What some games Skip

[Poseidon]

What's been proven? The Technical Manual's aren't canon, and the use of plasma displays is as ridiculous as them running off ship's plasma.

The Okudas created the manuals, and most of the production designs for the series and movies!!!  How can that be not canon????

ODM conduits channel small amounts of plasma streams through bridge terminals.  That is canon.  Shall I start a list of episodes where this is found???


You guys live in a bubble.  You envision what you want to see, but not what is shown.  Continue on.  This is why I hate coming here now.  Disagreeing over KNOWN canon and what you believe to be true.  Just continue on then.......


I'm going to take another long nap...........................................................

[Black Patriot]

Because it's not on screen. That's the rule, if it's on screen it's canon, if it's not then there's no reason to place it before anything else. Not to mention that the technical manuals contain some of the most ridiculous ass pulls I've heard, just to try to explain technology that cannot exist within our understanding of physics.

The Transporters are a good example, they're ludicrous in their method of operation, the margin for error is so incredibly small that it's a wonder they don't just turn people into goo when they come out the other end, but they need to work for many of the stories to function, so we accept that as a break from reality. Personally I think subspace transporters would be a better (to explain) method of transportation, you simply push an object into subspace, change it's position, then pull it back into normal space; no breaking down into component parts, no ethical dilemmas, no enormous (seriously massive, every single atom and its bonds and energy states must be scanned, disassembled, and stored) data transmission, just what's essentially a small scale one-way wormhole that only affects the target.

Poseidon, no one is dismissing your opinion, we're simply stating ours. And no one is ignoring canon, we just don't agree on what is canon.

[Cadet]

Something I think that should be considered is, what is to say it is the "display" itself that is overloading/exploding and not some manner of conduit located within the workstation? Also, we never seem to see the display "glass" itself break from the result of an overload. So how can such a dangerous eruption stemming from the display itself, not phsysically damage the display, but be potent enough to kill? Why does that very material not protect the users regardless of the originating location of the plasma eruption. Either way, it does seem nonsensical for an advanced organization such as Starfleet to not put in place simple protective measures in locations in which personel are consistently exposed, whether it be displays, terminals, workstations, etc?

I think there is simply too much inconsistency surrounding this issue to continue an intellectual debate. For example, how often do we see the main viewscreen exploding, or the consoles in and next to the captain and officers chairs, or the helm, conn, or tactical bursting into plasma flames and injuring those using them? Most never, some very few, and at least not in the same manner as we see engineering consoles and bridge science stations explode. What makes them so different, why would some require such amounts of power on location and some simply act as relays?

Just something to think about. I don't think there is a concrete right or wrong.

[Black Patriot]

This is all a pointless discussion anyway, the only reason consoles explode, despite the bridge hardly ever being hit, is because it adds drama. The technical manual explanation was added later once people started asking why it was happening. To date only Star Trek XI, ironically, has gotten this right, since almost no consoles explode (I think none do but I'm hedging my bets) even with the main window taking damage at one point. So you have to ask yourself, if the consoles weren't exploding when the Kelvin (which is canon, it existed before the timelines split, or whatever happened) was taking fire why should a Galaxy class ship over a century later have more hazardous consoles? The simple answer is they shouldn't, but we need "drama" on the bridge, so something has to explode, and people seem to like it when monitors go up in flames .

Personally I think that building the bridge set on a gantry and having it move, such as in Nemesis, provides a much better recognition of the ship being hit, as it doesn't look fake (unlike all the actors moving to "simulate" the ship damage), and you can get debris or hanging cables to move in time too, looks much more realistic, and more realism makes the rest of the "danger" seem real, sucking us that much into the story.

[Zero]

Whoa guys, it's ok. We can have our cake and eat it too. No one said such things can't be modded in or be a toggleable option.

[Cadet]

Of course anything can be modded, that's not the point of the discussion however.

I think what this discussion boils down to, and what the person starting the thread meant, along with a host of other concerned players are hoping for, is a canon experience. And, canon being that which is seen on screen and not what makes realistic sense or can be disproved by scientific fact. The fact is, canon is what the team seems to be striving for, even if it contradicts real-world accepted and understood practices. So if panels and consoles explode in spark-showering displays of intense light and white-hot plasma eruptions, more power to Excalibur.

In the end, I hope to be able to sit down and enjoy a gaming experience that so closely resembles 'True Trek', that I won't question any offending tech or jargon, as I will be so immersed in the experience that I will be living Trek during playthrough. How many of you, as you sit and watch episodes of any Trek go, "Wow, that was so lame. Why the hell did they do it that way?" Not that I'm denying there are definitely some head-scratchers but, such is the nature of Trek, or anything that dares pave the way with imagination. I sincerely hope that the STE team continues to pursue canonicity as closely as possible. Like they've said many times before, "this is a game, not a simulator". If a gamer is seeking any level of real-world realism, they probably aren't going to pick up a game with a title that starts with "Star Trek:..."

[Black Patriot]

No one was disputing that the consoles explode on screen, and pretty much everyone has accepted that there will be something like this in the final game (assuming the devs go in that direction, and I have no reason to think they won't). What we were arguing about was whether it made sense, which it really doesn't.

That fact of the matter is that without an official (or unofficial really) statement from the devs about their plans this is all speculation, but it's all useful speculation, it gives the devs information from us about what we're thinking the game will be like, what compromises we're willing to accept, and ideas on how to integrate this canon occurrence into gameplay (perhaps the most important point of the whole discussion). Make no mistake, that's a difficult question to answer, and it's next to impossible to get a system that everyone agrees on.

For my own point of view, I'd actually keep the consoles exploding, as it is canon, but I'd make it pretty rare, and reserved for 2 events:
1) a direct hit to the bridge or the immediate area around the bridge. A localized power disruption from a weapon impact should be more than enough to justify a console or two going up in flames.
2) a serious overload of the power system. Very plausible, though if this is happening then an exploding console is the least of your worries.

I'd probably make the exploding console less-than-lethal for whomever is stationed there, as having to replace a crewmember, at least a main one, means another set of voice files, which can quickly add up. Background characters that might have at most a dozen lines isn't so bad, but again each replacement means additional work for the audio team. Putting someone in sickbay not only serves the necessary gameplay purpose (i.e. disabling them, without the need for a long term replacement. The first officer or the captain could step in for a major bridge post in a crunch, and if you're getting to the point where there are 2 disabled stations on the bridge you're probably going to lose anyway), whilst also keeping the necessary voice assets low.

[Zero]

The problem is that canon did not stay static. In TOS you never see anything but flickers and being tossed around. In TNG, that also continued. The borg could literally drill out a section of the Enterprise D's saucer with its shields down, and nothing on the bridge so much as fizzled.

So, -which canon are you going to go with-? This whole "things explode even while the shields up" business only increased and really started to go over the top in Voyager. Before that, ships needed direct haul hits of considerable real damage to send overloading spikes of power through the system to make anything blow out or light on fire (fire in particular in the TMP era, which makes complete sense from electrical overloads causing electrical fires. Sending too much electricity through wiring can cause fire, and thus minor explosions, especially at junctions where voltage and amps are being changed).

It's also important to know that at least the Enterprise D was not powered directly by the warp core for most of the interior power needs like lights and consoles. That was handled by the fusion generators. And fusion does not distribute power via plasma (the fusion reaction occurs IN the plasma, removing it stops the reaction immediately). Hence why the saucer section is fully operational disconnected from the engineering section and the warp core. It would undoubtedly run through its fuel for the fusion plants far faster without the warp core's power though, since fusion is not even remotely as energy efficient per mass as antimatter-matter reactions.

There in, this whole thing is not so clear cut, but none the less canon never really sides with the OP's ideas, unless we're talking late Voyager; but the OP isn't wrong either, nor are his/her ideas bad in any way. But, in my view, it should be an event that starts to happen only when the ship is under extreme duress and things are literally falling apart. It should occur, but tastefully, and appropriately.  That way it also keeps its "oh my goodness wow!" factor and feeling of dire situations.

[Black Patriot]

You're right that, like many things, exploding consoles was abused by Voyager for some cheap "drama" on the bridge. As I stated before, that's the actual purpose of the exploding consoles, to connect the outside danger the ship is facing to the characters inside the ship, but I feel it's something that was actually needed less and less as Trek progressed (and audiences got more educated, a global trend), we didn't sit there going "wow that's a big hole in the side of the Enterprise, but I'm sure everyone's fine", if we saw that sort of damage we'd know what was going on.

In the grand scheme of things I think flickering consoles actually served the point of the exploding consoles better than making them blow up did. When the ship took a big hit the consoles would flicker, something that never happens unless the ships power supply is interrupted. We have been trained to relate "flickering consoles" with "ship in danger", and the exploding console was simply the escalation point, to be reserved for "serious" situations to add to the tension.

I stand by my evaluation in my last post, an exploding console should be rare, and for gameplay purposes there's no advantage to killing a character at that post than there is to knocking them out, and there are lots of development reasons to keep them alive.

[Cadet]

That makes sense, Black Patriot. There really is no point in going over the top. That aside, it could always be something to be added as a mod that people can then have the choice of how much fireworks they want on the interior of the ships.