A lot of Discovery looks different, but only because filming and props technology has vastly improved since even Nemesis was made. And nothing is really so "out there" that it utterly breaks Trek lore of canon unless you want to be ridiculously arrogant and pedantic about your own personal vision of what Trek is.
S1 was well filmed and had plenty of interesting connections to existing lore from across the Trek timeline. They were well woven in and in a few cases expanded greatly on barely touched concepts. I'm pretty sure we'll get more explanation of things like Klingon looks and their ship styles in the coming episodes and seasons, they've got plenty of time to explore the time period.
There's no continuity breaks unless you look for them.
Response to moderated post redacted. — StarSword-C
It has been said before but is worth repeating; it is very sad that the hallmark of a 'True Star Trek fan' seems to now be their ability and authority to declare others to not be Star Trek fans based on the kind of Star Trek material they enjoy.
Star Trek was an ideal that fans kept alive for 50 years. Discovery destroyed all of what we held dear. No matter what they say this is not and never will be Star Trek. Period. I have no problem with you liking it. It is still not Star Trek. You can put a Cadillac logo on a Chevette but it will still be a Chevette.
Here's a question for all you saying "it's canon because CBS says so!"...
Say you bought a box of chocolate chip cookies. It says chocolate chip cookies on the box, but when you open it the box is full of vanilla wafer cookies. You contact the company, but they insist that what they sold you are in fact chocolate chip cookies, they're just the "new and improved" version.
Are they chocolate chip cookies because the company that made them says so? Or are you convinced by the evidence in front of you that they cannot possibly be chocolate chip cookies, and that the company must be either incompetent or disingenuous in claiming they are?
Think it through.
[Mod Hat] Wrong. Stop right there. You do not own the franchise, therefore you do not get to decide what is and is not Star Trek.
If you don't like the series? Go ahead, say that you don't like the series. I don't have a problem with expressing a simple negative opinion; I've got a number of objections to DSC's writing myself. But stop pretending to be the arbiter of all that is just and holy in Star Trek. To be clear, in case you're on your phone or tablet and can't see my signature: [Mod Hat/] means I am not debating you as a player, I am issuing a command as a moderator. The next person I see say anything resembling "not real Star Trek" gets a warning for flaming and trolling. [/Mod Hat]
> @dracounguis said:
> So "That 70s Show" should have dressed in modern clothes because it wasn't made in the 70s?
That 70s Show depicts a real-life time period. Star Trek does not. Apples and potatoes.
TOS was a real life time period. 1966 Hollywood Sci-Fi period.
TOS wasn't set in 1966 though, it's set in 2265. So it needs to look like the future.
Actually, originally it wasn't set at any particular time period, just "our future". The whole point of stardates was that it let the writers avoid giving recognizable dates. It wasn't until later that they nailed it down to "300 years from air date".
Post edited by starswordc on
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Mine is STO content-centric, not the overall universe of Trek content.
And having Discovery in the Prime circle makes me sad for you.
How about you stop being sad about that Discovery is in the Prime circle and accept it like a real IDIC Star Trek fan? Star Trek: Discovery is set in the time between Enterprise and TOS in the Prime timeline and contrary to people they did not ruin the Klingons since it is in that period and not after Nemesis. So you disagree with the direction they chose? Very well but stop acting like you know better than the writers, producers, etc of this series. Let it run its course and give it a chance. Besides there were problematic parts in all the Star Trek series including the movies and continuity problems as well. This series is only hashing out the Klingon race and what would have been if the dude in charge of Axanar had not done an illegal thing, which some people still defend him on. He would not have been in such a problem if he had asked for permission before using Star Trek assets for profit without CBS approval. Anyway, this is why Star Trek while remaining strong is dying because some not all purists are bringing it down because it is #notmytrek. Those are my two cents. Thanks.
> @vegeta50024 said: > kabutotokugawa wrote: » > > ruinthefun wrote: » > > And more importantly, everyone misses the point: Do you think they're allowed to simply NOT have this tie-in? Hell, CBS probably has a gun to their heads insisting it. > > > > > Most likely, which means the marketing team from CBS is probably involved and the likelihood of them having any clue about the storyline in STO is not high. They may be demanding that Cryptic push TRIBBLE on the STO fanbase and will do more harm than good since if the push is too strong and too much so that players cannot avoid TRIBBLE content, they will drive many of us away and likely either damage or even kill STO off due to a loss of paying players. I'm not saying there should not be TRIBBLE content, I'm saying that if they try to FORCE that content on players via missions, or any type of requirements for existing characters, they will shoot themselves in the foot. > > > > > In all my viewings of the Ten Forward weekly when I got to watch it, it seemed like the STO devs were particularly excited about Discovery and definitely wanted to squeeze Discovery story content into the game. > > CBS I think only had a hand in the 50th anniversary stuff for the game prior where they wanted to make sure STO did the franchise justice. > > CBS I think here is actually more on the lines of asking them if they can incorporate the Discovery content in order to help give the series more presence in a game that they're licensing. They probably came to them some time ago while VIL was in design and they had to wait until they could get it finished before they could start work on Discovery content. > lostmindfindit wrote: » > > You want a TRIBBLE? fine (i could put in some joke here, but not in the mood), make it separate game, do NOT BRING THIS S..T into STO. I always saw STO as a last bastion of proper star trek, i overlooked the slight hints at TRIBBLE before now, but if you will incorporate that FAKE CASH GRAB show into the game, you will lose player base. Every Star trek show before now at least TRIED to keep in continuity, and at very least explain why diffrences (klingons from original series vs tng for example) or Enterprise that made actual effort to LOOK an FEEL as a predecessor to original series. even JJtrek at VERY least cut itself from actual startrek timeline to allow itself creative freedoms. TRIBBLE is NOT startrek and should not be mixed with it, you want game in it, separate it at very least, so those of us who dont want to have anything to do with it, can. > > > > > It's honestly pretty late for you to ask that they not mix Discovery in with the game. It's already happened with the Discovery Lock box and the Discovery uniforms that were given out for free. > trygvar13 wrote: » > > I was afraid this would happen when Martok named T'Kuvma, Voq and L'rell had the end of the Home episodes. Please keep this abomination out of STO. (Vulgarity removed - BMR) is not even remotely Star Trek and as a Klingon fan it is even insulting to have another "event" aimed at the Blue side alone. > > > > > As I already stated, it's too late for them to not put Discovery content into the game considering that they've put icondic ships into the game already. > trygvar13 wrote: » > > reyan01 wrote: » > > Response to moderated post redacted. — StarSword-C > > It has been said before but is worth repeating; it is very sad that the hallmark of a 'True Star Trek fan' seems to now be their ability and authority to declare others to not be Star Trek fans based on the kind of Star Trek material they enjoy. > > > > > Star Trek was an ideal that fans kept alive for 50 years. Discovery destroyed all of what we held dear. No matter what they say this is not and never will be Star Trek. Period. I have no problem with you liking it. It is still not Star Trek. You can put a Cadillac logo on a Chevette but it will still be a Chevette. > > > > > Discovery in my mind hasn't destroyed ANYTHING. Do things look different? Yes. That is to be expected. Except for some glaring things like the use of holographic projections instead of the viewscreen and a drive that they decide to put the breaks on using for now, most of what we see with the show is a visual upgrade that should be fitting of a show produced in the 2010s, not something from 1960s. > > The Klingons I got used to. It doesn't matter to me that they look the way they do now. If they get around to explaining in universe the difference, I will accept it just as we got an in-universe explanation on why the TNG Klingons turn into the TOS Klinogns.
I still go by my theory that the Klingons tried to mutate their dna after the Augment Crisis and went too far
To all Discovery defenders - we can argue about story and lore (I think Disc is very badly written, it's just generic s-f shooting, but if someone likes it - fine by me, de gustibus non est disputandum). But you can't change visuals... If you want it, just don't make prequels, simple as that. Set the show some time after Voyager and done. But if you're making a prequel, you can't blame people for being angry about devastating everything what was established. It's called continuity. Imagine a book. In first chapter John Smith has a dog named Porthos, and in last chapter he has a cat called Spot - and he pretends it's the same pet and he always had a cat. If it's not intended surrealistic writing and Smith isn't psychically ill, then it doesn't make a sense - so why we should pretend that Discovery has?:)
Of course you can change visuals.
Here's what you can pretend, for your personal head canon or whatever:
There is a "real" Star Trek Universe, and the creators of Star Trek material are often inspired in their dreams by this real Star Trek universe. But they don't see all of it, so they have to fill in some story gaps. And they only have the tools of our time available to them when they create a visual representation of it. They need to find actors that can play the roles well. The real Spock might not look remotely like Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto, but Nimoy and Quinto managed to represent their specific style they saw in their dreams really well.
Sure, Gene Roddenberry's set designers saw holographic and touch screens everywhere - but how could he possibly recreate that and make people understand how that is supposed to work, make affordable sets and convince the studio execs to go with it? They couldn't, so it became advanced-for-the-60s looking buttons and colors.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
> @mustrumridcully0 said: > daimonion13#5412 wrote: » > > To all Discovery defenders - we can argue about story and lore (I think Disc is very badly written, it's just generic s-f shooting, but if someone likes it - fine by me, de gustibus non est disputandum). But you can't change visuals... If you want it, just don't make prequels, simple as that. Set the show some time after Voyager and done. But if you're making a prequel, you can't blame people for being angry about devastating everything what was established. It's called continuity. Imagine a book. In first chapter John Smith has a dog named Porthos, and in last chapter he has a cat called Spot - and he pretends it's the same pet and he always had a cat. If it's not intended surrealistic writing and Smith isn't psychically ill, then it doesn't make a sense - so why we should pretend that Discovery has?:) > > > > > Of course you can change visuals. > > Here's what you can pretend, for your personal head canon or whatever: > > There is a "real" Star Trek Universe, and the creators of Star Trek material are often inspired in their dreams by this real Star Trek universe. But they don't see all of it, so they have to fill in some story gaps. And they only have the tools of our time available to them when they create a visual representation of it. They need to find actors that can play the roles well. The real Spock might not look remotely like Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto, but Nimoy and Quinto managed to represent their specific style they saw in their dreams really well. > > Sure, Gene Roddenberry's set designers saw holographic and touch screens everywhere - but how could he possibly recreate that and make people understand how that is supposed to work, make affordable sets and convince the studio execs to go with it? They couldn't, so it became advanced-for-the-60s looking buttons and colors.
Kirk even said in TMP that things didn’t look or happened in the exact way we saw in TOS, it was exaggerated by legends.
I liked parts of Discovery, and disliked parts of Discovery. I think that it had a stronger first season than any series from TNG on, and the trailer for season 2 looks fun.
My worry is that they're going to have another character drive. I'm up to 7 characters, and aren't really excited about getting any more. I've only run the latest season with my Jem'Hadar to get stuff for my other characters.
You're worried about 7 characters? I have 12 currently and I'm not worried. Here's the thing: you don't have to actually play them all.
Shrug. You know, TRIBBLE may not be the best Trek, but there's certainly no more damage they can do than what STO has already done. It's not like STO has any kind of internal consistency or logic to it. It's a Trek-skinned pewpew video game where nothing actually makes mechanical SENSE anyway. So yeah, sure, whatever.
I get another character slot to construct this additional pylon with, right? Cuz I'm maxed out and they still haven't fixed the Elite Starter Pack to be buyable yet.
Good thing I purchased the Elite Starter Pack for the PC STO when it was released. And it works. I haven't tried to purchase the ESP with the XBox One, so I don't know if that's not working right.
NBC cancelled the show, NOT CBS. It was a Desilu Production, then Paramount. Paramount and CBS became affiliated later, hence how CBS owns it.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
> @starswordc said:
> avoozuul wrote: »
>
> Paying for merchandise is not the same thing as paying to watch a show, and furthermore the shows used to not be free to watch.
>
>
>
>
> They were never free to watch. You paid for it by putting your eyeballs on the advertising that came with it.
>
> "If you aren't paying money, you are the product."
That was why TOS was cancelled by CBS back in the day......the audience it attracted was too resistant to the ads.
CBS DID NOT OWN OR AIR STAR TREK NBC DID. Plus the reasons for it being killed had nothing to do with ads.
To all Discovery defenders - we can argue about story and lore (I think Disc is very badly written, it's just generic s-f shooting, but if someone likes it - fine by me, de gustibus non est disputandum). But you can't change visuals... If you want it, just don't make prequels, simple as that. Set the show some time after Voyager and done. But if you're making a prequel, you can't blame people for being angry about devastating everything what was established. It's called continuity. Imagine a book. In first chapter John Smith has a dog named Porthos, and in last chapter he has a cat called Spot - and he pretends it's the same pet and he always had a cat. If it's not intended surrealistic writing and Smith isn't psychically ill, then it doesn't make a sense - so why we should pretend that Discovery has?:)
Of course you can change visuals.
Here's what you can pretend, for your personal head canon or whatever:
There is a "real" Star Trek Universe, and the creators of Star Trek material are often inspired in their dreams by this real Star Trek universe. But they don't see all of it, so they have to fill in some story gaps. And they only have the tools of our time available to them when they create a visual representation of it. They need to find actors that can play the roles well. The real Spock might not look remotely like Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto, but Nimoy and Quinto managed to represent their specific style they saw in their dreams really well.
Sure, Gene Roddenberry's set designers saw holographic and touch screens everywhere - but how could he possibly recreate that and make people understand how that is supposed to work, make affordable sets and convince the studio execs to go with it? They couldn't, so it became advanced-for-the-60s looking buttons and colors.
Funny, but more modern shows did a bang-up job of making the 60;s aesthetic look pretty damn good (Enterprise-"In a Mirror, Darkly" and DS9-"Trials and Tribble-lations"), despite it's dated look and effects.
Having watched the entire first season, I like it. Every Trek series post TOS has always had a rough couple of first seasons but they got better with each season (DS9 for example had a weak couple of first seasons but season 3 and 4 set a new standard for Trek). There's hope for Discovery, I'll happily watch it and play the new expansion when it rolls out.
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Having watched the entire first season, I like it. Every Trek series post TOS has always had a rough couple of first seasons but they got better with each season (DS9 for example had a weak couple of first seasons but season 3 and 4 set a new standard for Trek). There's hope for Discovery, I'll happily watch it and play the new expansion when it rolls out.
Fair enough and pretty spot on with regards to Trek history. "Discovery" might actually get better. But considering the climate in Hollyweird today, I doubt it. It's a different time than even "Enterprise's run. But that is just me.
Here's something that amuses me to no end about the TRIBBLE and even TNG fans. They harp about the use of rocker switches and not using touch screens in other series ranting on how dated they are. I guess these so called experts on these things have never once taken a look at the cockpit of a modern aircraft or warship. Guess what folks rocker switches abound along with analog gauges even in so called "glass cockpits". Why are they there well it's simple really reliability and ease of making a quick fix. A simple analogue pitot will tell you if you are flying to slow or fast when your digital display goes dark from a power failure or glitch something a digital screen that looses power or has a short can't do. Sure Gene Rodenberry and Matt Jefferies could have pulled magic gizmos out the hat but you do realize both had a background in Aviation right? So that carried over to some design features.
Here's a question for all you saying "it's canon because CBS says so!"...
Say you bought a box of chocolate chip cookies. It says chocolate chip cookies on the box, but when you open it the box is full of vanilla wafer cookies. You contact the company, but they insist that what they sold you are in fact chocolate chip cookies, they're just the "new and improved" version.
Are they chocolate chip cookies because the company that made them says so? Or are you convinced by the evidence in front of you that they cannot possibly be chocolate chip cookies, and that the company must be either incompetent or disingenuous in claiming they are?
Here's a question for all you saying "it's canon because CBS says so!"...
Say you bought a box of chocolate chip cookies. It says chocolate chip cookies on the box, but when you open it the box is full of vanilla wafer cookies. You contact the company, but they insist that what they sold you are in fact chocolate chip cookies, they're just the "new and improved" version.
Are they chocolate chip cookies because the company that made them says so? Or are you convinced by the evidence in front of you that they cannot possibly be chocolate chip cookies, and that the company must be either incompetent or disingenuous in claiming they are?
Think it through.
Interesting point of view!!
Wrong analogy. It's more like getting chocolate chip where the chocolate is 80% cacao dark chocolate instead of the milk chocolate you decided it would would contain without having had any input into the bakery's purchasing decisions. It's still chocolate chip, but it tastes different.
I can't stand ENT and VOY most days, and I have serious beefs with DSC, but they're all Star Trek. Deal with it.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Funny, but more modern shows did a bang-up job of making the 60;s aesthetic look pretty damn good (Enterprise-"In a Mirror, Darkly" and DS9-"Trials and Tribble-lations"), despite it's dated look and effects.
Dated look for a set designed to look like its from the future is precisely why the 60's aesthetic applied literally doesn't work in the same way as it did in the original time period. TOS wasn't speculating on precise course of architecture through the next several hundred years, such that the time period in question was selected as the most likely point found by a generalized linear model for a revival of 60's fashions and stylistic sensibilities.
They made space look more relatable to its audience than other pop sci-fi did at the time (which largely indulged in creating distance between their subject matter and the audience to accentuate the mystique of their fantastical settings, which was their most vivid appeal) in order to help deliver more relatable character stories and moral problems which were central to that production (and all those that followed.) Discovery cannot be the kind of show every other Star Trek series and movie has been if it faithfully replicated the exact look of TOS. Even if it was competently composed, looking good is not the end of audience engagement, whether they care to think about it or not.
This is basic to understanding how art influences visual story telling. Let's stop pretending it doesn't apply to Discovery for the sake of convenience, apathy, or worse. This is one area that the production team got right with Discovery, and the visuals are one of the most easily translated elements to a modern video game (with writing, it's more difficult to carry over between passive and interactive media.)
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Yeah, it was also supposedly fought with nuclear weapons and non-FTL ships. And are we supposed to believe that for that entire war, nobody ever tried hailing an enemy ship to demand its surrender? No one ever got sucked out into space during a hull breach? There were no boarding actions? No salvage and study of enemy hulks and debris to gain intelligence on the enemy?
That plot point got deservedly retconned away by ENT, which is one of the few things the series did correctly until Manny Coto took over.
I like the cut of your jib.
Also, I think I only qualify for one square on your bingo card. How many haters do you need for a bingo?
At the end, I feel like this is the NGE of SWG for STO, the community is very well split, and I do believe people might just up and leave that are against Discovery content on a larger scale than just a box with a few trinkets. As a moderator put it, its happening regardless of our own wants and desires. So I will just fight for the reputation system to at least be heavily considered to be more alt friendly in any way.
This seems a little hyperbolic. Star Trek: Discovery is not nearly as bad as NGE. If STO can survive the Iconians, it can survive a little TRIBBLE.
Probably because there are even fewer Klingon players than there are TRIBBLE fans. Finding a Klingon playing TRIBBLE fan would be even harder. If you thought the Bortas'que had abysmal sales, how bad do you think some barely seen TRIBBLE Klingon pinecone-ship would sell?
I see a lot of people arguing about why Discovery is good or why it's bad. Lot of good points are being brought up. For me, I just don't care for the story telling. Just a few quick examples. The second in charge betraying her captain to start a war? Tough beginning to the series right there. But she's forgiven and all is ok later on apparently. The spore drive (fast fungus highway) instead of the classic warp drive? Why would the Star Trek Universe forget about a technology that allows them to jump anywhere they please?
I'll stop because I'm sure people really enjoy this show and I'm happy for them. It's just not for me, and I'm sure some others, but again I'm glad STO will introduce new content for the fans of Discovery. I will skip it, like I'm skipping the show, and won't invest any money into any of the packages that I'm sure will get released when the new material rolls out.
I have no issue with Cryptic trying to make a buck or following the network's instructions. Victory is Life was pretty fun and had some great episodes so I'm sure the Discovery stuff will be great for it's fans. It's just a shame for all of us that aren't.
RIP (2022) : Officer Wilbert Mota, Corporal Charles Galloway, Detective Jason Rivera, Officer Fernando
Arroyos, Officer John Painter, K9 Jedi, K9 Maya, Deputy Constable Neil Adams, Officer Jorge
David Alvarado, Sergeant Joshua Cordell, Trooper Martin Mack, Trooper Branden Sisca,
Lieutenant William Lebo
This seems a little hyperbolic. Star Trek: Discovery is not nearly as bad as NGE. If STO can survive the Iconians, it can survive a little TRIBBLE.
It's also presumptive. I was moderating the ten forward livestream and there weren't many folks in chat who were salty about Discovery. Foundry community is pretty stoked too, across many different shades of opinion about the quality DSC season 1. You get an "split community" by looking at the soapbox social media platforms, which inherently attract folks who are grumpy for the sake of being grumpy (see. attention, assumed authority, recognition, ect.), and extrapolating that data point out in spite of that inherent selection bias.
IMO, anytime someone takes a forum reaction as being wholly representative of anything, imagine in place of that text a pile of kittens. There's just as much fluff but the only bias involved is a desire for cuddles/num nums/human flesh. Always take reactions in context and for what they are, not the someone wants you to believe it is (for their own reasons.)
Anyway I do want to make sure this suggestion gets added to the pile (especially since it's not about Tardigrades): can we get cyborg as a playable option or cyborg parts for DSC era characters? Ie.
Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Here's something that amuses me to no end about the TRIBBLE and even TNG fans. They harp about the use of rocker switches and not using touch screens in other series ranting on how dated they are. I guess these so called experts on these things have never once taken a look at the cockpit of a modern aircraft or warship. Guess what folks rocker switches abound along with analog gauges even in so called "glass cockpits". Why are they there well it's simple really reliability and ease of making a quick fix. A simple analogue pitot will tell you if you are flying to slow or fast when your digital display goes dark from a power failure or glitch something a digital screen that looses power or has a short can't do. Sure Gene Rodenberry and Matt Jefferies could have pulled magic gizmos out the hat but you do realize both had a background in Aviation right? So that carried over to some design features.
I've made that point many times before, only to be ignored. Touchscreen interfaces are notoriously unreliable in any kind of professional / military environment where reaction time and reliability are vital. No military or commercial craft use them, at least not in anything but a secondary capacity. Dedicated switches and physical gauges and controls are what's used because they are always in the same place and always work the same way so they can be accessed instantly when needed with no delay. Touchscreen interfaces are for consumer devices and commercial POS (point of sale) systems. You'll never see them on a military ship or in a commercial aircraft or in a race car --they're not practical.
It makes sense for present-day militaries, sure. It might not make sense for Starfleet.
First off, Starfleet personnel are supposed to be polymaths: scientists and diplomats in addition to soldiers. The ships similarly are designed to do sciencey stuff as readily as defending Federation citizens from aggressors. Under those circumstances multifunction displays and interfaces make sense.
Second of all, reliability and ergonomics are fundamentally engineering and training problems, which unlike physics problems can potentially be addressed with research and effort. These guys found a way around a fundamental physical law for Pete's sake; designing a useful touchscreen interface should be peanuts.
And it's shown repeatedly that there are manual alternatives (although because the writers don't grok engineering, those fail whenever it would be convenient to the plot).
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I have no issue with Cryptic trying to make a buck or following the network's instructions. Victory is Life was pretty fun and had some great episodes so I'm sure the Discovery stuff will be great for it's fans. It's just a shame for all of us that aren't.
Well, as I stated before what we're getting in STO will be a faithful visual recreation of Discovery content but set to the narrative format (and therefore writing) of STO. For those that didn't like the TV show, this is probably going to be your best introduction to and repurposing of the source material you'll see. Take for what it means in the context of the game and stuff the complication of the show, if it really bothers you. Calling it a shame for those that aren't at the center of this round of content, to me, is silly. Think of saying that about those who prefer TNG during AOY or, alternatively, TOS fans during VIL (an expansion dedicated to a series which actively subverted long-standing Trek tropes for effect.) Was it a shame that a single set of preferences weren't being explicitly catered for at all times? No, because the alternative is ludicrous for a franchise as large and diverse as Star Trek.
Also: the FED didn't forget about instantaneous travel to any point in the universe. See. Excelsior (it was introduced in the same movie as when the KDF successfully re-engineered the cloaking device. This is a very, very simple thematic parallel which both references and foreshadows later conflict between these factions. What we saw there started here, setting the stage for a larger arc to be developed over the course of DSC and other episodes/movies of TOS.)
So is this a real expansion like Legacy of Romulus or a mini expansion like Delta Rising, Agents of Yesterday and Victory is Life.
Mechanically it'll be closest to Agents of Yesterday, the new DSC-era characters will be entirely analogous. That said, how the "expansion" is being made is very different. Age of Discovery is season 15. It will go on to include future seasons as well. Together, they'll make up something that in retrospect will be comparable to an expansion. But it'll be delivered as seasons. Think "lead up to the Iconian war" if Cryptic had a tighter and more direct plan for how the components would eventually fit together (though it's a presumption at this point to say that all the seasons of Age of Discovery will be sequential. We just know that there'll be more than one in future.)
The major celebration here is that Cryptic is now able to work on content that ties into a concurrently running Star Trek TV series (with close cooperation with CBS). Considering where STO started, that's pretty damn incredible.
Also, for even the most introspective STO fan, we're getting mini-factions within seasons now. That opens the doors to a lot of other possibilities that don't have to compete or wait for the next full expansion.
Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Comments
Ooooo...great post.
A lot of Discovery looks different, but only because filming and props technology has vastly improved since even Nemesis was made. And nothing is really so "out there" that it utterly breaks Trek lore of canon unless you want to be ridiculously arrogant and pedantic about your own personal vision of what Trek is.
S1 was well filmed and had plenty of interesting connections to existing lore from across the Trek timeline. They were well woven in and in a few cases expanded greatly on barely touched concepts. I'm pretty sure we'll get more explanation of things like Klingon looks and their ship styles in the coming episodes and seasons, they've got plenty of time to explore the time period.
There's no continuity breaks unless you look for them.
[Mod Hat] Wrong. Stop right there. You do not own the franchise, therefore you do not get to decide what is and is not Star Trek.
Why do you not get to decide what is and is not Star Trek? Because you are then implicitly saying that people who do like the series in question -- whether that be TOS, TAS, TOS movies, TNG, DS9, TNG movies, VOY, ENT, KT movies, or DSC -- are not legitimate Star Trek fans. Your logical fallacy is "No True Scotsman", which I explicitly said on page four of this thread I was not going to tolerate.
If you don't like the series? Go ahead, say that you don't like the series. I don't have a problem with expressing a simple negative opinion; I've got a number of objections to DSC's writing myself. But stop pretending to be the arbiter of all that is just and holy in Star Trek. To be clear, in case you're on your phone or tablet and can't see my signature: [Mod Hat/] means I am not debating you as a player, I am issuing a command as a moderator. The next person I see say anything resembling "not real Star Trek" gets a warning for flaming and trolling. [/Mod Hat]
And here's one example of why people who enjoy the series might find the "not real Star Trek" sentiment insulting. Go on, enjoy.
EDIT: Minor clarification.
Actually, originally it wasn't set at any particular time period, just "our future". The whole point of stardates was that it let the writers avoid giving recognizable dates. It wasn't until later that they nailed it down to "300 years from air date".
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Mine is STO content-centric, not the overall universe of Trek content.
And having Discovery in the Prime circle makes me sad for you.
How about you stop being sad about that Discovery is in the Prime circle and accept it like a real IDIC Star Trek fan? Star Trek: Discovery is set in the time between Enterprise and TOS in the Prime timeline and contrary to people they did not ruin the Klingons since it is in that period and not after Nemesis. So you disagree with the direction they chose? Very well but stop acting like you know better than the writers, producers, etc of this series. Let it run its course and give it a chance. Besides there were problematic parts in all the Star Trek series including the movies and continuity problems as well. This series is only hashing out the Klingon race and what would have been if the dude in charge of Axanar had not done an illegal thing, which some people still defend him on. He would not have been in such a problem if he had asked for permission before using Star Trek assets for profit without CBS approval. Anyway, this is why Star Trek while remaining strong is dying because some not all purists are bringing it down because it is #notmytrek. Those are my two cents. Thanks.
> kabutotokugawa wrote: »
>
> ruinthefun wrote: »
>
> And more importantly, everyone misses the point: Do you think they're allowed to simply NOT have this tie-in? Hell, CBS probably has a gun to their heads insisting it.
>
>
>
>
> Most likely, which means the marketing team from CBS is probably involved and the likelihood of them having any clue about the storyline in STO is not high. They may be demanding that Cryptic push TRIBBLE on the STO fanbase and will do more harm than good since if the push is too strong and too much so that players cannot avoid TRIBBLE content, they will drive many of us away and likely either damage or even kill STO off due to a loss of paying players. I'm not saying there should not be TRIBBLE content, I'm saying that if they try to FORCE that content on players via missions, or any type of requirements for existing characters, they will shoot themselves in the foot.
>
>
>
>
> In all my viewings of the Ten Forward weekly when I got to watch it, it seemed like the STO devs were particularly excited about Discovery and definitely wanted to squeeze Discovery story content into the game.
>
> CBS I think only had a hand in the 50th anniversary stuff for the game prior where they wanted to make sure STO did the franchise justice.
>
> CBS I think here is actually more on the lines of asking them if they can incorporate the Discovery content in order to help give the series more presence in a game that they're licensing. They probably came to them some time ago while VIL was in design and they had to wait until they could get it finished before they could start work on Discovery content.
> lostmindfindit wrote: »
>
> You want a TRIBBLE? fine (i could put in some joke here, but not in the mood), make it separate game, do NOT BRING THIS S..T into STO. I always saw STO as a last bastion of proper star trek, i overlooked the slight hints at TRIBBLE before now, but if you will incorporate that FAKE CASH GRAB show into the game, you will lose player base. Every Star trek show before now at least TRIED to keep in continuity, and at very least explain why diffrences (klingons from original series vs tng for example) or Enterprise that made actual effort to LOOK an FEEL as a predecessor to original series. even JJtrek at VERY least cut itself from actual startrek timeline to allow itself creative freedoms. TRIBBLE is NOT startrek and should not be mixed with it, you want game in it, separate it at very least, so those of us who dont want to have anything to do with it, can.
>
>
>
>
> It's honestly pretty late for you to ask that they not mix Discovery in with the game. It's already happened with the Discovery Lock box and the Discovery uniforms that were given out for free.
> trygvar13 wrote: »
>
> I was afraid this would happen when Martok named T'Kuvma, Voq and L'rell had the end of the Home episodes. Please keep this abomination out of STO. (Vulgarity removed - BMR) is not even remotely Star Trek and as a Klingon fan it is even insulting to have another "event" aimed at the Blue side alone.
>
>
>
>
> As I already stated, it's too late for them to not put Discovery content into the game considering that they've put icondic ships into the game already.
> trygvar13 wrote: »
>
> reyan01 wrote: »
>
> Response to moderated post redacted. — StarSword-C
>
> It has been said before but is worth repeating; it is very sad that the hallmark of a 'True Star Trek fan' seems to now be their ability and authority to declare others to not be Star Trek fans based on the kind of Star Trek material they enjoy.
>
>
>
>
> Star Trek was an ideal that fans kept alive for 50 years. Discovery destroyed all of what we held dear. No matter what they say this is not and never will be Star Trek. Period. I have no problem with you liking it. It is still not Star Trek. You can put a Cadillac logo on a Chevette but it will still be a Chevette.
>
>
>
>
> Discovery in my mind hasn't destroyed ANYTHING. Do things look different? Yes. That is to be expected. Except for some glaring things like the use of holographic projections instead of the viewscreen and a drive that they decide to put the breaks on using for now, most of what we see with the show is a visual upgrade that should be fitting of a show produced in the 2010s, not something from 1960s.
>
> The Klingons I got used to. It doesn't matter to me that they look the way they do now. If they get around to explaining in universe the difference, I will accept it just as we got an in-universe explanation on why the TNG Klingons turn into the TOS Klinogns.
I still go by my theory that the Klingons tried to mutate their dna after the Augment Crisis and went too far
Of course you can change visuals.
Here's what you can pretend, for your personal head canon or whatever:
There is a "real" Star Trek Universe, and the creators of Star Trek material are often inspired in their dreams by this real Star Trek universe. But they don't see all of it, so they have to fill in some story gaps. And they only have the tools of our time available to them when they create a visual representation of it. They need to find actors that can play the roles well. The real Spock might not look remotely like Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto, but Nimoy and Quinto managed to represent their specific style they saw in their dreams really well.
Sure, Gene Roddenberry's set designers saw holographic and touch screens everywhere - but how could he possibly recreate that and make people understand how that is supposed to work, make affordable sets and convince the studio execs to go with it? They couldn't, so it became advanced-for-the-60s looking buttons and colors.
> daimonion13#5412 wrote: »
>
> To all Discovery defenders - we can argue about story and lore (I think Disc is very badly written, it's just generic s-f shooting, but if someone likes it - fine by me, de gustibus non est disputandum). But you can't change visuals... If you want it, just don't make prequels, simple as that. Set the show some time after Voyager and done. But if you're making a prequel, you can't blame people for being angry about devastating everything what was established. It's called continuity. Imagine a book. In first chapter John Smith has a dog named Porthos, and in last chapter he has a cat called Spot - and he pretends it's the same pet and he always had a cat. If it's not intended surrealistic writing and Smith isn't psychically ill, then it doesn't make a sense - so why we should pretend that Discovery has?:)
>
>
>
>
> Of course you can change visuals.
>
> Here's what you can pretend, for your personal head canon or whatever:
>
> There is a "real" Star Trek Universe, and the creators of Star Trek material are often inspired in their dreams by this real Star Trek universe. But they don't see all of it, so they have to fill in some story gaps. And they only have the tools of our time available to them when they create a visual representation of it. They need to find actors that can play the roles well. The real Spock might not look remotely like Leonard Nimoy or Zachary Quinto, but Nimoy and Quinto managed to represent their specific style they saw in their dreams really well.
>
> Sure, Gene Roddenberry's set designers saw holographic and touch screens everywhere - but how could he possibly recreate that and make people understand how that is supposed to work, make affordable sets and convince the studio execs to go with it? They couldn't, so it became advanced-for-the-60s looking buttons and colors.
Kirk even said in TMP that things didn’t look or happened in the exact way we saw in TOS, it was exaggerated by legends.
You're worried about 7 characters? I have 12 currently and I'm not worried. Here's the thing: you don't have to actually play them all.
Good thing I purchased the Elite Starter Pack for the PC STO when it was released. And it works. I haven't tried to purchase the ESP with the XBox One, so I don't know if that's not working right.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
KDF won't get a unique tutorial regarding the TRIBBLE Klingorks. KDF aren't "profitable," according to the lead dev.
Have a nice day. — StarSword-C
As long as the writing for the mission(s) isn't as bad as the show we should be good.
CBS DID NOT OWN OR AIR STAR TREK NBC DID. Plus the reasons for it being killed had nothing to do with ads.
That's two strikes. — StarSword-C
Funny, but more modern shows did a bang-up job of making the 60;s aesthetic look pretty damn good (Enterprise-"In a Mirror, Darkly" and DS9-"Trials and Tribble-lations"), despite it's dated look and effects.
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Fair enough and pretty spot on with regards to Trek history. "Discovery" might actually get better. But considering the climate in Hollyweird today, I doubt it. It's a different time than even "Enterprise's run. But that is just me.
Interesting point of view!!
Wrong analogy. It's more like getting chocolate chip where the chocolate is 80% cacao dark chocolate instead of the milk chocolate you decided it would would contain without having had any input into the bakery's purchasing decisions. It's still chocolate chip, but it tastes different.
I can't stand ENT and VOY most days, and I have serious beefs with DSC, but they're all Star Trek. Deal with it.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Dated look for a set designed to look like its from the future is precisely why the 60's aesthetic applied literally doesn't work in the same way as it did in the original time period. TOS wasn't speculating on precise course of architecture through the next several hundred years, such that the time period in question was selected as the most likely point found by a generalized linear model for a revival of 60's fashions and stylistic sensibilities.
They made space look more relatable to its audience than other pop sci-fi did at the time (which largely indulged in creating distance between their subject matter and the audience to accentuate the mystique of their fantastical settings, which was their most vivid appeal) in order to help deliver more relatable character stories and moral problems which were central to that production (and all those that followed.) Discovery cannot be the kind of show every other Star Trek series and movie has been if it faithfully replicated the exact look of TOS. Even if it was competently composed, looking good is not the end of audience engagement, whether they care to think about it or not.
This is basic to understanding how art influences visual story telling. Let's stop pretending it doesn't apply to Discovery for the sake of convenience, apathy, or worse. This is one area that the production team got right with Discovery, and the visuals are one of the most easily translated elements to a modern video game (with writing, it's more difficult to carry over between passive and interactive media.)
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Also, I think I only qualify for one square on your bingo card. How many haters do you need for a bingo? This seems a little hyperbolic. Star Trek: Discovery is not nearly as bad as NGE. If STO can survive the Iconians, it can survive a little TRIBBLE. WHY?! WHY YOU YOU REMIND US OF THIS?! Where did I put the Clorox...
Good luck with that. You make Brian Fuller sad. Probably because there are even fewer Klingon players than there are TRIBBLE fans. Finding a Klingon playing TRIBBLE fan would be even harder. If you thought the Bortas'que had abysmal sales, how bad do you think some barely seen TRIBBLE Klingon pinecone-ship would sell? Iconian War. You meant to say "was not as bad as the Iconian War", right? TRIBBLE does have writing issues, but not as bad as the Iconian War.
I'll stop because I'm sure people really enjoy this show and I'm happy for them. It's just not for me, and I'm sure some others, but again I'm glad STO will introduce new content for the fans of Discovery. I will skip it, like I'm skipping the show, and won't invest any money into any of the packages that I'm sure will get released when the new material rolls out.
I have no issue with Cryptic trying to make a buck or following the network's instructions. Victory is Life was pretty fun and had some great episodes so I'm sure the Discovery stuff will be great for it's fans. It's just a shame for all of us that aren't.
Arroyos, Officer John Painter, K9 Jedi, K9 Maya, Deputy Constable Neil Adams, Officer Jorge
David Alvarado, Sergeant Joshua Cordell, Trooper Martin Mack, Trooper Branden Sisca,
Lieutenant William Lebo
It's also presumptive. I was moderating the ten forward livestream and there weren't many folks in chat who were salty about Discovery. Foundry community is pretty stoked too, across many different shades of opinion about the quality DSC season 1. You get an "split community" by looking at the soapbox social media platforms, which inherently attract folks who are grumpy for the sake of being grumpy (see. attention, assumed authority, recognition, ect.), and extrapolating that data point out in spite of that inherent selection bias.
IMO, anytime someone takes a forum reaction as being wholly representative of anything, imagine in place of that text a pile of kittens. There's just as much fluff but the only bias involved is a desire for cuddles/num nums/human flesh. Always take reactions in context and for what they are, not the someone wants you to believe it is (for their own reasons.)
Anyway I do want to make sure this suggestion gets added to the pile (especially since it's not about Tardigrades): can we get cyborg as a playable option or cyborg parts for DSC era characters? Ie.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
It makes sense for present-day militaries, sure. It might not make sense for Starfleet.
First off, Starfleet personnel are supposed to be polymaths: scientists and diplomats in addition to soldiers. The ships similarly are designed to do sciencey stuff as readily as defending Federation citizens from aggressors. Under those circumstances multifunction displays and interfaces make sense.
Second of all, reliability and ergonomics are fundamentally engineering and training problems, which unlike physics problems can potentially be addressed with research and effort. These guys found a way around a fundamental physical law for Pete's sake; designing a useful touchscreen interface should be peanuts.
And it's shown repeatedly that there are manual alternatives (although because the writers don't grok engineering, those fail whenever it would be convenient to the plot).
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Well, as I stated before what we're getting in STO will be a faithful visual recreation of Discovery content but set to the narrative format (and therefore writing) of STO. For those that didn't like the TV show, this is probably going to be your best introduction to and repurposing of the source material you'll see. Take for what it means in the context of the game and stuff the complication of the show, if it really bothers you. Calling it a shame for those that aren't at the center of this round of content, to me, is silly. Think of saying that about those who prefer TNG during AOY or, alternatively, TOS fans during VIL (an expansion dedicated to a series which actively subverted long-standing Trek tropes for effect.) Was it a shame that a single set of preferences weren't being explicitly catered for at all times? No, because the alternative is ludicrous for a franchise as large and diverse as Star Trek.
Also: the FED didn't forget about instantaneous travel to any point in the universe. See. Excelsior (it was introduced in the same movie as when the KDF successfully re-engineered the cloaking device. This is a very, very simple thematic parallel which both references and foreshadows later conflict between these factions. What we saw there started here, setting the stage for a larger arc to be developed over the course of DSC and other episodes/movies of TOS.)
PS. Dune did it first.
Mechanically it'll be closest to Agents of Yesterday, the new DSC-era characters will be entirely analogous. That said, how the "expansion" is being made is very different. Age of Discovery is season 15. It will go on to include future seasons as well. Together, they'll make up something that in retrospect will be comparable to an expansion. But it'll be delivered as seasons. Think "lead up to the Iconian war" if Cryptic had a tighter and more direct plan for how the components would eventually fit together (though it's a presumption at this point to say that all the seasons of Age of Discovery will be sequential. We just know that there'll be more than one in future.)
The major celebration here is that Cryptic is now able to work on content that ties into a concurrently running Star Trek TV series (with close cooperation with CBS). Considering where STO started, that's pretty damn incredible.
Also, for even the most introspective STO fan, we're getting mini-factions within seasons now. That opens the doors to a lot of other possibilities that don't have to compete or wait for the next full expansion.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!