Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KBF-Crim]

Ok boys and girls.....here's your chance(maybe the last) to make your voices heard on the subject.....

The Quicksilver devs are posting at STGU...they have hinted at a future PC game...

Here is steves word on the subject from his forums...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 04:46 pm: Edit

It's not for us to contact them. They can contact us if they want. Unless Paramount told them it was ok to talk to us, no point in us talking to them.

Here is the thread:

http://startrekforum.stgu.com/showthread.php?t=8243

I have proposed a duel ruleset product...one ruleset for the trekkies...one for us(SFB)...

Now is the time....there is the place...

Take a moment and share your views on the subject....

I'm going to start working on Harry Lang next....

WE CAN GET THIS DONE IF WE ALL PUSH HARD ENOUGH AND SHOW THEM THERE IS STILL REVENUE TO BE GENERATED BY AN SFB BASED PRODUCT.

GET OFF YER DUFF AND SHOW THEM THE MONEY!

The future is STILL bright....

[KBF-Crim]

Well...just talked to Harry....he has a new job....he is no longer in charge of Trek gaming....

http://startrekforum.stgu.com/showthread.php?t=8043

I'm sorry I missed this with working so much...I would have let you all know soon enough to post a goodbye...

Bummer...

[Bonk]

Let me stew on how to lobby Mr. Fisher, I must figure out how to contain my disappointment in their efforts to make an SFC game for the gameboy style platform, ignoring the obviously superior PC platform and adult audience.

The problem is that SFB/SFC is really for old farts like us, but all the money is in the teen and pre-teen markets.

[Lepton]

Well, I had typed up an encouraging response over there but lost it all when I tried to post it.  I'll try again later.  Basically, I think we can argue that they should merely consider scaling up the current title for the PC.  That will get the ball rolling.  If they are willing to go that far, we can perhaps influence what the game contains.  I'm not hopeful that we can get everything we want, but at least getting them to consider such a thing is a first step.

[Lepton]

Also, to be frank, I think that Trek MMORPG is going to fall flat on its face.  The most popular ones I can think of are all individual combat based, Warcraft, LOTR, Everquest.  They are action-based, whereas Star Wars Galaxies which while it has a good deal of action, the whole professions element I think was a big flop.  This is why that game has undergone so many revisions to become more combat oriented.  People might think it will be cool to be an engineering officer, but I don't think they are going to want to stare at an LCARS display for hours.  Too much like work.  If there is anything we know, it is that people like to blow stuff up.  Don't give them enough of that and they head to the door.

[Bonk]

... but I don't think they are going to want to stare at an LCARS display for hours.  Too much like work.  ...

I'm not so sure, have you seen Eve? More "paperwork" than Fed&Emp and wildly popular...

[FPF-DieHard]

The level of complexity can be pretty high as long as it is automated.

[Age]

  Harry Said the same thing over at STGamers he is now left for good.I don't that you will get this as it isn't in the Hand of Paramount but CBS.That is right CBS owns the right to Star Trek not Paramount.The split within the Viacom network happened when Mr Redstone retired.Vic knew this last June but kept it to himself.The new Lagacy coming out similiar to SFC2 can unify the D2 and D3 communties but the games will look more like SFC3 no drones or scatterpacks.G at W weren't be very marketable to all the ppl who play Star Trek gaming.The ppl now in charege of Star Trek are CBS and we don't know who that person is I do think it is some woman and gave hint of letting Star Trek rest for 10 years on the screen that .

Here is what Harry had to say on Star Trek Gamers

http://www.startrek-gamers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=855&highlight=

 If Lagacy and TA sell well there maybe a Lagacy 2 and TA 2 who knows but not in the SFB version.I believe of you want the type of game best ot contact Interplay but Lagacy has to do with Maddock.I never told anyone on board about Harry leaving except Frey as I sent him a PM on it he wanted it kept quiet.

[FPF-DieHard]

Make it Trek but make it moddable enough that it can be SFB.   Best of both Worlds 

[Lepton]

Isn't Legacy an RTS type game?

[KBF MalaK]

When are they gonna make me a 'simulator' like Klingon Academy, that you can mod, and freely roam a online universe like Dynaverse ?

[KBF-Crim]

Age....forgive me....but shut up...

Your responce means you either didnt read what I posted....or You frankly dont have a clue what I'm talking about...

Edit:

On hindsight...that is rather harsh...

Let me take you by the hand and illustrate why you missed what I said....

I have proposed a DUEL ruleset title....

The company doing tactical assault is QUICKSILVER...

QUICKSILVER was involved in SFC1...the first SFB based SFC game...

Interplay doesnt have the rights to do ANY startrek games...PERIOD...

Steve Cole is willing to talk about another licensing deal....

The fact that Paramount is no longer in charge can be a GOOD THING for this proposal....

Now get on board...or get thrown overboard...

And the rest of you shmoes...get over there and post before Quicksilver does....

Show them there is interest!

Or I swear to Khaless...I will crash these forums!

 

[KBF-Crim]

First reply from quicksilver...

Rantz
ST:Tactical Assault
Creative Director
Quicksilver Software
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16
   
As Cory noted in another discussion, a sequel to SFC is in Bethesda's hands, and (I would suspect) is largely dependent on the performance of how ST:L and ST:TA (*neither* of which are STB, for obvious reasons) do in the market.

You guys want SFC:4, it's pretty much in the fan's hands. Buy lots of copies of the games when they comes out, write letters to Bethesda, and let them know that you would buy oodles of copies of of SFC:4. Prove to them the numbers warrant it. Because if SFC: 4 is what you want, that is what it takes.

The games that are in dev now are locked as far as design goes, so what they are is what they are. Nothing design-wise is changing at this stage with a release date of September bearing down on us (which for console replication means the game really has to be done in June.)

I can tell you (being that there are a lot of orginal SFC team members at QS) that there is a lot of love for the first SFC game here at QS.

I dont care about the hand held that much...although I may buy a copy as a gift for a family member who has one.....I do care that he didnt shoot me down out of hand...

And basiclly told us what I allready knew...

You want an SFC4.....get off your duff and show them the money!

It is at least now on his mind...and he will talk to others at the office...

Now we need to work on Bethesda....we have roughly 7 months to make our case...

We need to show them why another deal with Steve is a good idea...

If they build it.....we will come...

[EmeraldEdge]

I imagine some folks around here may feel a little burned after the last "Hey, go out and buy as much as you can so you can maybe get the game you actually want at some point down the road" campaign.  I know a lot of the folks I know were.  It didnt' turn out, either.  That said, I think a strong letter campaign and anything else we can muster together would definitely benefit the cause.  We should come up with some general points that folks should include in their letters (not a form, but a guidline of what to include and how, maybe?) and of course contact info for anyone and everyone who might have something to do with the decision making process.   Maybe we could hold a rally outside their offices.  Everyone can show up with signs that say "GIVE US SFC or GIVE US DEATH!".

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I imagine some folks around here may feel a little burned after the last "Hey, go out and buy as much as you can so you can maybe get the game you actually want at some point down the road" campaign.  I know a lot of the folks I know were.  It didnt' turn out, either. 

I know exactly what you mean.  I never bought into that line last time.  This time, however, I'm willing to be a little more hopeful.

Last time, we were dealing with a company that HAD what we wanted, and made a conscious decision to make an SFC game that was a move away from from what we wanted.  Then Eric suggested (in good faith I'm sure) that if we wanted a move back to the the game we used to have, then the best way to show that to Activision was to buy a lot of the game that was a move away.  That never made sense to me.  Since SFC3 wasn't a game that interested me on its own merits I thus gave it a pass.

This strikes me as different.  This is a game NOT called sfc, that a different company associated with sfc1 is making as a new product.  This time perhaps we can show them that there is a market for this sort of thing without shooting ourselves in the foot vis a vis what we want at the same time.

Maybe I'm whistling in the dark, but I'm willing to feel hopeful it can be done.

-S'Cipio

[Dizzy]

WTF r u all talking about? OP still doesnt work right and now you are thinking that if you write a few letters it will make it all work? I think I missed your platform here. What's it called, glass?

[FPF-DieHard]

Hell, I bought 2 copies of SFC3 just to keep this alive.  What's another game?  It might even be fun   

[Lepton]

I don't have alot of money to toss around so I doubt I will buy Legacy and I don't know a hand-held so TA is out as well.  Not to be a party pooper, but why would I buy a game I don't want to make someone make a game I do want?  Perhaps it would have been slightly brighter if someone had asked the Trek community what kind of games they want.  I am not sure that the answer they would have received would correspond to Legacy or TA for that matter.  Star Trek Online?  That one is pretty obvious yes for the Trek fans, but Perpetual is coming a little late to the party on this one if you ask me.

I know QS is in the business of making money.  All companies are, but the call to buy beaucoup Bestheda titles seems a tad disingenuous.  I can see the logic in it.  Don't get me wrong there, but if I bought Legacy, wouldn't that lead the company to believe I would prefer a Trek RTS when I don't?  Presumably someone has studied this market, but whatever conclusions Besthesda or anyone else may have come to, those conclusion don't seem to apply to me as a consumer, nor I suspect to many of us here.

[Julin Eurthyr]

On this whole "buy Trek and SFC 4 will come", consider this:

SFC 1 came out when slapping "Star Trek" on a game box was an "ironclad guarantee" that a game would sell close to 500,000 copies.  See the Klingon language disk and Borg "games" for proof of that.  We just got lucky that a dev-house thought that making a SFB-based game would hopefully translate into a blockbuster.

And I 've been thinking of something else.  Perhaps the biggest thing holding back SFC 4 is, well, us.  Consider:

At "our" behest, 14 deg. East and Taldren both broke from their respective publishers in the release of patches, see SFC 1.03, every EAW patch between 2.0.7-ish to 2.49.99999999, and what happened with SFC III.  (Interplay knew Taldren's patching-wishes for OP, and said "okay, patch OP in your own way, we'll save the QA dollars"...)

We've essentially "voted" for what we "demand".  Every forum from I-play through Taldren to here seems to insist that the SFC crowd will not be happy unless a game is released that is a 100% faithful translation of every SFB-edition from plastic-baggy to Captain's, with over 100 switches to turn on-off all the optional rules from every ruleset...  Being that every successive edition of SFC has sold worse than the earlier one (after we flame it for not being SFB-accurate), well, think like a suit for a minute at what kind of game will sell to us...
Back that sales number up with the flamewars that are probably sitting in some internet-archive somewhere and...

And top that off with issues of complexity.  Reviewers complain that SFC is too complex for even the RTS crowd, managing power while maneuvering for range and arc while considering what position you need to be in to maximize damage from your guns and minimize damage received from a subset of 20-odd different weapon charts overwhelmes even the most stat-minded "I know every number on my RTS outfit's forces..." player.  And the code seems to be as complex as a Microsoft production, being that there are still bugs in this game after 20+ different builds.


To me, there's only one way we can dream of SFC 4 coming out.  Let them start with Tac-ops, and hope that it's not too complex for the twitchy DS players out there.  Once we hook a new generation (of about 500,000 PC and handheld owning houses) on the basics of SFC-operations, make a sequel or 2 where various SFB-ish things are added in slowly, so that in a year or 2, when the 4th Tac-op derived game is released, it's our wish, ie, SFC 4...

[Bonk]

What EmeraldEdge, GDA-S'Cipio, Lepton and Julin Eurthyr said.

I'm pretty sure that the only hope for the product we want is a not-for-profit, ADB approved, non-trek game that we develop ourselves.

I agree that the logic of buy a product you do not want to get a product you do want makes no sense at all, it would just encourage them to make more products we don't want.

Crim, ever the optimist (God Bless im), feels that at least we have them thinking about it. Perhaps he is right, persistance might pay off, but I move that we do not purchase products we do not want, I'm of the opinion that will say more. Besides what percentage of us own a DS or even want one?

EDIT: I may even go post this vew on these threads under discussion, and in any letters I write to Quicksilver. Perhaps concealing my disappointment in them is exactly the wrong thing to do. They have totally missed the mark with this one, as I've said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure this is doomed to fail. Todays kids and teens are more interested in rapper street gang fighting games and the like, not SFB type tactical/strategy games for the nostalgic dice hounds of old.

As for the subject, I say it is crap, and I'm off the pot... flussshhh!

[Riskyllama]

Todays kids and teens are more interested in rapper street gang fighting games and the like, not SFB type tactical/strategy games for the nostalgic dice hounds of old.

um, hi?

[762_XC]

Whatever, just make sure it has Tholians, so Mavy buys a copy.

[Lepton]

Julin,

I think way you are saying is a bit hyperbolic.  If I am understanding you correctly, you are faulting us.  Here is what I have to say to that.

1.  Trek is a dying or decrepit franchise.  When SFC was released, TNG has been on for 10 years or more ready, and there were I think two other Trek series on television, etc, etc.  It is no fault of gamers that Trek has taken a down-turn. No fault of the Trek gamer that Trek games don't sell like hotcakes.

2.  Sequels almost always sell less than their predecessor except of course for the first sequel which often sells more, which was certainly the case with SFC and I am sure Halo, etc, etc.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the attitude of gamers except that they get bored. 

3.  If OP had not been merely juice up EAW with a non-working dynaverse as I remember and if SFC3 had not been a snoring bore, "let's recycle content" fiasco, there might have been some gaming enthusiasm.  OP was a good game for maybe 2000, but SFC3, which I think was released in 2002, was competing the Xbox and Halo, and its other release titles.  Do you really think that SFC3 is as good as Halo or Project Gotham Racing?  And I am not even mentioning the PS or GameCube.  This series of games has always been mediocre.  What can be expected from a small software company?  Not much unless you are Peter Molyneux.  I am not saying Taldren didn't do the best they could and work their butts off to keep us happy and provide great support.  They were great in that regard, but really the game quality just is not there, and that has nothing to do with the gamers.

4.  I have never heard anyone ask for a full translation of SFB to SFC here or anywhere else, and as we all know the real time nature of SFC makes it far different than SFB.  People have requested basically three things that I can think of:  SFB rules implemented in the game engine (No biggy), races that Taldren hinted at including in a sequel or could have included had they had the time, Andros and Thols, and some working SQL support which should have been there in the first instance.  That's it.  I have never heard anyone ask for Omega Sector race, Y module stuff, etc, etc, etc.  The "promised" and "obtainable" have been what we have wanted, not the moon and stars.  Oh and perhaps an actual use for scout ships.  Again, I don't find these to be unreasonable requests and if any of our requests strained Taldren's relationship with their publishers that has more to say about the publisher than anything else.  You wanna see some whining and bitching.  Check out the Pacific Fighters forums.  Every patch, it's "This plane is porked!!!", "Luftwhiners win again", yada, yada, yada. Check out the Star Wars Galaxies forums after every attempt they have made to "fix" the game.  I am sure there have been some good kick-ups around hold costs, etc, etc in SFC's history but I hardly think any of those issues were show-stoppers.

5.  SFC is hard??  Hard??  You must be joking.  Energy allocation is hard??  Lol, SFB is hard.  SFC is a breeze in comparison and I'd take SFC any day in difficulty to the other games I have played.  Steepish learning curve, perhaps, but hard, no.  And who in the hell is calculating anything when they play this game especially vs the AI??  You just get in range and shoot.  No biggy.  Reviewers will can anything that they don't pick up immediately on or don't understand immediately.  They are nearly worthless for reporting on any games that I might like to play.


6.  Your argument is the same one that ADB and/or SFB fanatics are trying to use regarding Federation Commander (SFB-lite).  I don't think it holds up.  Give people something simpler and easier to play and they will do so for awhile happily, then when they get bored they'll move on to the next thing.  Federation Commander is not going to save SFB by bringing new blood in, nor will Tactical Assault make anyone clamor for SFC4.  That's like saying eating a hogie will make you hungry for Beef Wellington.  It don't work that way. You like hogies, you eat hogies.  If Ubisoft can put out a sub simulator SHIII that has complexity ranging from point and shoot to plotting your own damn course and firing solutions and managing the duty roster of your crew OR a flight sim that has switchs for everything from complex engine management and torque effects to simple unlimited ammo and invulnerability, you bet your sweet butt someone can do up a game with SFB style that has as much complexity level as one desires.  It's merely a question of who has the will and the market to sell it to.

[Chris Jones]

Got to agree with Bonk on this subject. My teenagers like rapper fight games (well 1does). The other likes the Tekken series. Anyway, the real simple bottom line is money. What will make money. A good Star Trek title will make money, if done and promoted correctly, and not rushed to make a deadline. It may depend on the state of the Trek franchise when the game is released.

 The gist of the original post was to promote an SFB based SFC4, but it drifted into a discussion of the feasability of such a game, as I knew it would. I actually would support an SFC4, just so I could mod it, lol. In all seriousness, we have to see what Legacy actually offers us, and react accordingly. I believe that any Trek game from now on will be based on Star Trek canon, which only makes sense from the profit standpoint. Even though I am a TNG guy at heart, if I was able, I'd finance SFC4 and let you guys make it. It would then have a TNG expansion, optional. I'm almost 47, and certain TOS episodes bring back fond memories of the 70s re-run days. 'Corbomite Maneuver', 'Errand of Mercy, 'Doomsday Machine'. You'd think I would like SFB and the idea of it, but I actually had never heard of it until SFC in 1999. I actually did not embrace TNG until it's 3rd season, when I saw 'Yesterday's Enterprise'. After that, it was, Kirk who? J/k. TNG was finding itself for a bit competing with the movies at the time. I felt it was time to fondly recall the old but embrace the new (TNG).

For the record - the main reason I didn't run with SFC3 is that it was 'dumbed down' for the masses, and it only had 4 races, the ones almost anyone would know from TNG - hard to get excited about only 4 races after having 16 in OP. OP is more fun to mod and make into TNG - alas I am digressing. Also Bridge Commander was out, and it blew SFC3 away for TNG 'out of the box' anyway.

In summary, Trek gaming is not dead if we keep it alive by voicing our opinions and playing the games. I will help in your efforts to see SFC4, despite what I just wrote.

 - Chris

[Riskyllama]

1. How I see this is that: Every time another game comes out, SFC or not,, it becomes direct competition to the OP playerbase.
Examples: Eve, Battlefield 2, SW:galaxies, WoW, Guild Wars, the list goes on forever.

How many people did we loose when SFC3 came out? How many when Armada came out? Elite Force?
Every Star Trek game that comes out pulls people away from OP in much the same way. We need a working OP or we need a SFC4 that is exactly everything we want. There can be little hope in "buy this to get that".

[KBF-Crim]

Ok..we've gone WAY off target here...

This isnt a buy this and get that proposal...

This is a SHOW THEM WE WILL BUY THAT and GET THAT proposal...

Will a pure SFB based SFC sell as well?

Nope...I have no delusions of such...

Will a DUEL ruleset product sell better than OP or SFC3?

You bet your ass it will...

What time frame are we talking?

Years....two at least...maybe one if we are luckey....

Some of you are not seeing the IMPORTANT words that rantz said...and only seeing what any game dev would say..."buy our games"...

Well duh....ofcourse he wants us all to buy the game...

Let me separate the IMPORTANT and relevent words that Rantz said to US..the SFC fans...


As Cory noted in another discussion, a sequel to SFC is in Bethesda's hands,

Get it?

He is pointing us in the direction of whom we should be bugging...


and (I would suspect) is largely dependent on the performance of how ST:L and ST:TA (*neither* of which are STB, for obvious reasons) do in the market.

Like DUH....if these two games are flops....nothing we may say to Bethesda will influence another title

You guys want SFC:4, it's pretty much in the fan's hands.

Get it?

It's up to us to illustrate that we WANT SFC4....and that it WILL generate some decent income...

Buy lots of copies of the games when they comes out,

Again...duh...what Dev would tell you NOT to buy their current product...the more important information follows...

write letters to Bethesda, and let them know that you would buy oodles of copies of of SFC:4. Prove to them the numbers warrant it. Because if SFC: 4 is what you want, that is what it takes.

How much more simple can he put it...we wont get SFC4 buy sitting here and talking about past sales numbers or cry baby flamage of the past...we will get it by getting off our asses and getting busy for the next 7 months...

The games that are in dev now are locked as far as design goes, so what they are is what they are. Nothing design-wise is changing at this stage with a release date of September bearing down on us (which for console replication means the game really has to be done in June.)

This is code for  "please dont bug the crap out of us..we're busy and cant do anything you want right now....call again after June...

NOW...probably the MOST important piece of information that he gave us....

I can tell you (being that there are a lot of orginal SFC team members at QS) that there is a lot of love for the first SFC game here at QS.

Translation:...they KNOW SFC3 sucked...This has been talked about allready...and we would do another SFB based title(just like SFC1) if we get the chance...because we LOVE it just the way it was....

Now...if you dolts wish to opine the finer points of why we'll never see such a product...you get exactly what you wish for...nothing...

IF..on the other hand....you'd really like to see another SFB based Title...and see it done with all new code by the guys who ORIGINALLY did SFC....

Then by all means join me in my quest...

The worst that can happen is that it doesnt happen...and we have what we have....the best that can happen is that it happens...and we get a NEW game...

Why all the grief?

It's a beautiful tank.

[KBF-Crim]

WTF r u all talking about? OP still doesnt work right and now you are thinking that if you write a few letters it will make it all work? I think I missed your platform here. What's it called, glass?

WTF are YOU talking about?

Did you even read the post?

Did you follow the link?

Did you comprehend the implications of an all new coded SFB based title?

Would you STFU until you have done so?

[Bonk]

Will a DUEL ruleset product sell better than OP or SFC3?

You bet your ass it will...

I don't like where this is going at all... next it will be no seeking weapons...  Do you propose a duels based dynaverse for it? No wait lemme guess, the only ship class available will be the battleship and if you lose a game you have to go hide in the backyard for three days without food and never login again... 

[Bonk]

Will a pure SFB based SFC sell as well?

Nope...I have no delusions of such...

Again, which is why the product we want, must be not-for-profit, ADB approved,  NON-TREK and developed by us. Then profits will have absolutley no bearing on the quality of gameplay. It is the only acceptable solution.

[Bonk]

I have a better suggestion:

I'll buy three copies of whatever tripe they choose to produce (lets say Britney Spears and Paris Hilton nude mud wrestling with a 50 Cent soundtrack) if they'll authorise the release of the SFC:OP source, or even the Q3 engine... knowing that the sprites file components are runlen compressed is not enough, there are innumerable ways to runlen compress something...

[EmeraldEdge]

Ok, a lot of folks talk about "can't be SFB based, only Paramount canon", but what is Paramount canon really?  For many it's just phasers, photons, disruptors, and sometimes plasma.  zzzzz.  When you really look at Trek, though, you find so much more.  We've been down the road before.  Trek has shown that fighters exist, drones, etc.  it pretty much goes on down the line of what's available in SFB, except for a couple of races like the Lyrans and ISC who have nothing to stand on canon wise for their weaponry, I don't believe, but then the race themselves don't really (ok, the Lyrans have a little bit, but I keep hearing because they weren't in live action that it doesn't count as canon).  Really though, they encounter small "race of the week" races that have had far more fantastic technology that differs from theirs.  Why is it so abhorrent because someone happened to put it in a table top game first?

So now we all know that these things have appeared on the screen (even if just in a minor, minor role.  Some still want to deny it though) after having done the research.  Now let's take a look at all the other Trek games that people have loved over the years.  Hmmmm.   They all seem to invent stuff that didn't exist in Trek.  The special weapons that certain ship classes have (I flash back to Armada sometimes) sometimes have no ground to stand on as far as canon I dont' believe do they?  What about Elite force?  Why does is it so bad to others when an SFB ruleset is used as the base (not even firmly adhered to) of a game rather than someone just throwing stuff together and pulling it out of where the sun don't shine?  Beats me, but I wonder if a game like SFC was released and the fact that it was officially SFB based had been kept secret (yeah, there would be those who would see it on the outside, but if officially it wasn't so) then I wonder how the "other side" would have cried? 

Anyhow, I was also thinking about the comment:

Like DUH....if these two games are flops....nothing we may say to Bethesda will influence another title

Is that really true though?  Let's look at the fact that Bethesda has probably ponied up a fairly large sum of money to secure the rights to all Trek eras on all platforms. (yeah, we know the history of things like that.  I thought they said they were going to divide things differently so they didn't run into that wall again, but that's life I guess)  So, if these games don't do well, are they just going to say "well, I guess we'll take a loss on the millions we paid for the license rights" or are they going to try to find a way to make some money off of it?  Now, I'm not saying that folks shouldn't buy the game.  TA looks interesting to me and if I had a hand held I would probably buy it unseen.  I'd wait to see more before I bought for someone else (there were those burned by the SFCIII experience and I wouldn't want to taint them further before a good version of that kind of gameplay came out) though.  That's just me.  I would think that if they are aware of the problem that occurred with watering down SFCIII and a simple hand held game didn't cut they mustered then they might still be willing to look at doing a more complex PC version.  You know, realizing that making an imitation just doesn't cutting it, and then finally biting the bullet and making the real thing.   Anyhow, I would think that they would try to make something of the license even if these two games fail (but like I said I'd buy TA if I had a hand held, and I kind of like the name TA).


I have to agree with what Crim is saying though.  The guys from Quicksilver did say some important things (or at least allude to them).  There still appears to be interest in doing another SFC title.  They did say they had folks from the SFC1 era (I don't think we need to talk about how good that title was) who still had affection for that game.  We could certainly