Talk:Mysteries left by Star Control II

From Ultronomicon
Revision as of 16:14, 17 May 2007 by Valaggar (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.