Talk:Mysteries left by Star Control II

From Ultronomicon
Jump to: navigation, search

The attack on the Tobermoon in Oort's Cloud is not mysterious, SvdB. The "deep burns" and damage inflicted on the crew exclusively are signs of a probe attack. Its electric arc created such "deep burns' through which it entered the ship and incinerated the crew (like lightning), without dealing much damage upon the ship's systems. 16:44, 18 March 2007 (CET)

Since when do Slylandro probes kill the crew and leave the rest of the systems intact, and then just leave? — SvdB 18:05, 18 March 2007 (CET)
Since when do they just attack ships, kill only the captain, and leave (as it happened with the Tobermoon in HyperSpace on the way to Sol from Vela)? 19:37, 18 March 2007 (CET)
That would be another interesting mystery. But back to the original Tobermoon thing. Assuming the ship was attacked in 2135, as Chi was just leaving the Vela Oort Cloud, then it predates the appearance of the Probes (bought by the Slylandro 200-300 rotations prior to SC2), the arrival of the Orz, and the Androsynth destruction (who also disappear leaving no bodies). And the MO, specifically the lack of bodies, doesn't seem to line up with typical Hierarchy tactics. So, I'm putting it back in as it still is a mystery (who knows, could have been the <best Fwiffo voice>Ultimate Evil</best Fwiffo voice>). --Fyzixfighter 23:26, 18 March 2007 (CET)
Well, yeah. 14:53, 19 March 2007 (CET)

As to the Supox specifically, I think it did not effect them at all - they only got it AFTER it was broken, and give it to you BEFORE you fix it; if therefore, any effects the Ultron does have would have given the Supox a miss. User:

And what if not? It's still a mystery. Maybe the change was a "discrete change" as mentioned in the description found on Rigel about the "Appendages of Dawn", aka Ultron: "In the partially translated Precursor text, the device is described as a `Mental Amplifier' which focuses the mental energies of the holder `for the purpose of discrete change'." Valaggar 14:23, 10 May 2007 (CEST)


I like the idea of classifying them - not unlike what we did for game characters. What is the criteria you are using for classifying each mystery? There's a few that I would shift around, but before I do that, we should probably flesh out the classification criteria. --Fyzixfighter 21:31, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

This is it:
Major mysteries: Central mysteries - it should be self-explanatory

Secondary mysteries: Mysteries "auxiliary" to the major ones. And other big mysteries that are not central to the plot, though are INCLUDED in it.
Minor mysteries: "Serious" mysteries, though not bearing any relation to the plot.
Trivial mysteries: Mysteries whose answer merits inclusion in a Trivia section.

There is also the option of classifying the mysteries by their subjects (i.e. IDF, Precursor, Utwig), but they are too many for this. Valaggar 11:05, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Sorry, now I see where you put the classifications. I should probably learn to stop posting when I'm tired after a long day of work. I agree that classifying by subject is not a tenable solution. However, I really don't like the reference to a possible future sequel - such a criterion is far too subjective, and is quite open to an editor's personal bias. Of course, I think with any criteria, there will still be some debate over where to put certain mysteries. I think I would organize it into 4 or 5 categories:
  • Major: central mysteries with significant impact on the plot and lore of the universe (this could be broken up into lore and game categories)
  • Minor: mysteries in the game and lore but that don't have significant impact on the plot and lore
  • Trivial: results of flavor text
  • Other: results of extrapolation and critical analysis (reading between the lines) of the canon
  • Post-game: concerning events that do or could happen following the SC2
The only problem I see with this is determining the dividing line on significance between Major and Minor, and I'm sure there will be disagreement on whether something is flavor text or a more significant mystery. Oh, and I really hate mixing hierarchies, ie major and minor, and primary and secondary and tertiary... --Fyzixfighter 17:36, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Unfortunately, post-game mysteries cross over the other categories - there are major post-game mysteries (e.g. Mark II) as well as minor and additional ones - and "other" mysteries.
Your "other" category will leave some mysteries excluded, since most of the current "other" mysteries are not the result of reading between the lines (and can't fit now in the "post-game" category either).
As to the dividing line between major and minor - we should find a compromise as to whether a mystery is major or minor. As far as I know, most people consider the current "major" mysteries major, but I can't be sure. Valaggar 18:05, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Yes, post-game crosses over some of the other categories, especially as you have defined him. The classification scheme I suggest would require (in some cases significant) migrations of certain mysteries to other groups. The post-game is probably the weakest category of my scheme, but I like I said, I really hate including a non-existent sequel as part of the criteria. For the most part, post-game can be absorbed into "Other" since most of it is extrapolation of known events. I know this might be lengthy, but it would better elucidate what I'm thinking about - this is how I would categorize the mysteries using the [1] numbering:
  • 1.1 - Major, I think we all agree on this one
  • 1.2 - Major
  • 1.3 - Major, possibly minor but likely large enough to be major
  • 1.4 - Minor, possibly major since a lot of the dialog relates to this
  • 1.5 - Minor
  • 1.6 - Minor (only seen at very end of game), (or post-game)
  • 2.1 - Major, significant plot/game mystery (what happened, not if there are any left)
  • 2.2 - Minor
  • 2.3 - Minor
  • 2.4 - Major, mystery about the source of a major Alliance player
  • 2.5 - Trivial, IMO the two mentions of the K-V are simply flavor text and has no effect on plot/gameplay
  • 2.6 - Other (or post-game), total extrapolation and barely referenced in the canon (only in end cinematics iirc)
  • 2.7 - Trivial, the Hayes quote is flavor text intended to get you to explore the Draconis constellation
  • 2.8 - Minor
  • 2.9 - Other, mystery is based on interpretation/reading into bits of dialog, the mystery itself is never referenced in-game
  • 3.1 - Trivial
  • 3.2 - Minor
  • 3.3 - Major
  • 3.4 - Major
  • 3.5 - Other
  • 3.6 - Minor, in some ways this has already been answered, thought the exact details are not given
  • 4.1 - Trivial
  • 4.2 - Trivial
  • 4.3 - Other
  • 4.4 - Other, though I could see someone arguing Minor since we see this twice ingame
  • 4.5 - Trivial
  • 4.6 - Other (no flavor text refers to this)
  • 4.7 - Other
  • 5.1 - Other (or post-game)
  • 5.2 - Trivial
  • 5.3 - Other (since Hayes dialog seems to indicate that the answer is "no")
  • 5.4 - Other
  • 5.5 - Other (or post-game)
  • 5.6 - Other (or post-game)
  • 5.7 - Trivial
  • 5.8 - Other
I think that there is still some gray area, which means that the classification should probably be refined. One way to do this I imagine would be to lump the major and minor together into a "Lore and gameplay", thus removing the subjective major/minor distinction, or reorganize Major/Minor into a "Lore" and "In-game" for mysteries that relate to the Lore in general, and those that arise and relate directly to the gameplay, again a scheme that is far less subjective. --Fyzixfighter 22:13, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

It seems that classification by importance is way too subjective, especially since we don't know on what of these will the sequel capitalize. Another variant would be: "Results of small bits of text (flavour text)" ("Trivial"), "Results of large segments of text" ("Major"), "Results of extrapolation/critical analysis" ("Other"), but this would dump the "They" mystery together with "How the Pkunk and the Yehat got separated".

The only way I see to solve this dilemma is either 1) Use no classification or 2) Gather the opinions of a large sample of people about how important each mystery is. Valaggar 14:49, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Don't give up just yet. I think we're almost to a workable solution. I like the "Trivial" definition (we haven't strayed to far from your original definition for this), and the "Other" definition based on extrapolation. For "Major", I think a better definition would be a mystery usually resulting from information from more than one source and relating to major aspects of the lore, game plot, and game play. In this sense I would put "They" in the Major category (at least 2 sources, they wiped out a major race from sc1, and the mystery was meant to make the player worry even more about the Orz). The Pkunk/Yehat mystery I would put in Other, since we know the basics of how it happened (the ice cold egg, the left the Yehat over 1000 years ago) and the mystery is in the details (how they end up all the way in Giclas, why the difference in body structure, and what's the truth behind the legend). We can place the ones that are easy to place first, then bring the difficult ones here (or to the forum) to discuss and get more input.
Another scheme that may work is a chronological one: Pre-game, in-game, post-game. Though I'm not certain if the division is perfectly clean - there may be some that span two (or all) classes. But it does remove some of the subjectivity of what constitutes major, trivial, and other, while at the same time being a useful way to group the mysteries. --Fyzixfighter 07:25, 17 May 2007 (CEST)

OK. You've found out better definitions, now let's see what we've got to do...

Working at the classification, my sandbox contains what I think to be a good one.
Note: The two Tobermoon mysteries are not treated as mysteries anywhere, so they are classified under "other". Valaggar 15:16, 17 May 2007 (CEST)

Oooo, shiny. For the most part I like it - I like the further break down, it's not too much but still does the job. We still need clarification of what differentiates "Trivial" and "Additional". IMO the 2 Tobermoon mysteries aren't on equal footing - the first is a direct result of flavor text in the manual (particularly the word "Strangely", which implies mystery to me), the second is critical analysis of the event based on what we know of the probes. There's a couple others I question, but I want to think it over a bit and see what the difference is between Trivial and Additional. --Fyzixfighter 17:15, 17 May 2007 (CEST)

About the additional/trivial difference: See new description of trivia section.

About Tobermoon: Though the manual does say that Zelnick thought the Ur-Quan did it, and presents it like a likely explanation. There's even an Ur-Quan picture on that page, and the images in the story tend to be posted as soon as their subject shows up - of course it could be that they made their appearance in Zelnick's imagination, of course. So it gives and supports an explanation; contesting it is extrapolation/critical thinking.

In order for a mystery to be Minor, it has to be presented (even subtly, not as a mystery), but not explained.

Ah, oops. Just noticed the "How does the rest of the galaxy look like" and the Human/Syreen mystery under "Minor mysteries". And since the "Other mysteries" section will grow quite large, I think a parallel classification to the Lore section would fit.

<a bit later> Noticed a lot of them!

<a bit more later> Turned out that there weren't that many. Valaggar 18:15, 17 May 2007 (CEST)

New classification[edit]

This new classification was actually my first attempt at classifying and it was too subjective. See Mmrnmhrm creators and Keel-Verezy at "Trivia" - hey, maybe they will be the main antagonists in the sequel. Valaggar 20:15, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Your categories are arbitrary. You have a separate categories for two species; these categories are at the same level as "pre-SC2" and "post-SC2". And why draw the line at the number of sources that mention it? Re-reverting. — SvdB 22:58, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

1) It's not arbitrary. They are based on the time of the occurrence of the mystery: Pre, Post, and Other *time* (which are split into Arilou and Orz) - and the Additional ones, which do not have a specific time of occurrence (or you can say that they occur at the time of SC2).
2)The number of sources is the best criterion to indicate the importance of the mystery, since we don't know what impact they will have on the sequel.
3)You have removed the Druuge changing mystery - yes, it is a mystery - what was your reasoning? Valaggar 14:45, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

  1. You do not split "Other" into Arilou and Orz; they are on the same level as Pre and Post. And each of the Pre and Post categories only have a few items, further indicating that it is a bad categorisation (in the "Lore Mysteries"; in the "Other mysteries" category you don't even have a Pre-SC2!)
  2. You can tell from how something is refered to whether it is important or not. A running gag will return frequently, without having to be important to the plot, while a sudden revelation from a single source might be the most important mystery of them all.
  3. I have found no reference of the Druuge being influenced by the Ultron. For something to be a mystery worthy of inclusion, it should at least make you wonder when you encounter the mystery in-game, rather than when you go over the story yet again and decide "Hmm... the story doesn't exclude some other possibility".

Also, your use of the word "lore" to distinguish certain mysteries from others makes no sense. — SvdB 15:59, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

  1. About the irregularity of subcategories: The list is incomplete, plus who says that all types of mysteries must appear in every class?
  2. Maybe you can say without many chances of doubt that the mysteries currently classified as "Major" are major... but how do you tell trivial mysteries from minor ones? Why are the *Nnngn* and the Keel-Verezy trivial, while the BSS is minor? (Idea: Keep your classification, but merge "Minor" with "Trivial". It's very little, but the mysteries are hard to classify.)
  3. The Utwig say about the Druuge: "Even now, they are puzzled by the way we rewarded them for the delivery of the Ultron to its correct place. In twenty-four years, two months and three days they will all dance the dance of Jubilation. Indeed, the Ultron has allowed us to change fundamentally the Druuge forever!". Valaggar 17:58, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

  1. The list may not be complete, but it's close. If most of the items fall in the "other" category, your categories are useless.
  2. You are right; the BSS should be in the trivial category; that was a mistake. I agree that there could be cases for which it is not that clear in which category a mystery belongs, but those are the exceptions. Having a separate category still serves the readability of the page. I would propose the following criteria
    • Possible consequences depending on the truth behind the mystery. If the consequences would be large enough to form the main plot of a sequel, that would make it major. If it would be large enough for a sub-plot, it would be minor. If it would just result in a new trivia, that would make it trivial.
    • Likelyhood of the truth involving such consequences. If the only mentioning is part of a joke, you should not assume that those consequences actually take place.
    • Whether the player would actually be wondering about a "mystery" when he/she encounters it in the game. If it is merely something which isn't explained, it doesn't belong in this list at all.
  3. I forgot about that Utwig line about the Druuge. You are right, it does belong on this page. Is there such a line about the Supox that I forgot about too?
SvdB 21:51, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

1.Now, your categories look better, indeed, and my old subcategories ones were a bit too irregular, but maybe we can stick to my classification, while removing the subcategories (and renaming "Lore" to "Minor"). The "other" category doesn't include "mysteries that do not fit into any other category", but "Mysteries resulting from the critical analysis and extrapolation of the canon lore", so its name should be changed too to avoid confusion.
Because, you know, it's not that there are some exceptions that are subjective, the exceptions are the mysteries that are not subjective. Let me show you:
  • VUX Beast the only one left from its species: Can be minor, since if there are other Beasts, they may play a part in the plot.
  • Where did the Orz come from: Can be minor, since it is possible that in the sequel the protagonist will travel there.
  • Tobermoon in Oort cloud: Can be minor, since it is possible that an unknown species did that and they will reveal themselves in the sequel.
  • Nnngn: Can be minor, since the *Nnngn* may, for example, be sentient and the protagonist will communicate with them.
  • Mother Ark: Can be minor, since the creators of the Mother Ark can return "to claim their due".
  • Keel-Verezy: Can be minor, since it is very possible that you will get to communicate with them in the sequel.
  • Ultimate Evil: If it exists... well, it is the Ultimate Evil!
  • BSS: Can be minor, since they can reveal themselves in the sequel, playing an important part.
  • Ultron changing the Druuge: Can be minor - Why, this change can be very significant!

Even the others, such as the face of the Utwig, can play an important part - maybe the Utwig will declare war upon someone because they have seen the Utwig's face.

(Plus, there are a lot of other possibilities for all of the above)

3. The Supox? It's right after the Druuge line: "Indeed, the Ultron has allowed us to change fundamentally the Druuge forever! The Supox too received many benefits from our use of the Ultron. They can testify to its power!". OK, seemingly, they haven't been changed, but it's possible that they were, so it qualifies, in my opinion. Valaggar 11:59, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

1.if you would have "Mysteries resulting from the critical analysis and extrapolation of the canon lore" you'd have too many nonsense that would fit in there. Anything that is not explained. "How much resources would the debris from the Sa-Matra be?", "Who is older, the Captain or Talana?", "Why is the Zoq green?". A criteria for inclusion should be whether the mystery will have you wondering right when you first encounter it. As for your list of examples, you only take the possible consequences into account, while with my criteria, there's also the chance of those consequences being true to take into account. And I don't see how your "2 mentionings -> major, 1 mentioning -> minor" is any better. 2. re-added the Supox — SvdB 15:22, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

1.False. It's "Mysteries resulting from [...]". The nonsense is not a mystery, as you have yourself said - "Something which is not explained in detail is not a mystery".
The chances of the consequences being true are large enough, I think. (Plus, they may opt for a plot twist)
Also, it's "more than 2 sources (i.e. if the Melnorme mention it twice and the IRC chats once, it's two sources, so the mystery is minor)", "at most 2 sources".
And yes, it works, since, as you can see, the major mysteries that have been isolated by my method are the same as the ones isolated by your method. It's logical after all - 2 sources means, for example, that the Arilou speak about messing with Humans and the objects (the Humans) speak as well, since those mysteries are "between" two races - maybe this thing is worth including in the definition also. 3 sources means that it's either universally known by all the species (the Precursors mysteries) or highly regarded by FF/PR3 (IRC chat mentions). Valaggar 16:17, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

That quote is not what I said. Anyhow, your phrasing suggests that it is not a mystery until you do some extrapolation or "critical analysis". If that is required for something to be a mystery, it does not belong on this page.

As for using the number of sources as a rule, you seem to be under the misconception that something which is mentioned more often must be more important. — SvdB 16:46, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

You "just because something isn't explained in detail, doesn't mean it qualifies as a mystery" in an edit summary, which is pretty much the same.
<<Anyhow, your phrasing suggests that it is not a mystery until you do some extrapolation or "critical analysis">> - What phrasing?! It's completely false!
<<As for using the number of sources as a rule, you seem to be under the misconception that something which is mentioned more often must be more important.>> - Not "must", just "is". It IS here, as it can be easily seen by comparing the new and the old classification.
Anyway, neither of the two classifications is too good, then? What about breaking them into "Major" (the current Major mysteries) and "Minor" (the rest), and breaking "Minor" into "Arilou", "Orz", "Pre-SC2", "Post-SC2", "Trivial" and "Additional"/"Other"? Valaggar 17:00, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
(re edit summary) Indeed, I said that. That is "A does not imply B". You make that "NOT(A) implies NOT(B)". These are not logically equivalent.
(re phrasing) Your most recent phrasing was "Mysteries resulting from the critical analysis of elements in the plot not presented as mysteries." (your earlier phrasing mentioned extrapolation too). "Mysteries resulting"; they are mysteries as the result of the "critical analysis of [...]". You did say that.
(re not must, is). It is not. Although it isn't clear-cut how to count sources. Are the Androsynth ruins one source, or is every ruin a source of each own? Do you just count the one source that mentions that the rainbow worlds have some sort of purpose, or do you include everything rainbow-world related? And how do you count for instance the number of sources for "Do the Orz have a special purpose for the Humans, as the Arilou have?"? Do you count the Arilou warning about the Orz as a source? Do you count the Orz' "*party*" references? You're only making it more difficult by using the number of sources as a rule.
I'm not saying neither classification is no good. I find mine perfectly acceptable. Your new suggestion has much of the problems of your old one, and in addition you end up with an awkward division of "major" and "rest". — SvdB 00:15, 6 June 2007 (CEST)
(re re edit summary) "just because something isn't explained in detail, doesn't mean it qualifies as a mystery"/"Something which is not explained in detail is not a mystery". "Something isn't explained in detail"="Something which isn't explained in detail"; "doesn't mean it qualifies as a mystery"="is not a mystery". Observe the "not"s in both cases.
(re re phrasing) They aren't mysteries "because" they are obtained via critical analysis; they are mysteries obtained via critical analysis. There is a big difference.
Not "major" and "rest". "Major" and "minor".
<<I'm not saying neither classification is no good.>> No, you're not. I am.
<<I find mine perfectly acceptable.>> I do not.
I'm still saying that it is too subjective. And if it's subjective, it's not NPOV. So it's just better than the old one, but still not good enough.
After all, do you have a formula to determine the chances of the mystery being a minor one and not a trivial one?
No, you do not. Valaggar 15:32, 6 June 2007 (CEST)
  • (re edit history) Why don't you read a book about logic, then reread my previous comment. I am not going to waste my time discussing logic with someone who doesn't understand the basics, and I have better things to do than teach you myself.
  • (re phrasing) You can't just decide that text says what you want it to say. Words have a commonly agreed meaning. Lookup "resulting". It means "following as an effect or result". If you say "mysteries resulting from X", then that means that the mysteries follow X as an effect or result.
  • (re major/rest) Fine, "major" and "minor", with "major" containing maybe 3 mysteries, and "minor" containing 20. That's what I call an awkward division.
  • (re subjective) Yes, it is subjective. But it's better to have an approximate ordering of importantce that might be a little off depending on who you ask, than an artificial ordering that has no bearing with reality. (And, see above, counting sources is inexact itself).

SvdB 00:32, 7 June 2007 (CEST)

  • (re re edit history) Ah, now I see. "just because A, doesn't mean B" means "Some A are not B", while my interpretation was "No A is B", since I forgot to add "necessarily" ("is not necessarily a mystery"). It was about English, not logics. (Also, please stop being so arrogant always - do it just sometimes or it loses its rhetorical power)
  • (re re phrasing) Yes, indeed. That is "they are mysteries resulting from extrapolation"="they are mysteries obtained via extrapolation". "Mysteries as a result of extrapolation" does not equate to "Mysteries because they are obtained via extrapolation". "The mysteries are a result of extrapolation", not "The mysteries are mysteries because they are a result of extrapolation". So it's only about the mysteries that fit into "just because blah-blah-blah, doesn't mean blah-blah-blah" but are obtained via extrapolation; it's not about all mysteries obtained via extrapolation.
  • (re re subjective) OK then, let's see. Valaggar 14:14, 7 June 2007 (CEST)

Phew... I hate to have to open this page again... but I just noticed that a classification in "Precursors" (3 entries), "IDF races" (9 entries), "Other known races" (13 entries), "Unknown races" (4 entries) and "Trivia" (5 entries) may be more adequate - with the current classification, mysteries relating to Arilou/Orz (especially) are distracting, since they look more like corollaries to the same entry, not to mention that the border between central and major mysteries is blurry at times. Valaggar 18:00, 29 August 2007 (CEST)