Why the hell aren't there more "space opera" / futuristic CRPGs?

[V_K]

Poor little snowflake can't handle some race and gender swapping. How sad.

 

[Whisper]

Poor little snowflake can't handle some race and gender swapping. How sad.

It is like film about Martin Luther King who is played by white women. And constantly ask other white people in film why they hate her skin colour and her gender.

Some race and gender swapping is good, yo.

 

[Cael]

Poor little snowflake can't handle some race and gender swapping. How sad.

Funny how the libtard white cuck didn't pick up on he black Heimdall comment.

 

[Darkzone]

I think our culture has declined since the 90s, so maybe Trek's problem is that it did grow out of the 90s, into the shit general culture of the 2010s.

It is not a decline, what you see is the results of those same values that 90s Star Trek went on about all the time. Plant the right seed and a beautiful flower will grow, plant a bad seed as Star Trek did and it will grow into a weed, the beauty of the seed does not decide the beauty of the flower.

Ok i like that that statement. But I would change your name into Hermes Trismegistos, because it is greek not latin: Ἑρμῆς ὁ Τρισμέγιστος . The title / nickname "Trismegistus" (Thrice Great) is the latinised form from the late medieval times by Marsilio Ficino by translating the hellenistic treatise (into latin) from the second century AD that is known as "Corpus Hermeticum", but the correct latinization would be Mercurius Ter Maximus. And yes i know that the english speaking nations use "Trismegistus" since to copy a mistake is not a mistake.
Normally i wouldn't be that nitpicky, but in this case i make an exception.

 

[lightbane]

t is not a decline, what you see is the results of those same values that 90s Star Trek went on about all the time. Plant the right seed and a beautiful flower will grow, plant a bad seed as Star Trek did and it will grow into a weed, the beauty of the seed does not decide the beauty of the flower.

Are you sure? Nu-S. Trek went out of its way to rape the corpse of the original and mutilate it. I doubt the original writers were thinking about "modern year" when doing the show. I admit it was idealistic to hell and back, but compared to trashfire like this...

 

[Deleted member 28561]

I think our culture has declined since the 90s, so maybe Trek's problem is that it did grow out of the 90s, into the shit general culture of the 2010s.

It is not a decline, what you see is the results of those same values that 90s Star Trek went on about all the time. Plant the right seed and a beautiful flower will grow, plant a bad seed as Star Trek did and it will grow into a weed, the beauty of the seed does not decide the beauty of the flower.

Ok i like that that statement. But I would change your name into Hermes Trismegistos, because it is greek not latin: Ἑρμῆς ὁ Τρισμέγιστος . The title / nickname "Trismegistus" (Thrice Great) is the latinised form from the late medieval times by Marsilio Ficino by translating the hellenistic treatise (into latin) from the second century AD that is known as "Corpus Hermeticum", but the correct latinization would be Mercurius Ter Maximus. And yes i know that the english speaking nations use "Trismegistus" since to copy a mistake is not a mistake.
Normally i wouldn't be that nitpicky, but in this case i make an exception.

A mistake repeated enough times becomes the norm, almost nobody knows Mercurius Ter Maximums, but they do know Hermes. Besides, old Hermes do not think you can change name once taken one. Good post nonetheless.

t is not a decline, what you see is the results of those same values that 90s Star Trek went on about all the time. Plant the right seed and a beautiful flower will grow, plant a bad seed as Star Trek did and it will grow into a weed, the beauty of the seed does not decide the beauty of the flower.

Are you sure? Nu-S. Trek went out of its way to rape the corpse of the original and mutilate it. I doubt the original writers were thinking about "modern year" when doing the show. I admit it was idealistic to hell and back, but compared to trashfire like this...

Yes, I am very sure, and they did not rape any corpses, they followed through on the original idea. Same as America of today is the same thing as was planted during the founding. Would the originators like what they see if here today? Probably not, but this is what they seeded.

 

[wahrk]

Are you sure? Nu-S. Trek went out of its way to rape the corpse of the original and mutilate it. I doubt the original writers were thinking about "modern year" when doing the show. I admit it was idealistic to hell and back, but compared to trashfire like this...

Yes, I am very sure, and they did not rape any corpses, they followed through on the original idea. Same as America of today is the same thing as was planted during the founding. Would the originators like what they see if here today? Probably not, but this is what they seeded.

Eh, I don’t know if I agree with this. Nu-Trek doesn’t “follow through” on the original ideals, it completely ignores them and I often doubt if the current writers even know what the original ideals were. Original Trek was an idealistic version of humanity who had solved their issues. It imagined the future of scientific progress as we understood it and some of its best episodes were characters sitting in a room debating philosophical and moral issues of their mission.

Nu-Trek is a dark, violent action movie where the federation is heavy-handed leftist commentary of current-year America and isn’t the slightest bit concerned with science or philosophy. That‘s not Star Trek and it’s certainly not Roddenberry’s vision. It’s not a natural “growth” of that vision as much as it is a complete refutation.

 

[Ashigara]

I think our culture has declined since the 90s, so maybe Trek's problem is that it did grow out of the 90s, into the shit general culture of the 2010s.

It is not a decline, what you see is the results of those same values that 90s Star Trek went on about all the time. Plant the right seed and a beautiful flower will grow, plant a bad seed as Star Trek did and it will grow into a weed, the beauty of the seed does not decide the beauty of the flower.

Ok i like that that statement. But I would change your name into Hermes Trismegistos, because it is greek not latin: Ἑρμῆς ὁ Τρισμέγιστος . The title / nickname "Trismegistus" (Thrice Great) is the latinised form from the late medieval times by Marsilio Ficino by translating the hellenistic treatise (into latin) from the second century AD that is known as "Corpus Hermeticum", but the correct latinization would be Mercurius Ter Maximus. And yes i know that the english speaking nations use "Trismegistus" since to copy a mistake is not a mistake.
Normally i wouldn't be that nitpicky, but in this case i make an exception.

A mistake repeated enough times becomes the norm, almost nobody knows Mercurius Ter Maximums, but they do know Hermes. Besides, old Hermes do not think you can change name once taken one. Good post nonetheless.

t is not a decline, what you see is the results of those same values that 90s Star Trek went on about all the time. Plant the right seed and a beautiful flower will grow, plant a bad seed as Star Trek did and it will grow into a weed, the beauty of the seed does not decide the beauty of the flower.

Are you sure? Nu-S. Trek went out of its way to rape the corpse of the original and mutilate it. I doubt the original writers were thinking about "modern year" when doing the show. I admit it was idealistic to hell and back, but compared to trashfire like this...

Yes, I am very sure, and they did not rape any corpses, they followed through on the original idea. Same as America of today is the same thing as was planted during the founding. Would the originators like what they see if here today? Probably not, but this is what they seeded.

I guess you are arguing Star Trek's liberal or progressive values sowed the seeds for the current state of Star Trek or contributed to the current state of popular culture?

Like a SJW author being witch hunted by their own mob over a Twitter post?

Let's examine it, because I'm not sure the two are alike. Star Trek is sometimes called 'communist' by Star Wars fans, and has acquired this reputation through repetition because it depicts a society that is largely post-scarcity (barring strategic resources like dilithium). A post-scarcity society was the religious end point for communists.

But the economy always seems to have had private property, even if it resembles a welfare state. It is hard to make out but they seem to use energy credits or something (universal basic income maybe), and Starfleet officers may receive sone form of pay. It might simply be that basic rights have expanded to include most services but scarce resources like beachfront homes require money/credits. It's now more clear in JJ Trek that brands and companies exist.

So is Star Trek subject to a grand misunderstanding? Could it even be... conservative?

It does afterall have distinct national cultures, and while progressive, it offers a place for everyone and respect for traditions like European culture, scientific achievement or performing Shakespeare.

The thing is, Star Trek's Federation was a gradual evolution - it wasn't established violently by a Marxist 'vanguard party' at the expense of innocent lives, in a coup or revolution - United Earth was established by consensus - Star Trek's metaphysics and ethics were never post-modern or intersectional, and was humanist (therefore universalist like Christianity) rather than identarian - if anything it kinda resembles Ayn Rand's objectivism, or classical liberalism - Gene Roddenbury may have been influenced by Rand - a common feature between the two is absolute adherence to materialist metaphysics: objective reality, even if the Federation seems to have features of a welfare state.

 

[Mark.L.Joy]

Star Trek had eugenics war before things started to go right lmao.

 

[Ashigara]

That's an interesting thing about the setting, humanity suffered a further shock in the form of nuclear war, before adopting Greek reason and science in place of today's sophistry. Just like the Vulcans and Surak.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

More importantly: are space orcs racist too?

 

[wahrk]

Also, Trek was pretty consistent with its ideals from the 60s up until the early 2000s - even if the quality was slowly declining, it was still clearly Star Trek. The recent decline was fairly sudden and coincides with the people in charge of running it...

Spoiler

 

[lightbane]

The nose never lies.

 

[Butter]

Rick Berman, Michael Piller, and Ira Steven Behr were all members of the nose tribe. They just gave a shit about preserving Gene's legacy.

 

[Ashigara]

Is that some kinda anti semitic comment lightbane? Shatner and Nimoy were Jewish in origin - have some nuance instead of blaming everything on something simplistic when Trek was as good as it was partly due to Jewish people from day one. Some immigrants integrate well into the West, other don't, and I would think by now with Spinoza, Einstein etc people would see this ain't a bad one. Some of the best defenders of western values today are Dave Ruben, Sam Harris, etc.

 

[Cael]

Is that some kinda anti semitic comment lightbane? Shatner and Nimoy were Jewish in origin - have some nuance instead of blaming everything on something simplistic when Trek was as good as it was partly due to Jewish people from day one. Some immigrants integrate well into the West, other don't, and I would think by now with Spinoza, Einstein etc people would see this ain't a bad one. Some of the best defenders of western values today are Dave Ruben, Sam Harris, etc.

This is the Codex. Most of them are raving anti-Semites. You just have to take the good with the bad.

 

[J1M]

Rick Berman, Michael Piller, and Ira Steven Behr were all members of the nose tribe. They just gave a shit about preserving Gene's legacy.

Unlike the current show runners they probably assumed that doing so was important for keeping their jobs.

 

[Semiurge]

Inventing magical nonsense that isn't rooted in reality is easier, and also once the fiction divorces itself too far from reality, it becomes fantasy.

 

[Gastrick]

Inventing magical nonsense that isn't rooted in reality is easier, and also once the fiction divorces itself too far from reality, it becomes fantasy.

With sci-fi you can do anything possible and just say it's "technology". You could easily copy everything in fantasy for sci-fi and just say the magic is "nano-technology" or "midi-chlorians" and that monsters and other human-like species are "aliens" or "genetically created" just anything scientific sounding. This is regardless of whether it will ever happen or even being scientifically possible. With a historical fantasy setting you can't do any of that.
Fantasy is more popular because of the strict tropes that are easier to imitate than in sci-fi. Sci-fi may have tropes as well, but authors are expected to do something interesting with them. With fantasy, not so much. Just having a generic setting and characters is good enough for audiences. That's the real reason why fantasy is easier to make.
The best genre of them all are stories set in real life, not necessarily realistic but just what could happen in non-made-up life a.k.a. without fake technology.

 

[Harthwain]

Are you sure? Nu-S. Trek went out of its way to rape the corpse of the original and mutilate it. I doubt the original writers were thinking about "modern year" when doing the show. I admit it was idealistic to hell and back, but compared to trashfire like this...

Yes, I am very sure, and they did not rape any corpses, they followed through on the original idea. Same as America of today is the same thing as was planted during the founding. Would the originators like what they see if here today? Probably not, but this is what they seeded.

Eh, I don’t know if I agree with this. Nu-Trek doesn’t “follow through” on the original ideals, it completely ignores them and I often doubt if the current writers even know what the original ideals were. Original Trek was an idealistic version of humanity who had solved their issues. It imagined the future of scientific progress as we understood it and some of its best episodes were characters sitting in a room debating philosophical and moral issues of their mission.

Nu-Trek is a dark, violent action movie where the federation is heavy-handed leftist commentary of current-year America and isn’t the slightest bit concerned with science or philosophy. That‘s not Star Trek and it’s certainly not Roddenberry’s vision. It’s not a natural “growth” of that vision as much as it is a complete refutation.

It is also worth noting that Gene Roddenberry died in 1991 (more or less halfway through Star Trek: The Next Generation). To put this in context: Michael Chabon (co-writting the story for Star Trek: Picard) did admit he wanted to "piss off or provoke people" and that was the only reason for him to "have things" in Star Trek: Picard. So he wasn't really "following through on the original idea" as much as he was doing whatever he wanted and there was nobody to really stop him from doing that. And that's just one example.

 

[DalekFlay]

Eh, I don’t know if I agree with this. Nu-Trek doesn’t “follow through” on the original ideals, it completely ignores them and I often doubt if the current writers even know what the original ideals were. Original Trek was an idealistic version of humanity who had solved their issues. It imagined the future of scientific progress as we understood it and some of its best episodes were characters sitting in a room debating philosophical and moral issues of their mission.

Nu-Trek is a dark, violent action movie where the federation is heavy-handed leftist commentary of current-year America and isn’t the slightest bit concerned with science or philosophy. That‘s not Star Trek and it’s certainly not Roddenberry’s vision. It’s not a natural “growth” of that vision as much as it is a complete refutation.

Today's Trek is very much centered on TNG, not the original show. TNG was briefly a Roddenberry style show before he stepped back (and died) and the people running it added in the human drama and darker themes they felt it was missing. They're very blunt about this in the commentary tracks, Ron Moore especially. Since the show blew up after this time, and most people think DS9 was the best series in the show's history and it embraced conflict and darker themes more than any other, I don't think they see this as a flaw. I certainly don't see it as a flaw in the recent shows either, their flaws reside elsewhere (poor writing mostly).

tl;dr I get that boomers have nostalgia for the original, but way more people have nostalgia for the TNG era and that's what the new shows are going after (along with younger newbs).

 

[Darkzone]

Are you sure? Nu-S. Trek went out of its way to rape the corpse of the original and mutilate it. I doubt the original writers were thinking about "modern year" when doing the show. I admit it was idealistic to hell and back, but compared to trashfire like this...

(t is not a decline, what you see is the results of those same values that 90s Star Trek went on about all the time. Plant the right seed and a beautiful flower will grow, plant a bad seed as Star Trek did and it will grow into a weed, the beauty of the seed does not decide the beauty of the flower.)
Yes, I am very sure, and they did not rape any corpses, they followed through on the original idea. Same as America of today is the same thing as was planted during the founding. Would the originators like what they see if here today? Probably not, but this is what they seeded.

Eh, I don’t know if I agree with this. Nu-Trek doesn’t “follow through” on the original ideals, it completely ignores them and I often doubt if the current writers even know what the original ideals were. Original Trek was an idealistic version of humanity who had solved their issues. It imagined the future of scientific progress as we understood it and some of its best episodes were characters sitting in a room debating philosophical and moral issues of their mission. Nu-Trek is a dark, violent action movie where the federation is heavy-handed leftist commentary of current-year America and isn’t the slightest bit concerned with science or philosophy. That‘s not Star Trek and it’s certainly not Roddenberry’s vision. It’s not a natural “growth” of that vision as much as it is a complete refutation.

Hermes statement is very good, but to understand why it so good this requires more knowledge (mostly logic and mathematics especially graph theory) and therefore it is more difficult.
The seed or the root (of a development tree) are the axioms that span the possible development (branching). Pythagoras tree (fractal).
But i think that there are technically two seeds for this development first in naturally the OG Star Trek series and the second is the TNG and that is where it all went wrong. In Star Trek OG the Enterprise is clearly a military vessel with policing duties for the Federation (Roddenberry's Air Force times in WW2 ?) while in TNG the Enterprise becomes a travelling family circus. The family circus gets expanded in Voyager and DS9 and now this is a total clown show where Bozo (Auguste) is the Captain accompanied by Hobo, Tramp, Blanc, Pierrot and Harlequin.
There were always darker themes in Star Trek and this was even in OG ( red shirt ), but the officers acted competent and it was their hopeful attitude and humanity that brought them through problems and crew members death. And this competent crew often faced the the previous dark side of humanity in outer space (mirror of humanity). (I remember only the Tribbles episode as a funny episode. Perhaps there were more?)

 

[wahrk]

Today's Trek is very much centered on TNG, not the original show. TNG was briefly a Roddenberry style show before he stepped back (and died) and the people running it added in the human drama and darker themes they felt it was missing. They're very blunt about this in the commentary tracks, Ron Moore especially. Since the show blew up after this time, and most people think DS9 was the best series in the show's history and it embraced conflict and darker themes more than any other, I don't think they see this as a flaw. I certainly don't see it as a flaw in the recent shows either, their flaws reside elsewhere (poor writing mostly).

tl;dr I get that boomers have nostalgia for the original, but way more people have nostalgia for the TNG era and that's what the new shows are going after (along with younger newbs).

I wasn't exclusively talking about TOS, I meant Star Trek as a whole up until the early 2000s. Nu Trek isn't really like TNG at all. Maybe the TNG movies - which also tended to be action movies in space - but certainly not the show. It has more in common with Abram's Trek than your average TNG episode. DS9 was a fine show but just because it's identity was exploring the darker side of the universe does not mean that every Star Trek story moving forward needed to totally abandon the optimism for a bleak, grimdark vision of the future. I also don't know about most people thinking DS9 was the best - maybe among diehard fans - but besides, the issue is not about whether it's "darker" or not. Star Trek had explored darker themes before DS9.

Have you ever watched modern Trek and thought that it was capable of producing something like "The Inner Light"? Or "Duet"? It's not just that the writing is worse, or the difference in show format, but it's a total difference in character. It's just not coming from the same place.

Hermes statement is very good, but to understand why it so good this requires more knowledge (mostly logic and mathematics especially graph theory) and therefore it is more difficult.
The seed or the root (of a development tree) are the axioms that span the possible development (branching). Pythagoras tree (fractal).

This is very much over-thinking it. You don't need Pythagorean trees to understand why Star Trek declined.

But i think that there are technically two seeds for this development first in naturally the OG Star Trek series and the second is the TNG and that is where it all went wrong. In Star Trek OG the Enterprice is clearly a military vessel with policing duties for the Federation (Roddenberry's Air Force times in WW2 ?) while in TNG the Enterprice becomes a travelling familiy circus. The family circus gets expanded in Voyager and DS9 and now this is a total clown show where Bozo (Auguste) is the Captain accompanied by Hobo, Tramp, Blanc, Pierrot and Harlequin.

If modern Trek is an outgrowth of this "second seed" from TNG, then it is not a growth from the OG series and Roddenberry's original vision, which was my original point.

Regardless, I'm not sure I agree with this assessment either, that this all grew out of TNG abandoning the military naval vessel of TOS for the Hilton lobby. There's plenty of silliness to be found in every Star Trek series, especially the original show, beyond just the Tribbles. I'm not sure what that has to do with modern Trek anyways - it's issues have nothing to do with being a "family circus" or somehow lacking gravity. If anything, it could stand to take itself a little less seriously. What I find missing in modern Trek is exactly what you describe:

There were always darker themes in Star Trek and this was even in OG ( red shirt ), but the officers actec competent and it was their hopeful attitued and humanity that brought them throgh problems and crewmembers death. And this competent crew often faced the the previous dark side of humanity in outer space (mirror of humanity). (I remember only the Tribles episode as a funny episode. Perhaps there were more?)

... which is true of each show, even Voyager in it's better moments.

 

[DalekFlay]

I wasn't exclusively talking about TOS, I meant Star Trek as a whole up until the early 2000s. Nu Trek isn't really like TNG at all. Maybe the TNG movies - which also tended to be action movies in space - but certainly not the show. It has more in common with Abram's Trek than your average TNG episode. DS9 was a fine show but just because it's identity was exploring the darker side of the universe does not mean that every Star Trek story moving forward needed to totally abandon the optimism for a bleak, grimdark vision of the future. I also don't know about most people thinking DS9 was the best - maybe among diehard fans - but besides, the issue is not about whether it's "darker" or not. Star Trek had explored darker themes before DS9.

Have you ever watched modern Trek and thought that it was capable of producing something like "The Inner Light"? Or "Duet"? It's not just that the writing is worse, or the difference in show format, but it's a total difference in character. It's just not coming from the same place.

I thought Picard was okay, far from great but okay... either way though, my main point is I think their issue is writing. Not in the sense of "this betrays Trek" because I don't think it does, but just in the sense of being mostly poor plots with weak characters and motivations. Discovery especially is just a mess, which is why it's getting soft-rebooted at the moment. I have some optimism for Strange New Worlds, as the cast is good (and was the best thing in Discovery) and it seems to be focused on exploration and optimism.

 

[Darkzone]

Hermes statement is very good, but to understand why it so good this requires more knowledge (mostly logic and mathematics especially graph theory) and therefore it is more difficult.
The seed or the root (of a development tree) are the axioms that span the possible development (branching). Pythagoras tree (fractal).

This is very much over-thinking it. You don't need Pythagorean trees to understand why Star Trek declined.

The modern Star Trek is based and mirroring current Star Trek writers thoughts on society and the Star Trek universe. The previously established axioms could have narrowed down the influence of the current writers upon the Star Trek universe. So yes you don't need to understand this to say modern Star Trek is shit, but you need it to understand how Roddenberry could have lowered the current Marxists influence upon his creation. But hindsight is 20/20. Or you plant a seed that eliminates such influences from the get go.

But i think that there are technically two seeds for this development first in naturally the OG Star Trek series and the second is the TNG and that is where it all went wrong. In Star Trek OG the Enterprice is clearly a military vessel with policing duties for the Federation (Roddenberry's Air Force times in WW2 ?) while in TNG the Enterprice becomes a travelling familiy circus. The family circus gets expanded in Voyager and DS9 and now this is a total clown show where Bozo (Auguste) is the Captain accompanied by Hobo, Tramp, Blanc, Pierrot and Harlequin.

If modern Trek is an outgrowth of this "second seed" from TNG, then it is not a growth from the OG series and Roddenberry's original vision, which was my original point.

I love the OG series not the TNG, despite that there are some interesting topics, like Datas existential rights or Worfs failure with the totalitarian. If TNG would have been in line with the OG then there would have been less modernisation attempts with questionable means.

Regardless, I'm not sure I agree with this assessment either, that this all grew out of TNG abandoning the military naval vessel of TOS for the Hilton lobby. There's plenty of silliness to be found in every Star Trek series, especially the original show, beyond just the Tribbles. I'm not sure what that has to do with modern Trek anyways - it's issues have nothing to do with being a "family circus" or somehow lacking gravity. If anything, it could stand to take itself a little less seriously. What I find missing in modern Trek is exactly what you describe:

There were always darker themes in Star Trek and this was even in OG ( red shirt ), but the officers actec competent and it was their hopeful attitued and humanity that brought them throgh problems and crewmembers death. And this competent crew often faced the the previous dark side of humanity in outer space (mirror of humanity). (I remember only the Tribles episode as a funny episode. Perhaps there were more?)

... which is true of each show, even Voyager in it's better moments.

The problem is not that the latests failed attempts take them self to serious. The problem is that they are for made for retards, showing of incompetent people spewing ideological stupidity with pride and guided by luck and protected by plot armor and enemies incompetence and they try to deconstruct previous established characters, like Spock or Kirk and succeeded with destroying Picard.
So the question is: Why is this so? I have distilled the answer to the obvious fact that the featured characters do not act like military people that execute thoughtful and precise learned and trained behaviour and protocols. But why are there the plot holes and illogical behaviour? That is just the result of the lack of knowledge and incompetence of the writers. Because the writers lack the military roots and scientific knowledge and they are just college indoctrinated children that will not consult people who understand such things, because this are Nazis for the writers.
The Star Trek characters so positive in OG, because this is how Roddenberry has witnessed his fellow soldiers in WW2 and he wrote down their character into Star Trek ( i assume this ). And the new Star Trek characters are bland characters, because characters need limiting flaws, so they can work long upon them. Characters need strong motivation for doing certain things and from time to time question them self. The characters simply told need a "human nature" and that is despicable to those marxist writers.

Someone has posted something similar in this or other thread pointing out that all the great fantasy and Sci-Fi writers (Roddenberry, Tolkien and usw) have a military background and i concur.