Topic: Which SFC game is your favorite? (Read 28536 times)

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #20 on:** March 01, 2003, 08:24:35 am »

Quote:

The responses here tell me just why it is the SFC line is now essentially over, and why it would be best for the next Trek starship sim to come from a different developer and producer (Taldren is going to kick major ass at console games with Black-9 sounding wonderful, and I'd be shocked if Activision wanted to do another ST ship sim given the lack of popoularity of this one).

Time to leave all the baggage far, far behind. A fresh start would be best.

I would be shocked if they ingored the pile of money that could be made from doing another SFB based SFC like GaW given the poplularity for it ....

I would also be shocked if Taldren doesnt figure out a way to make these fans happy....even if its rapped in another package....

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #22 on:** March 01, 2003, 10:44:15 am »

You can't be saying the reviews of SFC3 were accurate. Most were spewing forth carbon copies of the press releases. Several mentioned missiles in the game, and almost every single one I read contained some information about the game that was just incorrect. Not to mention the fact that sometimes it's reviewer specific. I believe it was gamespy that did a review of Disney's Treasure Planet and slammed it hard for being a space combat game but stuck on a 2d plane, and so forth. Sound familiar? And yet their review of SFC3 took none of these same things into account when handing out the score. I don't think any of the SFC3 reviewers spent much time playing the game at all. Most of the time, when reading them, it seemed like they booted it up and saw the pretty pictures did a couple of missions and put the game away. Anyhow, I would be willing to put a lot more weight on what the reveiws said, had they not been so wildly inaccurate on many things.

In addition, I'm not sure how giving the game a patch would have helped it along in sales. And a demo? Well maybe, but the combat is just too simplistic, it might have scared away as many as it brought in. Even still, I'm not sure where this massive silent majority of people who loathe SFB in the game and are longing to have a Trek game without it are. Surely they must have noticed the label on the box advertising that the game didn't use SFB mechanics. Most people buy the game, not caring what's under the hood, they just want a good gaming experience, imho.

I think another thing that may have really hurt the sales of 3, is Taldren's history of buggy games that take eons to fix, or never get fixed. People started to get the name SFC tied to "could be fun, but never really worked right" in their brain. I don't think a pared down demo of SFC3 would have helped that mentality very much.

As I said, I don't care if a game is SFB, but I think we would probably have been better off if 3 had been more SFB based, as it would have meant more depth of play, which is the most important thing imho. By saying this wasn't going to be SFB based, and hyping a new combat system that would be easier but just as deep, then delivering a game with monotone combat they may have actually caused more people to cry for the old system rather than jumpin' to see what could be done next by leaving the old behind. That's the sad part.

Nennennetikkkker · « **Reply #24 on:** March 01, 2003, 12:32:05 pm »

There is no way anyone who has 'lived' the SFB experience can ever say that SFC in any form will ever surpass it. I remember playing huge campaigns that my local gaming club made star charts for and us players would meet at lunch to discuss our moves and then if there was conflict we would set a date to play via counters and dice entire fleets of ships with almost a hundred fighters, shuttles and drones... So naturally when SFC came out we thought, maybe this will make up for all the time we lost. It was a welcome respite to do it on a screen, but had an empty, not quite finished feeling. There was always the nagging, "If I coulda," that the pen and paper game allowed that was lost in SFC.

BUT...SFC still did attempt to fill the void albeit less than perfect or absolut. And far better that somebody else code it than I. (That way we can all blame the incessant bugs on someone else!!)

Whis is better? Discounting the bugs, EAW and OP were equally good for their purposes while a big thumbs down goes to SFC3. The interface and feel for SFC3 is just not the same flavor. I do like the refit options in a way, but then all you end up doing is building something that you end up selling. All in all, SFC3 just seems to be and overall MOD to SFC2.

Something else that was a dead give away to SFC3's cookie cutter appearance was, as previously mentioned, the reviews. It truly was like none of the reviewers really tried playing the game. They probably started it up and saw the same screens and said, "Oh, same game, same review."

I still have SFC2EAW loaded on my machine alongside SFC3. If I ever got short on Hard Drive space, SFC3 would be the one to go away.

BTW, IMHO.....Activision sux! No support for anything. Rude support people. Just print it, box it and ship it is their motto.

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #25 on:** March 01, 2003, 01:15:10 pm »

As usual, Nanner, you look facts right in the teeth and say the sky is green.

Nemesis TANKED, MASSIVELY, worse Trek film TO DATE.

SFC3 is already being reduced on the shelves and the copies arent moving. Granted, this IS a niche market, and we all agree on that, however, the move to TNG and the Nemesis Tie-in were supposed to generate HUGE new audiences, remember? Eh? Remember?

Demo? Who cares about a demo for a game that is going on FOUR MONTHS OLD and has yet to recieve one offical patch. Would you care to see the OH so important "REVIEWS" that PC Gamer or CGW might put out now? I bet you wouldnt. They reviewed SFC3 PRIOR to release, whereas they reviewed prior SFC's AFTER release, so they factored IN the bugs and even commented that without the bugs, the game(s) would have gotten higher reviews.

So Nanner, since I am "wrong again" PLEASE enlighten me as to how SFC3 and Nemesis can be seen as ANYTHING but a HORRIBLE flop. Erik has already said that SFC:TNG "did ok", not great, but not terrible.

The move to TNG, where there are OH so many NEW fans, who have never HEARD of SFB, PLUS a nice, juicy movie tie-in, AND moving to Activision were all supposed to combine into MASSIVE sales for SFC3, far outstripping ANYTHING the SFC series had seen before. You yourself assured us many times that once SFC3 came out the prior, SFB based SFC titles would soon be forgotten...

Now, nearly 4 months after release, I see a poll (yes, unscientific as are all polls) showing MASSIVE support for prior SFB/SFC and little support for SFC:TNG.

Granted, many who come here are fans of the prior series, and that does skew the poll, but as you well know, all that "new blood" you have been telling us about ARE here on this board, I see new registrants every time I log on.

And yet the poll still shows an SFB/SFC landslide.

Erik himself said that if there WERE to be another SFC, he wanted to do GaW, but of course, due to the lackluster sales of SFC3 there will BE no more SFC anytime soon, if EVER.

AND, anyone who might be interested in buying SFC3 once a demo comes out will simply come to these boards if they are at all interested in reviews, etc and read how we are only getting a partial beta patch after 4 months, and how it (as usual) has apparently caused more problems while not fixing anywhere near all the original ones.

So go ahead there Nanner, instead of simply saying "YOUR WRONG" and spouting Taldren propoganda and telling us how "WHEN X happens, THEN YOU'LL SEE" or "When Y happens, THEN YOU'LL see" or even better "You SFB/SFC types are telling the truth about the game on the boards and its running off new customers". <(I really like that one)

Lay it out, dont just say were wrong, and mention various and sundry factors that have to date held down the sales of SFC3, give us YOUR facts.

MY facts are that SFC3 has had merely break-even sales and that the movie it is based on TANKED, as Star Trek in general has TANKED since TNG went off the air and DS9 took over. (I bought a TV guide last night with the headline "Can Star Trek be saved?" but I have yet to read it yet. Since when is THAT a question that has to be asked?!?! "CAN STAR TREK BE SAVED"?!??! That hasnt been asked in about 3 decades.) Oh, and that the poll that started this thread shows that of the people who frequent this board, the SFB/SFC types outnumber you about 75 to 1.

Do you actually have the quevos to try to make some points nanner, or are ya simply gonna respond with vauge references to SFC3's future greatness, and do so with all the clarity and voodoo like nature of the SFC3 game itself?

BTW, did ya read the post above mine, nanner? NEW people are seeing what you post and easily deciphering that you are 1)PRO TALDREN/PRO SFC3 100% of the time, and 2)ANTI-SFB/ANTI-TOS/ANTI-ANYONE WHO DOESNT AGREE WITH YOU 110% of the time, so its not just US die-hard, grog-nard, SFB old-farts who see it anymore.

Have a super dooper outstanding TNG killed SFC kinda day!

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #27 on:** March 01, 2003, 01:50:48 pm »

Actually I believe Nanner's point was that had the Demo for SFC3 come out BEFORE the game was release or soon thereafter, and had the patch been released shortly after the games release, sales for the game, and the overall SFC3 community, would be much larger.

That said, I'm not sure that's true.

I saw the headline on TV guide at the store, and actually thought about buying it just to read the article. I didn't though. It might be nice to know what they had to say though. It's sad that Trek has come to this, but it's clear as to why (to some degree). Continuity is out the door, and stories are rehashed time and time again.

I do have to agree, to a certain degree, with Nanner on this though. I'm not sure a Trek movie with the original cast would have done outstanding now either, but I do know that I didn't go see Nemesis (despite it revolving around Romulans), and had the movie been an original cast movie I might have bothered. It's tough, but they really need to do something about the storylines and scripts going around. And stop trying to put forhead ridges and creapy alien effects on aliens that don't need them, or shouldn't have them.

FireSoul · « **Reply #29 on:** March 01, 2003, 02:24:28 pm »

oy..
.. here we go, the old arguments again.

-- Luc

Carrie · « **Reply #30 on:** March 01, 2003, 02:35:22 pm »

I say EAW right now, but not without reservations. EAW only keeps the high spot because of how well its been fixed.

If Dyna interaction, base action, and other things from OP were fixed, and OP patched up to the current quality of EAW... with NuclearWessels and Firesoul adapting the EAW missions over, and making new and more exciting missions as well... I would probably pick OP without reservation.

Get those PATCHES done (the big patch, and the dyna one), and I'll be downloading missions in a minute, and making OP my all time favorite.

FireSoul · « **Reply #32 on:** March 01, 2003, 03:20:24 pm »

http://pet.dhs.org/~firesoul/img/arguing.jpg

Edit: there.. I won't show the picture directly.. but..
Edit2: Contains explicit, and insult. Basic Message is: arguying over internet is retarded. Avoid if offensive.
-- Luc

Toasty0 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 01, 2003, 03:35:41 pm »

Luc,

Would you not make fun of the special needs folks--they have as much right to repeat themselves over and over as the special olympians...

mahahahaha

Best,
Jerry

NannerSlug · « **Reply #34 on:** March 01, 2003, 04:20:40 pm »

last time ajtk.. my only point in responding to you is simply this: there were many factors to why sfc3 has not sold as well as people had hopped - you cannot pin it on any single thing. just as if i were to sit here and say (if sfc3 was successful) that the sole reason for its success was the rule change. that just is not true. most people bought/buy sfc because a) its trek and b) its the best game out there pitting trek ships against each other. it really is that simple.

See.. if rule sets where the ONLY reason for sfc rise/fall, then you fail to talk about is the success/ lack of financial success of Orion Pirates. It was a stand alone expansion pack which actually comes to the closest to emulating sfb.. i do not see many people playing it while it is superior to eaw in every aspect.

regarding marketing, etc.. it could have been bill shatner or patrick stewart and it probably would have flopped - period. this goes much deeper than what you think.

that said, however, if you were to do your marketing research - you will find that the people with demographics lean toward the tng - like it or not. i am by far a tmp person more than tng (do not try to equate tng/tos with sfb/nonsfb rule sets - that is false.. im talking about trek - not rule sets) and i even realize it.

if you stick your head outside of this community and look around at other games and what takes to drive/ build them - it is simple economics that regardless of what rule set, there are issues. (there are more people playing total annihilation now than sfc2 - and TA came out a couple of years before sfc2 - and thats not talking about games like rainbow 6 or even mech warrior 3 or 4).

finally.. its not so much being antisfb as it is saying that things can be improved on.. if that is antisfb - then hey, ill wear that badge proudly simply because sfb is not sacred scripture or text. its an evolving rule set which may work great for pen and paper stuff.. but many, many things change or need to be changed.. or can be improved on with the use of a computer.

if you like 100% pure sfb straight up with no adaptations, then i do recommend www.sfbonline.com (i think thats it). the fact remains, that even with sfc1/2/op, there is more different with it and sfb than similar. why? because the game is of realtime nature.

one last thing about this "poll" regarding scientific and nonscientific.. i would say that this forum represents a skewed segment of the population - just as most any forum does. this is a fact, not opinion. so before anyone takes anything from it- i would caution against it. that would be regardless of the results.

so ajtk - please vent your anger some where else. the "fact" is, there are many, many things that effect the situation.

Komodo · « **Reply #35 on:** March 01, 2003, 05:26:41 pm »

This arguement can go on steady for the next 4 months, and the result will still be the same:

No one wins.

Personally, I voted OP. It had all the stuff. In its form, it should have been superior to EAW. The "expansion" theory didn't make sense to me- personally, I think it should have been created as being able to stand-alone for its own sake, and as an actual expansion add-on to EAW; that would have made for a lot less grief overall. Personally, I think the X-Ship factor was overblown...

I think a lot of people missed the point of SFC3. It is supposed to be something new. Not to necessarily replace previous versions, but give a lot of fans something they wanted that was the same format as them. Not only did they get TNG ships, but a whole new set of variables which works very well for the real time enviornment. Drawbacks are that it is not nearly as engaging as the TOS games, fewer race variety, and lately, the splinter faction going on (meaning GSA mostly). Is it still fun? Sure! Especially when you get an even team game going.

For the time being, I'm mostly concentrating on #3. Does that mean I'm gonna forget about the versions I've played over the past 3 years? No way! But I am glad to have #3- it came out just when I was getting very tired of the same old game, and it really did bring back my interest and excitement again. I may not go back to EAW once OP gets its patch- I really think OP will finally get the attention it has long deserved. Then again, maybe I will. That's later.

I think the real problem with things lately is that the community has fractured upon the lines of each version, and sadly will continue to try to up the ante of each, which only serves to divide us further. What good is that?

Everyone is entitled to play what they want, and it's totally destructive to try to convince each other otherwise. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion- fine- say it once, and get on with getting it on. Endless bickering solves nothing. Save your energy for having fun folks! It's much better spent

Kieran Forester · « **Reply #36 on:** March 01, 2003, 07:35:19 pm »

Nanner, there are several reasons OP did not sell as well. First, the way it was sold was a factor. Instead of a stand alone, it should have been an addition to EAW itself, similar in the way B-Wing was to LucasArts first X-Wing game. There wasn't really enough there to warrant it being sold as a stand alone product at stand alone prices. Second, there was nothing really done to quash old bugs that had already been found in EAW, especially in the D2, with the patrol bug and all that. And thirdly, as a result of #2, the community itself did not wholeheartedly embrace OP and leave EAW behind. Nearly all major D2 campaigns are EAW campaigns, due to the fact that OP had the same old bugs and has not had the fixes from EAW ported over, which made EAW D2 a much more stable environment. The simple reason that EAW is more played is that it has always has been the more stable piece of software, and will continue to be so until the upcoming OP patch. And since both games are over a year old, there is little reason to switch from one to the other at this point.

Oh, and a note. Yes, I bought SFC1 because it's Trek. But then, when I saw what an immersive universe SFB had, and how much cooler its mechanics were compared to that of other Trek games, even today, I realized SFB is what makes the SFC series so cool. Without it, as evidenced by the lukewarm sales of SFC3, SFC is just another run of the mill Trek game. Yes, I bought SFC1 because it's Trek; I bought SFC2 and OP because it was SFB.

Once again, Nanner, you see only the facts you want to see. But hey, why should we be surprised?

Cleaven · « **Reply #37 on:** March 01, 2003, 09:24:48 pm »

Just a point about the OP bugs, they are not "stability" bugs. Enough people have attested to the fewer crashes experienced in OP play. But that doesn't count for half a Chiko Roll when compared to the gameplay bugs (ie screwed up cartel interactions) found in the OP-D2.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #38 on:** March 01, 2003, 10:37:53 pm »

komodo is right on all points.

Kieran, op was what the community made it. there were by far more bugs with eaw than when op came out. this was a conscience decision by many in the eaw community to snub op. there might be a bug or two left in op, but nothing that could be over come if people wanted to embrace it and use it - but they decided not to. the decision to dump op was purely political. of course what i find funny to some degree is that op is more sfb like than eaw ranging from maulers to k-fx arcs. <shrug>

as far as the "immersive universe SFB ". i can almost garuantee with out a doubt there has been more written about trek than sfb. go to any book store for the past how many years and you can find on the self dozens of star trek books. just as with OP, however, it is what people decide to put into it.

does "sfb" have a good back ground with an intriguing story and missions- you bet! but that does not make it the lone game (let alone trek) with such a back ground.. nor does it mean a game cannot be successful without such a back ground. it is simply one of the things which make that particular game unique. it does not mean that its rule set is any better (or worse) than any other rule set. in fact, i would argue that if you looked at the bigger picture that many people might argue differently as there have been other successful trek games (although not many).

for what its worth, i do look at the facts - i simply do not put blinders on and keep an open mind to what makes a good game. however, that conflicts some people's perceptions, such as your self - more than likely because of differing back grounds, demographics and what we look for in a good game. end of story.

News:

Topic: Which SFC game is your favorite? (Read 28536 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

**DONOTDELETE**

NannerSlug

EmeraldEdge

CubCarson

Nennennetikkkker

**DONOTDELETE**

3dot14

EmeraldEdge

SOS_Skorzeny

FireSoul

Carrie

SOS_Skorzeny

FireSoul

Toasty0

NannerSlug

Komodo

Kieran Forester

Cleaven

NannerSlug

Cleaven

Topic: Which SFC game is your favorite? (Read 28536 times)

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE