Topic: What was Nanner trying to say?

[Byzantine]

Honestly, I am not sure.  But I have an idea so I will toss it out here.

Grognard: hard core gamer who likes complexity and does not mind dealing with steep learning curves or long playing time.

Beer & Pretzel: part time gamer who has no interest and/or time for deep complexity, long playing time, or steep learning curve.

As you might guess people at the extremes of this spectrum have little in common and often do not even respect each other when it comes to gaming.  For the great majority who live somewhere in the middle it is fun to beat yourself up with a Grognard game for a bit and then go relax with a Beer & Pretzel game for an hour or two the next day.

SFB IS a Grognard game.  SFC2 is pretty much the same thing by computer game standards.  In the real world Grognards make up maybe 30-40% of the player base at most.  I think SFC3 was meant to exist in the middle of the spectrum and draw in more B&P players.  It was a financial decision that probably did not work out right.  Perhaps because it is in the middle and not B&P enough.  Or maybe true Trek types lean toward grognard anyway.

Now.  My thought on Nanners point.
Most SFC2 people say they don't play SFC3 because they do not like it, it is not their cup of tea, it is not their style, it lacks things that they want.  There is nothing wrong with thinking that or saying it.  But there is that Grognard element in the SFB/SFC2 camp who say it this way - I don't like SFC3 because it lacks these things that I want/expect and it is therefore an inferior game.  Well.  There it is.  If you say the game is inferior you are pretty much saying the people who play it are inferior.

Is this anything near what Nanner was trying to get across?   Maybe Nanner will pop in and clarify.

I think it was DieHard who called SFC2 & 3 apples and oranges?  More like lemons and limes I think.  I am not offering any solutions here.  As they say, I'm just looking for a little clarity on the issue.

[NannerSlug]

in a word, yes.

i was trying to get people to realize that a segment of the sfc community does not feel welcome here and i was hoping to open up a dialogue and get people to make stretch a hand out in good faith for all parts of the community to unite. like it or not, the community is fading - especially with no taldren support. that is one of the reasons d.net was created and taldren provided d.net with the directory servers (d2 at this point).. so we can all have a place.

thats it, nothing complex. my effort didnt seem to work. i just hope people learn before its too late.

thank you, for what its worth, to try and decipher the thread and my intentions.

[Cleaven]

Now.  My thought on Nanners point.
Most SFC2 people say they don't play SFC3 because they do not like it, it is not their cup of tea, it is not their style, it lacks things that they want.  There is nothing wrong with thinking that or saying it.  But there is that Grognard element in the SFB/SFC2 camp who say it this way - I don't like SFC3 because it lacks these things that I want/expect and it is therefore an inferior game.  Well.  There it is.  If you say the game is inferior you are pretty much saying the people who play it are inferior.

If I say that SFC1 is an inferior game because it is missing things that SFC2 has which make it a better game I don't expect the SFC1 players to get insulted, take their bat and ball and go home. I expect them to say "be that as it may, I play SFC1".

Now if there are people who only play SFC:TNG and can't handle the fact that there are things missing from SFC:TNG which are in SFC2, and that there are players who like those things, well too bad. Nothing can be done about that because if those things are missing, well they are missing and that's it.

On the other hand there are also people who will claim SFC:TNG is an inferior game simply because the gameplay is bad. I fall into this category, but how many other people are there who bought SFC:TNG, decided the gameplay was bad and all without any reference to SFC2.  The point is you don't have to know anything about SFC2 (or SFB) to be able to say " I don't like SFC3 because it lacks these things that I want/expect and it is therefore an inferior game.

Now if there are so many insulted SFC:TNG players out there, why don't they go and raz the huge majority of people who don't play the inferior SFC:TNG anymore, instead of just those who are still SFC2 players? There must be a lot more of them to get mad with, then just us few SFC2 players

[FVA_C_ Blade_ XC]

Methinks the point Sluggy was trying to make is that if you don't like something there is no real need for you to bash it.

Just don't play it,no need to make the people who play the game feel unwelcome or left out of the community.

[Khalee]

Well what he was really saying is KERRY 2004 VOTE FOR KERRY!!!!!!

[Cleaven]

And the reverse must surely apply too?

I don't need to be called a stupid SFB'er because I don't like a non-SFB based game. Did I mention I like Napoleonic miniature wargaming (far removed from SFB). I'd much rather be abused as an SFC:TNG hater because I'm a stupid British Napoleon's Battles player and I use cannon (note spelling).

 

[FVA_C_ Blade_ XC]

And the reverse must surely apply too?

I don't need to be called a stupid SFB'er because I don't like a non-SFB based game. Did I mention I like Napoleonic miniature wargaming (far removed from SFB). I'd much rather be abused as an SFC:TNG hater because I'm a stupid British Napoleon's Battles player and I use cannon (note spelling).

 

Yep,and until both sides see that,it will keep going on.

[Chris SI]

What is the point of arguing which game is better?

I don't see it, personally, I didn't like SFC 3 because I hate cloaked ships, and they left too much out I thought, like Cardassians and the Dominion war.

SFC 2 I like better, also because for me anyway, the game is a little quicker, ships seem hard to destroy in 3. 3 does have a huge selling point, in that you can buy ship upgrades, I liked that alot.

[Hyperion]

You had me right up until this:

Now.  My thought on Nanners point.
Most SFC2 people say they don't play SFC3 because they do not like it, it is not their cup of tea, it is not their style, it lacks things that they want.  There is nothing wrong with thinking that or saying it.  But there is that Grognard element in the SFB/SFC2 camp who say it this way - I don't like SFC3 because it lacks these things that I want/expect and it is therefore an inferior game.  Well.  There it is.  If you say the game is inferior you are pretty much saying the people who play it are inferior.

This is not true, and youre attributing a rather unpleasant affection to the B&P games which is unwaaranted by those who play SFC2 and OP. Some may not prefer the game of SFC3, i dont.But i do not now nor have i have i ever felt that those who want to play SFC3 "inferior". And i think its unfair to those who continue to play SFC2 that thiskind of blanket statement is made.

[Durin]

From what I can tell it hasn't anyting to do with SFC3 at all. It the attitudes, the manner in which they conduct themselves that are giving them the bad rap. Prime example would be Water Tiger.

Hell I'm in a fleet that for the most part has moved on to SFC3 I and a coupe of others still play OP... guess what.. I don't have a problem with that..

we all shake to a different groove.. we can still be friends.

[Reptor]

I've been following this with interest and decided to chime in. I've reinstalled and patched & modded up SFC3 recently. It felt good flying it again, but a few days later I ended up going back to OP with SFC3 getting uninstalled once again.

Now, a SFC3 advocate reading what I just posted sees it as a slam. If I included the reason why I switched back to OP, the SFC3 advocate would see it as a flame, when in essence it's just a statement on a preference for a particular version.

I can see the SFC3 crowd's defensive nature every time they read something like that though as the 2 camps view both games with different eyes.  SFC3 is a fine game. Yet in saying that, I have OP installed instead of SFC3 as I prefer it.

No idea what the answer is. It's difficult to build a bridge between 2 completely different communities. Just respect the other guy/gal across the gap, I guess.

[FPF-DieHard]

I have never bashed SFC3 accept when SFC:OP is attacked or I have to rebute some bullsh*t over the oh-so-brillaint "cannon" arguements.

Live and let live is fine, just don't piss in my sandbox and I won't piss in yours.

[NannerSlug]

right on D.. durin knows exactly what i mean because he is in our fleet (the 9th fleet)...

and DH,

Live and let live is fine, just don't piss in my sandbox and I won't piss in yours.

.. i think thats all anyone wants. to simply be treated as human beings - not as if people who prefere a different game is inferrior.

really, its not hard to do.

[Elvis]

This is not true, and youre attributing a rather unpleasant affection to the B&P games which is unwaaranted by those who play SFC2 and OP. Some may not prefer the game of SFC3, i dont.But i do not now nor have i have i ever felt that those who want to play SFC3 "inferior". And i think its unfair to those who continue to play SFC2 that thiskind of blanket statement is made.

I'm not understanding. But it would seem that SFC3 players would generally say they are treated as inferiors on these boards. I don't see it, I kind of see it as vanilla and chaocalate, some like one some like the other.  I do know that as the cookie crumbled SFC3 has gotten the shaft support wise. But that pretty much was out of our control, and now with passing of Taldren virtually assures the continuation of "non support". Will there ever be an official patch? There certainly won't be the support that Taldren and David Ferrell have given to EAW and OP.

As far as the problems of grafting the SFC3 community into the existing SFC community, and then the further grafting of SFCC into the larger Star Trek gaming community, like attracts like. I like EAW and OP and I want to like SFC3 more but I havn't been able to complete the single player missions with a lot of understanding; SFC3 was just too much out of the box(as in thinking out of the box). The mechanics of the game are different, I didn't say worse; whixch turns me off. I do not own any other Trek games, I followed the development of KA on the old Interplay boards, but when it was released and then the team got fired or reassigned, well that was enough for me I wasn't getting a game that wasn't going to be supported. I bought SFC3 to give Taldren the benefit of the doubt and support. I enjoy watching the series but am not a consistent follower of them.  Trek gaming is not an issue for me.

Like attracts like. I do not understand a guy like Age, who  wants me wants me to ignore angular velocity by covering it up with a piece of tape. That just makes no sense to me. I would play OP with the ships as white blocks. It is nice that they look good and modders have done wonderful things, but the cool looking ships are not central to the game for me, the mechaniics are though., and the mechanics of EAW and OP make for a good game which I play more often than SFC3.

Like attracts like, there is no forcing community.

[Holocat]

And the reverse must surely apply too?

I don't need to be called a stupid SFB'er because I don't like a non-SFB based game. Did I mention I like Napoleonic miniature wargaming (far removed from SFB). I'd much rather be abused as an SFC:TNG hater because I'm a stupid British Napoleon's Battles player and I use cannon (note spelling).

the game system's called British Napoleon's Battles?

Painting?

[Rolling]

They just don't have enough love to go around. 

Their too busy loving thier own selves.

[Sirgod]

KIM!!!!!

 

Glad to see you back, Don't you ever leave us again. Or at least the Peeps here that still love you. 

Stephen

[Rod ONeal]

They just don't have enough love to go around. 

Their too busy loving thier own selves.

They?

[Byzantine]

You had me right up until this:

Now.  My thought on Nanners point.
Most SFC2 people say they don't play SFC3 because they do not like it, it is not their cup of tea, it is not their style, it lacks things that they want.  There is nothing wrong with thinking that or saying it.  But there is that Grognard element in the SFB/SFC2 camp who say it this way - I don't like SFC3 because it lacks these things that I want/expect and it is therefore an inferior game.  Well.  There it is.  If you say the game is inferior you are pretty much saying the people who play it are inferior.

This is not true, and youre attributing a rather unpleasant affection to the B&P games which is unwaaranted by those who play SFC2 and OP. Some may not prefer the game of SFC3, i dont.But i do not now nor have i have i ever felt that those who want to play SFC3 "inferior". And i think its unfair to those who continue to play SFC2 that thiskind of blanket statement is made.

Hello Hyperion,
Please look at what I said more carefully.

1.Most SFC2 people say they don't play SFC3 because they do not like it, it is not their cup of tea, it is not their style, it lacks things that they want.  There is nothing wrong with thinking that or saying it.
This is the attitude of most SFCx players and it is a fair attitude I think.  Yes, if something lacks features that I want it is inferior - for my tastes.  But other people have different tastes and that is fine.  Most everyone who has been posting recently is in this class.  And class does carry both meanings right here, it is a good thing.

2.But there is that Grognard element in the SFB/SFC2 camp who say it this way - I don't like SFC3 because it lacks these things that I want/expect and it is therefore an inferior game.
Cleaven is right, for some peoples tastes SFC3 is a lesser game in their personal estimation.  The problem is in the way this is said.  I preffer SFCx because I like X and/or I don't like SFCx because X  Good.  I prefer SFCx because SFCx is an inferior game  Not so good.  Bluntly, who died and made the speaker of this God so that they had a right to define superior/inferior in universal terms?  This is the attitude of a small minority but people of this type often tend to be very opinionated, contentious, and noisy.  They also tend to be the type who get banned a lot, maybe that is why this thread has been much more civil and on track.

Please note my use of SFCx because yes, these problems cut both ways and these personality types do exist in both camps.

[Rolling]

KIM!!!!!

 

Glad to see you back, Don't you ever leave us again. Or at least the Peeps here that still love you. 

Stephen

Don't get too excited, Stephen.  I won't be welcomed here for very long.