So you are accusing Cryptic of an illegal act, that of a bait and switch, yet the LEGAL SYSTEM'S opinion on what actually constitutes a bait and switch somehow doesn't matter? Seems like a bigger load of BS then I had originally smelt just came through.
You can't worm your way out of this now that you got caught.
but the simply the acknowledgment that, inevitably, power creep needs a massive nerf at some point; and that said nerf, technically, constitutes a 'Bait & Switch'
Except it doesn't because, again, that isn't what a Bait and Switch qualifies as by any legal definition.
Must you troll every thread you post in?! Anyway, I'm done with you.
Must you troll every thread you post in?! Anyway, I'm done with you.
Proving your misuse of the term bait and switch isn't a troll, in fact, trolling would constitute using a phrase like that incorrectly, despite knowing it wrong, simply for the sake of it.
Basically.... what you do.
Nah. I tried to open a friendly dialogue, in which players can readily see how the the inevitable nerfs, after years of power creep, can be seen as a 'Bait & Switch', but one that's known upfront, and a necessary element in the purchase model of an MMO, and as such becomes an acceptable practice. But then you became hostile, and I lost interest. Especially since my side-observations was rather off-topic to begin with. So, no need, on my end, to belabor it any further.
Anyone remember the early days of TNG when it was considered "Not real Trek" because it didn't have Kirk, Spock and McCoy? Then look at where we are now....
Trek changing is a good thing IMO.
While the "not real trek" argument is moot, the endless reference to past "uproars" doesn't really compare either. Disregarding a series because there are none of the previous shows characters in it is a completely different thing to disregarding it because it obviously disregards so much from established shows that it could be a completely different series. This is somewhat legitimate criticism. It's difficult, in my opinion, to tell people "it evolved" when there is very little in it at all to relate to it in the first place.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
It's absolutely not moot at all. People cried to no end that TNG wasn't "real Trek" for many reasons - not having Kirk, Spock and McCoy was just one of them.
What exactly is it with what we've seen so far that isn't recognizable or disregards what came before? The ship looked Trek. The uniforms and symbols look Trek. Sarek looks Vulcan, which is Trek. The Captain mentions Starfleet, which is Trek.
I meant moot as in it is such a dead argument by now since there is no way to define "real trek". However what I meant is that DSC is set "ten years before kirk" - so it is an already established era. Ten years is not enough to justify large gaps. And they choose, judging by the trailer of course, to not include anything from that era, be it in sets, costumes, or soundtrack. It really requires willful ignorance to claim that it is not understandable where people arguing this way are coming from.
In the end it's of course a matter of taste and plenty of people prefer the modern take, but claiming a show is set in the same setting as the original series and then - judging by the trailers - have nothing of that era doesn't really please expectations, it is almost false advertising.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
It's not a bait and switch, The ToS clearly states that cryptic reserves the right to make any alterations to any and all items, systems, etc which they deem fit.
It's still a Bait & Switch: just one the ToS allows them to do.
It's a pretty weak bait when the "switch" is painfully obvious to foresee. If you don't expect a company to take advantage of the CYA in their TOS, shame on you.
> @azrael605 said: > I for one, as a lifelong Trek fan who has been watching since the 1970s am quite glad this show doesn't look like a cardboard set from the 1960s. > > PS, there still wasn't any bait & switch in this game.
Nobody said it should look like cardboard. You are creating a strawman, I believe, by creating a nonesense extreme nobody called for in order to support the opposing point of view. Elements can be used in a streamlined, yet recognizable fashion. Simply creating working sets with some TOS button boards or screen in-between would create recognition and hint at two styles of technology in competition when we know that TOS style will ultimately prevail. It is really quite easy to do - if you ignore it however there is no point in choosing this setting in the first place.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
I get that, but why do you say that in order to incorporate a style that was generated with plywood they had to create sets with plywood in 2017? That's not reasonable and the part that seemingly ridicules the idea but has no basis, that's what I mean. Opinions about aesthetics are personal and not the point no worries
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
...Ten years is not enough to justify large gaps....
Sure it is. Look at the changes in design aesthetic in anything from fashion to cell phones to laptops to tablets computers etc. within a 10 year time frame.
What kind of changes in aesthetic do you mean, because I just compared 2007 iPhones, laptops and tablets to 2017 versions and I saw no real differences in aesthetics?
Plus, that doesn't change anything. No aesthetic changes are gonna explain how Discovery looks FAR MORE advanced than a Constitution in the same timeline.
In ENT, it looked far more advanced, but they made up for that by having the interior of the ship less luxurious, more submarine-like, less impressive and efficient weapons, inexistent deflector shields, less comfy quarters, a vastly different warp core, transporters still having quirks, a viewscreen without a complex interface, uniforms looking like multi-pocketed jumpsuits as opposed to casual uniforms and mini-skirts. So it made you feel space travel was still something new and people weren't too familiar with that.
In TOS, the aesthetics were mostly due to the series being made in the 60s, but it could still work because you could argue that it meant space travel had become so common and not for just a few very lucky people that they focused on hiding all those pipes/cables/beams/metal/whatever tech behind something warmer, brighter and more casual to make people feel more comfortable.
for me the aesthetic is important but what is much more important is an internal and self-referencing consistency. do they do good research and have the correct people and places with established canon. i've no idea if they will.
i'll give the show a chance. i've liked every show so far.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
No strawman here, simple fact, the original series sets were largely constructed of cardboard & plywood, they do not hold up well & I for one am very glad they people on Discovery did not try to copy that extremely dated look. Your opinion is yours, this is mine, and thats all there is to it. I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong or anything like that either, I simply have a different opinion. You have given yours & I have given mine.
Here's the thing: All other Trek shows acknowleged the look as canon. TRIBBLE invalidates that look by not even giving a nod to it. That's the whole point. While Discovery is out doing its thing with its look, Pike and the Enterprise are out there doing their thing with their look...at the same time. It just doesnt fit. CBS should retract saying it's prime and call it what it really is. A retcon/reboot. KT explained why it looks the way it does. TRIBBLE doesn't.
Here's the thing: All other Trek shows acknowleged the look as canon. TRIBBLE invalidates that look by not even giving a nod to it. That's the whole point. While Discovery is out doing its thing with its look, Pike and the Enterprise are out there doing their thing with their look...at the same time. It just doesnt fit. CBS should retract saying it's prime and call it what it really is. A retcon/reboot. KT explained why it looks the way it does. TRIBBLE doesn't.
It's DSC, not TRIBBLE.
Other than that I agree though. The whole thing is much, much easier if you look at it this way: Following the events of First Contact, ENT, the KT and DSC take place in a new timeline while the Enterprise in FC returned to the prime timeline where they had a few more awfull movies and basically concluded prime Star Trek in Nemesis and until someone actually makes a sequel (because nobody wants a prequel, but for some reason they all call it that) the prime timeline rests. But CBS has always sucked at doing things that make sense and instead they work like cryptic and just do whatever they think is good at the time being instead of making th new pieces consistent with the old ones. It would have been possible to reasonably modern the TOS look, but of course DSC has to cater to the cinema audience that watched the KT movies - which are far more than ever watched the other movies.
If everything "new" takes place in that new timeline nobody had to worry about continuity (which nobody does) while still cashing in on name-dropping (which they do all the time) and all the people whining about "muh relizms" had their gloomy, super "realistic" Star Trek where everyone looks depressed all the time and mistakes teenager emo behaviour for maturity while we fight clearly distinctive mimicless wrinkle-faced evugly aliens so we always know which frowny face to shoot and which frowny face to root for.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Personally, I'd think I'd rather they had just said they were rebooting Star Trek.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
But CBS has always sucked at doing things that make sense and instead they work like cryptic and just do whatever they think is good at the time being instead of making th new pieces consistent with the old ones.
Except what you suggest doesn't make sense because it is inconstant with First Contact itself, but also, a dumb move as no one wants another timeline, and no sane company would do it.
Whats more, I, and many people I know, would find the idea of CBS trying to do a "modern": version of TOS's look to be more insulting then what we got because TOS has a completely unique look, due to the era in which it was made, and trying to copy that, despite not being in that era anymore, would be nothing but shameless nostalgia pandering. TOS is the odd man out visually compared to the rest of the Trek series, and that visual uniqueness it part of its charm. But that is a charm that really only works with TOS.
Good post.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Except what you suggest doesn't make sense because it is inconstant with First Contact itself, but also, a dumb move as no one wants another timeline, and no sane company would do it.
Whats more, I, and many people I know, would find the idea of CBS trying to do a "modern": version of TOS's look to be more insulting then what we got because TOS has a completely unique look, due to the era in which it was made, and trying to copy that, despite not being in that era anymore, would be nothing but shameless nostalgia pandering. TOS is the odd man out visually compared to the rest of the Trek series, and that visual uniqueness it part of its charm. But that is a charm that really only works with TOS.
I see it differently, no harm in that
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
for me the aesthetic is important but what is much more important is an internal and self-referencing consistency. do they do good research and have the correct people and places with established canon.
This is also my standard for "Trek or Dreck?"
TOS: Trek. Sloppy because of the era, but Trek.
TOS movies: Trek.
TNG: Trek.
TNG movies: Dreck-flavored Trek, especially that Nemesis abomination.
DS9: Trek.
VOY: Trek.
ENT: Started as Dreck, realized their mistake and mostly fixed it.
JJ: Dreck. They DGAF about established continuity, used a timeline change to excuse it, and botched even that by disregarding their many errors that a timeline change would not have explained.
DIS: Undecided. Dreck-flavored at least. For a small example, it is established that Starfleet adapted the Enterprise chevron as its insignia after Kirk's 5-year mission in recognition of the Enterprise's achievements. Non-Enterprise ships had unique insignia until then. DIS ignores this and gives everyone the chevron ten years earlier. Also, ten years before Kirk the Enterprise was on a mission and we know what Starfleet uniforms are supposed to look like. NOT what is shown. Either they aren't familiar enough with ST canon to get that, or they DGAF.
I read a rumour on reddit that DSC was supposed to be more TOS like but CBS wanted it to emulate KT aesthetics to tie in with the movies. That's the reason the show runner quit. But that's just that, rumours.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I read a rumour on reddit that DSC was supposed to be more TOS like but CBS wanted it to emulate KT aesthetics to tie in with the movies. That's the reason the show runner quit. But that's just that, rumours.
If that's the case, then, instead of completely TRIBBLE up decades of mostly-respected timeline and continuity, they could have changed "set 10 years before Kirk" to "set in the 26/27th century" or "set in an entirely new timeline".
A couple of changed words and swallowed ego and pride Vs upsetting the fans, giving the finger to decades of series and movies continuity and aesthetics, losing the first show runner, etc.
Comments
Must you troll every thread you post in?! Anyway, I'm done with you.
Nah. I tried to open a friendly dialogue, in which players can readily see how the the inevitable nerfs, after years of power creep, can be seen as a 'Bait & Switch', but one that's known upfront, and a necessary element in the purchase model of an MMO, and as such becomes an acceptable practice. But then you became hostile, and I lost interest. Especially since my side-observations was rather off-topic to begin with. So, no need, on my end, to belabor it any further.
While the "not real trek" argument is moot, the endless reference to past "uproars" doesn't really compare either. Disregarding a series because there are none of the previous shows characters in it is a completely different thing to disregarding it because it obviously disregards so much from established shows that it could be a completely different series. This is somewhat legitimate criticism. It's difficult, in my opinion, to tell people "it evolved" when there is very little in it at all to relate to it in the first place.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I meant moot as in it is such a dead argument by now since there is no way to define "real trek". However what I meant is that DSC is set "ten years before kirk" - so it is an already established era. Ten years is not enough to justify large gaps. And they choose, judging by the trailer of course, to not include anything from that era, be it in sets, costumes, or soundtrack. It really requires willful ignorance to claim that it is not understandable where people arguing this way are coming from.
In the end it's of course a matter of taste and plenty of people prefer the modern take, but claiming a show is set in the same setting as the original series and then - judging by the trailers - have nothing of that era doesn't really please expectations, it is almost false advertising.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It's a pretty weak bait when the "switch" is painfully obvious to foresee. If you don't expect a company to take advantage of the CYA in their TOS, shame on you.
> I for one, as a lifelong Trek fan who has been watching since the 1970s am quite glad this show doesn't look like a cardboard set from the 1960s.
>
> PS, there still wasn't any bait & switch in this game.
Nobody said it should look like cardboard. You are creating a strawman, I believe, by creating a nonesense extreme nobody called for in order to support the opposing point of view. Elements can be used in a streamlined, yet recognizable fashion. Simply creating working sets with some TOS button boards or screen in-between would create recognition and hint at two styles of technology in competition when we know that TOS style will ultimately prevail. It is really quite easy to do - if you ignore it however there is no point in choosing this setting in the first place.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
I get that, but why do you say that in order to incorporate a style that was generated with plywood they had to create sets with plywood in 2017? That's not reasonable and the part that seemingly ridicules the idea but has no basis, that's what I mean. Opinions about aesthetics are personal and not the point no worries
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Don't worry we are still here, playing.
Plus, that doesn't change anything. No aesthetic changes are gonna explain how Discovery looks FAR MORE advanced than a Constitution in the same timeline.
In ENT, it looked far more advanced, but they made up for that by having the interior of the ship less luxurious, more submarine-like, less impressive and efficient weapons, inexistent deflector shields, less comfy quarters, a vastly different warp core, transporters still having quirks, a viewscreen without a complex interface, uniforms looking like multi-pocketed jumpsuits as opposed to casual uniforms and mini-skirts. So it made you feel space travel was still something new and people weren't too familiar with that.
In TOS, the aesthetics were mostly due to the series being made in the 60s, but it could still work because you could argue that it meant space travel had become so common and not for just a few very lucky people that they focused on hiding all those pipes/cables/beams/metal/whatever tech behind something warmer, brighter and more casual to make people feel more comfortable.
i'll give the show a chance. i've liked every show so far.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Here's the thing: All other Trek shows acknowleged the look as canon. TRIBBLE invalidates that look by not even giving a nod to it. That's the whole point. While Discovery is out doing its thing with its look, Pike and the Enterprise are out there doing their thing with their look...at the same time. It just doesnt fit. CBS should retract saying it's prime and call it what it really is. A retcon/reboot. KT explained why it looks the way it does. TRIBBLE doesn't.
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
It's DSC, not TRIBBLE.
Other than that I agree though. The whole thing is much, much easier if you look at it this way: Following the events of First Contact, ENT, the KT and DSC take place in a new timeline while the Enterprise in FC returned to the prime timeline where they had a few more awfull movies and basically concluded prime Star Trek in Nemesis and until someone actually makes a sequel (because nobody wants a prequel, but for some reason they all call it that) the prime timeline rests. But CBS has always sucked at doing things that make sense and instead they work like cryptic and just do whatever they think is good at the time being instead of making th new pieces consistent with the old ones. It would have been possible to reasonably modern the TOS look, but of course DSC has to cater to the cinema audience that watched the KT movies - which are far more than ever watched the other movies.
If everything "new" takes place in that new timeline nobody had to worry about continuity (which nobody does) while still cashing in on name-dropping (which they do all the time) and all the people whining about "muh relizms" had their gloomy, super "realistic" Star Trek where everyone looks depressed all the time and mistakes teenager emo behaviour for maturity while we fight clearly distinctive mimicless wrinkle-faced evugly aliens so we always know which frowny face to shoot and which frowny face to root for.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Good post.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
I see it differently, no harm in that
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is also my standard for "Trek or Dreck?"
TOS: Trek. Sloppy because of the era, but Trek.
TOS movies: Trek.
TNG: Trek.
TNG movies: Dreck-flavored Trek, especially that Nemesis abomination.
DS9: Trek.
VOY: Trek.
ENT: Started as Dreck, realized their mistake and mostly fixed it.
JJ: Dreck. They DGAF about established continuity, used a timeline change to excuse it, and botched even that by disregarding their many errors that a timeline change would not have explained.
DIS: Undecided. Dreck-flavored at least. For a small example, it is established that Starfleet adapted the Enterprise chevron as its insignia after Kirk's 5-year mission in recognition of the Enterprise's achievements. Non-Enterprise ships had unique insignia until then. DIS ignores this and gives everyone the chevron ten years earlier. Also, ten years before Kirk the Enterprise was on a mission and we know what Starfleet uniforms are supposed to look like. NOT what is shown. Either they aren't familiar enough with ST canon to get that, or they DGAF.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
A couple of changed words and swallowed ego and pride Vs upsetting the fans, giving the finger to decades of series and movies continuity and aesthetics, losing the first show runner, etc.