A tale of the Tardigrade and the Horta

·§ë· Xoiiku·§ë· Xoiiku ✭✭✭✭
edited January 2018 in Strange New Worlds
One of my favorite TOS episodes was Devil in the Dark. In that episode there was a very misunderstood species called the Horta. This is the Horta chillin:
wjqfjv0qv76x.jpg

It was Spock, who looked beyond fear and conflict and sought to attempt to communicate:
o4hjx385gsu3.jpg

The last DIS episode featured a very misunderstood species, and one who is named Ripper. There is this awesome and interesting lifeform known as a Tardigrade, and Ripper looks to be a relative of the Tardigrade. This is Ripper chillin:
yewnqaohxlgd.png

This is a scan of Ripper, and someone who is trying to understand that lifeform beyond fear or orders to weaponize them and instead attempts to communicate:
qyeguy8nohgc.jpg

Both the Horta and Ripper are on my Most Wanted list. I see Star Trek, I see a sort of homage being paid to TOS and the Horta. Also I like Tardigrades, so I might be slightly biased there.

I think maybe people could consider the possibility that it might be worthwhile to drink a little less haterade, be a little less quick to judge, condemn and leap to conclusions and certainties. In case anyone is curious relative to another discussion going on elsewhere, I can identify with Ripper. I can identify with just wanting to chill out peacefully in the nature, yet being misunderstood, maligned and trapped in other peoples conflicts and priorities.

I also think, like the episode with the Horta, how these episodes might be at least somewhat about not simply using things to further your own agenda but trying to listen to and understand them for what they are.



We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.

Comments

  • JeanLucKirkJeanLucKirk ✭✭✭✭
    I can identify with Ripper. I can identify with just wanting to chill out peacefully in the nature, yet being misunderstood, maligned and trapped in other peoples conflicts and priorities.

    Same here. Found it all very touching. Also in combination with the episode title. Which made me think of all the maltreatment and cruelness all kinds of animals have to suffer all around the globe in parts...

  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭✭✭
    With me you get a shot with the pilot. Those are supposed to knock it out of the park. If it doesn't, maybe you get one more ep outa me. After that I check in in a few years if you aren't canned. I learned that the hard way with several shows like Enterprise, Early Edition and others.

    Maybe this one moment tries to redeem the rest, (even broken clocks are right twice a day) for now, I'm gonna go watch something else. I've said my piece on other parts of the forum, so I'm done with bitching about it, UNLESS this place becomes 24/7 Discovery post-event.

    Inhumans -- Marvel Universe -- doesn't mess with canon more than in minor details for the most part -- and I can watch OTA. Gonna rewatch the pilot with my spouse in a lil bit. Go Lockjaw!

    (BTW - For those who remember, I miss MAA)

  • ·§ë· For the Many·§ë· For the Many ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2017
    Tardigrades! <3 My favourite part was Ripper happily nomming around the mycelium garden. I hope Giant Tardigradeface doesn't die in that tiny cell from being drained of energy while nearly the rest of the ship celebrates at their expense.
    I can identify with just wanting to chill out peacefully in the nature, yet being misunderstood, maligned and trapped in other peoples conflicts and priorities.

    I also think, like the episode with the Horta, how these episodes might be at least somewhat about not simply using things to further your own agenda but trying to listen to and understand them for what they are.

    I hope that DSC continues down the Star Trek path of trying to listen and understand other life forms instead of just "what can I get from you". We're used to captains like Picard who try to understand and seek out sentience and communicate.

    Now we're thrown into a ship commanded by the opposite, with the will simply to exploit other sentient life as objects to serve our own purposes. What's more interesting to me in this series is to see how those under his command react.

    I thought I'd identify more with Saru, that he would have empathy for other life given that his species was used as livestock. But he doesn't seem overly concerned with the tardigrade (yet), letting his contempt for Bernham be a wall.

    And now Bernham who I thought I wouldn't like at all, is so far the one I identify with most because she seems to be the only one seeing the situation clearly and wanting to learn and communicate and respect instead of just exploit or even mutilate (bye Felicia!). I'd like to know the position of Stamets on the tardigrade and other life forms, especially when witnessing the impacts of their exploitation.

    We're not used to seeing this level of conflict and philosophical differences between crew, but that's not necessarily a bad thing for storytelling. I kind of like that the captain is a villain.
    made me think of all the maltreatment and cruelness all kinds of animals have to suffer all around the globe in parts...

    +1000
    Welcome to the Star Trek Timelines Discord server
    ~· Fly with the Subspace Eddies ·~
    Rise, like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number
    Shake your chains to Earth, like dew, which in sleep had fallen on you
    Ye are many; they are few!
  • ·§ë· Xoiiku·§ë· Xoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    l5jkws04bw4u.jpg
    ecrwm1yc8ari.gif

    Looks like someone else also saw that connection:
    ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Episode 4 Reboots a Classic Trek Premise

    Some of the writers mentioned Devil in the Dark as one of their favorite episodes:
    Star Trek: Discovery Writers Pick Their Favorite Classic Trek Episodes

    Another perspective on the importance of including non-humanoid sentient beings in Star Trek:
    Horta, Humpbacks and the Encounter at Farpoint

    Also, I would like to see both the Horta and Ripper in game please.
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2017
    For someone who seems to put a lot of stock in logic, there's some leaps here that do not compute.
    Lets talk sentience. Getting information from the humpbacks did not establish that they were sentient. (Or are we suddenly establishing them as a sentient race on this planet?)

    The creature that was at Farpoint, even StarTrek.com IN THE ARTICLE refers to simply as creature and animal.

    The Horta, it is assumed as sentient for the complexity of the thought, but also in the novelizations how later a Horta was a crewmember. (Actually that amused me quite a bit as a kid.) As well as the ability to negotiate essentially a peace agreement and in some respects a trade agreement.

    Now, that being said, yes, this is a reboot of the Horta in some respect, if you want to believe that the moral lesson of the Devil in the Dark was that the miners screwed up by killing and should have imprisoned and exploited. Yes the miners did benefit from the Horta in the end, but that was through discussion, and telepathic diplomacy with conflict resolution. If the Discovery crew had shown up at Farpoint they would have probably given a lobotomy to the creature to make sure the Feds had a great new colony, with MAYBE Michael B objecting for a hot minute.

    This leads me further to assume that Discovery's connection with Trek continues to be on the surface and without any real depth. And that there is a hard press to try to convince people otherwise by telling them to ignore what's on their screens. In a Dennis Hopper movie decades ago, he stated, "It takes more than going to your local video rental store and getting Easy Rider to make you a rebel."

    I'm glad you like the show, but please, try a lil harder on the logic.
  • ·§ë· Xoiiku·§ë· Xoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    For someone who seems to put a lot of stock in logic, there's some leaps here that do not compute.

    Ad hominem. Also, many of those leaps which you wrote are not ones I am making. Simply because I linked some articles does not mean I agree with everything written there and any way you choose to have interpreted it.
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    Lets talk sentience. Getting information from the humpbacks did not establish that they were sentient. (Or are we suddenly establishing them as a sentient race on this planet?)

    Yes, whales and many other lifeforms on this planet are Sentient. As for any particular individual within any given species, I think there is abundant evidence that there is a high degree of variability in Sapience.

    Cetacean intelligence
    Sentient and sapient whales and dolphins
    Scientists say dolphins should be treated as non-human persons
    'Whales and dolphins are ancient and wonderful sapient and sentient beings. How would we be judged by our great, great grandchildren and all unborn generations if, knowing what we do, we do not fight to prevent their extinction? The whales and dolphins need and deserve our help – now, before it is too late.’ Jane Goodall (2011)

    Perhaps you might want to consider the possible influence of Anthropocentrism.
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    The creature that was at Farpoint, even StarTrek.com IN THE ARTICLE refers to simply as creature and animal.

    Yet that article also states:
    At the conclusion, the audience realizes that humanity is judged not only on its ability to solve puzzles, but even more how it responds to a wounded animal and the threats of its mate.

    Although it is arguable and indeterminate from that episode if those lifeforms are sentient or sapient, the thrust of that part of the article wasn't an advocacy for them making good crew members on a star ship, it was highlighting the morality and importance of at least trying to respect and understand other lifeforms.
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    The Horta, it is assumed as sentient for the complexity of the thought, but also in the novelizations how later a Horta was a crewmember. (Actually that amused me quite a bit as a kid.) As well as the ability to negotiate essentially a peace agreement and in some respects a trade agreement.

    Now, that being said, yes, this is a reboot of the Horta in some respect.
    asibokf9o7ti.gif
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    I'm glad you like the show, but please, try a lil harder on the logic.

    Perhaps, it is my ideas and not my logic or lack there of that you disagree with. Either way, my specific ability to argue the case, or my perceived failures of logic doesn't address or counter argue the core purposes of this thread.

    For a much more articulate defense of non-human sentience: Star Trek: The Next Generation - Sentient Being
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • Lady GaghgaghLady Gaghgagh ✭✭✭✭✭
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    Now, that being said, yes, this is a reboot of the Horta in some respect, if you want to believe that the moral lesson of the Devil in the Dark was that the miners screwed up by killing and should have imprisoned and exploited. Yes the miners did benefit from the Horta in the end, but that was through discussion, and telepathic diplomacy with conflict resolution. If the Discovery crew had shown up at Farpoint they would have probably given a lobotomy to the creature to make sure the Feds had a great new colony, with MAYBE Michael B objecting for a hot minute.

    I do think Pal is making a great point here about how the Discovery crew, despite being Trek and the main series we are following, seems to have little opposition to exploitation if the end cost is the benefit of the Human race or the Federation. It also makes me wonder, if it were the Klingons who had the tardigrade, would the Discovery crew then magically grow a conscience and call out its exploitation by the Klingons?

    The big picture here is about Discovery's general instability at upholding or consisting in Starfleet principles and the lore of the Trek universe, I think.

    Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 78, we are not accepting members at this time.
    Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, and the Landsknecht, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
    Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
    Now featuring Cabana boys: Trip Tucker and Thadiun Okona.
  • "Sentient" comes from the early 17th century latin verb "sentire" which means "to feel". It's not about whether a being can do complex arithmetic or articulate their thoughts to us in human languages. The word literally means to sense.

    All creatures possess the tools to sense, whether or not they are as developed or developed differently from our own, or linked by a central system. The existence of these biological functions don't depend on our own empathy or sapience (or lack of those things) to perceive it in them.

    sen·tient
    /ˈsɛntɪənt//ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt/
    adjective
    able to perceive or feel things.

    In the show - characters, even Starfleet crew, don't have to all be beacons of empathy for the show to present moral lessons and dilemmas. I enjoyed how the crews of other Trek ships already showed a higher respect for other life forms; I'm also enjoying the struggle of a few crew on DSC who either have or are finding a higher respect for other life forms, trying to make that a thing in the face of superiors who don't (yet?) get it.
    Welcome to the Star Trek Timelines Discord server
    ~· Fly with the Subspace Eddies ·~
    Rise, like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number
    Shake your chains to Earth, like dew, which in sleep had fallen on you
    Ye are many; they are few!
  • I do think Pal is making a great point here about how the Discovery crew, despite being Trek and the main series we are following, seems to have little opposition to exploitation if the end cost is the benefit of the Human race or the Federation. It also makes me wonder, if it were the Klingons who had the tardigrade, would the Discovery crew then magically grow a conscience and call out its exploitation by the Klingons?

    The big picture here is about Discovery's general instability at upholding or consisting in Starfleet principles and the lore of the Trek universe, I think.

    Are you suggesting that the morally correct thing to do and choice most consistent with Starfleet principles, would have been to let those people die at the mining colony Corvan 2? If so, why?

    What did you think of the other crew members who were actively working on an alternate solution? Did they not embody and articulate a higher ethic and regard for other lifeforms?

    Do you further claim, that there are no contradictions and an unwavering stability at upholding those "Starfleet principles" in every other episode in any of the other series, or at least in those series or episodes that you deem are actually Star Trek? And if so, was that always the right choice?

    I suggest, that the episode TNG: Pen Pals is Star Trek and be allowed as a point of reference, if it pleases the court. As such, I would like to know your thoughts on the outcome of their rigid adherence to the prime directive, and if you agree with the way they justified their choice?
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • Lady GaghgaghLady Gaghgagh ✭✭✭✭✭
    You're a bit too defensive for my tastes, so maybe check why you feel the need to be so.

    The other crew did not begin working on a secondary solution to the tardigrade until the episode after using it to help Corvan II. Meaning despite that nice attempt to find another solution, exploitation still occurred to the detriment to the tardigrade's health. It is still wrong even if it was a decision which saved people. This is the old "if a train is coming but someone is stuck on the tracks, you can pull the lever to save the person but all the train passengers die, or you can not pull the level and kill the person but all the train passengers live". It is a moral dilemma sure, but the outcome still results in negative morality.

    I'm not going to run around here trying to defend what I may or may not feel about Starfleet principles. What I believe is personally moot, the principles do get broken, but breaking them isn't so much the issue as is the consequence of breaking them. Doing a Sisko and letting O'Brien let some prey species escape is not a dire consequence, most of these breakages are not dire. But intentionally choosing to harm a lifeform is. End of story on that.

    So for your final paragraph - exploiting a lifeform to where its health is put in detriment is not the same as rescuing some girl from a planet which doesn't have warp technology. Please don't condescend to me with a false equivalency.
    Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 78, we are not accepting members at this time.
    Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, and the Landsknecht, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
    Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
    Now featuring Cabana boys: Trip Tucker and Thadiun Okona.
  • ·§ë· Xoiiku·§ë· Xoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2017
    You're a bit too defensive for my tastes, so maybe check why you feel the need to be so.

    Ad hominem. Asking you for clarifications on the points you made is a reflective listening technique for sake of effective communication and facilitating the exchange of ideas.
    The other crew did not begin working on a secondary solution to the tardigrade until the episode after using it to help Corvan II. Meaning despite that nice attempt to find another solution, exploitation still occurred to the detriment to the tardigrade's health.

    Yet concerns were raised in that episode as well. Is speaking out against exploitation against superior officers not important or noteworthy? Is the grounds for your dismissal of those examples of virtues due to the morality tale not being completed in a single episode?

    Correct me if I am mistaken but I thought that the thrust of your argument has been that there were no Starfleet ideals or anything resembling Star Trek to be found anywhere in Discovery and that has been the grounds on which you have predicated at least some of your dismissal of it.

    Part of my aim here is has been to suggest that generalization may be inaccurate, or at very least to state that I disagree and offer a different perspective on it.
    It is still wrong even if it was a decision which saved people.

    So what would have been the right choice in that context? Or is your premise that Starfleets ideals shouldn't ever be tested in difficult, messy and time sensitive contexts?
    This is the old "if a train is coming but someone is stuck on the tracks, you can pull the lever to save the person but all the train passengers die, or you can not pull the level and kill the person but all the train passengers live". It is a moral dilemma sure, but the outcome still results in negative morality.

    I think it's a useful thought experiment for exploring one's own morality and convictions. For those interested, there is an excellent lecture series on the complexities of application and context in morality available free here: http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/

    I'd also like to suggest, that abstaining from making a difficult choice is easy when it's all theoretical. The point of my asking you what you would decide to do, in that situation is that I think part of understanding the story is understanding those choices and consequences in those contexts and challenging oneself to ask "what would I have done?".
    If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice - Rush

    If those kind of questions aren't your cup of tea, that's certainly your prerogative. I happen to like moral dilemmas and think they are an integral part of what I have enjoyed about Star Trek and some of the better episodes, in my view, ask the harder questions in more difficult contexts. I think there is room here for to each their own and I think it is likely that once the Klingon conflict is resolved, that there will be more exploration and light hearted episodes to follow... particularly if we give it a chance and don't rush to judgement.
    I'm not going to run around here trying to defend what I may or may not feel about Starfleet principles. What I believe is personally moot, the principles do get broken, but breaking them isn't so much the issue as is the consequence of breaking them. Doing a Sisko and letting O'Brien let some prey species escape is not a dire consequence, most of these breakages are not dire. But intentionally choosing to harm a lifeform is. End of story on that.

    I am not familiar with the specific other instances you are referring to. However I will take your statement that it is "the end of the story" for you at face value.
    So for your final paragraph - exploiting a lifeform to where its health is put in detriment is not the same as rescuing some girl from a planet which doesn't have warp technology. Please don't condescend to me with a false equivalency.

    My intent was not drawing equivalency between Ripper and the girl on the planet. I was specifically questioning your statement of "Discovery's general instability at upholding or consisting in Starfleet principles" relative to examples from other series where although the principles were maintained, the outcomes I think were questionable.

    I think that if one reviews the full library of episodes from every series they will find some questionable choices being made from time to time which deviate from the simple cut and dry easy context episodes. A point I have also made elsewhere.

    In closing, I am not sure how asking you follow up questions to your statements and views is being misunderstood as "condescending". I'd think it was pretty rad if someone showed that much interest in what I wrote to ask follow up questions.
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2017
    Linking reference material is a tacit endorsement of said material if it is not qualified to not be.

    Your definition of sentience is not without challenge. Under certain greek philosophical concepts, sentience is the ability to create and understand concepts as well as to put them in some structure of categorization, which in this case would be open to interpretation as to if whales are doing that. There are some who believe now that they gossip and others who question the conclusions of that data.

    Regardless. The occasional breach in one off episodes of STNG or DS9, which I believe you can count on fingers for each show (each of seven seasons) of anything beyond trivial, versus the continued blatant disregard episode after episode of this abomination of a crew is a very large false equivalency. Everyone fails their morals or ethics at some point. Those who I would categorize in the ancient form of 'evil' do so continually and you've got at least a couple crew doing it with no remorse.

    And if you go Voyager, you at least have the excuse of so many of the crew being Maquis.
  • ·§ë· Xoiiku·§ë· Xoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2017
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    Linking reference material is a tacit endorsement of said material if it is not qualified to not be.

    I'm not sure which set of references you are referring to, or why your even stating that. In any case, in addition to not agreeing with the premise there, that is a falsifiable claim. Here is an example of how I qualifed my reasons for linking some reference material earlier:
    Looks like someone else also saw that connection:
    ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Episode 4 Reboots a Classic Trek Premise

    Some of the writers mentioned Devil in the Dark as one of their favorite episodes:
    Star Trek: Discovery Writers Pick Their Favorite Classic Trek Episodes

    Another perspective on the importance of including non-humanoid sentient beings in Star Trek:
    Horta, Humpbacks and the Encounter at Farpoint

    One will note, that I did not state that I agreed with everything that was written, and I don't. What I pointed out was that others had seen a similar connection, the possibility that Discovery writers were influenced by the Devil in the Dark, and another perspective on non-humanoid sentience. I also, rather than just making statements about it, cited my sources. That is all.

    That said, perhaps you are referring to the later references on non-human sentience? Even still, there is at least a possibility that I think the information is worthwhile to consider without agreeing with all of it. The intent is for reference for a more robust conversation, not for proof. Simply because your claim of tacit endorsement is an easy assumption to make, which might seem to provide some leverage and weight to a counter argument doesn't make it so.
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    Your definition of sentience is not without challenge. Under certain greek philosophical concepts, sentience is the ability to create and understand concepts as well as to put them in some structure of categorization, which in this case would be open to interpretation as to if whales are doing that. There are some who believe now that they gossip and others who question the conclusions of that data.

    Among those who study whale song, as just one example, there is a lot of data, observation and evidence for it being a form of communication. I suggest that communication, even rudimentary, would meet the criteria you specified. Here are some references to whale communication, for those interested in exploring that idea and that question:
    Whale vocalization
    Why do whales make sounds?
    Whale Song Explained
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    The occasional breach in one off episodes of STNG or DS9, which I believe you can count on fingers for each show (each of seven seasons) of anything beyond trivial, versus the continued blatant disregard episode after episode of this abomination of a crew is a very large false equivalency. Everyone fails their morals or ethics at some point. Those who I would categorize in the ancient form of 'evil' do so continually and you've got at least a couple crew doing it with no remorse.

    And if you go Voyager, you at least have the excuse of so many of the crew being Maquis.

    What is interesting to me about this, is that, and correct me if I am mistaken, it seems that you are comparing entire series worth of content to the few opening episodes of a new series. This would be like having read several entire books (and characterizing their content to favor your perspective), comparing that to the opening pages of a new story, and then being very certain and very adamant that your opinion on that book which you have not yet read in it's entirety, is the most valid and correct perception.

    I simply suggest that people not leap to conclusions, generalize and extrapolate the future content of the series, based on the first couple of episodes. I have also suggested, that some of the themes and dilemmas presented by the series so far, are not without parallels to other series, hence actually Star Trek. In terms of the overall ratio of a breaches or questionable choices in Discovery as compared to other series, I have not made any claims to that effect, nor do I have any interest in doing so. The sample size is, for me, inconclusive.

    For me, Discovery is a new story and I will consider the whole story before reaching a conclusion about it. I don't place much stock in first impressions, and I don't find certainty derived from limited data to be compelling.

    For those interested in considering, perhaps even contemplating, how first impressions are probably not be as reliable as they seem to be:
    Even fact will not change first impressions
    Anchoring bias in decision-making
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • ·§ë· Xoiiku·§ë· Xoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    Having recently rewatched Encounter at Farpoint, I think these entities are clearly sentient.
    8k63x5uz78na.jpg
    How they were treated was at the center of Q's test for humanity. Which unless I am mistaken is a reoccurring theme in Star Trek.

    The Gormagander from Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad was cool, and there was some interesting dialog around that, including a villain who used the Gormagander as a way to exploit Starfleet ethics. A possibly interesting reference point certain perspectives might find worthwhile to consider.
    In late 2256, the USS Discovery came across a female gormagander which appeared to be injured. In an effort to aid the creature and transport it to a xenologic facility, as was required by the Endangered Species Act...
    p5umeiypa94i.png

    I was away on an international diplomacy mission, and only caught up on the last couple episodes yesterday after returning. I don't intend to put much if any more effort or time into this thread going forward as I think there is ample evidence out there now for those interested in considering it. My purpose in this thread was simply to offer a different perspective, and perhaps a counter argument to at least some of the hate people were throwing out toward Discovery. For those who shared their thoughts, thanks for the conversation and I hope it was in some way worthwhile.
    Also, I would like to see both the Horta and Ripper in game please.

    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • ·§ë· Xoiiku·§ë· Xoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    New crew: Ripper 5*
    bz2jabmcqwyz.png

    Although the art quality is not great and the skills and traits could use some revision, thanks for adding to the game.

    cg3wukhqbjbv.gif
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • ·§ë· Xoiiku·§ë· Xoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    New Crew: Mother Horta 4*

    8czk39obdjrv.jpg

    I wonder what the art quality, skills and traits are going to be? ...

    5e49l4swsx72.png

    The art quality is good, though the skills and traits could use some revision. Perhaps could have had some Engineering given that the Horta knew how to sabotage the mining equipment? Maybe some Science at least in terms of geology and maybe chemistry? That said, thanks for adding to the game.
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • ·§ë· Xoiiku·§ë· Xoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    4th star arrived via a voyage, long term goal achieve :)

    4pip9vn1izm1.png
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Sign In or Register to comment.