Topic: "'Starfleet Command' is Serious Strategy", says Startrek.com (Read 17382 times)

3dot14 · « **on:** August 09, 2003, 10:51:58 pm »

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/gaming/news/article/1559.html

Quote:

07.18.2003
REVIEW: "Starfleet Command" is Serious Strategy

Remember the thrilling cat-and-mouse game between Mark Lenard's Romulan Commander and Captain James T. Kirk in the Original Series episode "Balance of Terror?" This is the kind of strategy and game play one can expect from Interplay's "Star Trek: Starfleet Command."

There are two kinds of computer games, the kind that one can install and start playing immediately and the kind that takes some time to learn. "Star Trek: Starfleet Command" falls into the latter category, but don't think that takes away from the game. Many of the plug-and-play games wear out quickly, the nuances of deep space combat getting lost in a simplistic approach where it's all about dexterity versus strategy.

"Star Trek: Starfleet Command" is a real-time naval combat game that, although complex at first, provides a realistic and challenging experience, transcending the standard "shoot-em-up-in-space" games.

Taking place in the pre-Star Trek: The Next Generation era (late 23rd Century but before the opening of "Star Trek Generations"), "Star Trek: Starfleet Command" is filled with a plethora of player options. The game boasts over 50 campaign missions, 6 different Star Trek races to play (Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Gorn, Lyran and Hydran, each with 44 different ships to choose from) and dozens of display panels. It should be noted that the Lyrans and Hydrans do not originate from the Star Trek canon.

Again, the staggering amount of details involved make the player have to do what a real Star Trek ship Captain does- engage an enemy while staying on top of numerous critical systems (helm, weapons, shields, life support, etc.). The result of all these details can be a bit overwhelming at first but the upshot to familiarity with "Star Trek: Starfleet Command" is a multilayered game where true naval strategy wins out over brute force or sheer numbers.

Since learning everything about captaining a ship into combat is crucial to the game, there is an extended tutorial that features the voice of George Takei (Hikaru Sulu), talking you through the complex commands. And, just to allay any fears that the game is all about flying a starship, there are plenty of opportunities in the tutorial to play with the weapons. Hearing Takei's booming voice say "Alright, now let's blow something up!" is a treat.

Again, this is not a game where you kill five minutes. "Star Trek: Starfleet Command" requires a substantial time investment to get started and used to the controls, but the game is so deep with campaigns and missions that once you get proficient, the hours fly by at warp speed.

For more information about Interplay, click here.

3dot14 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2003, 11:03:52 pm »

In an era where "retro" is a style, it's only fitting that we get an SFC1 review 4 years late. (In fact, it's almost the 4th anniversary of its release.)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the review. Although I am somewhat puzzled by:
a.) its timing (At a time of falling-out between Activisiona nd Paramount, an Interplay game -- a now "classic"aka old -- game gets some praise. No it can't be, Interplay _cannot_possibly_ afford the licence back again and publish SFC:GAW... *shakes head vehemently*)
b.) its target. We all agree SFC1 was good. (There maybe doubters, but I don't think anyone (still) HERE will dispute that.) But why the resurgence? Won't it be better to promote the "newest" Interplay version -- SFC2 or OP? (although SFC1's racial menus are big turn-ons...)
c.) and lastly, its source. Startrek.com, Paramount's official site. (which incidently has undergone a revision for the worse IMHO. I miss LCARS format site. But the new ones aren't too bad...) It's like a blessing from the top... (although it did take trouble in pointing out Hydran and Lyran's "non-canon" origins)

Well. It may be an media push to promote "non-Activision" trek games. To bolster Paramount's case that it's not Trek games' fault, but ATVI's imcompetence (which I agree) that resulted in the mess.) Or it simply may be a new marketing tool to mine the nexr licence holder. Or it may be a simple and heartfelt praise by its author without ulterior motive, and I am overthinking things.

But no matter. To the author of the article, if youa re reading this, THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS.

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2003, 11:06:06 pm »

Uh...somebody really needs to send this guy SFC2, OP, and SFC3.....

Although we all know he's right.....he's WAY late on SFC1....

E_Look · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2003, 11:29:54 pm »

Well, I'm still getting a kick out of SFC1 and I'll agree that this tardy reviewer's comments were right on target. Of course, he had four years experience, I suppose.

Verroc · « **Reply #4 on:** August 10, 2003, 12:41:34 pm »

Nothing will ever top SFC1 on mplayer, its was out of this world! Its just all been downhill since then

.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #5 on:** August 10, 2003, 01:03:19 pm »

Looks like a slap at Activision...it gets fun when business partners have a falling out.

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #7 on:** August 10, 2003, 03:19:33 pm »

Yes, SFC1 had a much more "Trek" feel to it, and thats back when there was no doubt and no argument that it was 100% based on SFB, funny.

The racial factor, as well as the unique music and interfaces for each race was far superior to 2/Op/3.

But of course, for content it was sorely lacking. A nice Platinum version of SFC1 that incorporates all the EAW and OP stuff would rock.

Please, Im not sure what to think bout Interpuke doing it again... Of course, we actually DID get SFB based SFC from interplay, and they dont have a "One patch then up yer arse!" rule like craptivision.

HAND!

TheSatyr · « **Reply #8 on:** August 10, 2003, 03:23:01 pm »

Another interesting thing. When I was in Vegas I did that Star Trek Experience deal at the Hilton there. At the end of it they have this huge gift shop area.

They actually had SFC1 for sale there...didn't see any of the other SFC titles though.

Mr. Hypergol · « **Reply #10 on:** August 10, 2003, 05:32:10 pm »

It does make you wonder why a review like this would appear so many years after SFC1 was released. But hey, it's nice to see that somebody still gets why SFC1 and even 2 were, "AND STILL ARE", so good. It gives me hope that someday somebody will make "Galaxies at War" with Andros and Tholians and an intense strategic level too. This is the game we all really want. To bad Activision didn't and still doesn't "get it".

Magnum357 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 10, 2003, 05:59:39 pm »

Ya, it sure was nice for Startrek.com to make that reveiw. I think it is safe to say that this 4 year late reveiw is more then likely Paramonts way of fighting back at Activision. And the best part of all about SFC1 (assuming anyone that goes to Startrek.com never heard of SFC) will want to try out the game. Another added bonus is that the game only requires a P2 to run and easily adapts to many computer systems. I've noticed in the past that many publishers purposely up the system requirements in order to force the customer to upgrade. I will give Activsion credit here that they didn't try to do the same thing. Even my "old" Pentium 3/600mhz easily runs SFC OP and 3 just fine.

rmahannah · « **Reply #12 on:** August 10, 2003, 08:17:48 pm »

I think "We" already knew this 4 years ago...

Tremok · « **Reply #13 on:** August 10, 2003, 08:56:10 pm »

I remember playing battlefest on the game demo before game release on Mplayer. It was such a blast.

I remember when the game went gold and started shipping. We all huddled up in the lobby while staring at the windows waiting for the FedEx trucks to arrive.

I also remember that the Devs, with their flashy dev-only Mplayer names, would occasionally pop in and talk with us.

Ah, those were the days.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2003, 10:47:10 pm »

it was a clear slap in the face to activision. if sfc1 sales shoot off it will prove i gaurantee you that it will go to the very heart of the case that the game has a good trek fan base. remember here folks, its not SFC that activision is upset with. it is the fee they paid to license trek games. it will be an interesting strategy. unfortunately sfc3 gets screwed again either way.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #15 on:** August 11, 2003, 12:35:23 am »

Not likely,since SFC1 was in an area with Elite Force...the racks were full.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #17 on:** August 11, 2003, 12:37:00 am »

I just hope Taldren doesn't get caught in the Viacom-Activision Backlash.

ThirdLeg · « **Reply #18 on:** August 11, 2003, 02:33:59 am »

It's strange that they chose this time to release a review for SFC1. As some of you may know, I'm a lowly grunt at a Gamestop store (Software Etc. in this case). SFC1 was delisted from our system about a year and a half ago. SFC2 and OP were both delisted about a month ago. Why you ask? It's not because they weren't selling. It's because they were still shipping in the big boxes and our store is clearing out all of those. Hopefully this will mean Interplay will be re-issuing a small box version for retailers that have this same small box policy (like Walmart, Target, EB, etc.) . I know that Fry's and Best Buy still carry all three of the old Interplay titles though. Anybody have any idea if Interplay has any plans to re-release their SFC publications? I'd really like to know.

Tremok · « **Reply #19 on:** August 11, 2003, 08:17:10 am »

I like those large boxes. Bigger pictures, larger manuals, more stuff inside. I feel like I'm getting less for my money with those puny small boxes.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 11, 2003, 09:32:54 am »

I disagree their. I hate those big boxes. Most games usually don't have much for manuals and such anyways, and with all that large space in the box, just moving the box around can damage the manuals and materials more then the smaller boxes. I often wondered why the PC industry always made the boxes so big.

Tremok · « **Reply #21 on:** August 11, 2003, 10:20:41 am »

I never had anything damaged with the big boxes. Even if they are sparse the design the box so that everything is firmly packed down.

And most of the games I bought had big manuals full of story, info, and techincal details. They deepen the game. They were the size of small novels. I got packets of nifty advertisement and upcoming projects. Customer support sheets, note books.

Now I get small little boxes with a jewel case and some packette they try to pass off for a manual. If I am going to pay 60 dollars for a box then I want it to be big, heavy, and full of stuff.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #22 on:** August 11, 2003, 01:04:12 pm »

Personally,I prefer a real manual rather then the "cliff notes" versions we get now in the small boxes.

ThirdLeg · « **Reply #23 on:** August 11, 2003, 01:25:24 pm »

/thread off

OK, I hate to take this thread further off topic, but I gotta comment on manuals and boxes real fast. I personally believe that the industry is using the small box excuse as a reason for not having a good manual printed. Of couse, this is completely a bad excuse. Take a look at the retail version of Combat Mission. It came with a 200+ page manual and was very well done. Although the font for a manual in a small box might be small, it can still exist. Mostly I believe that not having a printed manual saves the publisher money. Although I can sympathize with them, I'm not remotely prepared to waste a $45 printer cartridge just to print out a manual. A manual falls under the category of customer support and many customer issues could be solved with a well done manual, especially if it had a FAQ section. You have no idea how many calls my store gets for tech support questions, which technically we're not required to answer. Of course we try to answer them, but it's a shame when the little guy across the counter gets berated by a customer when a good manual would have solved the problem.

/thread on

feargusf · « **Reply #25 on:** August 11, 2003, 07:29:24 pm »

The manuals for all of the SFC games would have fit in one of those small boxes. In fact, the manuals for every Star Trek game that I've bought are small enough for the small boxes.

Maxillius · « **Reply #29 on:** August 12, 2003, 11:52:22 pm »

I miss my SFC1 manual. I gave it away like a retard though

It had so much more information on the different races than the other SFC game manuals do.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #30 on:** August 13, 2003, 02:48:28 am »

The Combat Mission manuals were a trip...I've seen smaller novels...*LOL*

Fahrenheit · « **Reply #33 on:** August 13, 2003, 05:37:59 pm »

Smaller boxes mean that retail stores can stock more games on the shelves.

They mean that you can ship more in a single case.

They mean that you save money on packaging. I mean, how many times have you opened a big box only to find it full of cardboard, a 16-page "manual", a registration card, some ads for the publisher's other products, and a jewel case with a CD?

I like the small boxes.

F°
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters." -- Alan Simpson

ThirdLeg · « **Reply #34 on:** August 13, 2003, 06:44:20 pm »

To a major extent I agree with you Farenheit. The small boxes mean we (retailers) no longer have to pull our hair out in frustration during the holiday season. We can fit roughly 3.33 times more boxes on the shelf (or roughly 33 small boxes for every 10 big boxes), which helps out alot with backstocking. Personally, I feel the new, uniformly sized boxes also lend to a more attractive appearance as well. As I said before, publishers citing the small boxes on lack of a comprehensive manual is bogus.

feargusf · « **Reply #35 on:** August 13, 2003, 06:53:16 pm »

That's weird. I'll admit that I haven't bought a small-box game since SFC3, but I was going by the width of the manual compared to the width of the jewel-case. They must be putting the jewel-cases in them the thinner way. Goes to show what happens when you post an assumption

3dot14 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 09, 2003, 11:03:52 pm »

In an era where "retro" is a style, it's only fitting that we get an SFC1 review 4 years late. (In fact, it's almost the 4th anniversary of its release.)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the review. Although I am somewhat puzzled by:
a.) its timing (At a time of falling-out between Activisiona nd Paramount, an Interplay game -- a now "classic"aka old -- game gets some praise. No it can't be, Interplay _cannot_possibly_ afford the licence back again and publish SFC:GAW... *shakes head vehemently*)
b.) its target. We all agree SFC1 was good. (There maybe doubters, but I don't think anyone (still) HERE will dispute that.) But why the resurgence? Won't it be better to promote the "newest" Interplay version -- SFC2 or OP? (although SFC1's racial menus are big turn-ons...)
c.) and lastly, its source. Startrek.com, Paramount's official site. (which incidently has undergone a revision for the worse IMHO. I miss LCARS format site. But the new ones aren't too bad...) It's like a blessing from the top... (although it did take trouble in pointing out Hydran and Lyran's "non-canon" origins)

Well. It may be an media push to promote "non-Activision" trek games. To bolster Paramount's case that it's not Trek games' fault, but ATVI's imcompetence (which I agree) that resulted in the mess.) Or it simply may be a new marketing tool to mine the nexr licence holder. Or it may be a simple and heartfelt praise by its author without ulterior motive, and I am overthinking things.

But no matter. To the author of the article, if youa re reading this, THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS.

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #39 on:** August 09, 2003, 11:06:06 pm »

Uh...somebody really needs to send this guy SFC2, OP, and SFC3.....

Although we all know he's right.....he's WAY late on SFC1....

E_Look · « **Reply #40 on:** August 09, 2003, 11:29:54 pm »

Well, I'm still getting a kick out of SFC1 and I'll agree that this tardy reviewer's comments were right on target. Of course, he had four years experience, I suppose.

Verroc · « **Reply #41 on:** August 10, 2003, 12:41:34 pm »

Nothing will ever top SFC1 on mplayer, its was out of this world! Its just all been downhill since then

.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #42 on:** August 10, 2003, 01:03:19 pm »

Looks like a slap at Activision...it gets fun when business partners have a falling out.

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #44 on:** August 10, 2003, 03:19:33 pm »

Yes, SFC1 had a much more "Trek" feel to it, and thats back when there was no doubt and no argument that it was 100% based on SFB, funny.

The racial factor, as well as the unique music and interfaces for each race was far superior to 2/Op/3.

But of course, for content it was sorely lacking. A nice Platinum version of SFC1 that incorporates all the EAW and OP stuff would rock.

Please, Im not sure what to think bout Interpuke doing it again... Of course, we actually DID get SFB based SFC from interplay, and they dont have a "One patch then up yer arse!" rule like craptivision.

HAND!

TheSatyr · « **Reply #45 on:** August 10, 2003, 03:23:01 pm »

Another interesting thing. When I was in Vegas I did that Star Trek Experience deal at the Hilton there. At the end of it they have this huge gift shop area.

They actually had SFC1 for sale there...didn't see any of the other SFC titles though.

Mr. Hypergol · « **Reply #47 on:** August 10, 2003, 05:32:10 pm »

It does make you wonder why a review like this would appear so many years after SFC1 was released. But hey, it's nice to see that somebody still gets why SFC1 and even 2 were, "AND STILL ARE", so good. It gives me hope that someday somebody will make "Galaxies at War" with Andros and Tholians and an intense strategic level too. This is the game we all really want. To bad Activision didn't and still doesn't "get it".

Magnum357 · « **Reply #48 on:** August 10, 2003, 05:59:39 pm »

Ya, it sure was nice for Startrek.com to make that reveiw. I think it is safe to say that this 4 year late reveiw is more then likely Paramonts way of fighting back at Activision. And the best part of all about SFC1 (assuming anyone that goes to Startrek.com never heard of SFC) will want to try out the game. Another added bonus is that the game only requires a P2 to run and easily adapts to many computer systems. I've noticed in the past that many publishers purposely up the system requirements in order to force the customer to upgrade. I will give Activsion credit here that they didn't try to do the same thing. Even my "old" Pentium 3/600mhz easily runs SFC OP and 3 just fine.

rmahannah · « **Reply #49 on:** August 10, 2003, 08:17:48 pm »

I think "We" already knew this 4 years ago...

Tremok · « **Reply #50 on:** August 10, 2003, 08:56:10 pm »

I remember playing battlefest on the game demo before game release on Mplayer. It was such a blast.

I remember when the game went gold and started shipping. We all huddled up in the lobby while staring at the windows waiting for the FedEx trucks to arrive.

I also remember that the Devs, with their flashy dev-only Mplayer names, would occasionally pop in and talk with us.

Ah, those were the days.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #51 on:** August 10, 2003, 10:47:10 pm »

it was a clear slap in the face to activision. if sfc1 sales shoot off it will prove i gaurantee you that it will go to the very heart of the case that the game has a good trek fan base. remember here folks, its not SFC that activision is upset with. it is the fee they paid to license trek games. it will be an interesting strategy. unfortunately sfc3 gets screwed again either way.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #52 on:** August 11, 2003, 12:35:23 am »

Not likely,since SFC1 was in an area with Elite Force...the racks were full.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #54 on:** August 11, 2003, 12:37:00 am »

I just hope Taldren doesn't get caught in the Viacom-Activision Backlash.

ThirdLeg · « **Reply #55 on:** August 11, 2003, 02:33:59 am »

It's strange that they chose this time to release a review for SFC1. As some of you may know, I'm a lowly grunt at a Gamestop store (Software Etc. in this case). SFC1 was delisted from our system about a year and a half ago. SFC2 and OP were both delisted about a month ago. Why you ask? It's not because they weren't selling. It's because they were still shipping in the big boxes and our store is clearing out all of those. Hopefully this will mean Interplay will be re-issuing a small box version for retailers that have this same small box policy (like Walmart, Target, EB, etc.) . I know that Fry's and Best Buy still carry all three of the old Interplay titles though. Anybody have any idea if Interplay has any plans to re-release their SFC publications? I'd really like to know.

Tremok · « **Reply #56 on:** August 11, 2003, 08:17:10 am »

I like those large boxes. Bigger pictures, larger manuals, more stuff inside. I feel like I'm getting less for my money with those puny small boxes.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #57 on:** August 11, 2003, 09:32:54 am »

I disagree their. I hate those big boxes. Most games usually don't have much for manuals and such anyways, and with all that large space in the box, just moving the box around can damage the manuals and materials more then the smaller boxes. I often wondered why the PC industry always made the boxes so big.

Tremok · « **Reply #58 on:** August 11, 2003, 10:20:41 am »

I never had anything damaged with the big boxes. Even if they are sparse the design the box so that everything is firmly packed down.

And most of the games I bought had big manuals full of story, info, and techincal details. They deepen the game. They were the size of small novels. I got packets of nifty advertisement and upcoming projects. Customer support sheets, note books.

Now I get small little boxes with a jewel case and some packette they try to pass off for a manual. If I am going to pay 60 dollars for a box then I want it to be big, heavy, and full of stuff.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #59 on:** August 11, 2003, 01:04:12 pm »

Personally,I prefer a real manual rather then the "cliff notes" versions we get now in the small boxes.

ThirdLeg · « **Reply #60 on:** August 11, 2003, 01:25:24 pm »

/thread off

OK, I hate to take this thread further off topic, but I gotta comment on manuals and boxes real fast. I personally believe that the industry is using the small box excuse as a reason for not having a good manual printed. Of couse, this is completely a bad excuse. Take a look at the retail version of Combat Mission. It came with a 200+ page manual and was very well done. Although the font for a manual in a small box might be small, it can still exist. Mostly I believe that not having a printed manual saves the publisher money. Although I can sympathize with them, I'm not remotely prepared to waste a $45 printer cartridge just to print out a manual. A manual falls under the category of customer support and many customer issues could be solved with a well done manual, especially if it had a FAQ section. You have no idea how many calls my store gets for tech support questions, which technically we're not required to answer. Of course we try to answer them, but it's a shame when the little guy across the counter gets berated by a customer when a good manual would have solved the problem.

/thread on

feargusf · « **Reply #62 on:** August 11, 2003, 07:29:24 pm »

The manuals for all of the SFC games would have fit in one of those small boxes. In fact, the manuals for every Star Trek game that I've bought are small enough for the small boxes.

Maxillius · « **Reply #66 on:** August 12, 2003, 11:52:22 pm »

I miss my SFC1 manual. I gave it away like a retard though

It had so much more information on the different races than the other SFC game manuals do.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #67 on:** August 13, 2003, 02:48:28 am »

The Combat Mission manuals were a trip...I've seen smaller novels...*LOL*

Fahrenheit · « **Reply #70 on:** August 13, 2003, 05:37:59 pm »

Smaller boxes mean that retail stores can stock more games on the shelves.

They mean that you can ship more in a single case.

They mean that you save money on packaging. I mean, how many times have you opened a big box only to find it full of cardboard, a 16-page "manual", a registration card, some ads for the publisher's other products, and a jewel case with a CD?

I like the small boxes.

F°
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters." -- Alan Simpson

ThirdLeg · « **Reply #71 on:** August 13, 2003, 06:44:20 pm »

To a major extent I agree with you Farenheit. The small boxes mean we (retailers) no longer have to pull our hair out in frustration during the holiday season. We can fit roughly 3.33 times more boxes on the shelf (or roughly 33 small boxes for every 10 big boxes), which helps out alot with backstocking. Personally, I feel the new, uniformly sized boxes also lend to a more attractive appearance as well. As I said before, publishers citing the small boxes on lack of a comprehensive manual is bogus.

feargusf · « **Reply #72 on:** August 13, 2003, 06:53:16 pm »

That's weird. I'll admit that I haven't bought a small-box game since SFC3, but I was going by the width of the manual compared to the width of the jewel-case. They must be putting the jewel-cases in them the thinner way. Goes to show what happens when you post an assumption

News:

Topic: "'Starfleet Command' is Serious Strategy", says Startrek.com (Read 17382 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

3dot14

3dot14

**DONOTDELETE**

E_Look

Verroc

TheSatyr

EmeraldEdge

**DONOTDELETE**

TheSatyr

3dot14

Mr. Hypergol

Magnum357

rmahannah

Tremok

NannerSlug

TheSatyr

Tulwar

TheSatyr

ThirdLeg

Tremok

Magnum357

Tremok

TheSatyr

ThirdLeg

Mr. Hypergol

feargusf

Scipio_66

Demandred

EmeraldEdge

Maxillius

TheSatyr

Tremok

Mike H

Fahrenheit

ThirdLeg

feargusf

Jwest

3dot14

3dot14

**DONOTDELETE**

E_Look

Verroc

TheSatyr

EmeraldEdge

**DONOTDELETE**

TheSatyr

3dot14

Mr. Hypergol

Magnum357

rmahannah

Tremok

NannerSlug

TheSatyr

Tulwar

TheSatyr

ThirdLeg

Tremok

Magnum357

Tremok

TheSatyr

ThirdLeg

Mr. Hypergol

feargusf

Scipio_66

Demandred

EmeraldEdge

Maxillius

TheSatyr

Tremok

Mike H

Fahrenheit

ThirdLeg

feargusf

Jwest

Topic: "'Starfleet Command' is Serious Strategy", says Startrek.com (Read 17382 times)

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE