spock get there?
(btw... in case you can't tell, I'm pulling your chain here. I'm not gonna argue the point.)
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Comments
I've read a lot of stuff about it. It's an interesting hypothesis, but the evidence available can neither prove or disprove it. The evidence is primarily circumstantial. Shakespeare's plays contain a wider vocabularly than that used by 3 average people of the era, does that prove anything? no.
My character Tsin'xing
Look, I appreciate that you don't like what I've said, but it's no reason to get hostile and insult me multiple times.
This is not the place for such a conversation. It has nothing to do with doffs or Cryptic making copypasta with other the characters of other franchises. If you wish to have a civil discussion about the authorship of Shakespeare, email me in-game at @metallurgist and I'll give you my outside email address so we can have a back and forth about it. I'd suggest entirely in-game but you can't copy-paste emails in-game for the purpose of citation. Since the venue wouldn't be as limited as here (as in limiting on the patience of others).
I'll be more than happy to elaborate more on my grievances with the traditional narrative, rather than "cherry pick" as you called it. I wasn't cherry picking, I was trying to cram as much in as short a post as possible because this isn't the proper place for such a discussion.
I do have a prepared rebuttal for the majority of your above points. Though frankly you lost me at the whip cream thing.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → Ⓑ Ⓐ
No, what's Total Drama?
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → Ⓑ Ⓐ
Hehe.... It's hilarious.
My character Tsin'xing
Just watched part of an episode on YouTube. Maybe it's just the fact that I've been up for 18 hours, but I didn't find it amusing. Actually, when I've been up this long, I usually find everything amusing. So... yeah... Sorry... The animation is sloppy and lazy as heck, the story seems uninspired, the voice acting grates on my ears. It's like the characters aren't talking with eachother, but rather at eachother. As if they're reading lines over a telephone for recording so there's no real interaction between the actors. That's probably exactly what happened even, it's a sad trend in modern animation. It's one of the reasons I can't watch TV anymore.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → Ⓑ Ⓐ
On the topic of crossovers...
In my opinion, a crossover event happens when a character from one universe or fictional series enters another, distinct universe or fictional series as themselves.
The non-canon novel where Star Trek TNG actually interacted with members of the X-Men is a true crossover. (And a dumb idea, in my opinion). But if a TNG episode had featured a telepathic or disabled character with the name of Charles Xavier, who was clearly NOT the actual representation of Professor X, that's only a pop-culture reference.
Can we all agree there is a difference there? (Probably not, but it's worth a shot...
If the game does not specifically state, directly or indirectly, that Martha Smith is the same Martha Smith that was a companion to Doctor Who, then it isn't a true crossover. Perhaps a blatant pop-culture reference to Doctor Who, but not necessarily the same fictional character. Since I'm not familiar with the character and do not possess the DOFF, I'll have to take everybody else's word for it whether it's a real crossover or not.
Whereas, Professor Moriarty was, in fact, the same fictional character who appeared in TNG as himself (albeit as a holodeck program). Is that a crossover, or a pop-culture reference? You could argue convincingly in either direction, if you're inclined to argue about it.
Pop-culture references are meant to amuse, nothing more. They aren't supposed to be taken seriously, except perhaps as tribute or parody.
In a franchise that admits quite frankly to the existence of alternate timelines and universes, I don't really see why this is a controversy even if it is a crossover.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
My character Tsin'xing
Martha's my favourite companion from the revived Who, so I was pretty ecstatic when she popped up as a reward for a temporal mission on Saturday
UFP Catering Corps
I think a better example of a true crossover is Ambassador Spock and JJ-Trek.
It's obviously the same individual in both the Prime and JJ-Verse, which are also obviously two different universes. That loosely fits the definition I presented.
Other than that, though, I can't think of any other true crossover events in any Trek series. (Excepting possibly the Kzinti and TAS)
After reading Memory Alpha's article on pop-culture references, I don't think anyone can argue that Star Trek wasn't full of them. Even blatant about it. So I'm not sure we should really be roasting the Devs over the same kind of stuff that appears in canon episodes. Anybody's entitled to be disappointed with them, of course.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
A crossover event implies that there is a real connection between the two fictional settings, that characters from one can plausibly exist in the other. The connection might be one-way (like time travel or alternate universe) or two-way, but it's there.
And I'll leave it at that.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Most of Star Trek TV was great and original in its own right, the pop references were so subtle they were unnoticeable to any but cult viewers, and Memory Alpha is one of the most overzealous Wikis in overstating any and every case that I've ever seen (e.g., article about the "Dominion Cold War").
None of that applies to STO. Certainly not the former.
The indirect statement was there. If it was intended, that's what it was. There can't be any dispute that this character was that same one.
To argue otherwise is disingenuous, and to try to break facts down past their smallest elements is dissembling.
There is no argument. It's neither. He didn't enter the Star Trek world seamlessly. They KNOW who he is. He is to the protagonists what he is to us, a 'fictional man' given life.
The fault in your reasoning is that such is the purpose of the game itself.
Rather, then, the question is what is the best means to that end? Crass crossovers or original content? Hence my whipped cream and chocolate sundae analogy.
When you say "I don't see why" what are you really saying?
Do you mean that you don't think it should be a controversy, or do you mean that you literally don't understand the reasons why it is?
If it's the former, then too bad, don't presume to tell people what to approve or disapprove of. It IS a controversy - one can engage that reality or walk away.
If it's the latter, then I find that difficult to accept at face value as the reasons have been adequately explained in the thread.
This I would agree with. And the acid test is the highlighted portion. A re-creation, or a 'borrow', is not 'existence'. The doffs are clearly on the latter side of that fence.
Let me again summarize the issue, such as it is. Crossovers and pop culture references which might be okay in and of themselves are a nefarious force in MMOs because they have become a shill for good originality and well-developed lore. And apologias instead of communication have undermined the relevance of design to community.
So pleased that I don't even feel like arguing about anything else.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Surely if you've said your piece and someone was willing to buy a slice of it, then you owe it to others to do the same, no - examine and engage their arguments in good faith until you internalize them and take or reject what you will?
Isn't it the essence of bias to be willing to convince others but be unwilling to be convinced yourself? What does that demonstrate about the purpose, or intent, of what you say?
That's because we don't disagree this isn't original; we just further don't agree that everything has to be. There are basically three kinds of people:
1) Those who don't care whether there are pop-culture references in doffs. I suspect these make up the vast majority.
2) Those who think the pop-culture references are fun.
3) You.
Maybe I should be flattered that you think I am special.
Perhaps you're right on the first point. It doesn't matter. Majority opinions about the past seldom lead to creativity in the future. The point made, about the originality deficit in STO and other MMOs, the over-reliance on crossover, and the silly apologias and dissembling used to justify this, is valid. The alternative would be a bit more originality and direct communication.
Don't make this personal (even bizarre). Stick to the topic.
Sure, I do think that I should give others an opportunity to make themselves heard, and to think about what they've said.
As to whether I accept or reject their arguments, well, nothing says I have to make that decision public.
Personally, it doesn't particularly bother me whether MMO's use pop-culture references or "easter eggs", whether they do it clumsily or with style, and what category this particular use falls in. I think it's very subjective, and that everybody is entitled to hold their own opinion. I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer here.
As to certain other points, it seems that alternate universes and timelines and some kind of travel between them are an accepted trope within Star Trek. Since I'm not aware that the writers of Trek have established any real limits on what that means, one could argue that any alternate universe is possible. Is it? I don't have an answer for that.
If it is a possibility, I could conjecture that someone from the Who-verse could indeed travel to the STO-verse and that would be a true crossover event. I could also theorize that a character in one could very well have an analog in the other; also an established factor in Star Trek canon. Neither possibility really "breaks" Trek, though it might be distasteful in the eyes of some fans.
Does this reflect a lack of creativity? No, not as an isolated fact, I don't think it does. In my view, it rather implies that someone was creative enough to find an excuse to slip in an appropriate cultural reference in a humorous way. And I realize perfectly that the acceptability of the reference is completely subjective and that others may have a different view.
Are you arguing that STO lacks creativity because it relies too much on such outside references? Well, okay, I can accept that's how you feel about it and I don't feel the need to argue you out of that.
The only point I am wanting to make is that I don't feel including these temporal DOFFs as in-jokes is all that inappropriate based on the fact that similar things have been done before and that Star Trek does not inherently exclude the possibility. It's not worth arguing about for me, so I choose not to argue about it. I'm suggesting that maybe it's not worth anybody arguing about.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Good faith. Certainly others have deigned to do the same for you...
If MMOs aren't really original then what's the point of trotting out new stuff? Selling lockboxes?
Please don't be obtuse. AUs exist within the universe of the lore. Other franchises do not.
No, I am arguing the opposite. STO, like many MMOs, relies on outside references because it lacks creativity.
Excessive internal references (such as going back to the Dominion War, or Tribble episodes, or resurrecting obscure characters like Taris) are an aspect of this. Fine as the exception, not fine as the rule.
That sounds reasonable - but it isn't.
We arrive back at square one, the hard counter to all that you have said: it's not isolated, it's not unique to STO, and it's certainly not "required" of an online sci-fi game.
The fact is that the topic is worth arguing about for the reasons I have stated: crossovers and references, to the exclusion of originality, are a viciously destructive trend that robs the gaming community of more and better and original content, memorable in its own right.
A closely linked problem is the manner of community engagement in modern MMOs (dissembling and disingenuity). This serves to short-circuit creativity by overselling bad dishes rather than improving them through criticism. Finally, there is the problem of dev teams in different MMOs running a herd mentality straight off the cliff. Bad trends should be recognized and bucked.
Whipped cream is not the problem. The absence of good fudge and an honest sell is.
doesnt make it any less "there"
DISCLAIMER: If any of my opinions or what I say hurt/offend you. TOUGH. Either deal with it or go cry like the whiny keyboard warrior you probably are.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → Ⓑ Ⓐ
DOffs aren't NPCs. They have no lines, no character beyond a flavor text line at best, and have no impact beyond whether or not you crit succeed or crit fumble.
I submit that these are not characters, merely cards with effects. As such, they do not qualify as crossovers, as n two universes have actually collided in any appreciable way. They are only references, no more world-breaking than the Millennium Falcon, the various actors who portrayed The Doctor showing up in a geneology record, a parrot with Gene Rodenberry's face appearing in a colonist manifest, the Nausicaan's race name being a direct reference to a Miyazaki film, or the Akira-class being named after the anime film Akira.
I would further submit that this game is in fact a "theme park" rather than a serious plot-driven story. As a theme park, cohesion isn't of paramount importance so much as including as much content as allowed from the series of origin. With this in mind, the supposition that the game is supposed to be taken seriously falls flat.
That anyone could argue that the game is supposed to be taken seriously with a straight face to start with is simply beyond me, seeing as in this game you can take on Borg Cubes in droves with an NX-class while your entire crew (except your Orion slave girls) are dressed in suits and formal dresses in a bridge the size of a school gym. Frankly as long as we don't start getting Cyberman BOffs or start coming across groups of Nietzscheans in exploration cluster missions, the Trek of this game will remain relatively intact. A few pop-culture in-jokes in a series rife with them to start with is simply status quo for both Trek and MMOs.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
No, I agree Moriarty was a bad example.
Restating my definition of what a crossover really is:
"A crossover event happens when a character from one universe or fictional series enters another, distinct universe or fictional series as themselves. A crossover event implies that there is a real connection between the two fictional settings, that characters from one can plausibly exist in the other."
Based on this definition, the only real crossover event in a Star Trek episode or movie would be Ambassador Spock and the Nerada, crossing over into the JJ-Trek timeline.
I'm tempted to say that the connection must be plausible in both directions.
In other words, it has occurred to me that it's not enough that a Doctor Who character could exist in a Star Trek universe, it must also be true that the Doctor Who series could permit an alternate Star Trek universe to somehow exist or that it can somehow otherwise coexist with the Star Trek timeline.
Otherwise, from the viewpoint of that series the crossover event never could have happened and it's not really a true crossover.
This goes beyond the ability to simply ignore that the crossover event happened (Marvel and DC are good at this), but an impossibility according to the stated "canon" of that series.
Now, I am not a DW fan. I couldn't say whether or not a Star Trek timeline could possibly exist in that series' framework. But I'm reasonably confident that the DOFF wasn't greenlighted by anyone attached to "Doctor Who". So I think it's safe to conclude that it isn't a "crossover" or intended to be one. It's just another pop-culture reference, and nobody's meant to take it any more seriously than a Federation starship named the "U.S.S. Elmer Fudd".
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
4) Those who like them but think more subtle is funnier and more clever.
I'm not certain I agree. JJ-Trek is still Trek. Its timeline was directly created by events within the prime timeline in which the game we all play is supposed to be set. That's not really a crossover, it's more just prime timeline cause and effect, temporal bulls*t. It's not more a crossover than anything Mirror Universe. The point at which Mirror Universe went wrong was back in ancient human history. But the point where it REALLY went wrong was with Cochrane pumping the Vulcan ambassadors that landed during First Contact full of buckshot.
However, I can name some crossovers. Though they're considered highly non-canon, and most of them have made me bang my head into my desk on more than one occasion.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/Star_trek_xmen_1.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Planet_X_Star_Trek.jpg
http://www.wired.com/underwire/wp-content/gallery/star-trek-legion-of-superheroes/startrek-legion-of-superheroes-02_preview_covera.jpg
http://borgdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/star-trek_doctor-who_03-cover-a.jpg
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17pshcpsrjh3ijpg/original.jpg
http://blog.newsok.com/nerdage/files/2012/06/doctor-who-star-trek-comic.jpeg
While these crossovers have most certainly happened, the difference is that they were a collaboration between the two companies. Martha Jones Smith is ultimately a trademark violation and BBC can get a bit litigious about that lately. They recently sued a Scottish police department over the use of the blue police box, I'm not even joking. As long as it can be demonstrated that confusion is possible (can someone conceivably confuse any part of Martha Jones Smith for Martha Smith-Jones? I certainly think so) then it's a trademark violation.
Mind you, I don't think BBC will get litigious over it, but if they catch wind they just might send a nasty letter.
It just strikes me as odd that they'd change the Kzinti to being blue and change their name to Ferasan, but when the have no compunctions about directly ripping off Doctor Who. Granted, it's not like the DOFF is as prominent as the Fersasans are, but still.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → Ⓑ Ⓐ
Creativity is over rated in MMOs. What happens if you make a BRAND NEW story? People complain about it not being related in any way to canon. Probably not Aestu, but someone.
To me, this is the bottom line: What would they have put in if they hadn't put in Martha? There's several possibilities. Let's examine them!
1: Another Time Agent, such as TI Agent Koro. These bore me. They have no more character than regular doffs. They have a cool name and might be useful, but they bore me all the same. Also, it's LESS creative than using Martha. It's just a bunch of random stats on a random chump.
2: someone like Parell. The Parell in DS9 is a random minor character who barely has a name. Also she came from a timeline that shouldn't exist any longer.
3: a different out of universe character, such as Jane Zombie
It's really rather trivial which they actually do. There's very little you can do with a single Doff to make them interesting.
My character Tsin'xing
Let''s see..... we have had Star Trek episodes in multiple franchises that use the holodeck to incorporate all sorts of "non Trek" stuff, from Robin Hood to 60's Vegas. The original series made frequent blatant references to contemporary life, from space hippies to Comms v Yangs. A game wants to have a little fun by incorporating a nod to another great sci fi series and suddenly they don't understand the franchise? Life is serious - TV, movies and games are not. Geesh.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
This + 10 chibi Anans.
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!
Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
I agree it's a fuzzy, fuzzy line. But aside from the inclusion of Ambassador Spock and the Nerada, JJ-Trek is completely separate from the other series and movies. So I consider it borderline.
It's the only possible example of a 'hard canon' crossover that I can think of. I don't count the 'crossover' novels and comic books as true crossovers, but you can make a case for them if you want to.
Me, I choose to ignore them
(I really don't want to open the door for a Champions/Neverwinter crossover with STO!)
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Oh yeah, I got 2 more. Miranda Bateson and Sterling Renard I love Renard! Telekinetic Security? DO WANT!!!!
My character Tsin'xing
What? You can't cross over to a parallel universe?
If you can't cross over, how did Ambassador Spock get there?
(btw... in case you can't tell, I'm pulling your chain here. I'm not gonna argue the point.)
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek