Topic: Why there will never be an SFC4  (Read 20309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

red_green

  • Guest
Why there will never be an SFC4
« on: June 13, 2004, 09:46:05 pm »
I have come to realize that many SFBers think SFC3 sucks. Thats jolly but I got sick of reading it. Then I started to wonder why they feel that way. Well it seems to me that the best analogy I could come up with. is comparing SFB to chess.
See in chess you never change an rules ever. SFBers are set in there ways from playing the game the same way for 30 years that any slight deviation is percieved by them to be blasphomy.

What I find even more annoying about SFB players is the clicks they have. They d/l ships people make , d/l missions people write. d/l mods people put together and then they won't allow you into there navy or use there logo or whatever.
Isn't this great for promoting there precious game?    Plus they would rather fly a ship designed 30 years ago that looks like a box and is made of cardboard.  

This last behavior reminds me of a line from Bob Dylan which I disremember atm.

All this flys in the face of a more typical Sci-Fi fan who is flexible with adapting new hypothetical Sci-fi techno babble and see races and ships keep evolving.  SFBers are too small in numbers to support an SFC4 game alone. 6000-10000 copies sold would'nt be enough to make the game. So it would have to draw on another type of audiance as well.

So SFBers get over it. I like SFC3 a lot, so bugger off with your whining about it and just break out your 30 year old board game.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by red_green »

FireSoul

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2004, 10:14:19 pm »
I happen to have bought SFC1 and 2 and OP because of that old board game. I needed no other reason than that.

Pestalence

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2004, 10:21:43 pm »
The first post comes from one who plays a game that is based off the Orion Pirates game engine.. a SFB based game, and which his game of choice still uses MANY components of SFB, just with a dumbed down interface for those who can't handle multitasking strategy.

Notice SFC II EAW has just as many in Gamespy Arcade playing as SFC 3 does.

notice, Orion pirates has server campaigns that last anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months, where at most a SFC 3 server is only hosted on a serious campaign for 2 weeks.

notice that SFC 3 only has 4 playable races where Orion Pirates has 16 playable races.


Need the comparrison go on.. SFC II : Orion Pirates is hands down the better of the 2 games.. the only thing SFC III has to it's advantage is reversable ships, personalized loadouts of ship systems, and tactical warp... and maybe full disappearing cloak..

but Orion Pirates cloak is much better, even though you can see the enemy ship.. try getting a good shot that will actually do damage...

also notice that SFB Has been around for over 30 years and it is still going strong.. check the SFB web site.. new modules come out every moth...

Man you picked the wrong forum to start this post in.. this is best  on a different board..

As for SFC 4, Taldren has already stated that there are no current plans or any plans for the near distant future for another SFC title.. and even if there was a plan, after all the hassle over SFC 3, they may not ever go back to any Trek based game.

yep, I think SFC 3 put a hurting Taldren's intrest on another SFC title after all the hassle over the last year...

I like all SFC games.. but of the 4 titles on the market.. i like orion Pirates for the game play, SFC Original for the storyline and mission scripts, SFC 3 for the selection of ship components. EAW was the game, but everything in EAW is in OP now.

as for ships, maybe you should take the time and load up the OP Enhancement Package into Orion Pirates.. the models are more movie accurate than SFC 3 and they don't look like cartoons as they do in SFC 3..

If i want a point and shoot match without much strategy or thinking, then I load up SFC 3 since it plays like an arcade game.. If I want to be challenged in a match and have to actually use strategy while playing, I load up Orion Pirates.
 
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by Pestalence »

Rod O'neal

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2004, 10:26:47 pm »
I'm at a bit of a loss to know what brought this on? If you don't like SFC2/SFB that's fine. Go ahead and play SFC3 or Bridge Commander, etc... There are many Trek games not based on SFB. We have this one (SFC2) and we like it.

BTW, my SFB game, while started almost 30yrs ago has many components that are newer than SFC3. go to the ADB product development forum. There's 30+ new products that are planned for release. That's why it's been around as long as it has. It never gets old.

 

IKV Nemesis D7L

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2004, 10:29:37 pm »
Quote:

SFBers are set in there ways from playing the game the same way for 30 years that any slight deviation is percieved by them to be blasphomy.




To be blunt you are wrong.  

SFB became what it is by a very long drawn out process of evolution.  The original game was a "pamphlet" and some counters in a ziplock bag.  Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Kzinti, Gorn amd Orion.  Only a handful of ships.   Later came more ziplock expansions adding the Hydran and Lyran, each with a small selection of ships.  

Then the boxed edition with the rules more integrated and more ships.  More expansions.  

The Captains edition.  More expansions.

The Doomsday edition.  More expansions.

The X-Ships were brought out then substanially revised because they did not work within the system and needed to be modified to balance them and make them fit.  P/Fs, fighters, carriers, tenders, bombardment vessels, maulers, cloaked decoys and many other things have been created and added to SFB.  SFB has changed and continues to change.

Repeatedly ships were released that were "conjectural", due to popular demand some of those ships became "canon".  Weapons and systems were added to fill roles that were found for them.  Races were designed and added (Stellar Shadows was created to hold races that don't fit in the Star Trek Universe).

The original version could be put in a jacket pocket.  Later editions filled shelves.  However those early ships could be used with later editions because continuity was continued.   SFC3 drops the continuity.

So why do SFB'ers want SFC to be based on SFB?  Simple actually.  SFB is a highly evolved, sophisticated system.  SFB players are not the type to want "arcade" style "shoot'em ups".   We like the complexity and flexibility.   No insult to any other game developer, but how could they possibly create a game to equal the richness of the nearly 30 years of  SFB evolution in 1 or 2 years?  

Star Fleet Battles is STILL evolving, STILL growing in richness, diversity and depth.  Where will SFC3 be in 5 years let alone 30?  SFB will still be here in 5 years and may still be going strong in 30.    New expansions are still arriving.

Paramount could do far worse than base a future Trek series on SFB.  Some would say that they have.  

mc_cloud

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2004, 10:30:44 pm »
so someone wouldnt let you in there fleet......and you got all pissed off and decided to rant here?
wtf is that about.......

The_Infiltrator

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2004, 10:36:32 pm »
Why SFC3 is a bad game: It's boring. They took a good game of ship combat and turned it into a game that is similar to gameplay of something like Freespace 2 - but nowhere near as good. Manuver on someone's tail to get a good shot, or head to head. Same as any fighter game.

Actually the most annoying thing about the OP series is that so much stuff was left out - including some of the things that the nannerites complain about most.

Hmm...real post or troll...not sure..

Khalee

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2004, 10:39:53 pm »
[quote
The X-Ships were brought out then substanially revised because they did not work within the system and needed to be modified to balance them and make them fit.  P/Fs, fighters, carriers, tenders, bombardment vessels, maulers, cloaked decoys and many other things have been created and added to SFB.  SFB has changed and continues to change.    




X ship were brought out because players were wanting the ships they saw from the first Star trek movie. But Because ADB could not do the Movie ships, (That right went to FASA) Calling them Xships was a way around it. But yes it was A rushed product. And now you are makeing me wanting to go back thru my stuff and find my copy of the X Ship ruels and SSD and look at them all again. which I have not done in years
« Last Edit: June 13, 2004, 10:41:00 pm by Khalee »

Rod O'neal

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2004, 10:47:24 pm »
Quote:



X ship were brought out because players were wanting the ships they saw from the first Star trek movie. But Because ADB could not do the Movie ships, (That right went to FASA) Calling them Xships was a way around it. But yes it was A rushed product. And now you are makeing me wanting to go back thru my stuff and find my copy of the X Ship ruels and SSD and look at them all again. which I have not done in years  




I remember that. We all were upset with Paramount being anal and not allowing SFB to continue on with canon Trek. With the way that Trek has gone though they probably did us all a favor. Could you imagine trying to continue to follow canon in a workable balanced gaming system?  

Crimmy

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2004, 11:36:51 pm »
And what about those who never played SFB?  HUH? HUH?...what about US?

I'm not about to disparage one Taldren product in order to support another again....

Been there...done that...felt like an @ss afterword...

You're chess anolgy is the correct one.....except you miss the point that even you blatenly made...

The rules of chess dont change.....correct

Why?...there is no need to change them....the game has enough mathmatical variations to produce numerous outcomes when coupled with the human decision making process....

You can study the Tactics in Chess for decades...and never fully master the game.....there is ALLWAYS room to improve your game...and expand the number of moves you can forecast....

Even though there is ONE game for BOTH white AND black that wins EVERY TIME...trying to Play that perfect game is elusive...even for a master like Kasparov....much less an expert like me....

You may notice that MANY variations of chess exist....but yet NONE of these variations are as popular as Chess itself...

Checkers for example DOES have some strategy involved...but NOTHING even close to the variations in Chess...

Lets just say I prefer the intellect required to play chess....And I play chess VERY well thank you.

And if you cant play chess......you play checkers.....and [bleep] about how "superior" chess players think they are....

Kings pawn to Kings pawn four

Your move.  

NannerSlug

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2004, 02:04:04 am »
i think it would be wise for all parties to leave well enough alone.

my personal opinion is that many of the rabid sfb fans are exactly that. they have that right to be if they like that style of game. there is nothing wrong about liking a game a particular way.

what  is  wrong is when they - or anyone - speaks from a position that  their way  is the best way. Funny someone should bring up boring. In my experience (and i am not alone), sfb can get boring or manotonus.. any game can get that way.

What is important - and what any game should be judged on is: a) does it reach its target audience.  b) does that audience like the game. c) what is its life span in relation to the fan. (does the fan recommend it to his pals and the community grows)

that all said, those before sfc2 and sfc3 after are two completely different targeted audiences because  business  drives it that way. From my understanding, all the sfc series games made money.

< MY opinion - NOT TALDREN's>

as far as my personal opinion. SFC3 had a lot of potential - however due to  business  decisions, it became more than just the red headed step child. I will leave it at that. A lot was done with the 531 build. Yes, I believe that somthing close to my Generations at War mod could have been developed and it would have squelshed a lot of criticism.

Currently, out of the box and just patched (no mods) - the game suffers from a lack of detail. In short, too much was taken out of the game, or at least not put back in. There are many NON sfb examples of good games with a high level of polish which was allowed.. Medal of Honor, HALO, even Wolfenstien: Enemy territory. The one thing which SFC3 has over ANY of the sfc games is the single player game. It suprasses any of the single player games of the past. period.

Game play wise, though, in retrospect, I just think too much was cut out. The good news is, though, Taldren allowed enough stuff IN to where we can mod the game. There are at least 5-7 mods out there for SFC3 which are all downloaded significantly. At least 4 of them have over 1,000 downloads. 3 of them have well over 6,000 downloads. These mods, I believe, show what could have been.

The last thing about sfc3 is this: it provides the tools necessary to make a cannon sfc game. No other sfc game allows those of us who are trek fans the ability to have truly different racial primaries and to a degree heavy weapons - which are based on the television shows and movie productions. I am one of those who say good riddence to missiles and plasma as it was in sfc1&2. it created too many balance problems one way or the other. (that does not mean it is wrong, just means that is my opinion). SFC3 provides klingon, romulan disruptors (which are different and have racial flavoring.).. not just varying degrees of phaser 1s, 2s and 3s. So for those of us who are trek fans, SFC3 is more of a God-send than some will ever know. It just simply had too much detail removed from it.

The last thing which has really killed sfc3 was any sort of patch getting caught up in legal issues when paramount and activision decided they couldnt get along and did a law-suit thing. this killed it. period. you cannot even find it in stores any more. they actually RMA'd the game instead of letting the copies out there get sold.

</end sfc3 opinion>

now.. about sfc1&2. truthfully, i am bored out of my mind a lot of times when it comes to that game. for me, at least, it becomes the same thing over and over again.. and in most cases it is who has the biggest carrier or most missiles. My most fun time really came in sfc1 SL matches and with SFC2 general war where a lot of those things simply were weeded out. that does not make any of those games lesser. it simply means i like other types of games.

here is the breaking point where some people just will never get it.

just because  you  like the game a certain way does not mean everyone else does. Nor does it make  your way  superior. There are people who are still playing Quake of all things and will probably for years to come because it is what they  like. (I my self have found a version of marathon which i like to whip out a time or two.)

I think a lot of my objectivity on somthings - just to do  the opposite of what some of the SFB fanatics wanted to do. why? because their arrogance drove me away. whether or not some of the sfb fanatics like it or not, your arrogance has done this community harm over and over again. driving away the average gamer (i know, they are probably just dumb people to you).

Before some of you guys point fingers at this person - I would take a long look at your self. Games are places for people to spend their off time. not to be redicculed because "they dont understand" or because "they like fps games."  By the way, some of the most strategic games I have played (and i have played a LOT of games) are fps games. Try playing the Rainbow 6 series.. or splinter cell. and i havent even talked about RTT games.

So dont burn the guy at the stake. Try instead offering some sympathy. might get you a little further than you think. The world does not begin and end with SFB. (well, not for most of us. )

 

Bonk

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2004, 03:30:13 am »
What FireSoul and Pestalence said...

Myself, I do not like Bridge Commander or Armada because they are dumbed down games... SFC3 is better because it is based on SFB!!!  

EAW and OP are even better still, as no third party had full control of the design  (not mentioning any names... ).

If there is ever going to be an SFC4, SFB is the only reason.  SFB was the only reason there was any SFC for that matter.

Ever hear of Federation and Empire?

I had many objections to the design of SFC3 long BEFORE it was released, but I bought it anyway to support Taldren (then gave it away.)

You have to understand that almost everyone who bought SFC1 was an SFBer, that was the reason we bought it.

What if you bought a 2004 Corvette and it turned out to be front wheel drive - would you want to keep it?

Show some respect for the origins of the game, and more respect in general and perhaps you will find fleets more welcoming. Personally I'm done with fleets - too restricitive...

And most importantly, lighten up man!  Just go play the game you like and try and be positive about it!  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by Bonk »

Cleaven

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2004, 04:26:42 am »
Well I was looking for a stupid outburst to shake my head at, and I found one. I assume SFB'ers kicked your dog or something.

The lack of an SFC4 has more to do with foolish people who think they know how the system works, but don't really, as opposed to the people who got the whole thing started and still have their own game growing and expanding.  

FPF_TraceyG

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2004, 04:43:22 am »
I'm a Trek fan from way back, I grew up watching the Original series. As a teenager I played a lot of games like Dungeons and Dragons and discovered Starfleet Battles along with the Fasa game and various others.
Those games I remember with fond memories, along with teenage memories.
And now here we are twenty years later and my favourite games (including D&D) are being made available on computer.

My point of view is a simply one really, I like just about all Trek games, but its always been a desire to have SFB on the computer. I even tried to write my own SFB game on a computer back in the 90s on an old Commodore Amiga using C.

I want to see my favourite board Trek game on the computer, and so I was very happy to see SFC1 released and then later SFC2 and SFC2:OP. I have also played just about every Trek game that has ever been released. Regardless of whether the SFC series was based on SFB, I still would have liked it. SFC3 is not on SFB, of course, and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem, however, is the expectation that SFC3 would continue on from SFC2 expanding on its original SFB roots, and consequently because the that didnt happen, what will happen to our favourite computer rendition of our favourite board game.

Most arguments over SFC2 vs SFC3 hold as a premise it is either one or the other. In my opinion, I think SFC3 would have done much better simply if it had not been called SFC3. SFC3 should have and was going to be a continued expansion of the SFB ruleset. Call to Power 2, Civilisation III, and other similar games did not do as well as their predecessors for exactly the same reason, the game was changed and fans of the original held the expectations of seeing their game revamped. Technically, SFC v3 should have been a successor to SFC v2.

Having said that, SFC3 is still a good game and much better than most other Trek games that have been released. The Mods available and the recent patch have certainly improved it as well, and its sad that politics have ruined its development.

I still want to see my favourite board game, SFB, continue its development on the computer as well. I do not see SFC2 vs SFC3 as a trade off one against the other, and both rulesets can quite happily co-exist. The misconception this is not the case is purely from the game names themselves, which ruleset would possibly then be used for a conjectural SFC4. Even calling SFC3, SFC:TNG would have helped alleviate this problem by dropping the numbers. The SFC3 ruleset is not a replacement for SFC2, it is just different, thats all. An alternative much in the same vein that the FASA game was to SFB. There was no problem between those two games, of course, because they didnt carry the same name, nor were they developed by the same company. They were, in fact, co-developed. This is where SFC2 and SFC3 should have gone.

One day, there will be another SFC series. It may not be done by Taldren. It may not be for awhile either because of legalities. But this game will remain in the hearts and minds of fans now and years to come, as SFB has for the last 30 years and will continue to do so.  

DonKarnage

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2004, 07:19:06 am »
well since the have no desire to make a sfc4, but the can do a extended version of it like for sfc eaw to op, sfc3 is still a good game beside the lack of ship mod, but its easy to add new ship, for sfb i never play it since i don't know if there place where the play it where i live, if you don't like a game you don't have to kill it, so what no sfc4 boo hoo hoo, keep playing sfc1,2 eaw,op or 3 or play any other st games if you want or anythink else, but you don't have to anyone everyone whit the fact that you don't like the game and there will be no sfc4 to play it, if you don't like sfb then don't play sfc's since the are base on sfb.

all game have a down point but just exploit the good point of the game and enjoy it, no game are perfect sure taldren could ask the user the modler everyone in the forum if the want to do a sfc4 or do an extended version of sfc3 or give us permission or source code to enance the game to make it bether, but now there new mod to add in the game and you can do more with it, for me sfc3 could use a remake but its what i think and i will not post a message that says that sfc3 suck and the must do a sfc4, sure a new sfc game would be cool but the old one are still good and there alway place for making the game bether by adding more ship more mission, so if one day taldren want to do a sfc4 the should ask the user's of the game what the should do to make the game a success like for sfc/op, so if you don't like sfb or sfc's then don't play them and don't post message that you don't like what taldren as do or will not do.

 

DH123

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2004, 08:06:43 am »
SFC1, and SFB-based game, sold 400,000 copies.   Need I say anything more?
 

David Ferrell

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2004, 09:17:23 am »
Q: Why there will never be an SFC4?

A: Activision.

All the games in the series made a profit for the publisher of each
respective game, based upon that alone a follow-up would be
a natural.  Activision's big heap-o-buyer's regret, put all Trek games
on hold.

OP == the pinnacle of SFC.

Someone mentioned OP left out too much stuff, I can't imagine what
the heck more you could have wanted (besides Andro's and Tholians!).

Thanks,

Dave

(Edit to fix spelling of 'pinnacle')
« Last Edit: June 14, 2004, 09:53:32 am by David Ferrell »

Rod O'neal

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2004, 09:50:08 am »
Dear Nanner, I'm probably going to get into trouble for this, but here goes.

You start off your post by telling everyone to leave it alone. Then you proceed with 15 or so paragraphs of your opinion on the subject. Why are we not allowed our say? Are only moderators allowed to express their opinions. I don't think that anyone gave the poster anything that he didn't ask for (Sorry Red Green, but like I said earlier, I don't know what it was that even made you make your original post.). He started it, and then your post supports him. This just doesn't make sense to me.

Your position on sfc2 vs. sfc3 is well known. Thus the reference to "Nannerites" (Which, BTW, I do consider the reference to you in the post unnecessary, but as a Moderator I think that you need to be a little thicker skinned for your own sake.).
You proceed on with many points on why you think sfc3 is better. Which in itself is OK. Except for the fact that you told the rest of us to drop it.
Then you give your negative view on sfc2 and sfb. I think that it is very unprofessional for someone who represents Taldren to not only run down a previous Taldren product, but to then run down another companies product, ADB.
Then you digress even further by attacking a rather large segment of the forum community, the SFBers. You call us arrogant and rabid. You put words in our mouths by saying that we think that non-sfbers are dumb. It's not unusual for someone to think that someone who disagrees with them is wrong or just doesn't get it. It's not an sfb phenomenon or invention. You evidently feel the same in the opposite direction of us.
As far as sfb being boring goes, (Just to defend the defenseless a bit. Since ADB has no voice here and your outwardly negative comments on their product could drive away potential SFB players.) How can it be boring to have over 100 possible tactical decisions to make each impulse? For those who don't know, there are 32 impulses to a game turn (The time that it takes for phasers to arm in SFC2). That's over 3000 possible moves to be considered per turn. That's complicated and involving, not boring.

I don't usually outwardly disagree with moderators here. You position can be a difficult one and it's not always going to be a popular one. I understand this, but you aren't making it any easier on yourself or other moderators with your negative stance on SFC2 and SFB.

...and Dave, Did you loose that list that I sent you on all the stuff you guys left out?      

Reverend

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2004, 11:38:58 am »
Well, I  played SFC1 over at a buddy's house, then bought  OP because there were no Star Trek tactical combat simulators around (Brdige Commander and Armada seemed fine, but the gracefulness was left out of both).... I have tried SFB, several times, but it got to be really drawn out, so much so that when playing the game with 'old pros', it would take over two hours for  a  small battle (that could have just been the scenario).
I did enjoy SFC2OP, and SFC1, but I  seemed to enjoy SFC3 more, mainly due to engine changes, impulse control, the ability to go reverse, and tactical warp... these items made the game seem more feasible. Unfortunately, a lot of things were left out due to Actvision. All are great games, but a lot of people it seems who enjoy SFC3 do it for the same reason I do, as stated before. Maybe if someone could build a 'SFC4', it could bridge the gape between OP and 3, and then take a ginat leap beyond all in one, like having a fully interfaceable universe, dockable bases, planets... maybe a wierdo analomy thrown in here and there. Heck, I'd say a MMORPG would be good, but that would ruin it probrobly, as most of those games are just a carrot-on-a-stick kind of thing. Still, that does seem fun to think of.... so what does anyone else think of that, SFC4 being a bridge-gap and a MMORPG? Could it be fun, or just a failure-in-the-making? EIther way, a new Dynaverse with a static continuous space universe (with a little drop down hex map for good measure) seems to me like a fun idea...  

Sirgod

  • Guest
Re: Why there will never be an SFC4
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2004, 12:24:58 pm »
Quote:

Well, I  played SFC1 over at a buddy's house, then bought  OP because there were no Star Trek tactical combat simulators around (Brdige Commander and Armada seemed fine, but the gracefulness was left out of both).... I have tried SFB, several times, but it got to be really drawn out, so much so that when playing the game with 'old pros', it would take over two hours for  a  small battle (that could have just been the scenario).
I did enjoy SFC2OP, and SFC1, but I  seemed to enjoy SFC3 more, mainly due to engine changes, impulse control, the ability to go reverse, and tactical warp... these items made the game seem more feasible. Unfortunately, a lot of things were left out due to Actvision. All are great games, but a lot of people it seems who enjoy SFC3 do it for the same reason I do, as stated before. Maybe if someone could build a 'SFC4', it could bridge the gape between OP and 3, and then take a ginat leap beyond all in one, like having a fully interfaceable universe, dockable bases, planets... maybe a wierdo analomy thrown in here and there. Heck, I'd say a MMORPG would be good, but that would ruin it probrobly, as most of those games are just a carrot-on-a-stick kind of thing. Still, that does seem fun to think of.... so what does anyone else think of that, SFC4 being a bridge-gap and a MMORPG? Could it be fun, or just a failure-in-the-making? EIther way, a new Dynaverse with a static continuous space universe (with a little drop down hex map for good measure) seems to me like a fun idea...    




A fine example of a positive post/ Idea.

stephen