Topic: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W  (Read 16136 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Maxillius

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #160 on: April 01, 2004, 09:13:26 am »
Quote:

Quote:

So the real problem is liscensing, and finding a publisher.

Any hope if this being fixed?  




Indeed there is always hope, especially when there is still a fan base to support a new game.
 
Ann  




Ann, don't toy with us!  Some members of the community have a bad heart and can't take that kind of... ahhh...  "excitement"



Not me, of course!

FFZ

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #161 on: April 01, 2004, 11:49:37 am »
  I believe the support is there.

I for one, would love to see the Tholians and Andromedans finally arrive, as well as more stuff from the TNG era Trek.

Maybe an all-new game isn't the way to go, maybe an add-on, expansion, is the way. Not like OP, which was self-contained, but a game that required that you already have OP or SFC 3 to play, using the existing engine and simply adding some new ships and weapons/defenses for the new races, as well as a series of new missions and campaigns.

For example, I would love a general war campaign, seperate from the ISC war, that used and high-lighted the earlier ships.

There is plenty of room to do things and not let costs spiral out of control.
 

Age

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #162 on: April 01, 2004, 03:41:40 pm »
Quote:

Quote:



OK, 1st, I don't mind parts being 5 years old. Parts of Windows(any version) are over 30, yet people still use it, and Im sure the same can be said for just about every other OS on the market. And, unless I'm missing something, OP already looks better than decent, and I don't even have a good Video Card.

As for 3-D Navigation, see here:

 Unoffical 3D Rules for SFB

Now, I realize the post is rather thin, but something IS on the books, so it wouldn't take that long

Also, about your weapon hardpoint idea, that would take a LOT of work to do. Do you put a basic hull and let the game modify that base model every time? That would take a LOT of computer power to work. Maybe you'd like to make a modle for every permutation? LOTS AND LOTS of hard drive space. A better Idea(IMHO) is to make a special model for each Heavy Weapon available, and let the phasers be default.

Thanks for your post, I look forward to your reply,

Merlin  


as I would say long as it is in the same lines as STC.3et in the 23C.I would like to refit those engines and everything else or to use a personally  modified ship and fighter list in the game engine but it is easier if it is more like no.3 with refit and officer selection but the visual efects as no.3 Maxillius Age
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The intent behind making a point about the age of the engine wasn't just from an asthetic stand-point, it's considering the capabilities of current computers.  SFC1's minimum spec is 200MHz w/ 32MB RAM i.e. pitifully small nowadays.  EAW and OP's minimum spec are 350MHz/64MB, reflecting the base capability of the time and Interplay underspecced the original.  If GAW were coming out now I wouldn't conider it if it ran slower than 1GHz or under 128MB RAM.  I *want* a processor intensive game, but I also want that game full of substance, not just eye candy.

So, yes, your first guess was it.  Make base hulls and separate "modlets" for weapon hardpoints.  I don't want to stop people from having all-phaser loadouts, so every hardpoint is a universal hardpoint.  There will still be mass limits for all systems, but there shouldn't be a need to split up heavy hardpoints and phaser hardpoints with this system.  Oh, and leftover mass from system component cannot be tranferred to other systems.  Take the Fed Connie.  Give her 50000 weapons mass and 35000 engine mass.  Phaser 1/IX (I think they're the same, not sure) uses 500 and photon launchers use 7000.  So, a connie with 4 photon launchers and 8 phaser 1/IX comes up to 32000, leaving 12000 to play with.  That leftover mass is only usable for weapons and cannot be transferred to engines.  And each type of engine will still only produce a certain amount of power, so your choices will depend heavily on what era your ship is, yet be VERY flexible.

About the Modlets:  Make separet modlets for each heavy weapon, but 2 or 3 types for phasers for the different eras: Enterprise, SFB/Movie era, and Lost Era/TNG and beyond.  Plus, this system would allow addition of special modlets for new weapons.  


 
« Last Edit: April 02, 2004, 02:18:41 am by Age »

Merlinfmct87

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #163 on: April 01, 2004, 05:46:09 pm »
Quote:

I'm sorry if this offends you, I really am, but it's time for a new PC when they start making games that need more grunt that your system can offer.  On the bright side, there are new systems that are cheaper than the cost to upgrade your current system.  Plus, you could build one yourself for even less!  That being said, I realize that not everyone has the cash onhand to go out and get the uber PC they'd like to have.  Personally, I should've bought a car instead of my computers but I live at home and my parents let me use their cars so there's really no pressure.

Back to the topic, I realize that coding that nightmare would take a good chunk of forever, but by that time the majority of gamers will have systems that spec over 1 GHz.  I'm willing to wait for a truly intensive and all-inclusive Trek game.


If it's any consolation to you, my girlfriend's machine needs a new video card because although the rest of it will run Morrowind just fine (800MHz/256MB), the video card is only capable of 24bit color, and Morrowind needs 32  




OK, it doesn't offend me, I just don't have the money. Period. I'm just saying I'd like to play SFC GAW if it comes out, and not have to wait on the upgrade that coming...sometime. lol

btw...

I hope you get a card for you GF's comp soon.

TC

Merlin  

SSCF_LeRoy

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #164 on: April 01, 2004, 10:27:37 pm »
Quote:

Looking for another n00bie cabin boy to replace ol LeRoy.  




 

I overlook one lousy thread for a lil' while and then I find this

   

Age

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #165 on: April 02, 2004, 02:22:38 am »
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So the real problem is liscensing, and finding a publisher.

Any hope if this being fixed?  




Indeed there is always hope, especially when there is still a fan base to support a new game.
 
Ann  




Ann, don't toy with us!  Some members of the community have a bad heart and can't take that kind of... ahhh...  "excitement"



Not me, of course!  


I agree aswell  or some of us will get depressed    

Rod O'neal

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #166 on: April 02, 2004, 06:34:17 pm »
Quote:



Indeed there is always hope, especially when there is still a fan base to support a new game.
 
Ann  




TEASE!!!  

Fedman

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #167 on: April 03, 2004, 04:47:09 pm »
[If you are going to place plame or insinuate blame to development of a game.. make sure you inplicate the proper company(s) that are resopnsible.... Taldren wanted more time to work on SFC 3.. Activision refused and pushed the title out because they wanted to meed the prime sales time 1 month before the Nemisis movie release...


Always follow the money trail for the answers  

ghostcamel

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #168 on: April 03, 2004, 09:49:34 pm »
GAW shouldnt be made if the situation is going to be a repeat of SFC2s or SFC3s production cuts and publisher cheapskating.

It needs to have enough developtment time to get things right, or else theres no real reason to do it. Going the cheap route will just limit sales of what could be a masterpiece.

Other strategy niche games get this treatment. They get the time to do things right.

If it cant be GUARANTEED that you will receive the needed time to make a real GAW, then dont do it.

Im tired of the compromises.

Unfortunately, that probably means working 2-5, or more, years on other projects. But, i know it would be worth it.

Somewhat on the same subject, id love to see Paramount do a new cartoon Trek series. If you check out the "Bring back Kirk!" trailer, it gives yiou a rough sketch of what the look of such a series should be. Shatner seems to still have interest in Trek, he could his own voicework. No need for him to lose weight We could see some of the old cartoon races, we could get the bravado of TOS Kirk. Theres no limits with such a design. They could bring SFB back into the fold and consolidate the shrinking fanbase, and regrow it from there.

 

I know none of this stuff will come to pass. Exectuvies cant find their own asses, let alone good ideas.

 

The_Infiltrator

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #169 on: April 03, 2004, 11:04:02 pm »
Problem is that it's Paramount's de facto position to attempt to drive SFB/ADB into the ground. The only reason that they can operate now as is is that they have a licence and Paramount can't do anything to get around that. It's ironic that for a long time there was nothing past TOS but the universe that ADB created, and now that it's a post TNG era for Paramount, they look at ADB something like a leper colony.

Age

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #170 on: April 04, 2004, 01:40:13 am »
   What does ADB stand for .I agree they need they time to get it right and who has the license?  

Lieutenant_Q

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #171 on: April 04, 2004, 11:37:04 am »
Amarillo Design Bureau, they hold the rights to Starfleet Battles, which Viacom has been trying to recover since the early 80's.  However Viacom counters it buy holding the rights to the images of StarTrek, so Starfleet Command was only possible because they "cooperated" to make it.  

FFZ

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #172 on: April 04, 2004, 12:03:20 pm »
 It really is a shame that ADB is so hated by the powers-that-be, SFB actually helped keep Trek alive for a time.

Back after ST The Motion Picture flopped, Trek looked as dead as disco, the only thing keeping it alive was SFB and legions of dedicated fans at cons, which were still strong even as the 1980s began.

Paramount had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make Wraith of Khan, and they were adament that it wasn't going over budget, if it did, they would fold the production and scrap it (this was because of the masive budget overflow of TMP.)

Khan was a big hit, and instead of rewarding ADB, Paramount gave the contract to Fasa Games.

Now, we seem to have come full circle, we are back to ADB still putting out TOS type material.

Unbeliavable.
 
 

Age

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #173 on: April 04, 2004, 02:58:30 pm »
  What is Fasa games please explian?I guess the powers that be don't see the logic in all of this ? I guess Viacom and Paramount Excutives don't watch the shows or movies they just waiting for the big bucks to come in they don't care about quality just the money they can expliot off of Trek.They could do this with PC games aswell just tell the publishers  
how much they want which they already do so why not expliot it some more.I would give this Company the license to develope and puplish the games them selves that way they can do a better jop on it and just cut the middle person.Viacom and Paramont would love to expliot Trek some more and this is a good way to do it just keep milking it for all its worth we keep buying it why not we are big fools after all.    
« Last Edit: April 04, 2004, 03:03:34 pm by Age »

FFZ

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #174 on: April 04, 2004, 03:16:52 pm »
  Fasa games produced games of tactical Starship combat, similar to SFB, but using the movie Enterprise and ships from this era, instaed of ToS era ships.

Fasa came out with minature ships for this, and even did role playing adventure games of Trek, but all of these games, although pretty good, where nowhere near as detailed and interesting as SFB.
 

The_Infiltrator

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #175 on: April 04, 2004, 03:24:56 pm »
FASA while it was around was a pretty good wargame company, though they did things differently than ADB. Personally I think ADB's product in this area is superior, but that may be personal preference. No one can deny though that Battletech was a great game - and this is another reason for confusion. At no time could it ever be said that FASA thought of their star trek game as the "flagship" game of their company. That has, and always was, Battletech. Why would Paramount therefore want to give them rights when they knew that it would never be their main focus? Personally, I've never understood the facination in trek quarters for Paramount. They're just a TV/movie studio. And sometimes not a very good one at that.  

FFZ

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #176 on: April 04, 2004, 03:30:14 pm »
  It's somewhat ironic Paramount owns Trek because Lucelle Ball broke up with Desi Arnez.  

Age

  • Guest
Re: So whats the hold up with SFC G.A.W
« Reply #177 on: April 04, 2004, 04:06:39 pm »
   They own it and have been milking it for what it's worth and there is nothing Majal Roddenberry can't do but Paramount does other things projscts  has well but Trek is thier Flag Ship of any it is to bad they are not reading all this then they would waken up.