Thrakhath and Hobbes

[Gamer8585]

I don't think this was ever really a consideration - you may be projecting the fact that they were really interested in capturing a *Morningstar* onto the Crossbow.

The Crossbow actually enters ordinary service in the course of Special Ops 1 - Paladin says that Ghorah Khar has received the first production shipment of them (and then the Academy manual says they've become a standard weapon since then).

Yeah that's probablly what I did, although I still think that the capture of the Crossbow fighter/bomber served the Kilrathi well. If the rebels on Ghorah Khar have them then it would be in the Empire's interest to know the ins and outs of the Crossbow, but I doubt an intact one would just fall into their hands. Capturing a fully functional, new, enemy weapon is a good thing no matter what war you're in.

That was the point in WC3, though - Hobbes was a fake personality which was switched 'off' by Thrakhath when he sent the 'Heart of the Tiger' message.

Yeah I'm sure that was the point. I just have trouble with it from a dramatic perspective. It seems like the writers were just lazy about it. There were so many other reasons for Hobbes to betray Confed that just turning him into a Kilrathi spy, because Thrakhath said so, seems to be a very disrespectful to the deep and complex character that they were building. In addition it also validates judging a book by its cover. There were many who didn't trust Hobbes because he was a Kilrathi, but Blair was able to convince them that Hobbes was more then his species, that the enemy wasn't such an obvious physical thing as much as an idea. The enemies of the Confederation were only those that actively sought to destroy the Confederation which is why the Mandarins had to be destroyed, even though they were human, and the Kilrathi rebel planets had to be protected.

I think they could have pulled the personality overly thing off if they showed more of what Hobbes was going though psychologically, but instead one mission Hobbes was on your wing the next Ralga nar Hallas was an enemy in your sights. Although his "true" personality was switched on, it didn't necessarily mean he forgot everything he did in on Ghorah Khar or in WC2 and WC3. It didn't make any feelings he had any less real.

Also, if you didn't chase down Hobbes (by actually keeping your cool) you encounter him with Thrakhath over Kilrah, but he doesn't say anything to you. At this most dramatic of moments he stays silent, no justifying his actions, no honoring his service, not even a simple "I'm sorry, but it is my duty."

 

[Madman]

I agree here, hobbes' turning could have been so much more dramatic and could have made you genuinely question the necessity of destroying kilrah to win the war - instead it just feels like the wingman you fought to have accepted has suddenly proven all his critics right

 

[Delance]

Whoa, great thread.

Thrakhath takes off in Hobbes' fighter, and informs you over the radio that the Heather suffered a power failure which allowed him to escape, knock Hobbes out from behind, and steal his fighter.

What comes to mind is: why would Thrakhath actually take the time to explain to Blair how innocent and not a secret spy Hobbes is. Seriously. You are tracking your arch-nemesis, the prince of an Empire bent on enslaving and quite possibly destroying mankind. He actually gives you a call to explain how his relative - who supposedly betrayed him - is a nice guy and not a secret spy at all. Does Thrakath have that much free time on his paws? Does he randomly calls Blair to chat? I didn’t think of it back then, but doing that was the most suspicious thing Thrakhath could do. And to think Thrakhath had the chance to guy Blair as a cadet and blew it. I wonder if even connected the dots later on.

I think Maniac is actually one of the most interesting and 'deepest' characters in Wing Commander. He's very unique in that he's both the comic relief *and* this deeper character where we see him grappling with his actions in the war and doing things like feigning insanity and putting on false bravado in response.

Maniac is a bit like the Joker. Sometimes he's a mischevious clown who serves as comic relief, sometimes he's an extremely dangerous and efficient killer.

There are huge differences in the visual style and the 'bible' background between Wing Commander Prophecy and the movie... but they're pretty similar to the huge differences in those things between Wing Commander II and Wing Commander III.

Yeah, I was just thinking about that. Looking back, when it comes to colour schemes and general design, I think the movie may be actually closer to WC3/4/P than WC1/2. I do have an easier time imagining the movie Tiger Claw cruising with a Murphy destroyer than a red-and-green destroyer from WC2.

 

[Madman]

True, true.

Re hobbes, I never really got over the impression that it was a half baked story that never got the fleshing out it deserved in wc3. This thread has really brought home some of the more suspicious elements about thrak though.

I agree that he shouldnt have spent the time escaping on the blower to Blair, and whilst ringing him up to taunt him is fine, he does spend most of the time saying how masterful his escape was (taunting) and how it was ok he didnt kill hobbes. I have to admit my first thought wasnt "oh god is hobbes ok?!" it was "damn ~~~~gers getting away, and in our swanky new crossbow too!

I do like the question about the killing of hobbes' hrai though, i think it has some merit. why kill a load of people in a rival clan (at a crucial political point of doing badly in the war) just to get a mole in the enemy, when frankly they could just feed information to some spy's they have already "made" and set up hobbes like that.

I like to think that hobbes' eventual return to the kilrathi was less due to his being "flipped" back into kilrathi mode and more that when his real personality was restored he was left with the memories of what he once was and what he had since become. This dichotomy of allegiance i think is what makes him stick around assisting the confederation in all but the destruction of kilrah. and then that at the point of having to destroy the behemoth and make a run for it, he still feels enough remorse that he finds it necessary to apologise to blair for his actions.

The problem with this lies that, while he does apologise if you chase him down, if you dont he seems completely happy with taunting you like a stock kilrathi ace. this doesnt seem realistic. after all you accepted him when few others would and helped him avenge the death of his adopted son/brother doomsday. if anything he should be begging you to rethink your attack on kilrah, possibly raising questions of the difference between man and kilrathi and making some "i'm sorry but i have to stop you" speech.

 

[rapierdragon]

Thrakhath and Hobbes - SO1/WC3

To be honest, a Hobbe's explantion was cut/shortened in the WC3 game, and even in the novel version of WC3 (where they did go into more detail) they did do a lot less than I would have preferred.

I mean really, if the clan (forget which one) that did the taking/training/replacing of people to turn them into sleeper-agents was that good... wouldn't there be dozens of sleeper-kilrathi in the clans of its agents, nevermind the Terran Military?

As for SO1:

The "OMG we got Prince Thrakhath" moment is less of a "terran victory" than it is one of Thrakhath's cousins sabotaging his ship in an attempt to gain the throne.

As for Thrakhath not killing Hobbes... yeah, there was the whole sleeper thing, which may or may not have existed at the time (SO1 was written before WC3 so the sleeper thing may have been a plot idea/twist by a seperate writer or maybe the writer had the idea in-mind when SO1 was done)...
...but I've always pictured Kilrathi as the "make sure you know who's killing you before they do it" type... Hobbes could be half-drunk and more dead-asleep than a log but Thrakhath would have made sure Hobbes was awake enough to know that he'd just been given a fatal strike and was 'bout to die.
...I think the only exception to the rule is when the prey-animal is too dangerous to have awake.

Best example off the top of my head comes from the Man-Kzin wars book: Destiny's Forge. Wisdom is that "no (sane) kzin hunts tuskvor"... and even later when you learn that some sane kzin DO hunt them they don't explain how (but I bet it involves drugging them or waiting for them to tire or be asleep)... cause kzin hunting tuskvor is like a pack of house-cats hunting an elephant. ...
...no, litterally... they describe the tuskvor as "elephant like" except that it's like over 50-foot long and over 10-ft wide and over 12-ft tall... even if they don't gore you on their tusks you're lucky if you don't get trampled on. A tuskvor herd, in a panic-charge, once its going, is capable of taking out a small forest.
...traditional claws'n'fang's hunt only my tail! Would one of you monkeys try to go toe-to-toe against a brachiosaur or a triceratops with only a 5" hunting knife?

 

[Quarto]

I think they could have pulled the personality overly thing off if they showed more of what Hobbes was going though psychologically, but instead one mission Hobbes was on your wing the next Ralga nar Hallas was an enemy in your sights. Although his "true" personality was switched on, it didn't necessarily mean he forgot everything he did in on Ghorah Khar or in WC2 and WC3. It didn't make any feelings he had any less real.

I'm not sure what you mean - I think they very clearly acknowledged this point, and even more than once. Hobbes' message (the one that got cut from the game) explicitly explains how Hobbes feels, and how he does indeed still respect Blair. Even more interesting, though, is the cutscene where Blair talks to Hobbes, after the trigger scene. They talk about Hobbes' betrayal, and Blair tries to comfort him by saying that maybe after the war, some Kilrathi will understand what he did - to which Hobbes replies "no one will ever truly understand me - but your loyalty has meant much to me, my friend" (note the past tense). It's a fantastic scene to look at again, with the understanding that Hobbes by this point had already been triggered - so Blair is trying to make Hobbes feel bette about betraying the Kilrathi, while Hobbes is trying to apologise in advance for betraying Blair.

Also, if you didn't chase down Hobbes (by actually keeping your cool) you encounter him with Thrakhath over Kilrah, but he doesn't say anything to you. At this most dramatic of moments he stays silent, no justifying his actions, no honoring his service, not even a simple "I'm sorry, but it is my duty."

I think either way would work. The fact that Hobbes doesn't say a word does not imply that he doesn't care - it can just as easily mean that he cares too deeply to speak (you must have encountered situations like this in real life, where either you hurt someone badly, or someone hurt you, and the result was an embarrassed silence rather than words).

(also, would Hobbes really be sorry about fighting Blair? He'd be sorry about betraying Blair, but would he actually think there's anything wrong with trying to kill him in a normal fight?)

 

[Mace]

And to think Thrakhath had the chance to guy Blair as a cadet and blew it. I wonder if even connected the dots later on.

Thrakhath would have been pretty pissed off when they were re-introduced on the bonnie heather , and the coward he found in a cell on a pirate base had been responsible for the destruction of the Sivar weapon and the execution of his father

Actually making calls to blair would make sense, since blair would have been his personal demon, and in the final mission of WC2, he wants to "Take care of that pest" himself.

(also, would Hobbes really be sorry about fighting Blair? He'd be sorry about betraying Blair, but would he actually think there's anything wrong with trying to kill him in a normal fight?)

When you do chase after him(which I did, because it would seem the right thing to do, Cobra was in need of medical attention and near death, and you are an ace fighter pilot, not a medic), as you chase after hobbes he communicates with you inflight, not really explaining his actions, but saluting you, respects you, and in some manner still is your friend. Ofcourse most people I saw fly that mission actually fly in berzerk, interlock their missiles and blow him up at first sight, leaving no room for the dialogue.

On a sidenote, when you fight him above kilrah, why is he still in that thunderbolt?

 

[Nomad Terror]

Well don't forget that the intro of WC2 makes it clear that both Thrakhath and the Emperor are very aware of who Blair is and how much trouble he has caused the Kilrathi.

Also just because his personality overlay was destroyed doesn't negate the fact that he had spent the previous 12 or so years flying Confed fighters. I don't know if he could be retrained to fly the new Kilrathi fighters in that amount of time.

 

[Dyret]

It's a fantastic scene to look at again, with the understanding that Hobbes by this point had already been triggered - so Blair is trying to make Hobbes feel bette about betraying the Kilrathi, while Hobbes is trying to apologise in advance for betraying Blair.

Yeah, that is the best scene in all of WC3. I'm amazed how little attention it seems to get in these threads.

you must have encountered situations like this in real life, where either you hurt someone badly, or someone hurt you, and the result was an embarrassed silence rather than words.

Yeah, but still, that's usually temporary, if you know only one of you is going to live it would be different... I know I'd try to say something.

 

[Jason_Ryock]

On a sidenote, when you fight him above kilrah, why is he still in that thunderbolt?

There's a quote floating around somewhere (From Fleet Action?) where one of the Kilrathi mentions that aside from the Strakha stealth fighters most of the Human Fighters are superior to theirs.

 

[Durandal]

I mean really, if the clan (forget which one) that did the taking/training/replacing of people to turn them into sleeper-agents was that good... wouldn't there be dozens of sleeper-kilrathi in the clans of its agents, nevermind the Terran Military?

Decidedly not.

I don't know how hypnotism would work in the case of a Kilrathi, but in the case of a human being making a sleeper agent like Hobbes was, it would consume hundreds of hours to get a belivable persona created and crafted, let alone a method to slip this person into normal society and have them be accepted.

As it seems to work in a similar way with Kilrathi, the end result is that Thrakhath only had a single sleeper to work with, but was convincing enough to be accepted by Terran command.

Leastways, that's my view on the matter.

As far as the whole movie side of this thread seems to go, I've a single question:
Any other StarLancer players here besides me catch the piece of WC movie footage used in SL's first newscast?

 

[Gamer8585]

I'm not sure what you mean - I think they very clearly acknowledged this point, and even more than once. Hobbes' message (the one that got cut from the game) explicitly explains how Hobbes feels, and how he does indeed still respect Blair. Even more interesting, though, is the cutscene where Blair talks to Hobbes, after the trigger scene. They talk about Hobbes' betrayal, and Blair tries to comfort him by saying that maybe after the war, some Kilrathi will understand what he did - to which Hobbes replies "no one will ever truly understand me - but your loyalty has meant much to me, my friend" (note the past tense). It's a fantastic scene to look at again, with the understanding that Hobbes by this point had already been triggered - so Blair is trying to make Hobbes feel bette about betraying the Kilrathi, while Hobbes is trying to apologise in advance for betraying Blair.

Wow I've never noticed that (has been a long time since I was able to play WC3 [I only have the KS version and an XP box. So I gave up on trying to get it to work consistently]). In that light it adds a whole new dimension to the very low key, and otherwise "par-for-the-course" scene. I guess I was already accustomed to Hobbes' doubts about his place in the Confederation (in the beginning no one wanted to fly with him) Blair's reassurance (Blair insisted that Hobbes be his wingman) that I didn't think about the surrounding context of the scene.

Although I think that Hobbes' feelings should still have been brought out to the audience a little more openly. The cut "message from Hobbes" would have been very helpful (why would they cut a scene like that?), and it would have been nice if Hobbes and Blair exchanged words over Kilrah.

I think either way would work. The fact that Hobbes doesn't say a word does not imply that he doesn't care - it can just as easily mean that he cares too deeply to speak (you must have encountered situations like this in real life, where either you hurt someone badly, or someone hurt you, and the result was an embarrassed silence rather than words).

(also, would Hobbes really be sorry about fighting Blair? He'd be sorry about betraying Blair, but would he actually think there's anything wrong with trying to kill him in a normal fight?)

The only problem is that the scene over Kilrah is not set up to give us any insight into Hobbes' feelings. You hear nothing from him and he acts as any other Kilrathi fighter pilot. The scene seems to mean that the Confederation ace Hobbes is truly dead and gone and in his place is the Kilrathi ace Ralga nar Hallas.

However I would have trouble thinking that Hobbes we knew is truly dead, and so I still believe that some kind of scene should have played out between Blair, Hobbes, and Thrakath. It would have been nice to get some kind of cutscene or VDU conversation between the three of them. Even if Hobbes didn't say anything, cutting to Hobbes when he was acknowledged by Blair and having some kind of remorse on his face would have set up the "care's too deeply to speak." Otherwise he just seems to be another kat ace that you have to shoot down.

Also it could have been set up that Blair faced Thrakath alone and after shooting him down Hobbes spawns and the two have an exchange. Hobbes would have been hoping Thrakath would have shot Blair down, so he wouldn't have to. Hobbes could have acknowledged their friendship and camaraderie, but also maintained his stance about not letting Blair drop the T-bomb on Kilrah (it is his homeworld after all).

The battle would have been a great metaphor for all the Wing games (and perhaps the entire Terran/Kilrathi War):

*You'd have two enemies that have been accused of treason, but have been loyal to their side all along (Blair and Hobbes were accused of treason).

*You'd have the deontological prerogative of duty bearing down heavily on both sides and conflicting with their personal feelings (neither would want to kill each other and may have even offered the other one a chance to turn back or defect).

*And you would have the fate of the entire war coming down to one final duel, between two of the most complex characters within WC. If Blair won (as he did) the temblor bomb would destroy Kilrah and annihilate the Kilrathi fleet and shipyards around the planet (which it did). If Hobbes won the Kilrathi would launch their fleet at Earth and destroy the Confederation (as seen in the loosing path of WC3).

I'm not trying to say that WC3 was a bad game, just that I think Hobbes and his "defection" could have been done better from a dramatic perspective. It just seems like there is so much more about Hobbes that we didn't get to see. Sure there were hints and glimpses of it, but it never paned out in the game.

 

[Mace]

*You'd have two enemies that have been accused of treason, but have been loyal to their side all along (Blair and Hobbes were accused of treason).

Difference; hobbes "defected" because he was ordered/enforced to, and blair got framed by Jazz, and their was no reason (or evidence) that blair took out the claw, or more likely abandoned it, but Tolwyn refused his explenation for going after what he claimed to be a stealth fighter, that is why he was transfered to ISS.
(and ofcourse there was the sensor-cloak black salthi in WCAtv)

another side note; on the back of the PC deluxe CD deluxe edition of wing commander 2 you see an image(screenshot) of WC1-blair's face with the debriefing background that was normally paired with halcyons face, mentioning that he did not destroy the tiger's claw, that scene was not in the game! probaby been discussed before, but what's the story behind that screenshot?

 

[Nomad Terror]

Difference; hobbes "defected" because he was ordered/enforced to, and blair got framed by Jazz, and their was no reason (or evidence) that blair took out the claw, or more likely abandoned it, but Tolwyn refused his explenation for going after what he claimed to be a stealth fighter, that is why he was transfered to ISS.
(and ofcourse there was the sensor-cloak black salthi in WCAtv)

Well, to be clear, Jazz didn't frame Blair for the destruction of the Tiger's Claw. Once the former started killing people on the Concordia, he starts casting doubt on the latter, because he and everyone else on the ship are aware of Blair's past and former conviction. I don't think anyone could claim that Blair destroyed the Tiger's Claw as much as allowed the fighters that did do her in to pass unhindered. Of course they had been Strakha stealth fighters but nobody really believed that story until towards the end of WC2.

another side note; on the back of the PC deluxe CD deluxe edition of wing commander 2 you see an image(screenshot) of WC1-blair's face with the debriefing background that was normally paired with halcyons face, mentioning that he did not destroy the tiger's claw, that scene was not in the game! probaby been discussed before, but what's the story behind that screenshot?

I'm pretty sure this is just an old version of the WC2 intro using the original WC1 talking heads before those graphics were updated.

 

[Kyle Maverick]

There's a quote floating around somewhere (From Fleet Action?) where one of the Kilrathi mentions that aside from the Strakha stealth fighters most of the Human Fighters are superior to theirs.

I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in Victory Streak as well that the Kilrathi had superior numbers, while Confed had superior fire-power and manoeuvrability.

 

[Quarto]

Although I think that Hobbes' feelings should still have been brought out to the audience a little more openly. The cut "message from Hobbes" would have been very helpful (why would they cut a scene like that?), and it would have been nice if Hobbes and Blair exchanged words over Kilrah.

Ok, for the record - I do agree that the 'trigger' thing was poorly done. It's something they went through a lot of effort to set up... and apparently, ultimately felt it added so little to the game, that they chose to cut this particular scene instead of one of the others. Which was the right choice - all things considered, the 'trigger' raises many more questions than it answers (for example - why did the Kilrathi only start not-trying-to-kill Hobbes in WC3? And how come Confed Intel never heard anything about an order apparently issued to all Kilrathi pilots, to not shoot at Hobbes?).

However, that having been said, I think the lack of words at their last meeting is very appropriate (and it's even appropriate that Hobbes has something to say if you pursue him right away, and has nothing to say if you don't).

The really, really great thing is that you can read a lot into Hobbes' behaviour. As you say, the silence may mean that Hobbes is truly gone, and replaced by Ralgha. It may also mean the exact opposite thing - that there is so much of Hobbes left, that Ralgha is afraid to get into a conversation with Blair. Heck, Ralgha may even feel that the Confederation is the right side in the war, and may be cheering Blair on - while at the same time, remaining faithful to his side. I'm not saying this is the case, I'm saying it could be. It's a situation that would be consistent, not only with what little we know of Kilrathi honour, but also with our own medieval history. As a general rule, people who committed treason for money or similar vile reasons, when caught, were willing to say anything to weasel their way out. But people who committed treason because they felt it was their duty - very often, they really couldn't face their (former) friends afterwards, they really couldn't say anything to them. Not because they weren't sorry, but because, in some way, it was wrong for them to be sorry.

Anyway... there are many explanations that can work if Hobbes remained silent. Had he opened his mouth, he would have forced us to go with one explanation. It would be much more straight-forward, and and it would not be doing justice to a very, very complex character.

I personally, love the idea that there he was, defending Kilrah against Blair, all the while thinking (based on his experience as Hobbes) that Confed should win, and hoping that Blair would win - but, remaining true to his honour, refusing to step aside or to let Blair kill him without a fight. It's fantastic, tragic, and strikes me as an appropriate mix of human and Kilrathi honour and logic.

I guess it may be that I like his silence in this scene precisely because I know this is not the explanation we would have heard had he spoken - more likely, it would have been a very cliche message like "you were my friend, but I have to kill you now because I am a true Kilrathi" or something like that. In other words, we would have heard that Ralgha has all of Hobbes' memory, and even some of his feelings, but that his thinking processes are entirely unaffected by it all. No, on this particular plot point, I prefer to have doubt rather than clarity.

(besides, ultimately, Ralgha himself said it best - "no one will ever truly understand me" - what cutscene could possibly give you the kind of narrative closure you're looking for?)

Also, the metaphor idea - I don't like it. The three points you make have nothing to do with the idea of a metaphor, both because they are inaccurate, and because they'd still be incorrect even if they were accurate.

- Wing Commander games are not all about two enemies being accused of treason, but in fact being loyal. Blair's story is just something that happens in one of the three Kilrathi War games. And Hobbes' story is entirely different in any case - where Blair is falsely accused, Hobbes does commit treason. And then Ralgha does, too. After all, even if Hobbes was a false identity, he did still break his oath to the Kilrathi. And Ralgha too, flies on your wing and then betrays you. So, no metaphor here.

- Duty is not a subject that takes up much space in Wing Commander games (and, though irrelevant here, it's worth noting that WC4 would go on to make the opposite message - that personal feelings can be enough to justify treason). In WC1 and WC3, Blair fights the Kilrathi because it's only way to survive the war - and in WC2, he seems to fight them more because of personal feelings (he wants to prove that he's not a traitor) than because it's his duty. So again, in this aspect there is no metaphor.

- And finally, it never did come down to one final duel. In fact, WC1 entirely skipped the final duel thing (for reasons unknown, while all surviving Kilrathi aces show up to fight you in the final losing path mission, none of them show up to fight you in the final winning path mission), while in WC2 and WC3, confronting Prince Thrakhath seems to be incidental rather than crucial. WC3 in particular, seems to go against the original game. Where Claw Marks told you to focus on your mission objective, and WC1 itself allowed you to use tricks of navigation to skip encounters along the way and only take out the final objective, WC3 tells you that Blair must de-cloak (thus blow his cover and risk total mission failure) just to get one final shot at Thrakhath. Ironically, this means that in trying to avenge Angel, Blair does something that she would have been hugely angry about. And Angel is the character that WC1 told you to be like - a professional, who goes by the book not because it's her duty, but because it works and gets the job done. In any case, duels are not what Wing Commander games are about - duels are something that got tacked on in WC2 and WC3 (...and then in WC4) for dramatic purposes. So, no metaphor here, too - although this point came closer than either of the others.

 

[Gamer8585]

(besides, ultimately, Ralgha himself said it best - "no one will ever truly understand me" - what cutscene could possibly give you the kind of narrative closure you're looking for?)

True. The imagination of the audience can sometimes be more powerful than anything scripted. It all depends on what you read into it. I kind of like your explanation for Hobbes' silence. I guess the lack of certainty just keeps gnawing at me, but maybe that was the point. He said no one would ever understand him and I guess that's what is happening.

Also, the metaphor idea - I don't like it. The three points you make have nothing to do with the idea of a metaphor, both because they are inaccurate, and because they'd still be incorrect even if they were accurate.

Perhaps I did stretch a bit on that one, but I'm going to try to defend myself anyway.

- Wing Commander games are not all about two enemies being accused of treason, but in fact being loyal. Blair's story is just something that happens in one of the three Kilrathi War games. And Hobbes' story is entirely different in any case - where Blair is falsely accused, Hobbes does commit treason. And then Ralgha does, too. After all, even if Hobbes was a false identity, he did still break his oath to the Kilrathi. And Ralgha too, flies on your wing and then betrays you. So, no metaphor here.

You're right Wing Commander games are not about enemies being accused of treason (they're about blowing shit up in a big war with an interesting story between sorties). I was merely try to set up a parallel between Maverick and Hobbes. They were both accused of treason, but neither one of them betrayed their side: no one believed Blair about the Stealth fighters, and Hobbes' "defection" was part of a covert assignment. They were both accused of treason by their kind, but were really very patriotic and their circumstances were misunderstood. Treason also gained a large foothold in the overall theme of Wing Commander in Wing 2. There was Jazz, Minx, Hobbes, the rebel Kilrathi planets, the Mandarins. In Wing 3 Hobbes' betrays Confed and...well that's the topic of this thread. In Wing 4 Blair defects to the Border Worlds, Tolwyn betrays the very values that Confed defended in the war against the Kilrathi.

- Duty is not a subject that takes up much space in Wing Commander games (and, though irrelevant here, it's worth noting that WC4 would go on to make the opposite message - that personal feelings can be enough to justify treason). In WC1 and WC3, Blair fights the Kilrathi because it's only way to survive the war - and in WC2, he seems to fight them more because of personal feelings (he wants to prove that he's not a traitor) than because it's his duty. So again, in this aspect there is no metaphor.

I disagree. Duty is the core issue of every solider in every war. Sometimes its more overt than others, but even in Wing 1 there are issues of duty and personal feelings conflicting. In Wing 3 Hobbes betrays the Confederation because it was the mission he was assigned (even if it did make him feel like shit). In Wing 4 Tolwyn sets up the Black Lance and engages in acts of war, because he believed that is was the best way to preserve the Confederation. The conflict of congruence of duty and personal feelings is there, sometimes overt, sometimes subtle.

- And finally, it never did come down to one final duel. In fact, WC1 entirely skipped the final duel thing (for reasons unknown, while all surviving Kilrathi aces show up to fight you in the final losing path mission, none of them show up to fight you in the final winning path mission), while in WC2 and WC3, confronting Prince Thrakhath seems to be incidental rather than crucial. WC3 in particular, seems to go against the original game. Where Claw Marks told you to focus on your mission objective, and WC1 itself allowed you to use tricks of navigation to skip encounters along the way and only take out the final objective, WC3 tells you that Blair must de-cloak (thus blow his cover and risk total mission failure) just to get one final shot at Thrakhath. Ironically, this means that in trying to avenge Angel, Blair does something that she would have been hugely angry about. And Angel is the character that WC1 told you to be like - a professional, who goes by the book not because it's her duty, but because it works and gets the job done. In any case, duels are not what Wing Commander games are about - duels are something that got tacked on in WC2 and WC3 (...and then in WC4) for dramatic purposes. So, no metaphor here, too - although this point came closer than either of the others.

1. I never said it did come down to one final duel, I said it would in the scenario I outlined.

2. You can skip nav points in Wing 3 too (IIRC). However if you do that in Wing 1 Halcyon will chew you out in debreif for not hitting the nav points he designated.

3. The decloak to kill Thrakath is once again a conflict of a soldiers personal feelings and his professional duty. I feel that this scene was supposed to correspond to the last mission in Wing 2. Where Blair has his Saber loaded with torpedoes so he could strike at the K'thikak Mang (sp?) Starbase and ignored orders to turn back. While in Wing 2 his duty and feelings had overlapping objectives. In Wing 3 they come into conflict, and he chooses his feelings over his duty. Was it right? IDK, but it was fun to shoot down Thrakath personally. Although it felt empty, and didn't bring any real sort of satisfaction. A good dramatic decision because it showed that death never bring life, and that harboring feelings of hatred is in the end meaningless. And I agree that Angel would have disproved of the decloak, just to engage in an exaggerated "bar fight" what with the fate of the Confederation being at stake and all.

4. I felt the duels were only done justice (in both drama and gameplay) in Wing 2. In Wing 3 and Wing 4 they weren't really set up and didn't feel any different then fighting a standard ace (the exception being when you fight Maniac at the beginning of Wing 4). In any case they were ancillary in relation to the greater war effort, but they were quite cathartic and important for the psyche of the characters involved.

 

[Jason_Ryock]

In Wing 3 and Wing 4 they weren't really set up and didn't feel any different then fighting a standard ace (the exception being when you fight Maniac at the beginning of Wing 4). In any case they were ancillary in relation to the greater war effort, but they were quite cathartic and important for the psyche of the characters involved.

You're telling me the Seether fight wasn't built up for the entire game? I couldn't wait for my chance to smoke that guy.

 

[AD]

You're telling me the Seether fight wasn't built up for the entire game? I couldn't wait for my chance to smoke that guy.

In all the seether fight was pretty bland though. Usually a full missile salvo on the first pass is enough to take him out.

 

[star_slayer]

I don't have too many issues with the way the Hobbes thing is played out in WC3. I woulda preferred they kept his holo message cutscene in the game, as it at least provided some closure. I went after him the first time, not out of "revenge", like the game implies, but because I was so shocked I thought perhaps by perusal I might get some answers (like I really cared about avenging Cobra). Instead I got a bunch of babble about honor or whatever and I blew him out of the sky. I thought I'd never find out, and had made the wrong decision. Turns out if you let him go you get even less info.

A few things I found notable though;

1.) Hobbes makes a big deal about how "a Kilrathi never betrays" and yet somehow he managed to betray both sides of a major war. Oh sure you can say it was programming, and he never "really" betrayed Kilrah, but he did put some serious hurt on them as far as we know. From giving them his Fralthi and revealing the Sivar-Eshrad info, to all those years in the cockpit taking down Kilrathi fighters. Even though it worked out in the end, this one could have easily backfired for Thrahkath if a few pieces didn't land into place by almost sheer luck. The bottom line though, is that when the 29th century encyclopeida (wikipedia?) of war history comes out, underneath the entry for "traitor" you'd better see a picture of Ralgha nar Hhallas. Christ, even Benedict Arnold only betrayed one side.

2.) I found Paladin's reaction to Hobbes betrayal strange; in that it was non existent. These two were close friends in Wc2, remember, so when it turns out to be a bunch of BS, you think he'd at least have SOMETHING to say to Blair about it. Maybe it's cause he had other things on his mind. Maybe it's cause he's a general on his way towards being a senator and has learned to tune out concepts like friendship and loyalty. Probably a bit of both. Either way it was strange and somewhat distressing. Interestingly, both the novel and the wc3 script have Paladin on the flight deck with a mortally wounded Cobra, playing the role that Eisen filled in the game.

3.) The one thing I did not like about how the Hobbes debacle was portrayed in wc3 was how they tried to connect Vaquero's death to a pursuit of Hobbes, and how Eisen tries to guilt trip you about it. Rather lame, IMO. A pilot can be killed at any time in war. It seems that the sensible thing would be to go after Hobbes, so he can't tell his cat buddies about the Temblor bomb. I fail to see how it would "jeopardize the entire operation" on Alcor 5 like Eisen claims. If Hobbes could get through to someone wouldn't they just execute Severin?

4.) and finally, I wonder what the writers of Freedom Flight and Special Operations 1 were thinking when they had Thrakath spare Hobbes not once, but twice. Coincidence? I doubt it. But was it planned all along that Hobbes would be a "personality overlay"? Seems more likely, but most likely I think is that they had left open the possibility that Hobbes would be an agent of Kilrah when they created the character, but didn't really commit to it. In a way this probably helped make it work better, as it was just so shocking to see his actions in wc3. If they had written him in from the start as a traitor he may not have been so convincing.

I also wonder what was with naming a character "Blair" in Freedom Flight but that's another topic...