Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => General Starfleet Command Forum => Topic started by: AdmWaterTiger-11thFleet- on July 09, 2004, 06:59:23 pm
-
The Star Trek Gamers Directory and the Star Trek Gaming Universe interview is in the bag:
http://www.stcd.sgnonline.com/hlang.htm
Enjoy.
Blues News will be linking also.
<S>
WaterTiger
-
They have spoken, but not actually said much regretably, more of the "have faith" drivel.
i especially liked this response
STGD/STGU: The big issue ... bugs. The last few games for Star Trek have been received poorly by the gamers. A lot of bugs were found in the games which gave ST gaming a lot of bad reviews. Would Paramount take a more tighter control of QC (Quality Control) in any new games which may appear in the future? Or will it be left to the publisher and developer again?
Harry Lang: Paramount/VCP does not have it's own QC department. Our partners do have QC departments and spend hundreds of hours playtesting each game. We also play all the games on our computers. But as you know, there are many, many different computer configurations. We do understand the frustration with bugs and it's our intention to be as diligent as possible in identifying and fixing problems prior to release.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I could almost hear the B/S piling up ;D
-
That was about what I smell... er, um, heard, when I read the interview. *cue cow sounds in the background*
All I got out of it was that the next time, they would be sure to do an all-eras game, so that they would be able to screw all the varrious Trek timelines at the same time!
-
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. ;D
It's his first-ever interview with a Trek fan site and more than Paramount has ever said about the future.
<S>
WaterTiger
-
Paramount --- truth, Paramount---truth, Paramount---Truth
I cant help but giggle when i try to say those words together ;D
Ill give Paramount credit though, unlike Enron and Worldcom at least we know up front were going to get shafted up front
-
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. ;D
Hey, if I'd have shot, you'd be belly up with your boots on... I never miss ;D :2gun:
It's his first-ever interview with a Trek fan site and more than Paramount has ever said about the future.
You ain't just whisteling Dixie, there, good sir. Much obliged to you guys for pulling that off.
You think next time you could all chip in a $20 and see if we could get them to beat the crap out of B&B before they kill Trek completely? :cuss: ;D
-
You think next time you could all chip in a $20 and see if we could get them to beat the crap out of B&B before they kill Trek completely? :cuss: ;D
I'm in, $20 for that kind of entertainment, and deliverance of justice is a bargain. ;)
-
You think next time you could all chip in a $20 and see if we could get them to beat the crap out of B&B before they kill Trek completely? :cuss: ;D
I'm in, $20 for that kind of entertainment, and deliverance of justice is a bargain. ;)
Hmmmmmmm. Y'all make it seem like Paramount is the "bad guy".
Hmmmmmmm.
::)
<S>
WaterTiger
-
If they'd beat B&B they'd certainly have a good shot at becoming the greatest GOOD GUYS in Trekdom. heh. The reference there was to B&B being beaten, not more direct Paramount guys (although they are responsible for keeping the other two in charge for so long). Of course the whole concept of physical violence against the aforementioned couple is in jest, and in no way denotes a true desire to do them physical harm.
-
Oh... (http://1000smilies.com/lion.gif) and (http://1000smilies.com/tiger.gif) and the PC (http://1000smilies.com/bobby.gif) ... OH MY!!!
Sorry, I thought that that would be taken as the joke that it was meant to be. If everyone thinks it is disruptive to the post, I'll pull it.
edited for my suck-@$$ spelling!
-
Since the topic here was posted, karma drops -5
Karma: +15/-52
OK, message recieved.
<S>
WaterTiger
-
Didn't Dan Do an Interview For Sfc3.net along with The Taldren Developers Right Before The Game and Movie shipped?
Stephen
Edit. It was An Online Chat, My Bad.
-
Didn't Dan Do an Interview For Sfc3.net along with The Taldren Developers Right Before The Game and Movie shipped?
Stephen
Edit. It was An Online Chat, My Bad.
Yeah, I remember that. It was a little less informative on the future of Trek gaming than this- which sticks to the 'certain to remain uncertain' theme they have been co adamant about.
-
The pointof the interview was to let folks know that things will get better. Ive been saying it for the past year but as usual not one person listens. Now your hearing it from the horses mouth, well, maybe not a horses mouth, Harry doesnt look like a horse but you get my point.
You should read it carefully...
STGD/STGU: What do you say to the folks who think that Star Trek gaming is dead?
Harry Lang: I say wait a few months and they will see it is not.
and...
STGD/STGU: You have said that "things will get better", is there any rough timescale for when things will start to get better?
Harry Lang: I can't give you a "timetable," I don't want to make promises we can't keep?but there should be news before year-end.
Thats the questions that speak volumes even though its only a few lines. In a few months things will be seen by the entire community (and we need to remember here the SFC series is NOT the entire community) that will signify new events and things happening in the trek game world. By the end of the year it will be blatantly obvious that things have changed.
Right now folks ANY news is good news. We should count ourselves lucky that we got this amount of information our of Paramount considering the current situation between them and Activision.
-
I think the point were trying to convey that Paramount has not shown a lot faith in the fans, the trend at this point is that who actually like star trek dont like enterprise in the first few years. Granted many of the shows have begun this way but i think peoples patience With Paramount is wearing thin.
The total fizz of "nemisis" when it came out should have at least been a red flag for them, plus a string of regretable Star Trek computer games (any one remember the star trek chess computer game?) And this is not the first time that we have heard (it's gonna get better). Instead all the bloody secrecy tell us what your doing so we can have some input into what your developing. The idea that people are just gonna cash machines any more for star trek games is over
the faster tall foreheads at Paramount realize the better the franchise will be
-
Read the last line.
our goal is to recreate this illustrious franchise for all to enjoy.
Key word.
Harry is that way. You have to look carefully.
<S>
WaterTiger
-
Read the last line.
our goal is to recreate this illustrious franchise for all to enjoy.
Key word.
Harry is that way. You have to look carefully.
<S>
WaterTiger
Recreaet for all to enjoy = suck out the brains and soul and leave it a mindless husk of a copycat FPS that will sell like hotcakes while it drains the player's IQ points and makes thm believe that we faked the moon landings, that the Atkins diet really makes you keep weight off, the Mary-Kate Olsen really did go to rehab for anorexia and that Elvis is alive and well and eating fried peanut butter and bananna sandwiches in a trailer park outside Saint Paul, Minasota.
-
==========
and that Elvis is alive and well and eating fried peanut butter and bananna sandwiches in a trailer park outside Saint Paul, Minasota.
=============
He is alive; he is here. His Cadillac was towed from a nearby Taldren gas station and he can't afford the impound fee.
Look him up here @ d.net. ELVIS IS ALIVE!
<S>
WaterTiger
-
Psssst.
Look who signed in.
Latest Member: Harry
-
" in a trailer park outside Saint Paul, Minasota. "
I thought he was in Dildo Newfoundland? he's a fisherman going by the name of "bouy!"
-
Yeah... you know, I think I saw him today in the Vudar thread in the Models Forum...
DAMN, now I'm just another Elvis sighting... reduced to a number...
Man, don't you hate that ;D !
-
wow, the love in this place is unbelieveable...we can't win either way.
However, let me clarify:
-I oversee Trek gaming only...nothing to do with the shows or movies. It's a big company.
-Concerning the all eras game, that was in response to the quesiton if we would consider one. I said it's not out of the question.
-We haven't been saying things will get better time and time again...this isn't the same ole company line. Actually, for the past year, we haven't really said much of anything. But I mean what I say when I say wait a few months. Things are changing. Especially with regards to the community and future or else I wouldn't have agree to this interview with a fan site in the first place. I don't know where this thing about us (gaming) being consistently vague comes from.
-I also mean what I say about recreating this illustrious franchise. More details will be provided soon as I have said. And I can promise you it will surprise you.
Hope this helps clarify things.
Harry
-
:skeptic: I'll read the reviews here before I think of buying another Trek game.
-
:skeptic: I'll read the reviews here before I think of buying another Trek game.
That's fair.
-
wow, the love in this place is unbelieveable...we can't win either way.
However, let me clarify:
-I oversee Trek gaming only...nothing to do with the shows or movies. It's a big company.
-Concerning the all eras game, that was in response to the quesiton if we would consider one. I said it's not out of the question.
-We haven't been saying things will get better time and time again...this isn't the same ole company line. Actually, for the past year, we haven't really said much of anything. But I mean what I say when I say wait a few months. Things are changing. Especially with regards to the community and future or else I wouldn't have agree to this interview with a fan site in the first place. I don't know where this thing about us (gaming) being consistently vague comes from.
-I also mean what I say about recreating this illustrious franchise. More details will be provided soon as I have said. And I can promise you it will surprise you.
Hope this helps clarify things.
Harry
Like I said, Harry, tough crowd.
Personally, I, for one, look forward to a new era of Trek gaming.
One thing some have asked since ...
14.) Will thought be given to future games being moddable? (If you can induldge one more question ... if not, no pressure)
And again, thank you for the ONLY Western Hemisphere interview and the first-ever for a fan site by Paramount's key people.
<S>
WaterTiger
-
yes.
-
Good to see you on here Harry.
LOL,remember the old I=Play boards?
And you think this is a tough crowd<snickers>
-
I wonder if there are any Armadillos (http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/) in this future?
-
Good to see you on here Harry.
LOL,remember the old I=Play boards?
And you think this is a tough crowd<snickers>
Oh yes, that's a trip down memory lane. Those were some tough cookies...I also remember the mplayer lobby and playing matches with some of you...it's been awhile.
-
Darn harry your only in here for an hour or so and you have +2 Karma.
-
Good to see you on here Harry.
LOL,remember the old I=Play boards?
And you think this is a tough crowd<snickers>
Oh yes, that's a trip down memory lane. Those were some tough cookies...I also remember the mplayer lobby and playing matches with some of you...it's been awhile.
Sir, I appologize for the rather rough review, but I have been disturbed by the trewnds in all the gaming markets and am deeply afraid that Trekgames will follow them.
1.) Why do gaming companies want me to pay $29.99 a month for the privilage to play a game I just paid $49.99 for in a store?
Is Paramont going to resort to that kind tactic in hopes of increasing revenue?
2.) Is this 'recreation' going to do away with hte fact that Enterprise flew in the face of everything that the 4 preceeding Trek series established? You have to know that this is a major boe of contention among fans.
3.) WIth the fact that you are suggesting an 'all eras' game, would the Star Fleet Battles material be considered for inclusion? This would greatly increase the diversity of the game and that is always a good thing.
THere are other concerns, but I think that those are three that I think all on these boards can agree with.
-
Thank you for the hard work folks for arranging this interview...and thanks Harry for the answers.
Some of you should try working for a large company and see how much they let you tell the public. Man could I tell you some stories. The negativity here is killing me. Everyone take a deeeeep breath, relax and think positive thoughts.
Thanks for the info folks!
-
Yeah those old I-Play Boards were really rough. And just spending a night in the M-Player lobby could really be and experience! ;D
But Im glad to see you drop by Harry. Dont mind this crowd. They are just a litt;e snake bitten by the recent events in the last 2 years, with SFC3 (which 90% of this community didnt want), Activisions failure to make good games, and now with the loss of our game developer who supported us through all these tough times, its been pretty hard to maintain a good attitude.
As you know most Star Trek people, are kinda of in their own class. One of the reasons the SFC series did as well as it did, was the fact that it reached out to a little more intellectual crowd and a little older crowd, since it was based on a 20 year old board game. Hence the reason most of us are still here. (and dont go there guys, I know Im and old fart!).
I just hope that you understand that when you are making a Star Trek game, it has to be more than just about the money, especially with Star Trek fans. The game has to be intellectually stimulating, have long term playability and modability, and the ability to span a vast amount of players age, in order to cover the 30 years that Star Trek as been around.
This in my humble opinion, is why SFC3 failed to do as well as it could have. The decision was made to move it to TNG, and to "dumb" the game down to make it appeal to a wider audience. Although this made good business sense from a marketing point of view, it neglected a large part of the player base, that was actually looking for a more advanced game, and what most of the community here was looking for, which was a game that spanned from the TOS era to the TNG era and beyond, but they still wanted the complexity that the original SFC series gave to them.
I would say 95% of the players here that owned EAW and OP, bought SFC3, and might have played it once, but most are using it for a drink coaster now. They bought it to support Taldren, in hoping that we would get SFC4 or Galaxies at War. Now that is probably not a possibility ever. And yet we still hang in here playing a 4 year old game and enjoying it every night. Sure we might play some other games for a bit, but we always come back to the game that we love and cherish like no other.
So dont take things personally here! We are all just a little bitter now. The only thing that is keeping us going is the possible release of the source code for EAW and OP, so that we might be able to get what we all wanted, and that was SFC4-Galaxies at War.
We do look forward to your comments and discussion involving future Star Trek gaming. So just hang out and have some fun with us, and keep us informed when you can! ;D
-
Thanks for agreeing to the interview Harry.
-
Good to see you on here Harry.
LOL,remember the old I=Play boards?
And you think this is a tough crowd<snickers>
Oh yes, that's a trip down memory lane. Those were some tough cookies...I also remember the mplayer lobby and playing matches with some of you...it's been awhile.
Sir, I appologize for the rather rough review, but I have been disturbed by the trewnds in all the gaming markets and am deeply afraid that Trekgames will follow them.
1.) Why do gaming companies want me to pay $29.99 a month for the privilage to play a game I just paid $49.99 for in a store?
Is Paramont going to resort to that kind tactic in hopes of increasing revenue?
2.) Is this 'recreation' going to do away with hte fact that Enterprise flew in the face of everything that the 4 preceeding Trek series established? You have to know that this is a major boe of contention among fans.
3.) WIth the fact that you are suggesting an 'all eras' game, would the Star Fleet Battles material be considered for inclusion? This would greatly increase the diversity of the game and that is always a good thing.
THere are other concerns, but I think that those are three that I think all on these boards can agree with.
No problem. I can understand your reservations.
1. Those kinds of games have tremendous upkeep. Those server farms don't come cheap. And putting out a fresh stream of content, coupled with customer service support, doesn't come cheaply. Creating games of that nature is a massive undertaking and the costs are exponentially higher.
2. That's a loaded question...all I can tell you is in the gaming dept., it's our intention to stick with established canon as our base.
3. I'm not really suggesting an all eras game at all. I was asked if in the future, we'd consider one, and I said it would be considered, but since there are many things to work out, it wasn't going to be an easy thing to deal with - if we even decided to go that way.
Harry
-
Think I asked this...but would you ever consider a down and out solid RPG along the lines of Knights of the Old Republic, or the Final Fantasy series. I like RPGs, especially good ones...a lot of others do as well! I like PC games best, but personally for RPGs if it's on a console, it still would be worth a shot!
-
Thank you, sir... that was a little more specific and it was as much what I was looking for as I know you can give. Good luuck to all of you and I hope that the next Trek game is as good as SFC.
And as far as the loaded question... you can't really blame a man for trying, now can you. It has gotten to the point that we are no longer sure what 'established cannon' means... it gets re-written about every other show!
J. Carney
-
Man Harry I wish someone had warned me you were going to be here tonight...so many questions so little time....
-Are there established market research firms that test early game concepts or specialize in early game development? Could you name any?
-Could you recommend any good books about the inner workings of the current gaming industry?
-I've heard many vets wish for a Trek game that combines elements of Freelancer, Homeworld and the SFC series. A game where you can move in a multiplayer universe from solar system to solar system in fleets and still have the complexity of let's say SFC2 ships. Something that allows the casual Trek player to play, but allows for complex options for the serious Trek or gaming player. Has there been any talk about Trek games of this type?
-
Think I asked this...but would you ever consider a down and out solid RPG along the lines of Knights of the Old Republic, or the Final Fantasy series. I like RPGs, especially good ones...a lot of others do as well! I like PC games best, but personally for RPGs if it's on a console, it still would be worth a shot!
Definitely. RPG's take a lot more time, resources, and money to make, but it's something I'd like to see for Trek. It's the only genre we really haven't explored. It won't be easy though.
J. Carney, as long as I've been involved in the SFC community, and Trek gaming community for that matter, I would expect nothing less ;)
Tirus - I'm not sure if there are ones that specifically target game concepts, but there are companies that do focus testing on games and television shows and a multitude of products. Can I name them...not off the top of my head...sorry.
-Again, not off the top of my head, but I'll look at what I have and post later.
-That's quite a lot to cram in to a game! Not impossible though. I don't think a game as specific as that has been discussed, but it's something to keep in the back of our minds...as I mentioned in the interview, you'll know more details in the near future.
(got to go to bed now...)
-
Thanks for dropping by harry...been a while
-
Harry,
I grew up watching the series and have enjoyed the follow ons when I can be home to see them. It appears that the the we are at an "lull" in Star Trek (it took how many years for TNG to start over. I wanted to say thanks for keeping the great birds dream alive. My folks sent me VHS copies in the Med when the series started anew. We all look at gaming in a similar light as the authors look at text. We would truley enjoy a new game but also the code to the last series of games. Is there any possibility that Viacom could comment in favor of the fan base to help request the release from quicksilver software, so that we can generate (at a non-profeit level) more mods for this series of games? (Glad Scotty will get his star BTW)
-
Yeah, thanks a bunch. I just hope that this new line of Trek games works out. I personally got tired of all the games seeming like nothing more than a mod of a preexisting game, with Trek skins and voices. No real reason to buy a game like that unless you are a die hard Trek fan, and even then they came up a little off the Trek mark, certainly not something that's going to drag in the non-Trek guys to the store to pick it up, in my opinion. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but that's how it seemed to myself as well as a lot of my friends who aren't huge into Trek.
-
Thank you for visiting Harry... I know you're probably in bed right now, but in case you come back, I would like to ask:
1) I bought EF (Elite Force --1--) the day it came out... The same with the expansion. When EF2 came out, I didn't have the money, plus I read some not so hot reviews on the multiplayer side. Now, Comp USA is only carrying the mac version (at least the store closest to me... they say they are waiting for new box art... that was over two months ago). Do you know if there will be an Elite Force 3? If so, please say it won't be under the Q3 engine. It is too old... The HL2 engine, however, would be very nice.
2) On to SFC... I am a relative SFC n00b, but I was wondering, are there any plans for a flight trek simulator, either in the current SFC fashion, or perhaps in BC or Freelancer (I know its not a ST game) fashion? Perhaps not bearing the name of SFC, perhaps having a whole new title. If there is one, I'm sure that 90% of the people in here would agree that a mix of SFC3 with the FreeLancer type of play (not so run and gun, but more of the perspective and the ability to move in very large spaces, and jump into battle while its in the middle), would be great.
I know these are some very large questions, and that you probably can't answer them, but thank you.
-
Surely you meant a mix of SFC2 and Freelance, right? ;) Not meaning to start a flame war here, but a little ribbing here and there never hurt all that many people. Felt Freelancer was simple enough in it's ship mechanics so more SFC2 depth and feel would make it a better match for Trek in wide open 3d universe, imo (albeit you would have warping ala SFC3 but for goodness sake give us some depth of play with weapons and ship systems)
-
I just hope they consider Taldren S Korea as a developer and doing a little bit more with TOS and TMP side.
-
Taldren S Korea as a developer
Somewhere in here someone in the know said Taldren Korea is not going to be here soon.
=========
FA_Frey_XC
"Imperious Leader"
Administrator
Ensign
Karma: +11/-0
[Engage!] [Belay that!]
Offline
Posts: 59
Re: The real reason Taldren Closed it's offices in CA.
« Reply #19 on: Yesterday at 05:22:37pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dash is wrong.
There is no "Taldren Korea".
Taldren CA and Taldren Korea were child companies of Taldren.
When the parent company Taldren fell, the children had to fall as well.
Erik has already stated this as fact and is going to come up with another "company name".
People, can we please get our facts straight before posting speculation?
Regards,
=========
<S>
WaterTiger
-
Then the successor then.
-
Then the successor then.
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: TAKE II
Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept this, is to tell us what this means. ::)
¾Æ·¡ÀÇ »çÀ¯·Î ÇØ´ç »çÀÌÆ®´Â Á¢¼ÓÇÏ½Ç ¼ö ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù.
1. µµ¸ÞÀο¡ ¿¬°áµÈ ¼îÇθôÀÌ ¾ø´Â °æ¿ì
2. ¾à°ü ¹× ¿î¿µ±ÔÁ¤À» À§¹ÝÇÏ¿´À» °æ¿ì
3. 1°³¿ù ÀÌ»ó °ü¸® ¾îµå¹Î¿¡ ·Î±×ÀÎ ±â·ÏÀÌ ¾ø¾î ÈÞ¸é ¼îÇθôÀÎ °æ¿ì
4. ¼îÇθô È£½ºÆÃÀÇ »ç¿ë¿Ü ¿ëµµ·Î ÀÌ¿ëµÇ¾î ¼ºñ½º°¡ ÁߴܵǴ °æ¿ì
ÈÞ¸é ¼îÇθôÀ» ´Ù½Ã ¿î¿µÇϱ⸦ ¿øÇÏ½Ç °æ¿ì, [´Ù½Ã ¿î¿µÇϱâ]¸¦ ½ÅûÇÏ½Ã¸é µË´Ï´Ù.
3¹ø ÀÌ»ó Àå±â ÈÞ¸é °æ°í, ȤÀº Á¢¼ÓÁ¦ÇÑ µÉ °æ¿ì Æò»ý ¹«·á ÀÌ¿ë ÇýÅÃÀ» ¹ÞÀ¸½Ç ¼ö ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù.
ÀÚ¼¼ÇÑ ¹®ÀÇ´Â ÇØ´ç »çÀÌÆ®ÀÇ °ü¸®ÀÚ È¤Àº È£½ºÆà ȸ»ç·Î ¹®ÀÇÇϽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù.
¡Ø ´Ù½Ã¿î¿µÇϱ⠽Åû ÈÄ 1½Ã°£ÈÄ¿¡ ÈÞ¸é»óÅ°¡ ÇØÁöµË´Ï´Ù.
¸¸¾à ´Ù½Ã ¿î¿µ½Åû ´çÀÏ ¼îÇθô ¾îµå¹Î¿¡ Á¢¼ÓÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸½Ã¸é
ÀÍÀÏ ´Ù½Ã ÈÞ¸é»çÀÌÆ®·Î ÀüȯµË´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ¿ë¿¡ Âø¿À¾øÀ¸½Ã±â ¹Ù¶ø´Ï´Ù.
http://www.taldren.co.kr/
<S>
WaterTiger
-
Heh, according to Atlavista's babelfish....
The corresponding site it will not be able to connect in private ownership the lower part.
1. The case which is not shopping chasing which is connected in domain
2. The case which will violate a stipulation and an operation regulation
3. Civil official U above 1 month tu will push and not to be login recording hyu cotton shopping it will drive and the case
4. Shopping the hose which it will drive thing it is used with use outside use and the case where the service is discontinued
hyu Cotton shopping it will drive it operates again, it will want the case which, [ again it operates, when ] it is applied.
The internal organs above 3 hyu cotton warning and there is not a possibility of receiving the case whole life free use benefit which connection will be restricted or.
The detailed meaning of a passage the manager of corresponding site the hose thing inquires wishes or as the company.
After applying which operates again after 1 hours hyu it becomes Ji the cotton condition to do.
When if U whom operation application day shopping it will drive again tu it pushed it does not connect
The next day hyu it is converted again with cotton site. There is not a mistake to use and it wishes.
That's the Korean to English, gotta love it. There's a lot of talk of cotton, internal organs, and hoses. Those crazy Koreans.... what? Babel doesn't do that good a job translating? Oh, never mind then. ;) I'ts a funny read though. :D It looks like one of those "Hey, we already got the name you want let us know and you can have it in exchange for a few minor internal organs" sites. Hey, maybe the internal organs part really does belong there then? Makes you wonder about the cotton and hoses now, doesn't it? lol. ;D
-
Emerald...
I can swipe a bale of cotton if the Yankees can come up with the internal organs!
-
Emerald...
I can swipe a bale of cotton if the Yankees can come up with the internal organs!
OK, more confused than ever ... so Taldren Korea is selling Yankees memorabilia? ::)
Must I install Microsoft's Korean language pack?
<S>
WT
-
Emerald...
I can swipe a bale of cotton if the Yankees can come up with the internal organs!
OK, more confused than ever ... so Taldren Korea is selling Yankees memorabilia? ::)
Must I install Microsoft's Korean language pack?
<S>
WT
Don't look at me, WT... I just thoughthat they wanted some cotton.
-
I'd like to welcome Harry to the boards and just say that I am very pleased that we can see more Star Trek coming in the future. I hope it is like SFC2, but I will certainly look at whatever they make.
-
Harry,
I grew up watching the series and have enjoyed the follow ons when I can be home to see them. It appears that the the we are at an "lull" in Star Trek (it took how many years for TNG to start over. I wanted to say thanks for keeping the great birds dream alive. My folks sent me VHS copies in the Med when the series started anew. We all look at gaming in a similar light as the authors look at text. We would truley enjoy a new game but also the code to the last series of games. Is there any possibility that Viacom could comment in favor of the fan base to help request the release from quicksilver software, so that we can generate (at a non-profeit level) more mods for this series of games? (Glad Scotty will get his star BTW)
Sorry, but it's not really my place to comment on the source code release here...
Skyflyer, in answer to 1.) IF we did an EF3, it wouldn't be on the Q3 engine. and to 2.) lots of ideas have been tossed around, some similar to that, but I don't want to go in to more details right now...all I can say is you'll get more concrete details in the near future....
Thanks for the welcome!
Harry
-
whew... no more Q3 engine :D
So it is being tossed around... thats a start... :)
-
Harry,
Here is a post by Steven V. Cole from the Amarillo Design Bureau forums:
**********
I get asked all the time: "When will you allow SFB software? What is the hold up?"
Sigh. I've only answered this question about once a week for about 20 years.
I've given the same answer every single time. But someone never heard it.
Or didn't believe it. Or thought there was some big dark secret that boiled
down to I was just being an ??????? and didn't want to release it. Or they
just didn't want to believe that it wasn't going to happen anytime soon.
Anyway, this is the official form letter sent out something over 400 times.
Paramount says NO SOFTWARE EVER PERIOD. Not by us or anyone else.
They won't allow their property to be used, and won't allow us to allow others to
use our property. Hence, no software, period. Not sold, not given away,
not made available, not passed around the internet, nothing.
We can do the SFBOL thing as it is server based and not machine resident.
This situation remains this way until Paramount decides otherwise.
Nothing anyone outside of ADB Inc. can do will change what Paramount says or thinks or does or doesn't do.
We continue working through diplomatic channels to convince them
that such software would be beneficial, harmless, and great. But they
do not agree, will not agree, have not agreed. It is possible that they
will NEVER agree, but we will never stop trying. If anything changes,
we will announce the change and do a Request For Proposals for
the official software. We will never allow independent developers to
release such software except through ADB Inc. because Paramount
will insist on this as a condition of their approval, if they ever give it.
When the time comes, there will be one and only one such program
authorized, and we literally have two hundred different ones on file.
So, basically, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, but if it someday
does happen, I wouldn't be surprised. Until then, Nobody can release
or publish or give away SFB software without a whole world of lawyers
landing on your head, so I would say to just put it away and forget it
and if it happens you can wait for the RFP and send it to us then.
The only thing you CAN do is use if in your own personal gaming,
in games where you are physically present as a GM or player.
I am considerably more frustrated than you are, and having to repeat
the same answer every week to somebody else who doesn't know,
doesn't believe it, doesn't want it to be the way it is, just makes me
even more frustrated. This isn't my fault, and I cannot change it.
--Steve Cole
*****************
Harry? Can anything EVER be done to let Star Fleet Battles and Federation and Empire become computer based? Perhaps let Amarillo Design Bureau have a role in more future Trek computer games?
Since TOS is unlikely to be the prime mover in future Trek gaming. Why should Paramount remain averse to giving ADB some latitude in this area? Wouldn't it be in Paramount's interest to work with ADB to further develop games for TOS era?
The "NO SOFTWARE EVER PERIOD. Not by us or anyone else." policy seems to have been relaxed with the SFC series to Paramount's benefit. Why not keep the "gravy train" going with more products like SFC in the future?
-
Here's your answer...right from Steve's post...
<snip>
We will never allow independent developers to
release such software except through ADB Inc. because Paramount
will insist on this as a condition of their approval, if they ever give it.
<snip>
I dont claim to know what kind of deal was cut the first time,,,but it obviously happend at least once...
So...what Steve said wasnt quite true...was it...
He DID allow SFB material to be distributed by an outside developer in the form of selling license for the material in SFC1..{hell the damn cadet rules and SSD"s come on the CD for christ sake}.....
And the same material was probably used for SFC2 and OP....
Doesnt anyone remember the great SFB modding stink?
When peeps where trying to ADD more SFB stuff like models and stats....
Steve, Erik, and Harry where all involved
I bet Harry cringes every time he's asked about...just like Steve does...
I even have a hunch he's got a reply he can just cut and paste... he's asnwered the question so many times... ;D
-
Harry,
Here is a post by Steven V. Cole from the Amarillo Design Bureau forums:
**********
I get asked all the time: "When will you allow SFB software? What is the hold up?"
Sigh. I've only answered this question about once a week for about 20 years.
I've given the same answer every single time. But someone never heard it.
Or didn't believe it. Or thought there was some big dark secret that boiled
down to I was just being an ••••••• and didn't want to release it. Or they
just didn't want to believe that it wasn't going to happen anytime soon.
Anyway, this is the official form letter sent out something over 400 times.
Paramount says NO SOFTWARE EVER PERIOD. Not by us or anyone else.
They won't allow their property to be used, and won't allow us to allow others to
use our property. Hence, no software, period. Not sold, not given away,
not made available, not passed around the internet, nothing.
We can do the SFBOL thing as it is server based and not machine resident.
This situation remains this way until Paramount decides otherwise.
Nothing anyone outside of ADB Inc. can do will change what Paramount says or thinks or does or doesn't do.
We continue working through diplomatic channels to convince them
that such software would be beneficial, harmless, and great. But they
do not agree, will not agree, have not agreed. It is possible that they
will NEVER agree, but we will never stop trying. If anything changes,
we will announce the change and do a Request For Proposals for
the official software. We will never allow independent developers to
release such software except through ADB Inc. because Paramount
will insist on this as a condition of their approval, if they ever give it.
When the time comes, there will be one and only one such program
authorized, and we literally have two hundred different ones on file.
So, basically, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, but if it someday
does happen, I wouldn't be surprised. Until then, Nobody can release
or publish or give away SFB software without a whole world of lawyers
landing on your head, so I would say to just put it away and forget it
and if it happens you can wait for the RFP and send it to us then.
The only thing you CAN do is use if in your own personal gaming,
in games where you are physically present as a GM or player.
I am considerably more frustrated than you are, and having to repeat
the same answer every week to somebody else who doesn't know,
doesn't believe it, doesn't want it to be the way it is, just makes me
even more frustrated. This isn't my fault, and I cannot change it.
--Steve Cole
*****************
Harry? Can anything EVER be done to let Star Fleet Battles and Federation and Empire become computer based? Perhaps let Amarillo Design Bureau have a role in more future Trek computer games?
Since TOS is unlikely to be the prime mover in future Trek gaming. Why should Paramount remain averse to giving ADB some latitude in this area? Wouldn't it be in Paramount's interest to work with ADB to further develop games for TOS era?
The "NO SOFTWARE EVER PERIOD. Not by us or anyone else." policy seems to have been relaxed with the SFC series to Paramount's benefit. Why not keep the "gravy train" going with more products like SFC in the future?
Harry?...whats the deal with this?
:soap: :soap: :soap: :soap: :soap: :soap: :soap: :soap: :soap: :soap: :soap:
-
Ya realise if you keep asking Harry questions he'll just not visit.
-
Well if he doesnt visit that rather answers the question in of itself, inquiring minds want to know
-
Ya need to remember though he cant answer questions that would give away any of Viacom and Paramount future plans, that would be commercial suicide :)
-
Here's your answer...right from Steve's post...
<snip>
We will never allow independent developers to
release such software except through ADB Inc. because Paramount
will insist on this as a condition of their approval, if they ever give it.
<snip>
I dont claim to know what kind of deal was cut the first time,,,but it obviously happend at least once...
So...what Steve said wasnt quite true...was it...
He DID allow SFB material to be distributed by an outside developer in the form of selling license for the material in SFC1..{hell the damn cadet rules and SSD"s come on the CD for christ sake}.....
And the same material was probably used for SFC2 and OP....
Doesnt anyone remember the great SFB modding stink?
When peeps where trying to ADD more SFB stuff like models and stats....
Steve, Erik, and Harry where all involved
I bet Harry cringes every time he's asked about...just like Steve does...
I even have a hunch he's got a reply he can just cut and paste... he's asnwered the question so many times... ;D
Well i know SVC is kind a doob sometimes, he reacts very viloently to people pointing out his mistakes and doesntl like anyone telling him some of his products blow and he also has this thing about "Re-doing" old modules and publishing and making the old ones (which arent that old) obsolete.
So it wouldnt surprise me if SVC and Paramount are not of best of friends and both want to take thier balls and go home
-
Ya realise if you keep asking Harry questions he'll just not visit.
Well if we don't ask he won't know what's important to the fans. :P
-
I can only speak of myself by i grow weary hearing from game developers to just "hang on" the NEXT game is really gonna blow us away.
- just be patient
- just you wait
- just be good
:skeptic:
-
Ya realise if you keep asking Harry questions he'll just not visit.
But he might know the answers and tell us, which is better than just making them up.
-
Ya realise if you keep asking Harry questions he'll just not visit.
But he might know the answers and tell us, which is better than just making them up.
i thought thats what they did in the first place ? :lol:
-
Ya realise if you keep asking Harry questions he'll just not visit.
You dont know Harry very well do ya!
-
Its got nothing to do with Harry but everything to do with Paramount. If he's going to give an interview on behalf of Paramount he shouldnt be to terribly surprised if some people out there give him the big hairy eyeball. They want to rebuild the gaming franchise. Great,wonderful,fantastic.
but if all they give is the same old line of just hold on then they should know better.
Im not asking for them to remake the world of ST gaming right this instant, but what i do want is at least a general outline of where its going
-
Its got nothing to do with Harry but everything to do with Paramount. If he's going to give an interview on behalf of Paramount he shouldnt be to terribly surprised if some people out there give him the big hairy eyeball. They want to rebuild the gaming franchise. Great,wonderful,fantastic.
but if all they give is the same old line of just hold on then they should know better.
Im not asking for them to remake the world of ST gaming right this instant, but what i do want is at least a general outline of where its going
Read what Vic said. He's right.
Ya need to remember though he cant answer questions that would give away any of Viacom and Paramount future plans, that would be commercial suicide
Sir, the 800-pound gorilla just woke up.
You guys crack me up.
Read the last line.
This isn't JUST a new game -- this is the remaking of a franchise as Paramount approaches its 100th Anniversary.
This involves mulitiple departments, meetings with numerous game publishers -- the rebuilding of a franchise that knows this last round of Trek games and movies didn't do a fat whoop for the Paramount name, including the Taldren series. (fire away ... hit that negative karma button)
EAW/OP/SFC3 wasn't exactly a best seller, and that ain't Paramounts fault by any stretch. The buck stopped with ACVI/Taldren ... and Taldren got sucked into the middle of the lawsuit vacumn with Viacom/ACVI, and you can't blame them for that. It was ACVI that filed suit and has been trying to degrade the franchise purposefully to prove their point while they took the money and ran to the nearest bank, IMHO
When you wake up the 800 pound gorilla, watch out -- and that is coming on a VERY large scale.
King Kong meets Godzilla.
The interview is the first step, then Harry builds on that with what he can -- which he has done in numerous forums since then, including this one.
His greeting here was -- shall we say -- less than cordial? Fluf's post did a good job lessening the impact of the obvious anger here by Taldrenites, who rightly have been through a lot in recent months. Harry DOES understand that, as he said.
Right now he is probably sitting in Malibu at a restaurant relaxing and sipping Long Island Ice Tea with the wife. Normally, he doesn't even post on weekends, but I see he is here.
When Monday rolls around, he gets on the 101 freeway, fires up the cellphone and begins making calls the second he pulls out of the 4-car garage with his Bee'mer and hits the first stop sign. The five-car garage is in San Clemente. :o
Harry has a pattern of what I call "Harry-speak" ... and if you read between these lines, there is A LOT here -- more than he has said -- EVER on the subject.
Quote:
peace, exploration and discovery, infinite diversity in infinite combinations - our goal is to recreate this illustrious franchise for all to enjoy.
This is an evolution of NOT just the gaming side, but the Paramount FRANCHISE, and the games are going to be a LARGE aspect of that ...
<S>
WaterTiger
P.S. Harry, you still owe me lunch, and don't tell me that expense account ain't a fattie. ;D
-
Its got nothing to do with Harry but everything to do with Paramount. If he's going to give an interview on behalf of Paramount he shouldnt be to terribly surprised if some people out there give him the big hairy eyeball. They want to rebuild the gaming franchise. Great,wonderful,fantastic.
but if all they give is the same old line of just hold on then they should know better.
Im not asking for them to remake the world of ST gaming right this instant, but what i do want is at least a general outline of where its going
How is what I said the same old line?
STGD/STGU: Given the slow death of the online community for Bridge Commander, Armada 1 and Birth of the Federation and the vast majority of the gaming fleets of Star Trek who keep the online world alive moving to games outside of Star Trek, what will Paramount (or Viacom) do to get these old time gamers back into the Star Trek fold remembering that a lot of them have simply turned there back on Trek gaming?
Harry Lang: By creating Star Trek games that make sense. We're working on an initiative that is very exciting and by its nature, embraces the Star Trek gaming community.
STGD/STGU: What do you say to the folks who think that Star Trek gaming is dead?
Harry Lang: I say wait a few months and they will see it is not.
STGD/STGU: What do you see the future of Trek gaming to be?
Harry Lang: I see it being very focused. You probably won't see multiple publishers out there releasing numerous titles competing with each other. And likewise, you probably won't see all games under one publisher. We're taking a very different approach this time and I'm confident the community will see the benefits right away.
A. We plan to involve and embrace the community - when has Paramount ever said that before? B - We are taking a very different approach going forward, from anything done in the past. Those should be some pretty big points. I can't get more specific right now because as a corporation, things have a way of playing out. However I have given you at least some sort of schedule of when to expect more details. There are many variables so I can't nail down a specific day of when you'll get more concrete information.
As to the SFB question, sorry I haven't responded sooner, but it's Saturday afternoon...was spending time with the family.
This situation is above my head, and involves lawyers. Which I am not. So unfortunately, it's not my place to discuss...we did work something out for the SFC games but beyond that, I don't know.
So to summarize, what can you get from my answers? That we are working on something that will embrace the community, is very focued, and unlike anything we've done before. Originality, isn't that what you want? In the very near future, you'll find out exactly what this means.
-
Harry, no time for family -- God forbid ;D
You are supposed to be sipping martini's in Malibu. First Saturday post I have seen from you in as long as I can remember.
Here is something Harry said at STGU, where he has answered similar concerns:
all I can say is to say be patient and you'll see. If someone came to us and said they wanted to quickly and cheaply bang out a ST game, we'd pass. We're trying to bring you guys back not push you away and nothing would be worse than putting out a subpar product.
The man dropped more hints than $2 cigars.
<S>
WaterTiger
-
Harry,
First let me say welcome to the forums. And thank you for your post here. I'm happy that you are here and that you are answering questions for us. I like this. I also would ask that you forgive us for are frank post. Many feel that those who clam to talk for or speak for many of use are not doing a very good job of it. Now to the point of my post.
This is a post you might what to pass along to the TV movie side of your company. If they would like the Star Trek community to grow they will need to do one thing. And that is to get Enterprise in to more homes. There is a reason that it has slipped in the ratings. And that is it is only showing on UPN and seeing how UPN sold a lot of there stations it makes it hard for the Star Trek funs to watch it if it is not on in there area. they SHOULD FIND A way to get it in to more homes and to more fans then it is now going to. Just a point here from some one that got in to the show and had it take away one week because the UPN station in his area was sold to the WB network. Less viewers means lower rating. I know you do not work on that side of the company. I just ask that you let them those that do work on that side know what the really fans and really people are saying.
Now as for the question I will wait and see. But I will say if I do not like what is coming then I will be going.
WaterTiger please let Harry speak for himshelf. Because you really do not know all and making statements for him could cause more problems then it helps.
-
WaterTiger please let Harry speak for himshelf. Because you really do not know all and making statements for him could cause more problems then it helps.
Never spoke for the man once; never claimed to know all, but know based on my conversations with him that there is a lot he can't say, which is why I pulled a quote he made on another forum.
There was a series of forum and e-mail interviews which led up to this, which was the point of the Q&A -- to let Harry speak for Harry -- which means Paramount's gaming arm.
**sigh* back to modding.
<S>
WaterTiger
-
As to the SFB question, sorry I haven't responded sooner, but it's Saturday afternoon...was spending time with the family.
This situation is above my head, and involves lawyers. Which I am not. So unfortunately, it's not my place to discuss...we did work something out for the SFC games but beyond that, I don't know.
So to summarize, what can you get from my answers? That we are working on something that will embrace the community, is very focued, and unlike anything we've done before. Originality, isn't that what you want? In the very near future, you'll find out exactly what this means.
Harry, Just so you know, I was Mr. Hypergol in the Taldren forums....perhaps you remember my endless trumpeting of the "Galaxies at War" and "All Eras Total War-Style" SFC4 concepts. ;D
Harry thanks for the answers you CAN give when it comes to SFB.
I hope what you mean by embrace the community implies that Paramount wants to do a better job of satisfying the tastes of its hard core Trek fans in addition to appealing to the mass market....i.e. dumbing down games and shows is not good.
I think the "Matrix movie series" shows that complexity can have mass appeal. The Matrix had a fairly complex plot that satisfied the hard core types yet had the action and special effects to satisfy the masses too. Therefore, a complex story wrapped in great effects can have maximum appeal. We can do this with Trek also.
I think the problem with Star Trek lately has been that the core fans complaints and desires (i.e. continuity and changing of race characteristics etc.) have been ignored in favor of mass appeal. Frankly as a hard core Trek fan I like my games and my Sci Fi shows to be complex and engaging. That's also why I like Star Fleet Battles so much. Lately Enterprise has been boring and has mostly ignored overall continuity within the Trek universe as a whole. This really bothers us hard core types and tends to make us roll our eyes and walk away from the franchise.
I'm looking forward to a better future.
Anyway, thanks for the reply.
-
Harry, Just so you know, I was Mr. Hypergol in the Taldren forums....perhaps you remember my endless trumpeting of the "Galaxies at War" and "All Eras Total War-Style" SFC4 concepts. ;D
My Hypergol...
not to hijack a thread or anything... but it's great to see you around here. You would have been sorely missed if you didn't make the trip.
War D*** Eagle!
J. Carney
-
I wonder if there are any Armadillos ([url]http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/[/url]) in this future?
Oh that is so Funny Cleaven...I wonder how many really know about armadillos dating badgers?
-
Quote
"STGD/STGU: Given the slow death of the online community for Bridge Commander, Armada 1 and Birth of the Federation and the vast majority of the gaming fleets of Star Trek who keep the online world alive moving to games outside of Star Trek, what will Paramount (or Viacom) do to get these old time gamers back into the Star Trek fold remembering that a lot of them have simply turned there back on Trek gaming?
Harry Lang: By creating Star Trek games that make sense. We're working on an initiative that is very exciting and by its nature, embraces the Star Trek gaming community.
STGD/STGU: What do you say to the folks who think that Star Trek gaming is dead?
Harry Lang: I say wait a few months and they will see it is not.
STGD/STGU: What do you see the future of Trek gaming to be?
Harry Lang: I see it being very focused. You probably won't see multiple publishers out there releasing numerous titles competing with each other. And likewise, you probably won't see all games under one publisher. We're taking a very different approach this time and I'm confident the community will see the benefits right away.
"
I understand Paramount is a corporation and they have thier interests with regards to profitbility and disclosure. I work for one myself and i dont think they would none too pleased if i were to be posting sesnsitive information of thiers on any posting board for whatsoever. Im not going to ask you to hand out information that would jeapordize your position, no one wins in that situation.
My issue is that just once.
Just Once.
We could do without the hyberbole, buzzwords and corporate visions. If youre going to do something do it, if youre not don't. If youre going to say something, say it and if you either can't say it or wont
Dont.
This community has had a lot of people tell them a lot of things stretching all the way back to SFC1, some of those things came to pass and some rather important ones didnt. Ill give credit were credit is due many of the issues ive seen here have been recitifed.....in time
Also weve been a relatively civil bunch. We may not neccesarily agree with what were told but its rare when the comments go beyond satire into personal attacks (if you want to see personal go to www.toastyo.com and look up taldrenite exiles). But you may forgive some of unwashed players here that when we hear the deep booming voice of Paramount we dont leap up and rejoice, but may suspect that they're talking the talk again.
-
Many feel that those who clam to talk for or speak for many of use are not doing a very good job of it. Now to the point of my post.
...and whos that in reference to Day?
-
Harry, Just so you know, I was Mr. Hypergol in the Taldren forums....perhaps you remember my endless trumpeting of the "Galaxies at War" and "All Eras Total War-Style" SFC4 concepts. ;D
War D*** Eagle!
J. Carney
Well thanks. I figured it was time for a name change. Perhaps a new start. Wouldn't miss this forum for anything. It continues the great Taldren forums well. I'm amazed you remembered I was an Auburn grad.....War Eagle to you too. ;D
-
Harry, Just so you know, I was Mr. Hypergol in the Taldren forums....perhaps you remember my endless trumpeting of the "Galaxies at War" and "All Eras Total War-Style" SFC4 concepts. ;D
War D*** Eagle!
J. Carney
Well thanks. I figured it was time for a name change. Perhaps a new start. Wouldn't miss this forum for anything. It continues the great Taldren forums well. I'm amazed you remembered I was an Auburn grad.....War Eagle to you too. ;D
You never forget the important things. I start classes for the first time since Dec 2000 this fall. It's gonna be a real joy remembering how to be a colege student again. And BTW... They are removing almost all the side roads and cross streets that are not connected to Wire Road or College Street andresodding them or putting down brick sidewalks. They want this place to be a 'pedestrian campus' by 2010. Going to be hard to do, since 75% of the students still live off campus and about 50% live more than 5 miles away (I live in the Wire Road trailer parks... AU's real dorms), but that's what higher-up wants.
So here we go... off to finish a 4 year in history I started in 1996 and then for the real challenge- Pharmacy School!!!
-
Quote
I understand Paramount is a corporation and they have thier interests with regards to profitbility and disclosure. I work for one myself and i dont think they would none too pleased if i were to be posting sesnsitive information of thiers on any posting board for whatsoever. Im not going to ask you to hand out information that would jeapordize your position, no one wins in that situation.
My issue is that just once.
Just Once.
We could do without the hyberbole, buzzwords and corporate visions. If youre going to do something do it, if youre not don't. If youre going to say something, say it and if you either can't say it or wont
Dont.
Sorry again if you feel that way. I was approached to do an interview. I agreed and answered the questions given me the best I could at this time. If I had nothing to say and Trek gaming was dead, I would not have agreed to the interview or be here right now. I wanted to let people know that there are things going on behind the scenes. I'm sorry if I'm not at liberty to give specifics at this time, but I was able to give some hints and at least tell you when to expect something more. That's better than nothing I would think. How many licensors share this kind of information with the community?
I understand your reservations with the big corporate giant...but we're listening and hopefully will regain those who's trust have fallen away.
-
Fair enough
:soap:
Ill get off my box now ;D
-
^^^Well said.
Trek gaming is alive still. Thats all that matters.
If it was dead, Harry wouldnt have agreed to an interview.
I would recommend the questions end guys- the more time Harry has to spend answering questions, the LESS time he has to help get another Star Trek game out.... ;)
Thanks for listening 8)
-
Harry,
TrekToday, Trek Nation, GameSpot, SFC3files, Blue's News, HomeLanFed, Computer Games Online, STGU did their grand reopening with your statement. Startrek.com was notified.
Looks like it got good play and some positive responses.
http://www.trektoday.com/
http://bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/blammo.pl
http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=24588
=====
For another look, see Harry's responses to CGOnline:
http://www.cgonline.com/features/010731-f1-f1.html
==========
All good, positive "stuff."
<S>
WaterTiger
-
I would recommend the questions end guys- the more time Harry has to spend answering questions, the LESS time he has to help get another Star Trek game out.... ;)
Fair enough. No more questions from me.
Frankly I'm excited. I love Star Trek and if Paramount has plans for more of it....that can only be good. ;)
-
I don't want to ream on anyone or anthing, or make them feel unwelcome. I really appreciate the fact that Harry is willing to drop by and comment on things, but isn't the article at the end pretty darn old? Like before SFC3 and EF2 came out? Yet it still talks about how "The fans are never far from Harry Lang's thoughts, and it's clear he considers them with every decision he makes regarding the direction of a game's development." It says he is responsible for giving the go ahead at pretty much everystage of the game, from concept through concept art, textured models, seeing individual builds and so forth. It also talks about all the things that ATVI should be able to do with the license now that they will have all eras. Now, like I said, I don't want to discourage anyone from talking out or coming here, but doesn't this tend to lend credence to the "been there, heard that" folks, seeing as Trek games were still kind of lacking (albeit they generally functioned better than some of the stuff way, way back in the day). I wonder just what is actually going to change. I also wonder about the comment "By creating Star Trek games that make sense. We're working on an initiative that is very exciting and by its nature, embraces the Star Trek gaming community." when asked how to get back gamers who have left Trek gaming behind. Did they think the previous games made now sense, and if so why were they made in the first place? I tend to think that a lot of games made sense, but just lacked in execution. Bridgecommander, Starfleet Command series, Elite Force series, even Armada, made sense as a game concept, but the execution of a lot of these was lacking as if they were just developed really quick and shoved out the door. Some had more content than others and managed to buck the stigma of a Trek game a little more than others, but a lot of them felt like, as I've said before, just a quickly manufactured mod of another game and no better than 1000's of other games on the market so why not buy the original so you can get all the mods, if you are an online player? Doesn't make sense, so I guess perhaps that's where the making games that make sense thing comes in.
I do find myself interested in this new method of listening to the communities and allowing them input, and just how the licenses are going to be handled since they aren't likely to be with one publisher anymore. I had heard rumour that they would be dividing the Trek license up by game type or something, which would make sense if they are willing to entertain a multi-era game since if different companies held licenses by era that would seem to throw a wrench in the works of that idea.
Anyhow, I've got a lot of stuff to get to and can't really get too deep into anything, but I find myself skeptically hopeful that something will change and that we will see quality games, full of content rather than lacking, in all genres of Trek gaming.
-
I don't want to ream on anyone or anthing, or make them feel unwelcome. I really appreciate the fact that Harry is willing to drop by and comment on things, but isn't the article at the end pretty darn old? Like before SFC3 and EF2 came out? Yet it still talks about how "The fans are never far from Harry Lang's thoughts, and it's clear he considers them with every decision he makes regarding the direction of a game's development." It says he is responsible for giving the go ahead at pretty much everystage of the game, from concept through concept art, textured models, seeing individual builds and so forth. It also talks about all the things that ATVI should be able to do with the license now that they will have all eras. Now, like I said, I don't want to discourage anyone from talking out or coming here, but doesn't this tend to lend credence to the "been there, heard that" folks, seeing as Trek games were still kind of lacking (albeit they generally functioned better than some of the stuff way, way back in the day). I wonder just what is actually going to change. I also wonder about the comment "By creating Star Trek games that make sense. We're working on an initiative that is very exciting and by its nature, embraces the Star Trek gaming community." when asked how to get back gamers who have left Trek gaming behind. Did they think the previous games made now sense, and if so why were they made in the first place? I tend to think that a lot of games made sense, but just lacked in execution. Bridgecommander, Starfleet Command series, Elite Force series, even Armada, made sense as a game concept, but the execution of a lot of these was lacking as if they were just developed really quick and shoved out the door. Some had more content than others and managed to buck the stigma of a Trek game a little more than others, but a lot of them felt like, as I've said before, just a quickly manufactured mod of another game and no better than 1000's of other games on the market so why not buy the original so you can get all the mods, if you are an online player? Doesn't make sense, so I guess perhaps that's where the making games that make sense thing comes in.
I do find myself interested in this new method of listening to the communities and allowing them input, and just how the licenses are going to be handled since they aren't likely to be with one publisher anymore. I had heard rumour that they would be dividing the Trek license up by game type or something, which would make sense if they are willing to entertain a multi-era game since if different companies held licenses by era that would seem to throw a wrench in the works of that idea.
Anyhow, I've got a lot of stuff to get to and can't really get too deep into anything, but I find myself skeptically hopeful that something will change and that we will see quality games, full of content rather than lacking, in all genres of Trek gaming.
Yes that article is old...we're at a different stage now. All I can say is that when we finally are able to share more concrete news, you'll see that we really are taking a different approach from the way things were done in the past and it will be very focused. Some may agree with what we do, some won't. But I'm doing everything I can to influence changes. Part of that is community involvement.
Skepticism is ok. Just keep an open mind.
-
Harry, we're very excited by your words. Having the community involved in a new Trek gaming experience is a great and welcome move!
-
Definitely have an open mind. There is so much that can be Trek but just hasn't been. I certainly hope the quality of content and gameplay will be up in a big way. I look forward to seeing what's coming (I love Trek games, as a concept at least) and I'd jump at the chance to help through whatever means, I've got a lot of input to give. ;)
-
Harry,
Thanks for taking the time to share with us. I hope that trek gaming comes back strong.
Two statements, not meant to be taken overly critical, I hope.
1, I hope that we don't get some rushed out for Christmas games this year. The "in a few months" could be interpreted as such.
2, I hope that old arguements don't stand in the way of things. Hopefully cool heads will prevail and whatever differences there are can be put aside for the betterment of Trek. If it's good for the fans then it's good for the franchise. Give the people what they want and don't listen to the accountants who say that it isn't profitable enough.
It's very good to see you around again. I hope that you don't go away any time soon. ;D
-
boy.. take a vacation and look what happens.. that said there are a couple things I would like to throw into the ring.
Harry, thank you for taking time to do an interview. I sincerly hope that people take the fact in a positive manner. Many companies and devs just do not do that anymore as they spend time working on a game instead of answering every message tit for tat.
thank you.
Secondly, to some in here who think that sfc2 is the end all to be all and that "90%" wanted another sfc2 - you are wrong. Lets not try to get into another flame war - but even in the situation it was released in - if more support had been given - and the game had not been RMA'd - it would have done a lot better than what some think. in fact, from my knowledge of the situation - it was A LOT better than what some around here believe.
IMO, the problem with sfc3 is that they took too much out. had time been given i think that more important things would have been added back in to add the levels of detail. Look at some of the popular sfc3 mods out there - including my own - all which people love and enjoy.. the key to many of them was an increased level of detail..
that all said, what i am trying to say is that I hope that paramount - when they talk to a developer and publisher - will talk to them in simple terms to make sure there is an adequate ammount of detail in the game. It does not need to be as rule anal retentive (and non star trek) as some of the sfb stuff (and let me be clear - sfb stuff is NOT trek..) - but i do believe that sfc 1(which blows away all copies of sfc) proved that people were looking for a trek combat sim with a good level of detail.
we can debate the rest until we are blue in the face and it will be nothing more than speculation since we do not have the marketing report/survey in front of us.
Bottom line is Harry, I think a lot of us cannot wait to see a detailed RPG game or another killer space sim. Too bad Bridge Commander ended up the way it did. Add in a lot more ships/variations and a good number of changes on multiplayer and I think it would be a good game (especially being 3d driven - join in progress combat and true warping from system to system).
One last thing.. Victor - I do not think it is right for you to speak for harry. He is a grown man who can talk for him self.
The one thing I do agree with you about Victor is that if and when the next big (and i do mean successful/decent) trek sim comes out, sfc will be gone. In the end it is all about game play.
Harry. I would like to thank you for the guidence on sfc3. For us Trek fans, it gets us the closest to trek cannon as we can get. I love the correct primary/heavy weapon configuration among the good things.. So SFC3 is not as bad as some might content. It simply needed more detail and content. Please remember that! Please take note about what made these games so successful.
I cannot wait to see what you might have up your sleave.
-
Nanner, I think you make some good points. I played SFC3 for a while and then lost interest. I've recently started playing again with the Dominion war mod and I am enjoying it again. I think SFC3 could have been made into a great game with a little more time and effort. It is vitally important to remember what made SFC and SFC2 great. To be sure it didn't appeal to everyone, but I think it's the best game ever made. I hope Paramount's next efforts are a worthy successor and they stay on my hard drive for more than a few weeks.
-
I have an open heart!!
If it's SFC and any good at all, I'll bite... though like others, I will keep one squinted eye on the reviews and rantings of our posters on our board. If they complain and shout, not bad... if they yawn, oops, very bad. Of course, if they praise it...
-
Nanner that Was Alot Better then I could have Ever posted Given The Hell A few have put us through.
Like you said , I'm A grown Man, and I hope they Meet with such a Grandiose Situation as they have Promoted.
Stephen the Pissed.
PS. Harry that was not Directed at you.
-
Harry,
Thanks for taking the time to share with us. I hope that trek gaming comes back strong.
Two statements, not meant to be taken overly critical, I hope.
1, I hope that we don't get some rushed out for Christmas games this year. The "in a few months" could be interpreted as such.
2, I hope that old arguements don't stand in the way of things. Hopefully cool heads will prevail and whatever differences there are can be put aside for the betterment of Trek. If it's good for the fans then it's good for the franchise. Give the people what they want and don't listen to the accountants who say that it isn't profitable enough.
It's very good to see you around again. I hope that you don't go away any time soon. ;D
"in a few months" does not mean the release of a game.
Nice to see you again Nanner, and all you old timers...thanks for the welcome. I really do hope you guys like what comes next. I'm excited.
-
Please harry, dont rush the developers, and if the publishers try to... put them in check. I've seen way too many buggy games come out, especially trek games... For another --good-- game, not buggy, but was put out too early, visist http://www.shogo-mad.com Good game, see if you can buy it... people still play it on the net, but only like 10-20 uber 1337 people who will own u like youve never touched a mouse before.
-
Harry, I am truly impressed that you have spent so much time in this forum. You doubtlessly have some idea of the history of SFC, so you must have an idea of what we are holding out for.
I don't want to start a flame war with Nannerslug, but he wants a new and completely different game. Something in SFC3 appeals to him. If that were what you were alluding to in projects on the horizon, I doubt you would bother with this form.
The fact that you are here demonstrates that negotiations along the lines of a successor to the SFC series are ongoing. I am trying not to read too much into this, but you definitely have my attention.
-
I don't want to start a flame war with Nannerslug, but he wants a new and completely different game. Something in SFC3 appeals to him. If that were what you were alluding to in projects on the horizon, I doubt you would bother with this form.
It's the moddability that makes SFC3 cool.
I would stick with SFB as the "core" fo the next "SFC" game. Make it OP++ with everything us grognards want.
BUT . . . .
Make it moddable so the visionaries who made SFC3 cool can still do this with the new game.
There is no need to re-invent the wheel, SFB gives us a great universe to start with. Let the modders recreat it it in their own image.
Oh, and you you go 3D in a Trek sim, TOTALLY abandon SFB.
-
The only way to make ALL peeps happy....
Two game engines and rules sets in one release....
The buyer chooses one installation...or both...
If you can cover the whole crowd with one release it will be a SURE hit...
Call it....Star-Trek: Return to Eden ;D
-
Harry, I am truly impressed that you have spent so much time in this forum. You doubtlessly have some idea of the history of SFC, so you must have an idea of what we are holding out for.
I don't want to start a flame war with Nannerslug, but he wants a new and completely different game. Something in SFC3 appeals to him. If that were what you were alluding to in projects on the horizon, I doubt you would bother with this form.
The fact that you are here demonstrates that negotiations along the lines of a successor to the SFC series are ongoing. I am trying not to read too much into this, but you definitely have my attention.
I do have some history with the SFC series being involved with it since the very first pitch meeting.
But I think you are reading too much in to it...I posted to clarify a few things on my interview. And then answer a few quesitons. My hope is you guys are open to anything that is going to push Trek gaming forward, not if it's only SFC related.
-
Harry, I am truly impressed that you have spent so much time in this forum. You doubtlessly have some idea of the history of SFC, so you must have an idea of what we are holding out for.
I don't want to start a flame war with Nannerslug, but he wants a new and completely different game. Something in SFC3 appeals to him. If that were what you were alluding to in projects on the horizon, I doubt you would bother with this form.
The fact that you are here demonstrates that negotiations along the lines of a successor to the SFC series are ongoing. I am trying not to read too much into this, but you definitely have my attention.
hell yeah! I bought EF and Armada as well and will buy more. I bought 2 copies of SFC3 and i don't even play it.
If you build it, they will come.
I do have some history with the SFC series being involved with it since the very first pitch meeting.
But I think you are reading too much in to it...I posted to clarify a few things on my interview. And then answer a few quesitons. My hope is you guys are open to anything that is going to push Trek gaming forward, not if it's only SFC related.
-
I do have some history with the SFC series being involved with it since the very first pitch meeting.
But I think you are reading too much in to it...I posted to clarify a few things on my interview. And then answer a few quesitons. My hope is you guys are open to anything that is going to push Trek gaming forward, not if it's only SFC related.
My opinion has always been that it doesn't have to be SFB, but having the depth of SFB (or SFC since the total depth of SFB would take a lifetime to code probably) is a must. You really need a well rounded system. The thing about using SFB as a starting point was that a lot of that work was done for you, but if you want to do the work on your own in coming up with an adequate system, more power to you.
There are a lot of games that I would like to see. I didn't have the chance to buy Bridgecommander (I was strapped for cash and just didn't get around to it) but I played the demo a LOT. I think that given a little more punch in several places that could have been an incredible game (and I played it mostly in 3rd person mode so it was more like sfc, heh). The beauty of that game was that you could let the crew handle a lot of stuff, but if you really wanted to get into more detail you could control more aspects. I think is a great concept for a game like SFC where people complain too much about the learning curve. If you have automated features to help the newbs and casual players get up to speed (like crew members doing their jobs on their own with minor instructions from you) but allow the hardcore guys to get in there and take control of it all at once (even shutting off the automated officers by individual stations, so if I want to control the weapons, but would rather have the computer take care of teh science station or something then i could) that would rock. Combine that with a Dynaverse type setting (online multiplayer environment where you can take territory for your empire, and I think you'd have a winner. I'm a big Dynaverse guy, if Bridgecommander had had one of those I would have bought it the day it came out (I would have found the money somewhere) but I had heard of it's lacking multiplayer end so...
Beyond that I can see a lot of things that would have nothing to do with SFB. You could make some really cool FPS games (think more BF1942 than Quake or some crack/speed fest FPS game). Have shuttles and stuff you can hop into, go to different planets invade buildings (Romulus or something cool like that, maybe Starfleet headquarters) Have some space battles maybe. The main thing is the thought process behind these games. Really think "How can we make this game a Trek game" and by that I mean make guys feel like they are really living in the Trek universe. Levels and environments should look like they are from Trek, EF 2 didn't accomplish that for me. Also, does this style of play reflect a Starfleet universe. I don't recall seeing starfleet personall charging Klingons (everyone is bunny hopping) and just shooting as fast as they can. It's a bit slower paced (doesn't have to be a hardcore tactical shooter, but shouldn't be something that can only be played by running around willy nilly as fast as you can and firing blindly) hiding behind boxes and shooting and stuff. There is really so many possabilities. RTS, RPG's you name it. I would LOVE to see a trek game in the mold of Knights of the Old Republic. How cool would that be? Pretty darn cool and that's not SFB.
So, I guess my whole point in saying all of this is that I believe there are a lot of us out here who would very much like a lot of Trek games, but are a little harder to please. We want more from games than what appears to be a quick mod (if I want Quake with Trek in it, I'd go buy Quake and throw together a mod so I can have all the other mods out there and way more people to play with than just those who bought went out and bought that one Trek game). I just stand here waiting for the next Star Trek game that will WOW me. (In a good way, I've had the negative WOW reaction far too many times with Trek games, half the time It's more like work even getting through the single player aspects and don't get me started on multiplayer... ;)) I hope it's coming.
-
Harry,
Welcome back. Good to hear from you.
You may not remember me. I joined this community ages ago originally for one reason only: To voice a desire for Macintosh OS support for Star Trek gaming.
Let's hope Spock's silly little IDIC pendant extends to Mac OS.
Thanks,
Death "lives in SoCal, sips lattes, but drives no Beemer" Merchant
-
One last thing.. Victor - I do not think it is right for you to speak for harry. He is a grown man who can talk for him self.
The one thing I do agree with you about Victor is that if and when the next big (and i do mean successful/decent) trek sim comes out, sfc will be gone. In the end it is all about game play.
I aint speaking for Harry, if i was would ya think he would have agreed to the interview?
Also, about the next trek game. It wont just be the SFC series that will see the slow decline, they all will. Just as SFA delined when SFC came out. Just as Armada 1 declined when Elite Force came out.
Natural progression is the course that game's take, the older games will die off eventually even if there wasnt any new trek games coming out, it just means that if new games do come out they will die off quicker. Some of the trek games are already in there death throes, if you ask me they need a nudge to finally die off and the trek gamers can move on. Course i'll probably get slammed for saying that now. LMAO
-
One last thing.. Victor - I do not think it is right for you to speak for harry. He is a grown man who can talk for him self.
The one thing I do agree with you about Victor is that if and when the next big (and i do mean successful/decent) trek sim comes out, sfc will be gone. In the end it is all about game play.
I aint speaking for Harry, if i was would ya think he would have agreed to the interview?
Also, about the next trek game. It wont just be the SFC series that will see the slow decline, they all will. Just as SFA delined when SFC came out. Just as Armada 1 declined when Elite Force came out.
Natural progression is the course that game's take, the older games will die off eventually even if there wasnt any new trek games coming out, it just means that if new games do come out they will die off quicker. Some of the trek games are already in there death throes, if you ask me they need a nudge to finally die off and the trek gamers can move on. Course i'll probably get slammed for saying that now. LMAO
Not from me I agree with you,but there are still diehard people who still play those old games.
-
good post emerald edge.. you are on the money (andi think very much so with the bridge commander thing - i did the same thing you did to play it. :D) and yes harry.. i know a lot of us are interested in trek gaming in general.. i have everything from SFA and KA to SFC3. :)
-
I recently signed into the Bridge Commander forums -- THAT place is busy. Wow! What a community they have there. CJ recommended it.
http://dynamic3.gamespy.com/~bridgecommander/phpBB/
I never got the game, but it's on my list now.
<S>
WaterTiger
-
I do have some history with the SFC series being involved with it since the very first pitch meeting.
But I think you are reading too much in to it...I posted to clarify a few things on my interview. And then answer a few questions. My hope is you guys are open to anything that is going to push Trek gaming forward, not if it's only SFC related.
My opinion has always been that it doesn't have to be SFB, but having the depth of SFB (or SFC since the total depth of SFB would take a lifetime to code probably) is a must. You really need a well rounded system. The thing about using SFB as a starting point was that a lot of that work was done for you, but if you want to do the work on your own in coming up with an adequate system, more power to you.
That's the whole thing. I cannot imagine anyone developing a ship to ship, group, or even fleet level strategy game without something to build on. Harpoon is the most complicated board game ever created; SFB ranks second. What has us so enamoured with SFC is not so much the ST content, but a level of complexity and strategy that approaches modern warfare.
I've played the computer version of Harpoon. With simple Icons defining units, I was amazed by the suspension of disbelief I experienced. I mension this because I know that the SFC engine is not the only way to build a complex strategy game.
The simple fact is, SFC fans may not be interested in ST in general. SFC is a quality Sci-Fi strategy game, even if limited to ship level tactics. Personally, I sometimes watch ST in reruns, but lost interest with Voyager and Enterprize. I did give the first season of Enterprize a chance. I enjoyed the first season, but found the 9/11 parallel patently offensive. The series may be played-out.
SFB kept me interested in ST. If a strategy game of that depth is in the future of ST gaming, I'm all for it.
-
Natural progression is the course that game's take, the older games will die off eventually even if there wasnt any new trek games coming out, it just means that if new games do come out they will die off quicker. Some of the trek games are already in there death throes, if you ask me they need a nudge to finally die off and the trek gamers can move on. Course i'll probably get slammed for saying that now. LMAO
When they release a game better than OP for it's genre, I will play it. That has not happened.
-
When they release a game better than OP for it's genre, I will play it. That has not happened.
EXACTLY! but it could happen and I hope it does, because we'll all have a really killer game (or several killer games) to play for a long time to come. The good thing about making a really killer game is that you can keep folks coming back for more too. ;)
-
When they release a game better than OP for it's genre, I will play it. That has not happened.
EXACTLY! but it could happen and I hope it does, because we'll all have a really killer game (or several killer games) to play for a long time to come. The good thing about making a really killer game is that you can keep folks coming back for more too. ;)
Oh, and IMHO, it doesn't have to be based on the SFB rules set. A really good 3d game could do it to. i just beleive that the SFB system is so rich that most of the work has already been done for you, you might as well take advantage of that.
-
I do have some history with the SFC series being involved with it since the very first pitch meeting.
But I think you are reading too much in to it...I posted to clarify a few things on my interview. And then answer a few questions. My hope is you guys are open to anything that is going to push Trek gaming forward, not if it's only SFC related.
My opinion has always been that it doesn't have to be SFB, but having the depth of SFB (or SFC since the total depth of SFB would take a lifetime to code probably) is a must. You really need a well rounded system. The thing about using SFB as a starting point was that a lot of that work was done for you, but if you want to do the work on your own in coming up with an adequate system, more power to you.
That's the whole thing. I cannot imagine anyone developing a ship to ship, group, or even fleet level strategy game without something to build on. Harpoon is the most complicated board game ever created; SFB ranks second. What has us so enamoured with SFC is not so much the ST content, but a level of complexity and strategy that approaches modern warfare.
I've played the computer version of Harpoon. With simple Icons defining units, I was amazed by the suspension of disbelief I experienced. I mension this because I know that the SFC engine is not the only way to build a complex strategy game.
The simple fact is, SFC fans may not be interested in ST in general. SFC is a quality Sci-Fi strategy game, even if limited to ship level tactics. Personally, I sometimes watch ST in reruns, but lost interest with Voyager and Enterprize. I did give the first season of Enterprize a chance. I enjoyed the first season, but found the 9/11 parallel patently offensive. The series may be played-out.
SFB kept me interested in ST. If a strategy game of that depth is in the future of ST gaming, I'm all for it.
Just a little footnote...most of the first season episodes were written and many shot prior to 9/11.
-
Yeah, I think he's talking about the Expanse stuff of Season 3 (and finale season 2) though, because it's a parallel to 9/11 with a massive terrorist attack and then the Federation going in to find those who did it, although they don't know exactly where to find them, etc. I know a lot of folks were a bit turned off by that. Unless your talking about "the first season episodes" of the 1 season long expanse storyline. I would be shocked if it had been written as is before that.
-
Try this one for a game folks.
You take the parts of SFC3 that every one likes. I.E. the ablety to refit your ship. Beening able to fleet up. Beening able to see who is in a hex and beening able to attack them.
Then added in the parts of SFC1, 2EAW $ 2OP. I.E. power manmagent, the 6 sided shields, some more of the wepons as well as more then 4 races that are play able. Also have mult-era time lines with ships and all that.
Then add to that the 3d playablety of BC, KA, SFA, and Free lancer.
Take it all and add in to a server that has no map but you are in if you will mission all the time you are on the server.
Then add in parts from other games like EF, EF2 and the like.
I think this would be a great game and if it was done right I know I would pay a little not much to play it on a set of server that would keep running 24/7.
This I feel woud be a game that every one would like and have fun on. It would have something for every one.
-
That would be very hard to make all of that work together Day...
-
Try this one for a game folks.
You take the parts of SFC3 that every one likes. I.E. the ablety to refit your ship.
Bzzzz. wrong. I personally don't like SFC3's refit option. It totally blows my suspension of disbelief. SFC1's refit option, maybe, but the whole mix and match however you want I just don't like at all, especially given the slapdash way it was implemented in SFC3, perhaps if each hardpoint had a mass limit or something, as a bare minimum, and a lot more limitations on what can be put in certain combinations, and they needed more variety of parts (meaning how they are used not just 10 or more of the same weapon like it is). I know a whole lot of folks who feel the same way, so I know I'm not the only one.
-
Day, I think it should be noted that the features in SFC3 are not "original" by any means. Many of them were sugegsted during the brain storming posts for Dynaverse 2. (Taldren just never implemented them until III)
But with that said, Welcome back among us, Harry. We kept the flame warm waiting.
I will not spent any more thoughts on the future of Trek, come what may. At least I had SFC, that was enough.
-
Well if I could have a say in the next star Trek game I would say A game editor would be top priority. Plus
no hard codeing of anything, total modablity
more than 4 races.
No porting of ships from any of the other games, as some of them are ugly. Start fresh for crying out loud
Up the Poly count 4500 to 5000 seems about right
A stable and working on line play.
The ability to have more than three ships in your fleet. I want to field a compleat ISC fleet, which is about 11 ships.
If you include them working scouts.
Maybe Include the compleate Fasa starship constrution manual from pre tos to tng. I had fun playing with that book, and still mess with it now and then.
NO BORG, Borg are boring and dull.
And if I think of anything else Ill post it.
-
Khalee-
Let's drop the poly count down to about 1000 or 1500. That way a lot more people could buy it without upgrading their comps.
I don't know anything about FASA, so I won't remark on it. I just like SFB.
All the other points I like- especially the NO BORG one.
And here are my add ons-
Refit capibility like in SFC1.
Officers like in SFC1.
-
Up the Poly count 4500 to 5000 seems about right
I'm with Carney, that seems like a bit much... what if you have four players each with a three ship fleet and fighters as well... if the polycount was that high for all ships that would likely bring most systems to their knees. Myself I'm always a few years behind on video cards - I refuse to shell out more than $250 Canadian for a video card... and I put the priority on 2-D quality before 3-D acceleration (read Matrox - not Nvidia or ATI...)
Now if you're talking about a 3-D space shooter joystick enabled dogfight game well perhaps that level of graphic detail would be accceptable... ;) (again, SFB simulation vs Trek movie simulation seems to be the issue...)
I understand your perspective as a modeler though, you want people to see the best versions of the models possible. (I like high poly models too but my system just chokes up on 12 or more of them... PIII-1000, 640MB RAM, 32MB Matrox G450)
-
OK then but maybe a 10000 poly limit or maybe no limit, I still don't want to see a butt ugly Enterprise A, which is Ugly at 1000 to 1500 polies.
More things
Ease of modability, But my only experience is with the SFC series which OP and EAW are by far easier then SFC3 to mod at least for me which was one of the reasons I got rid of it, But I dont know anything about how easy or hard it is to mod for the the other trek games
No ramming I don't want to play Ram Academy again that was the worst thing I hated about Klingon Academy
No 3d As none of the big ships looped and roled even in Star wars Because how could they fire their weapons if they are doing that, Plus I never saw even in star wars on the big ship crew straping themselves in. But If you can make it maybe for just the little ships then perhaps yes 3d.
Heavy weapons to be limited in Supply A lot of on screen evidence to back this up.
And Ill post some more things.
Ok heres some more cloaks and shields On screen evidence shows that bigger ships can have shields up while cloaking in and out. So how about cruisers and bigger can have shilds up while cloaked but Light Cruisers and smaller cannot.
Also no probes to find cloaked ships with. it was only done once and never again.
Oh and Mines as Mines were used in several shows. But use the SFB style mines and rules
-
Bonk if u think ur system has problems... check out my specs! P Celeron, 633mhz, 128mb Ram, 64mb GeForce 4 MX 440 PCI
-
I like it Khalee, but why limit shields cloaking on higher hull ships? Why not limit it on the type of shields? If someone wants to hack out the extra cash, and less weapons, to get better sheilds, shouldnt they get the benefits? I disagree with you on using probes to find cloaked ships...
-
Probes are cheesy and were only used one time.
And the cloak deal was a compromise. But anyway I would not think the small ships would have the power to run a cloak and shields as well. Plus Riker said that the Bre'l class ships( pretty much a frigate or PF depending on what you believe), could not raise shields and cloak at the same time. Which makes since to me.
-
I would not think the small ships would have the power to run a cloak and shields as well. They could if they had no heavy weapons... but they wouldnt be able to while charging phasers... I'm just saying it should be limited on the shield class... not the ship hull.
I like probes... they come in handy on asteroid base missions in SFC2 when you take out the defense and ur over 120 away from the base...
-
boy.. take a vacation and look what happens.. that said there are a couple things I would like to throw into the ring.
Harry, thank you for taking time to do an interview. I sincerly hope that people take the fact in a positive manner. Many companies and devs just do not do that anymore as they spend time working on a game instead of answering every message tit for tat.
thank you.
I dont wish to cause any flamage....and all props to Harry....but I must simply address the following...
Secondly, to some in here who think that sfc2 is the end all to be all and that "90%" wanted another sfc2 - you are wrong.
This is why I respond.....it is addressed to me, amongst others...not by name .....but by sentiment
Since I can harkin up no thread that proves this.... I will simply remind you of the poll that Erik took concerning the path of SFC that the "community" wanted followed....
That thread was recapped by Erik twords the end , and showed the overwleming support was for an SFB "based' SFC4......(this was done during release of SFC3)....
Lets not try to get into another flame war -
I strive NOT to.....but some comments I might make could be miscontrued into flamage...woe to those who fan such flames...
but even in the situation it was released in - if more support had been given - and the game had not been RMA'd - it would have done a lot better than what some think. in fact, from my knowledge of the situation - it was A LOT better than what some around here believe.
Having been a member of both testing groups(as you were)...I can confirm this.....but NOT for the reasons you infer..
There was quite alot of resistance to suggestions that SFC3 should contain MORE detailed content(aka SFB)...and often you where part of that controversy as my adversary...
Lets look at your next statement:
IMO, the problem with sfc3 is that they took too much out.
As I recall....that was my biggest beef....that hey had abandoned an entire rule set in favor of "newness"..or even defered to "canon" vs "old mentality"
had time been given i think that more important things would have been added back in to add the levels of detail. Look at some of the popular sfc3 mods out there - including my own - all which people love and enjoy.. the key to many of them was an increased level of detail..
I agree...but for different reasons....had they simply added the level of detail ALLREADY present in OP it would have made a better baseline....
And Kudos to you for taking the time to support SFC3 with your mod....I really mean that..
...although I would note that your own mod adds more elements of the D2 realm.
that all said, what i am trying to say is that I hope that paramount - when they talk to a developer and publisher - will talk to them in simple terms to make sure there is an adequate ammount of detail in the game.
I fully agree...in fact...I would engourage Harry to press for access to ANY testers group so he can get feedback first hand...from the end user....rather than from the dev team....he might get relevent impressions long before reviewers get a demo..
It does not need to be as rule anal retentive (and non star trek) as some of the sfb stuff (and let me be clear - sfb stuff is NOT trek..) -
Stop...right there...
You simply CANNOT support one game ruleset without disparaging the other three games in the series....and this continues to floor me...
SFB IS trek....at least the material used so far in the SFC series...and it became so when Paramount gave blessing for SFC itself....using the SFB ruleset and official ADB SSD's for ship stats...
SFB is as much "TreK" as...
The Original Series...
The novel series...
The Console game series...
The PC games...
The comics series...
The animated series...
The Motion Picture era..
The Next Generation series..
The Deep Space 9 series...
The Voyager series...
The "Enterprise" series....
It's ALL canon...because it has ALL been approved by Paramount.....period.
but i do believe that sfc 1(which blows away all copies of sfc) proved that people were looking for a trek combat sim with a good level of detail.
Hmmm..this runs counter to your previous statement:
"sfb stuff is NOT trek"
SFC1 is BASED on SFB...it says so right on the damn box......
we can debate the rest until we are blue in the face and it will be nothing more than speculation since we do not have the marketing report/survey in front of us.
Untrue....YOU can continue to debate it, not the rest of us.....because you have NEVER accepted SFB as Trek.....and I suspect you never will.....you even say so yourself....
Bottom line is Harry, I think a lot of us cannot wait to see a detailed RPG game or another killer space sim. Too bad Bridge Commander ended up the way it did. Add in a lot more ships/variations and a good number of changes on multiplayer and I think it would be a good game (especially being 3d driven - join in progress combat and true warping from system to system).
I've never played BC...so I cant speak to it's flaws....but I fully agree with your sentiment..
One last thing.. Victor - I do not think it is right for you to speak for harry. He is a grown man who can talk for him self.
Yup....agreed..
The one thing I do agree with you about Victor is that if and when the next big (and i do mean successful/decent) trek sim comes out, sfc will be gone. In the end it is all about game play.
As I recall.....you said the same thing about SFC3......that the people would speak for "progress" and SFC2/OP style of play would be obsolete....and die...
Curious....we are still playing SFC:op...so what gives?
Harry. I would like to thank you for the guidence on sfc3. For us Trek fans, it gets us the closest to trek cannon as we can get.
Please...dont assume to speak for all ...
I love the correct primary/heavy weapon configuration among the good things.. So SFC3 is not as bad as some might content. It simply needed more detail and content. Please remember that!
Remember what?...that the refit system is one of the biggest gripes that previous SFC fans had with the game?...as evidenced by comments in this very thread? and that it was developed in a vaccume in absence of any baseline?
Please take note about what made these games so successful.
Many of us have...and continue to point out....the factor is SFB.....
That being said...
SFC is NOT sfb...any more than chicken soup is chicken....but upon removal of the chicken...the soup has lost it's flavor...
I cannot wait to see what you might have up your sleave.
Nor can I....but I suspect that what ever it is....it will not enitce me from my current favor of play...this genre is now dominated by SFB based SFC....
Yes...I believe that SFC created a new genre...
If you want to sell a better mouse trap...you better figure out the bait needed...
It need not be SFB...but it MUST be highly detailed and make common sence....
And like chicken soup for a cold.....
SFB may not help....but it couldnt hurt... ;D
-
The animated series...
The "Enterprise" series....
Really these two are now canon? when did they make them that?.
-
Didn't "Enterprise" become "Star Trek: Enterprise" at some point? I remember all the guff over them adding it (or at least the suggestion that they were going to add it at one point so that people would associate it with Trek). If that's the case, then there you go.
-
Damn it Crim! YOU LEFT OUT VOYAGER!
-
Damn it Crim! YOU LEFT OUT VOYAGER!
I don't think that was an accident <SNICKER>
-
Doh...hehehe...
also...wasnt there an attempt at a show based on StarFleet academy?
-
The animated series...
The "Enterprise" series....
Really these two are now canon? when did they make them that?.
Define canon... and...
Who is "they"? ;D
Is there a group assigned to vote on what is canon and what isnt?
For "some" fans....they take canon to mean shown on film or in TOS...only...
Well gee...that would leave out 95% of the Trek universe...wouldnt it?
Am I not a fan?...can I not have say in what canon is?....I Take canon to be anything that has Paramount's stamp of approval...which would now include SFB "based" Star Fleet Command...
See...there are lots of Trek fans who deny other parts of Trek are canon when they personally dont like those other parts....
They put their hands over there ears and do the LA LA LA song when you even mention some shows or series'
Just because some TOS fans might not like TNG or VOY doesnt make TNG or VOY any LESS canon...does it?
How can one part of a "fantasy" Universe by more real than any other part? :-\
So as long as Nanner step ups and says "SFB is NOT Trek"....I will be here to say "Yes....it is....and here's WHY"
SFB became "Trek" officially the day that SFC1 hit the shelves...
I quote from the box....(the Appoved by Paramount box....heh.)
"Using data from the best selling strategy board game. Star Fleet Battles, Stafleet Command put you in the captains chair for the most amazing real time space combat experience ever created."
Pledge allegence in the Klingon Empire, The United Federation of Planets, The Romulan Star Empire, The Hydran kingdom, The Gorn Confederation, or the Lyran Star empire.
Finally, a starship naval combat game worthy of the name STAR TREK
I can read ya know...seems pretty damn clear to me...
If SFB is not Trek....then how can SFC (which is based on SFB ) ...Be Trek !?!
Notice in the thread some people have asserted just that....that SFC isnt Trek either... ::)
Bet that comes as a surprise to Harry....and Paramount.. :o
Now imagine having this same conversation over and over for years with another who is in denial of SFB even being Trek... and trying to suggest even more detail form the SFB side of the universe... :skeptic:
What kind of resistance do you think that is met with? :banghead:
-
If SFB and SFC isn't Trek, as some claim, then you don't need Paramounts approval to make games on it since they hold the licenses for Trek and if SFB and SFC aren't Trek then they are open territory for whoever wants to make a game right? Betcha Paramount would have a problem with that. ;)
-
Let's just saying, being "Trek" is one thing, but being "canon" is another. Being "Trek" doesn't necessarily mean you are "canon."
Anything seen on tv or in a movie theater is canon. Games, books, etc that are approved by us may be Trek, but they aren't canon.
Harry
-
Hear Hear .I like all the games on an even scale.I like SFC2OP as much as I like SFC3 .There in one thing though that SFC2OP and prior are mere exagerations of Star Trek.They aren't canon as SF3 is.
-
Hear Hear .I like all the games on an even scale.I like SFC2OP as much as I like SFC3 .There in one thing though that SFC2OP and prior are mere exagerations of Star Trek.They aren't canon as SF3 is.
SFC3 is hardly canon itself so stop claming that it is.
-
Let's just saying, being "Trek" is one thing, but being "canon" is another. Being "Trek" doesn't necessarily mean you are "canon."
:-\...hehe...ok ...sure....why not.. ;)
Posted by Harry:
Anything seen on tv or in a movie theater is canon.
Ok...roger that...
The Original Series...
The animated series...
The Motion Picture era..
The Next Generation series..
The Deep Space 9 series...
The Voyager series...
The "Enterprise" series....
...got it...
Posted by Harry:
Games, books, etc that are approved by us may be Trek, but they aren't canon.
Harry
Ok roger that too...
The novel series...
The comics series...
The Console game series...
The PC games...Including SFC1 , 2 , OP, and SFC3
So although its not considered canon...it IS considered Trek...
Thanks for the clarification!
:notworthy:
-
Hear Hear .I like all the games on an even scale.I like SFC2OP as much as I like SFC3 .There in one thing though that SFC2OP and prior are mere exagerations of Star Trek.They aren't canon as SF3 is.
SFC3 is hardly canon itself so stop claming that it is.
What is not canon in it?
-
Let's just saying, being "Trek" is one thing, but being "canon" is another. Being "Trek" doesn't necessarily mean you are "canon."
:-\...hehe...ok ...sure....why not.. ;)
Posted by Harry:
Anything seen on tv or in a movie theater is canon.
Ok...roger that...
The Original Series...
The animated series...
The Motion Picture era..
The Next Generation series..
The Deep Space 9 series...
The Voyager series...
The "Enterprise" series....
...got it...
Posted by Harry:
Games, books, etc that are approved by us may be Trek, but they aren't canon.
Harry
Ok roger that too...
The novel series...
The comics series...
The Console game series...
The PC games...Including SFC1 , 2 , OP, and SFC3
So although its not considered canon...it IS considered Trek...
Thanks for the clarification!
:notworthy:
There is some ambiguity on the animated series if I recall correctly...not sure on that one.
The SFB board game is an entirely different ball of wax due to the issues surrounding it.
-
Hear Hear .I like all the games on an even scale.I like SFC2OP as much as I like SFC3 .There in one thing though that SFC2OP and prior are mere exagerations of Star Trek.They aren't canon as SF3 is.
SFC3 is hardly canon itself so stop claming that it is.
What is not canon in it?
I could say the entire rip off of the Mechwarrior line when it comes to configuring a ship for starters.
-
Hear Hear .I like all the games on an even scale.I like SFC2OP as much as I like SFC3 .There in one thing though that SFC2OP and prior are mere exagerations of Star Trek.They aren't canon as SF3 is.
SFC3 is hardly canon itself so stop claming that it is.
What is not canon in it?
The ships for one thing.
Look at the TNG tech manual (yes, I am this much of a geek). It clearly indicates the Galaxy class can fire 10 Photons forward and 10 Aft.
Can they do that in SFC3?
-
I also don't recall where Picard went into a starbase every week and redesigned his whole ship. "I want a smaller warp core this week, and let's move the forward photons to the back if you don't mind." Just didn't happen. ;)
Also, as far as canon goes, isn't it a phaser array on the dish on TV, so that the arc extends almost a full 360 (with the exception of straight behind), rather than the phaser banks that are represented in the SFC series?
-
I was referring to the weapons in general in SFC3. I never did see any drones used in Star Trek except one episode in TOS.This were Kirk told them to fire phasers at it and they were destroyed.The Klingons used disruptors instead of phasers and photons instead of disruptors as their heavy weapons.I never once seen them use drones.The same as the Romulans.
If they used drones then they would be far better off against the Borg or Breen.There wasn't much mentioned about Star Trek after TOS was canceled so ADB had to exaggerate what weapons were used.It wasn't untill the TMP that we saw the weapons they used and going into TNG.
I was not referring to the weapons in exact term only in generality in SFC3.I like the aspects of SFC3 but I like the visual affects and sound of SFC2 EAW&OP eg.the ships making noise when hit.It would be nice if the Federation ships made this noise.I hope you understand where I am coming from now and Harry feel free to shead some light on this.
-
Actually, I believe many have pointed out that the original schematics for the Klingon battle cruiser from TOS had missiles on it, that is where ADB got the missiles thing from they didn't just pull it out of thin air. I also believe that the Feringi have fired missiles/drones off on screen, haven't they? Plus there was mention of a very large missile thing that the Cardassians used, I believe.
I agree about the sound effects and visuals of the weapons. That was one of my bigger beefs, you just don't feel like you are doing much when you fire in SFC3. In the previous installments, you would let off a load and it sounded like you were unleashing a load on the guy, and his ship would light up, icons flashing and stuff. Much more satisfying for a gamer, imo.
-
:rofl: Cannon vs. non-cannon: This argument always cracks me up! The ST cannon is so convoluted that the "cannon" itself isn't stable. The other thing is that they are making movies and television shows, not designing battle fleets! This argument is silly on its face.
The other thing is that adhering to a cannon is like swimming with a boat anchor. To make a game out of the material from the big and small screens requires that you invent things the writers never dreamed of. I've never been fond of owners of an idea telling me what I can and cannot do after I bought the product.
I did have a radical idea: Could one make a game that would have a long shelf life? That is a game that would still be sold for $19.95 four years after it is introduced? Extending the return life would definitely offset production costs. SFC OP has a problem that it is not available any more. It is, and will be a classic.
ps. I mentioned Harpoon in an early post. I meant to point out the the board games are fairly similar, but the computer games couldn't be more different.
-
Actually, I believe many have pointed out that the original schematics for the Klingon battle cruiser from TOS had missiles on it, that is where ADB got the missiles thing from they didn't just pull it out of thin air. I also believe that the Feringi have fired missiles/drones off on screen, haven't they? Plus there was mention of a very large missile thing that the Cardassians used, I believe.
I agree about the sound effects and visuals of the weapons. That was one of my bigger beefs, you just don't feel like you are doing much when you fire in SFC3. In the previous installments, you would let off a load and it sounded like you were unleashing a load on the guy, and his ship would light up, icons flashing and stuff. Much more satisfying for a gamer, imo.
I believe that I heard it differntly on the Taldren boards about the K-D7 in which they said they just put some ideas out that it came with phasers,missiles and disruptors.This wasn't fact because no one knew what weapons were on a K-D7.This what someone said in the Taldren boards as I had a debate going on with someone.This someone was a SFB fan but didn't debate the ADB exaggerated it all up.That is why they can't use Star Trek on their boxes.
The thread still might be in this forum somewhere.If you tell which episodes those were I have friend who has all of Star Trek on tape to TOS to Voyager
PS I could not find the 2004 threads from this forum from Taldren's DB that is how my post count went up so high.I registered at Taldren2/14/04 and I made it to Commander with over 1100 posts. in that short time.
-
A cannon is not canon!
-
I believe that I heard it differntly on the Taldren boards about the K-D7 in which they said they just put some ideas out that it came with phasers,missiles and disruptors.This wasn't fact because no one knew what weapons were on a K-D7.This what someone said in the Taldren boards as I had a debate going on with someone.This someone was a SFB fan but didn't debate the ADB exaggerated it all up.That is why they can't use Star Trek on their boxes.
I don't know what was and wasn't said to you in your thread, but Emeral Edge was right about the schematics. The D7 was shown bristling with phasers, and carrying missiles.
Steve Cole looked at the schematics and wondered what to do with all those phasers, since they were never seen on the screen. He finally decided that since the Klingons carried missiles then probably someone else did too. He decided these phasers were lower power phasers of less use for long range sniping, but good at shooting down incoming missiles. Thus the phaser 2 was born.
But who was using all these missiles against the Klingons? The kzinti were in Trek, and he wanted another major race in his game, and no one knew what weapons the Kzinti used, and thus they became the missile boys at war with the Klinks.
The rest is history. (You can read this development story in the designers notes for SFB. The above isn't an exact quote, but it is close.)
-S'Cipio
-
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/episodes/VOY/detail/68886.html
A cardassian designed missile, reprogrammed to head back to Cardassia and detonate, but of course it goes awry and they just happen (gotta love that coincidence) to find it in the Delta Quadrant heading for a populated planet. If I have time I'll try and hunt down the episode where the Ferringi used missiles as well. This one was easy, because I remembered the name.
-
I believe that I heard it differntly on the Taldren boards about the K-D7 in which they said they just put some ideas out that it came with phasers,missiles and disruptors.This wasn't fact because no one knew what weapons were on a K-D7.This what someone said in the Taldren boards as I had a debate going on with someone.This someone was a SFB fan but didn't debate the ADB exaggerated it all up.That is why they can't use Star Trek on their boxes.
I don't know what was and wasn't said to you in your thread, but Emeral Edge was right about the schematics. The D7 was shown bristling with phasers, and carrying missiles.
Steve Cole looked at the schematics and wondered what to do with all those phasers, since they were never seen on the screen. He finally decided that since the Klingons carried missiles then probably someone else did too. He decided these phasers were lower power phasers of less use for long range sniping, but good at shooting down incoming missiles. Thus the phaser 2 was born.
But who was using all these missiles against the Klingons? The kzinti were in Trek, and he wanted another major race in his game, and no one knew what weapons the Kzinti used, and thus they became the missile boys at war with the Klinks.
The rest is history. (You can read this development story in the designers notes for SFB. The above isn't an exact quote, but it is close.)
-S'Cipio
Yep that is just Starfleet Battles not Star Trek.
-
Any 'refit' system should be limited to:
1) Loadout.
Stop over at a supply point, and refill your magazines of torpedoes or missiles. One day you might decide to dump your Mk. III torps and pick up Mk. IV torps instead. NO changing of the launcher itself, just the ammo.
This would be like the fighter resupply system in SFC. You don't change the fighter bay, just what you carry in the fighter bay.
2) Vessel Swap
You may NOT change the systems on the ship. You may only 'purchase' a predesigned vessel. Or, you can refit ships SFC3 style, but the refitting ship is unavailable for an extensive number of turns.
-
Ahhhh....the old canon arguement.
Here's a simple idea...
Forget about canon for trek games.
If this is going to be a "brave new world" for trek gaming, the new folks buying trek games wouldnt be worried about canon. It's the old time die hard trek gamers who worry about it.
-
Ahhhh....the old canon arguement.
Here's a simple idea...
Forget about canon for trek games.
If this is going to be a "brave new world" for trek gaming, the new folks buying trek games wouldnt be worried about canon. It's the old time die hard trek gamers who worry about it.
True,them and Paramount ;D
-
Ahhhh....the old canon arguement.
Here's a simple idea...
Forget about canon for trek games.
If this is going to be a "brave new world" for trek gaming, the new folks buying trek games wouldnt be worried about canon. It's the old time die hard trek gamers who worry about it.
I think that as long as a Star Trek product remains reasonably canon (the definition of 'reasonably' being open to debate) then the grand majority of us will be satisfied.
-
Ahhhh....the old canon arguement.
Here's a simple idea...
Forget about canon for trek games.
If this is going to be a "brave new world" for trek gaming, the new folks buying trek games wouldnt be worried about canon. It's the old time die hard trek gamers who worry about it.
I think that as long as a Star Trek product remains reasonably canon (the definition of 'reasonably' being open to debate) then the grand majority of us will be satisfied.
Just found this thread and must agree with the formentioned statement. Being reletively new to SFC etc. and finding hope that my childhood dream of flying in a world of J.T.Kirk and all was about the best thing ( gamewise) yet that I have found.
Harry , I have enjoyed allmost all the games that have been produced to date.The chance to be a part of Startrek is about the best thing I have found . The only way I could hope to be into "Trek" any deeper is a MMORPG that falls into "Earth&beyond" style , but yet has a "footsoldiers" perspective on it.
I eagerly await the next Trek game , and if it stinks , I will still wait for the eventual time that it is done right and gives most players what they are hopeing for .
I can only speak for myself here , but I do Hope Paramount will help their fans in getting the most bang for their buck , and in doing so , ensuring that Trek will live on for anouther 30+ years.
-
I say that if youre going to refit your ship, you have to stay in the stardock for a period of time. If that hex is attacked, you are dragged into the mission with your partially completed weapons... and you better hope for the best.
-
I say that if youre going to refit your ship, you have to stay in the stardock for a period of time. If that hex is attacked, you are dragged into the mission with your partially completed weapons... and you better hope for the best.
I don't agree. Even during WWII when we were in desperate need of ships, we didn't send damaged or untrained ships into combat. The ships where sent into combat when they were ready and with escorts.
I'd like to suggest that if the ship is being refitted that it is either not available if your hex is attacked or you get a "loaner". (I shudder to think what a "pool starship" would look like after driving some of the "pool cars" at work!)
Better still, there should be refit areas that are well behind the lines. Refits would not be possible along the border regions or the refits would be very minor. Major refits would require a larger shipyard.
-
This string has become silly. People are discussing tweeking SFC (I, II, OP, and III) into some kind of hybrid when there is no intication that anybody any where wants anything to do with creating any kind of SFC game.
Harry was here to get an idea of what fans on this forum wanted in a game, so that he would know what kind of pitch to listen to from game developers, and maybe, just maybe let them know what we cared for. After seeing this esoteric dribble, I would be surprised if he came back.
If this thread were to continue, the obvious question would be: What did Harry get from his visit to this forum?
-
you sure why harry was here tul? i wouldnt go putting words into his mouth.
and by the way, yes - there were examples of ships getting "refitted" or "thrown" into battle during just about every conflict. in ww2 just after pearl and before midway the lexington had severe battle damage from coral sea and was in dry dock. she was sent out to midway and had to make repairs during the trip.. there are other examples.. but that shouldnt be what this is about.
and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..
what is important is good game play which is based in a trek environment. at least that is what i believe.
-
Indy, I am saying if the starbase that the ship is being held in is under attack, the ship has no option but to go save the base. If he stays inside the base, and the base is destroyed, the ship is destroyed. The ship has to go out and defend the starbase, if he is in the base.
-
you sure why harry was here tul? i wouldnt go putting words into his mouth.
and by the way, yes - there were examples of ships getting "refitted" or "thrown" into battle during just about every conflict. in ww2 just after pearl and before midway the lexington had severe battle damage from coral sea and was in dry dock. she was sent out to midway and had to make repairs during the trip.. there are other examples.. but that shouldnt be what this is about.
and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..
what is important is good game play which is based in a trek environment. at least that is what i believe.
The Lexington was not being refitted. It was having battle damage repaired. I can't think of any ships in WW2 that were sent out to sea in the middle of a refit to fight a battle. Some were launched early, or had their design changed during construction. And refits were also often associated with role changes too.
Ooops, yes Yorktown. Stupid mistake.
-
Indy, I am saying if the starbase that the ship is being held in is under attack, the ship has no option but to go save the base. If he stays inside the base, and the base is destroyed, the ship is destroyed. The ship has to go out and defend the starbase, if he is in the base.
I would agree with a ship that is being repaired due to battle damage, but a refit should be done well behind the lines and the extent of the refit should determine availabilty. (New drone rack would not stop her from joining the battle, but upgrading photons to quantums would. The ship would be torn apart and in no condition to fight.)
-
you sure why harry was here tul? i wouldnt go putting words into his mouth.
and by the way, yes - there were examples of ships getting "refitted" or "thrown" into battle during just about every conflict. in ww2 just after pearl and before midway the lexington had severe battle damage from coral sea and was in dry dock. she was sent out to midway and had to make repairs during the trip.. there are other examples.. but that shouldnt be what this is about.
and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..
NannerSlug, the USS Lexington was sunk in the Coral Sea. You are thinking of the USS Yorktown. The Yorktown was not ungoing a refit at Pearl Harbor. She was having emergency repairs from damage suffered during the Coral Sea battle. The USS Saratoga was also sent to Midway AFTER her battle damage (a torpedo) was repaired and missed the battle.
I don't think any ships were sent into battle while they were being refitted, but some were sent into battle with damage partially repaired.
I would think ships with battle damage could be available on an emergency basis. Refits would not be.
what is important is good game play which is based in a trek environment. at least that is what i believe.
-
Have you guys noticed Harry hasnt stopped around for a while?
I wonder why.
-
Have you guys noticed Harry hasnt stopped around for a while?
I wonder why.
Because he said what he wanted to and got back to work (that thing that people do to earn money to pay bills)?
Also working tends to keep you from getting fired too.
-
ah... I thought that everyone annoyed him or something. Good thing that that is not the case. Thanks Cleaven :)
-
you sure why harry was here tul? i wouldnt go putting words into his mouth.
and by the way, yes - there were examples of ships getting "refitted" or "thrown" into battle during just about every conflict. in ww2 just after pearl and before midway the lexington had severe battle damage from coral sea and was in dry dock. she was sent out to midway and had to make repairs during the trip.. there are other examples.. but that shouldnt be what this is about.
and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..
what is important is good game play which is based in a trek environment. at least that is what i believe.
The Lexington was not being refitted. It was having battle damage repaired. I can't think of any ships in WW2 that were sent out to sea in the middle of a refit to fight a battle. Some were launched early, or had their design changed during construction. And refits were also often associated with role changes too.
Ooops, yes Yorktown. Stupid mistake.
Interesting discussion. I'm an ex navy logistic officer so this kind of thing gets my interest. Just to let you know how repair/refit is currently organized in the Navy there are three basic level:
1) Operational - Simple maintenance and repairs...
2) Intermediate - Repair of large complex components available in BIG ship like carrier done in-house...
3) Depot - The complete rebuilding or refit of a ship or weapon system (like an aircraft).
I would rather think that futuristic repair, upgrade and refit would not follow the curent naval or technological paradigm. One difference is that a shipyard in the future, based in space (the most logical place for refits), would most likely be able to be moved around.
So "location" in and of itself might not be a factor. Two other factors would probably remain somewhat similar or perhaps even constant and that would be availability of supply and protection of the facility. Raw materials would be no problem since there is plenty in space and in and around other celestial bodies but technological components would have to be shipped off planet or from base to base from behind the lines. A third factor would be advancements in industrial technology, metallurgy and the like. I could see how "transporter" technology could be converted to industrial uses. Whole sections of a hull could be transported in place, and melecularily bonded without welding. Weapons systems with pre specified "coordinates" could be swapped out rather quickly as part of a "kit" with little left to do but "O" level linkage, calibration and testing.
An offshoot to this might be the invention of industrial constructive transporters that would just need raw materials and compnent data to reproduce the needed technology WITHOUT going being "on planet" or coming from a specialized facility. This might be likely I think. You could have a transport "hold" a component's "pattern", millions of components, in memory for future use and use whatever is needed on the other end to reconstruct the component.
But I think I'll post my ideas elsewhere for I think we are getting off topic.
Anyway about Paramount all I can say is "wait and see". Trek games have a bad history and part of the problem is that Trek is not entirely science fiction, there is a certain amount of "canon" that goes into it. People make Trek games for pre-established audiences that have certain "expectations". These expectations aren't always met.
No doubt Harry's appearence is just a probe to find out what those expectations are.
Fine. But I can tell you what they really are and they will probably not be met because SFB/SFC/andTrek are legally blocked... So any effort to create a tatical and strategic game that features starships in combat might just crumble once more into "fan mining" and expectation exploitation. Paramount already showed us how they conceived such a game in SC3 and the reaction byu the community appears to have been ambivalent. Part of the problem with creating games as spinoffs from popular culture is that job one to the DEVs is to satisfy those expectations. Creativity, originality, and deapth sometimes, more often than not, take a back seat.
Anyway the best I can offer is "wait and see". If Harry was entry level just seven years ago perhaps he has some ideas that might surprise us, now that he has a some grass growing under his feet.
-
and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..
Define "a lot". SFC 3 did poor in sales cause of the micromanagement headache that SFC 2 and SFC 2 OP had a lot of the casual gamers thought that SFC 3 was still like that. There is a fine line between TREK games and TREK games which actully put off gamers from playing them. As you know, Vic isnt able to answer due to being in hospital and then going on a much needed holiday. Again, you need to step out of the world of SFC and look at the rest of trek gaming. Just seems that no matter what Vic says people in here will just tear it down anyway. Even while is is not able to answer.
-
I would say that he going to have to print this hole thread up to get some I deas but then agian he may go with his own and some from the community.
-
not speaking for harry (like some in this thread are).. but i think too many people are making too much of it. could it be that he is just droping by as an ur-ah?
anywho. i have it on good authority that while sfc3 didnt rock the world, it did do okay (especially in light of lack of support, it was RMA'd and the law suit) and more importantly, it made a tidy profit.
'nuff said.
also.. SFC3 had too much cut out of it. whether it was a lack of arcs, t-bombs, ships or variants - it was just too cut up. It did make several good strides, though, in UI simplification (thats different than dumbing down) like the passive sensor array and the indicator if you were out of range or if the weapon was cycling (among other things). I do realize that in the "grander gaming experience" that sfc1/2 and op were "complex" (one of the reasons why sfc2 dropped off significantly compared to sfc1).. but it had good, lasting game play - which is why sfc sales stayed constant instead of the release then dropped off the face of the earth like Bridge commander.
anywho.
game play rules. i cannot wait to see what is being developed. Bridge commander was VERY close.. but there were not enough ships, the phasers were under powered and you had Bird of preys projecting the same fire power as a sovy. excellent ideas, though. hope to see more.
-
and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..
Define "a lot". SFC 3 did poor in sales cause of the micromanagement headache that SFC 2 and SFC 2 OP had a lot of the casual gamers thought that SFC 3 was still like that. There is a fine line between TREK games and TREK games which actully put off gamers from playing them. As you know, Vic isnt able to answer due to being in hospital and then going on a much needed holiday. Again, you need to step out of the world of SFC and look at the rest of trek gaming. Just seems that no matter what Vic says people in here will just tear it down anyway. Even while is is not able to answer.
Hope Vic feels better...
On the other note...I have to disagree. People didn't buy SFC3 because of word of mouth...SFC 3 was boring. In OP, SFC, and SFC2, when you hit someone, you could tell a difference, or you had something else to keep your mind up. In SFC 3 many hits seemed to do very little if anything at all...and a lot of the fun of the game...just seemed to be missing.
Don't get me wrong...I loved SFC 3 as it was the closest to Star Trek combat that one could get for TNG (yes I liked Bridge Commander, but SFC 3 as far as ship combat blew BC away IMO). Bridge Commander was based on games like Klingon Academy, but most will agree (who played both games and actually got KA to work...which might be no small feat) that KA blew BC out of the water. BC was too limited on the number of ships (even fewer than SFC3!), and some of the shots were to hard to pull of as the angles for shooting sometimes were just...well odd...and a whole slew of other problems unique to BC. The big limiting factor of BC was the limited amount of ships.
A similar thing occurred with SFC 3, however, at least SFC 3 had the ability to customize your ship.
I think another thing that hurt SFC 3 was the limitation of races. They SHOULD have included Cardassians...and even more...instead of hoping for an expansion with the Dominion, they should have just tossed the Dominion in as a playable race...
I think NOT doing that hurt sales tremendously...ESPECIALLY given the timing...just shortly after DS9 had wound down...and all.
The big reason people might not have bought SFC3 (and I'm not sure of the sales so I couldn't say whether it sold well or not) was that it just wasn't as fun as some of the other games out.
SFC:OP was fun...SFC was fun. When I play a game I don't care how complex or simple it is...the biggest thing I think about is the fun factor...
SFC 3 was fun for me...but not as fun as the other SFC games overall...and could have been more fun than it was.
PS: On another note...once again...hope Vic is getting better, this time take him on that vacation, and don't let him near ANY stress (like the forums or anyplace else) until he's fully been relaxed...
-
Dash is right... SFC3 was just not as fun as its predessors... Kind of like Freelancer. It got routine... And it was way too hard to damage someone... If you got bopped with a photon in SFC2 on a downed shield, you would feel it... at the very least, if no hull damage was done, a couple systems would light up. In sfc3, if you hit 4 overloaded photons on an open hull, nothing happens.
-
and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..
Define "a lot". SFC 3 did poor in sales cause of the micromanagement headache that SFC 2 and SFC 2 OP had a lot of the casual gamers thought that SFC 3 was still like that. There is a fine line between TREK games and TREK games which actully put off gamers from playing them. As you know, Vic isnt able to answer due to being in hospital and then going on a much needed holiday. Again, you need to step out of the world of SFC and look at the rest of trek gaming. Just seems that no matter what Vic says people in here will just tear it down anyway. Even while is is not able to answer.
Hope Vic feels better...
On the other note...I have to disagree. People didn't buy SFC3 because of word of mouth...SFC 3 was boring. In OP, SFC, and SFC2, when you hit someone, you could tell a difference, or you had something else to keep your mind up. In SFC 3 many hits seemed to do very little if anything at all...and a lot of the fun of the game...just seemed to be missing.
Don't get me wrong...I loved SFC 3 as it was the closest to Star Trek combat that one could get for TNG (yes I liked Bridge Commander, but SFC 3 as far as ship combat blew BC away IMO). Bridge Commander was based on games like Klingon Academy, but most will agree (who played both games and actually got KA to work...which might be no small feat) that KA blew BC out of the water. BC was too limited on the number of ships (even fewer than SFC3!), and some of the shots were to hard to pull of as the angles for shooting sometimes were just...well odd...and a whole slew of other problems unique to BC. The big limiting factor of BC was the limited amount of ships.
A similar thing occurred with SFC 3, however, at least SFC 3 had the ability to customize your ship.
I think another thing that hurt SFC 3 was the limitation of races. They SHOULD have included Cardassians...and even more...instead of hoping for an expansion with the Dominion, they should have just tossed the Dominion in as a playable race...
I think NOT doing that hurt sales tremendously...ESPECIALLY given the timing...just shortly after DS9 had wound down...and all.
The big reason people might not have bought SFC3 (and I'm not sure of the sales so I couldn't say whether it sold well or not) was that it just wasn't as fun as some of the other games out.
SFC:OP was fun...SFC was fun. When I play a game I don't care how complex or simple it is...the biggest thing I think about is the fun factor...
SFC 3 was fun for me...but not as fun as the other SFC games overall...and could have been more fun than it was.
PS: On another note...once again...hope Vic is getting better, this time take him on that vacation, and don't let him near ANY stress (like the forums or anyplace else) until he's fully been relaxed...
Well one lesson that paramount or Viacom or whoever should learn is that there is no reason to dumb down a game if it requires you to do virtually nothing. People should be able to choose just as easily between 6 shields as they could four when thinking about reinforcement. Also using dumb ideas like "angular velcoity"...how seriously unlikely that THAT would put off a targeting supercomputer.
I just found it interesting that they would attempt to dumb down a game SO MUCH when their audience is by and large considered about average in most respects. It isn't exactly the Village Idiot who is attracted to Star trek.
Perhaps if they had found out from the people who bought SFC1 WHY they didn't buy SFC2 they might have had a better idea of what to change. But they just used a butchers knife IMHO.
-
Also using dumb ideas like "angular velcoity"...
just about as "dumb" as moving 6 dots in 2 different slots to get the same effect. angular velocity has at least common sense to it that a ship moving is a harder target than one sitting still. maybe it should have been delta v instead of just angular v as it once was aruged -but in my view it was a step forward.
sfc3 has some good merrits - but too much detail was left out.
-
Also using dumb ideas like "angular velcoity"...
just about as "dumb" as moving 6 dots in 2 different slots to get the same effect. angular velocity has at least common sense to it that a ship moving is a harder target than one sitting still. maybe it should have been delta v instead of just angular v as it once was aruged -but in my view it was a step forward.
sfc3 has some good merrits - but too much detail was left out.
No, if my Intel CPU can calculate AV, there is no way a 24th centrury targeting computer could not compensate for it.
-
Also using dumb ideas like "angular velcoity"...
just about as "dumb" as moving 6 dots in 2 different slots to get the same effect. angular velocity has at least common sense to it that a ship moving is a harder target than one sitting still. maybe it should have been delta v instead of just angular v as it once was aruged -but in my view it was a step forward.
sfc3 has some good merrits - but too much detail was left out.
Yes - ang vel is D-U-M-B. It is not common sense as anybody who has any practical exposure to targeting systems knows. The single worst part of the tactical game! And even to use delta vel would be a poor second to the EW abstraction, but it would be 100 times better than ang vel.
-
um, no.. matching 6 dots of "ew" is even less of a challenge for a computer than matching angular velocity. if you just went by ew - then you have a ship the size of a borg vessel (or space station) which could be missed by a photon at the range of 4 (or less in some cases).
calculating ship movment (or even changes in ship movment and size - things that sfc3 do) are improvments.
im sure you disagree. at that point, i think we just need to leave it at we agree to disagree.
-
um, no.. matching 6 dots of "ew" is even less of a challenge for a computer than matching angular velocity. if you just went by ew - then you have a ship the size of a borg vessel (or space station) which could be missed by a photon at the range of 4 (or less in some cases).
calculating ship movment (or even changes in ship movment and size - things that sfc3 do) are improvments.
im sure you disagree. at that point, i think we just need to leave it at we agree to disagree.
A range of 4 from SFB was 40,000 KM. It's pretty hard to see an object the size of a starship or even a space station at 40,000 KM even with sophisticated sensors. (Ever watched a shuttle docking with the space station live on NASA TV?....the station looks like a star until it's well within a mile.) It's even harder to get a lock on the target when those sensors are jammed. That's what EW from SFB is simulating and that's what SFC is simulating. It makes perfect sense.
AV has little effect on targeting accuracy with starships that are very far apart and moving slowly with respect to each other. AV makes sense if we're simulating small fighters in a close in dogfight, but that's not what SFC is about.
SFC is about combat at extreme distances. The model sizes and screen perspective don't really give you this long distance "feel" for practical reasons, but the SFB numbers being crunched by the computer game were designed to simulate combat over great distances. That's why AV makes little sense.
-
um, no.. matching 6 dots of "ew" is even less of a challenge for a computer than matching angular velocity. if you just went by ew - then you have a ship the size of a borg vessel (or space station) which could be missed by a photon at the range of 4 (or less in some cases).
calculating ship movment (or even changes in ship movment and size - things that sfc3 do) are improvments.
im sure you disagree. at that point, i think we just need to leave it at we agree to disagree.
Come on Nanner, it's not "matching the dots" it's allocating power. jamming and counter-jamming. The targeting computer can easily account for ECM if it has the power to do so, if not given the power it has to "guess," hence the attack shift.
Not sure if the size of a vessel would be an issue at the range in which SFC combat occurs. Does it really make a difference if a ships is 100 meters long or 1000 meters when chucking nuclear weapons at 80,000 KM?
-
um, no.. matching 6 dots of "ew" is even less of a challenge for a computer than matching angular velocity. if you just went by ew - then you have a ship the size of a borg vessel (or space station) which could be missed by a photon at the range of 4 (or less in some cases).
calculating ship movment (or even changes in ship movment and size - things that sfc3 do) are improvments.
im sure you disagree. at that point, i think we just need to leave it at we agree to disagree.
Hehe...nanner good friend. While your point is valid as far as it goes your rhetoric is flawed. It is usually considered a bit of a debating cheat. The object is to shut down the debate so no else can make a better point. Unfortunately as it occurs in most debates, one person cannot unilaterally shut down a debate simply because they perceive their opponent "disagrees".
Now to the point at hand and "as far as it goes".
Using angular velocity as a means of avoiding damage doesn't work in a futuristic game because 20th century technology could already cope with it. It's as if they were bringing in a concept from a WWII aviation tactics and passing it off as "Science Fiction". So how much easier should it be for a 24th or 25th century computer calculating in nano seconds against a human pilot?
Using angular velocity as a means of avoiding damage doesn't work in a "big ship" simulation because it breaks the paradigm of mega mass ships going at it in deep space. In SFCIII you feel less like a Captain then a Pilot of a small craft even though the ships wheel about like they were mega mass marvels. It is a conflicting effect. Any Flight simulators does a much better job using angular velocity and it seems to me that SFCIII was a "torn game" that could neither satisfy either genre. So you are right about angular velocity but about the wrong kind of game.
SFB/SFC despite it's attempt at "speculative realism" is still an abstract game. ECM is just one representation of that abstraction that creates a rather ingenious sub game. You should not assume that all that is "going on" is just simple math (even though that is what it is). These supercomputers are modulating against each other at a caclulus measured in "Nanner" seconds.(hehe)
The abstraction itself is interesting and REQUIRES attention; it is an abstraction of the kind of attention and awareness one might believe would be required of a Starship Captain attempting to defend his/her ship. And it is consistent with the game's basic premise. Turning a Starship Captain into a Fighter Pilot is not consistent with the games premise.
Any way the debate goes on. To keep it in context I think whoever controlled the creation of this effect was trying to "reach out" and attract younger and more careless audiences perhaps more likely to find a first person shooter or an arcade game engaging.
For what it is worth perhaps they can have two game settings on any future starship tactical games...am arcade setting and a tactical "advanced setting", with loads of sub games and complexity. I think that is doable but would a company like Harry's thinkit was worth the effort?
Don't get your hopes up. I have advised a "wait and see attitude". I am encouraged that Harry has come in here to tell us about these new initiative but he must by now KNOW what WE want, at least generally. Would they be willing to make such a game.
I still think our best hope for continueing our experience here is to take the OP code and revamp it.
-
I'm still around and reading the messages. Just been a little caught up in some things going on.... ;)
-
in the end die hard, its still matching dots. either you are matching the dots or you are not. its really not that hard of a concept to grasp - the only thing which makes it even valid in the computer sfc game is when people are too busy paying attention to combat that an em shift happens.. hence what i said about the computer being able to do it.
either way you can make a case where the computer can do the calculations. i simply believe that the size, speed and distance of the ship SHOULD matter when calcuating a firing solution - not just if the distance and dots are matched up.
(oh yeah, heya harry.. thanks for droping by. :))
-
Hey Nanner, you'll be glad to know i'm back. So you can now openly trash me with no worries about me being in hospital and the whole guilt trip thing.
LMAO ;D
-
I don't want to see ANY trash talk or accusations of it where none exists. I am serious. All such cases will cease and desist right now.
People ... behave yourselves.
-
RGR that Kortez.
Stephen
-
There isn't enough power on a ship to fly as fast as you want, arm all weapons, and simply match the dots on EW. Add to that the different arming cycles of weapons, and possible ship class and power curve differences. Whether you're fighting a droner, a plasma ship, or a carrier, etc. Now you have a situation that requires thought, planning, and tactics. After you've got all of that thought through, let's add EM to the equation, and whether or not your opponent is overloading or not. No "dots" on the UI to deal with all of these variables.
AV makes no difference in todays military, and it won't in the 23rd or 24th century either. All that matters now is the ability to "lock-on" to your target. When you hear that "tone in your headset" the fact that your enemy is at a 90 deg. angle to you is of no conciquence. You'd better have something to break/degrade their lock-on or start performong some pretty "erratic maneuvers".
-
nice example rob, but i am talking about the game - and it IS a matter of matching 6 dots. thats it.
does it involve power managment (in the game)? yes - but again, if you are wanting to use the same analogy of computers using this or that - then ask your self why there isnt a button to simply "match ew" as there would be with any ship in the future (or today's tech.. think wild weasel fighters).. and why does it take so much "energy" to do "ew."
Regarding power managment - thank you for bringing that out.. that is another good thing about sfc3 - in sfc3 i can allocate what i want where i want to do it. in sfc2, i cannot.
in sfc2 - every system screams for energy (And the impulse engines and warp drives are together - which is not cannon). the only way for power managment is to turn it off. now.. in sfc3, while it is not to my level of satisfaction, i can at least under power (or over power) weapons like i want to.
like trek cannon - impulse engines and warp drives are seperate. movment should be seperate from your warp core (which powers the ship).. i understand what you are trying to get at with movment and what not, but there are other ways to temper this. trust me, i know and am doing it with my mod.
the one thing that sfc3 could have done (again, more detail) - is to make individual hard points capable of mass restrictions.. that would give the game more tactical depth and more flavor for each vessel (and allowed for more variants)..
lastly, this is what i was talking about - we all have our differences of opinion. right or wrong - we are going to have to agree to disagree. its that simple.
i like the progressive and common sense direction sfc3 headed (and achieved to a degree - but fell short of keeping or adding in stuff) - you dont. its just a difference of opinion what type of game we all like to play..
-
I was just talking about EW vs. AV. I brought power management into it just to make the point that you do not just match the dots, that was all. The exact implementation (how much power it uses, etc) is how it is, as a matter of game balance. If it was real cheap, power wise, you would be able to match the dots and that would make it pretty useless. Wild weasels (I assume that you are talking about real military F4 wild weasels and F111E EW fighters, etc.) use a bunch of power to jam the enemy tracking systems. They don't tell you where they are so you can fly at a 90 deg. angle to them. Plus we're talking Starships, not fighters that juke around the sky. Another reason that I think AV is a bad concept for a Trek game.
This isn't SFC2 vs. SFC3. It's what should be in a new game. I would definately like to see more indepth power management too.
I'm not disagreeing with you just for the sake of it. If we are to have a new game that uses some sort of "hit modifier" AV isn't a very realistic way to do it. EW makes much more sense and that's why I'm mentioning it. Just my $.02. ;)
-
could i see EW in a game? sure, but again, for me - it makes common sense that the size of the ship, speed of the ship (or even the change in speed) need to also be figured into the equation.
so maybe we are debating a false dicotomy? why not have both? but i think there need to be changes in both. if ew can be figured out besides just matching dots into somthing real - like even real ew - then maybe we can have a discussion.. (real ew involves various things im sure you know - like false radar images and things of that nature)
but i believe that it would be beneficial that the size and speed of the vessel must figure into the firing solution. it must even in todays computers.. but here is another thing - today's computers (even in a computer game) can mute both.
-
Just to throw my $0.02Cdn in, and since we're talking about a new game (boy it's good ta see ya Harry!) my take would be a bit of both and a bit of neither.
If we're talking about future computer-based targetting systems (as dave leaps into unreality for a moment) I'd assume we're balancing two things: detecting/targetting the opponent while preventing them from getting a good shot at you. So, perhaps the following:
(1) each type of ship has basic detection and evasion properties (not the best use of terminology, but ya get my drift) ,
these could be customized to a limited extent in dock by the acquisition of better hardware, software, and crew
(2) during combat, the energy signature and specific actions of the ship also make it easier/more difficult to target -- actively boosting your own targetting systems also makes you easier to target, as does firing weapons, the amount of power you have shoved into the shields would make you more/less visibile, the amount of impulse power you're throwing out, etc etc.
As a captain, you're deciding what actions to take for a better lock on the enemy vs what kind of a target that will make you - I'd assume the computers are taking into account everything they can otherwise - with the added catch that of course you really don't know how good the other fella's systems/crew are.
The number and extent of the influencing factors is pretty much up for grabs, I wouldn't want to be the one writing the rule set on how all the different systems should interact tho ;D
Anyway, hope that made sense (been a long day!)
dave
-
um, no.. matching 6 dots of "ew" is even less of a challenge for a computer than matching angular velocity. if you just went by ew - then you have a ship the size of a borg vessel (or space station) which could be missed by a photon at the range of 4 (or less in some cases).
calculating ship movment (or even changes in ship movment and size - things that sfc3 do) are improvments.
im sure you disagree. at that point, i think we just need to leave it at we agree to disagree.
Ummm no, the computer would have to decide what to take the power away from in order to raise the power going to the EW. Now that is a challenge. Your battle computer would have to be fully aware of your tactical plan to make sure it didn't take the power away form a system critical for your next attack. Of course how could an SFC3 computer get it wrong, it only has three sliders to play with, hardly a challenge for even a current day PC.
To force tactics to degenerate into a "get on his tail" situation is abysmal, not an improvement. So given that Ang Vel is dumb, forcing it into the centre of SFC tactics is mind boggling.
Even just to use a simple factor based on size would have been good, but it is totally ruined by and tactical misery of Ang Vel. Perhaps you would be better off making a WW1 mod, Snoopy Vs the Red Baron where Ang Vel was indeed a critical factor, but in the 24th Century?
At least there could have been an EW on/off switch. It would be on par with the misery imposed by three sliders anyway.
-
could i see EW in a game? sure, but again, for me - it makes common sense that the size of the ship, speed of the ship (or even the change in speed) need to also be figured into the equation.
so maybe we are debating a false dicotomy? why not have both? but i think there need to be changes in both. if ew can be figured out besides just matching dots into somthing real - like even real ew - then maybe we can have a discussion.. (real ew involves various things im sure you know - like false radar images and things of that nature)
but i believe that it would be beneficial that the size and speed of the vessel must figure into the firing solution. it must even in todays computers.. but here is another thing - today's computers (even in a computer game) can mute both.
I kinda get Nanner's point now. The EW system from SFB is kinda "simple" in it's effect, it had to be as a board game. Emulating a "real" EW system could be more easily done in a PC game as the calculation don't need to be done by people.
Thinking about it, 6 points of point is a LOT of energy, 50% more than what is needed to re-inforce a shield to absorb the hit of a Nuclear weapon. The is a heck of a lot of power for jamming/counter-jamming.
Using the scale and speeds of SFB, even under sub-light system of SFC, I'm still not convince the size and speed of a target would be that much of a factor. Range 8 is 80,000 KM, all ships would appear like a spec of dust at that range.
Again, nothing wrong with a game NOT being based on SFB, I just don't like the "half-assedness" that you get when you use part of the SFB ruleset. A new game should either totally embrace SFB or totally abandon it.
-
exactly DH. with the computer EW can become a lot more imaginative.. thanks. :D
-
exactly DH. with the computer EW can become a lot more imaginative.. thanks. :D
Curiously enough, as soon as i post something sort-of agreeing with Nanner, I loose 2 points af karma ;D
-
Curiously enough, as soon as i post something sort-of agreeing with Nanner, I loose 2 points af karma ;D
Oh, that didn't have anything to do with Nanner. That's just when my 12-hour clock for assigning karma rolled over, both on my real account and on my "bash Die Hard" account.
.
.
.
.
JUST KIDDING!
-S'Cipio
-
nice example rob, but i am talking about the game - and it IS a matter of matching 6 dots. thats it.
does it involve power managment (in the game)? yes - but again, if you are wanting to use the same analogy of computers using this or that - then ask your self why there isnt a button to simply "match ew" as there would be with any ship in the future (or today's tech.. think wild weasel fighters).. and why does it take so much "energy" to do "ew."
Regarding power managment - thank you for bringing that out.. that is another good thing about sfc3 - in sfc3 i can allocate what i want where i want to do it. in sfc2, i cannot.
in sfc2 - every system screams for energy (And the impulse engines and warp drives are together - which is not cannon). the only way for power managment is to turn it off. now.. in sfc3, while it is not to my level of satisfaction, i can at least under power (or over power) weapons like i want to.
like trek cannon - impulse engines and warp drives are seperate. movment should be seperate from your warp core (which powers the ship).. i understand what you are trying to get at with movment and what not, but there are other ways to temper this. trust me, i know and am doing it with my mod.
the one thing that sfc3 could have done (again, more detail) - is to make individual hard points capable of mass restrictions.. that would give the game more tactical depth and more flavor for each vessel (and allowed for more variants)..
lastly, this is what i was talking about - we all have our differences of opinion. right or wrong - we are going to have to agree to disagree. its that simple.
i like the progressive and common sense direction sfc3 headed (and achieved to a degree - but fell short of keeping or adding in stuff) - you dont. its just a difference of opinion what type of game we all like to play..
Limme see...
Ship X uses 6 point of ECM and gets a shift of 2
Ship Y counters with 1 point of ECM and 3 points of ECCM and now has shift 1 to 1 plus 2 more point of power
then Ship X counters by going ECM 4 and evens up the subgame
Ship Y goes on attack run and feints to range 9. He locks in his energy priorties, slows lsightly, he changeshis setting to 1ECM,1ECCM
Ship X fearing an overrun or a knife fight fires a number of his phasers and damages YUs shield slightly; is satisfied when he sees Ship Y veer off but he blunders
Ship Y notices ships Xs ECM dropping...musta forgot to shut down his capacitor. At range 10 he decides to have another go but this time X has no ECM and Y has shifted to 1 point of ECM and put the rest to his slightly damaged shield...another phaser exchange ensues but ship Y is at shift 1 and ship X is at shift 0 when they enage at range 7, fires his phasers and does excellent damage to player Xs shields... Ship X attempts to make it up by firing one of his heavy weaps and misses...
yup yup yup...it's all just connecting the dots...nuthin to it....
Ship X
-
yes it is that simple rondo.. especially if a "computer" was keeping track of ew.
-
Curiously enough, as soon as i post something sort-of agreeing with Nanner, I loose 2 points af karma ;D
Oh, that didn't have anything to do with Nanner. That's just when my 12-hour clock for assigning karma rolled over, both on my real account and on my "bash Die Hard" account.
.
.
.
.
JUST KIDDING!
-S'Cipio
it has dropped YET again
-
yes it is that simple rondo.. especially if a "computer" was keeping track of ew.
Sure Nanner and at some point one could speculate that a computer could keep track of just about everything. Your argument that degenerates so badly it devolves into there being no reason to abstract the game at all other than to fly around in space and see pretty lights. Let a compter decide on weapons, let a computer decide on direcion, let a computer allocate energy, let a compiuter allocate whatever and tec...after all Big Blue beat it's first GrandMaster a few years back.
But using your own supposition there is nothing special about SFC3. As I have already pointed out it fails as an abstraction because it has the Starship Captains will commanding mega mass ships like they where flying a jet and that technology 500 years from now would suddenly be incapable of handling angular velocity. As a ,matter of fact I seriously doubt the ship behaviors in SFC3 will be anything like what a real starship, if it there ever is a real starship, would be. Heck the whole idea of manned spaceflight is already at this point debatable, therefore everything in SFC3 could also be handled by a computer; your point brings out nothing new. And as you say...it's a matter of preference. Some people like to play chess and I guess some people like to play checkers.
Which is why I have suggested that any future tactical game mght be advised to have two settings...one for the chess player and one for the checkers player in all of us.
It's not an either / or argument actually.
-
Dear me, is this yet another SFC2 v 3 discussion? (They seem to follow Nanner around :P)
-
Curiously enough, as soon as i post something sort-of agreeing with Nanner, I loose 2 points af karma ;D
Oh, that didn't have anything to do with Nanner. That's just when my 12-hour clock for assigning karma rolled over, both on my real account and on my "bash Die Hard" account.
.
.
.
.
JUST KIDDING!
-S'Cipio
it has dropped YET again
I'm not doing it! Honest!
Here, I'll give you a positive point, just to make you feel better.
-S'Cipio
-
yes it is that simple rondo.. especially if a "computer" was keeping track of ew.
Sure a computer can keep track of it and flash little lights up on the screen, but please explain how the computer decides where to take the power from to meet the EW setting, when to take the power, and when to relinquish it for another system. If you can describe how the "computer" deals with the EW problem, and not merely tracking it, then you may have a justification. Until you can do that your arguement is meaningless because "tracking" is meaningless in the tactical power battle.
-
Dear me, is this yet another SFC2 v 3 discussion? (They seem to follow Nanner around :P)
heh or perhaps he follows it around...
I'd love to get the sales figures on SFC, SFC2, SFC OP and SFC3...as an aside...
-
Just to join in the fun technical flaming, did anyone hear about the critique of the patriot missile defense system?
It may be true that someone's intel can compute AV. If we're struck with imaginary missiles, we'll be fine. Real SCUDs in the first war, however, did not appear to be particularly bothered, as it was claimed by the report that practically all SCUDs managed to release their payloads on a target.
That a modern battle computer can compute a missile trajectory in theory is true. However, the critique does spread some doubt on my conscience as to whether we can predict proper AV in real life.
Can we do it two hundred years from now? Perhaps, but the technology making missiles will have also progressed two hundred years. So far, it seems that a cobbled together ground to ground missile was able to outdo the smartest interceptor missile the US had in stock. It's all just guessing what tomorrow will be like.
As to distance being 10'000km or m or whatever, I've already tested and proved this can't possibly be the case unless every ship is several hundred kilometers long.
As to EW being a difference in how much power is going to the computers, let me ask this; If you could magically plug in your computer twice and give it twice as much power, do you, even in this magic double plug land, get twice as much computer power, or just a burning smell? Let's say there are extra computers then, if you want to argue that; When does one computer use more power than a matter-energy teleporter? When does a computer have so much power running through it, a ship-to-ship sized phaser turret could be powered off its requirements? However nicely this explains why consoles always explode in combat, it's not terribly realistic from what we know of as reality today.
The moral here is stop trying to make reality arguments in a game that is so detached from reality, it's... well, Star Trek.
-
Let's also take into account that this is Trek. The EW cost, imo, isn't just for the power costs of computing but also for deploying the appropriate countermeasure. In Trek, that is very often routing amounts of power through main sensor array. We've seen in Trek that the sensor array does a whole lot of amazing things and can sap quite a bit of power through it. That is what I personally think about when I think of Electronic Warfare in Star Trek. I think of ensign so and so sitting at his console saying "Captain, if I can route power through x,y, and z I can cause a sensor ghost, blah, blah, blah". There would likely be a wide array of techniques to trick the enemy computer (and since the computer is being tricked it may not know it's doing something wrong and counter) thus it would likely be a manned station for EW during combat situations, so they could evaluate what the actual outcome of weapons fire is and calculate the appropriate countermeasures (very Trek thing to do). Once again, that is my opinion.
-
As to EW being a difference in how much power is going to the computers, let me ask this; If you could magically plug in your computer twice and give it twice as much power, do you, even in this magic double plug land, get twice as much computer power, or just a burning smell? Let's say there are extra computers then, if you want to argue that; When does one computer use more power than a matter-energy teleporter? When does a computer have so much power running through it, a ship-to-ship sized phaser turret could be powered off its requirements? However nicely this explains why consoles always explode in combat, it's not terribly realistic from what we know of as reality today.
You seriously believe that is what the power is being used for don't you? Not just a bit of sarcasm where you forgot the smiley, but genuine, down to earth, packed with nutritious goodness, serious commentary on how EW works? I can't imagine what you must think happens when you put your foot down on a car's accelerator pedal.
-
Woooohhhhh. This went OTT from the posters intent (me). ;)
Did y'all scare Harry away with techno babble?
<S>
WaterTiger
-
As to EW being a difference in how much power is going to the computers, let me ask this; If you could magically plug in your computer twice and give it twice as much power, do you, even in this magic double plug land, get twice as much computer power, or just a burning smell? Let's say there are extra computers then, if you want to argue that; When does one computer use more power than a matter-energy teleporter? When does a computer have so much power running through it, a ship-to-ship sized phaser turret could be powered off its requirements? However nicely this explains why consoles always explode in combat, it's not terribly realistic from what we know of as reality today.
You seriously believe that is what the power is being used for don't you? Not just a bit of sarcasm where you forgot the smiley, but genuine, down to earth, packed with nutritious goodness, serious commentary on how EW works? I can't imagine what you must think happens when you put your foot down on a car's accelerator pedal.
it's the push on the pedal that provides the energy to make the car go forward; This is why if you push on the pedal repeatedly, you get a bumpier ride, because the engine has more energy from your foot than it can handle at a time.
Look, I can go on all day about why EW in Starfleet Command is not realistic, and you can go on all day telling me it is, and that i'm wrong in clever and sarcastic posts.
If you smack a pair jigsaw puzzle pieces enough with Homer Simpson's Powered Hammer, they will eventually fit together. If you rip off the stickers on a rubex cube, you can solve that puzzle as well. Though they now make rubex cubes with coloured plastic, but you can solve that too, with a screwdriver.
The fact is EW looks fishy because it is fishy. Every ship magically has twelve boxes of which only six can be powered, despite there being technological gaps between the races in their sophistication. Oh, they go to sensors (thattakeupasmuchpowerasanenergyweaponthatfiresouttotensofthousandsof'kilometers') or to other systems anyone can conviently pull out of their ass for this particular occasion. Oh, it really is ten thousand kilometers per unit, you're just seeing a computer enhanced scaled up image. Right.
Truth is, Nanner's right; EW is just a little minigame that requires us to match up a series of boxes as best we can. Nanner may even be right about AV. I never did understand why so many people can take a game that comes from a board game that's based of some sort of sophisticated pen-and-paper battleship and then try to fob this off in some manner, as realistic.
Not that reality is any less screwed, but hey.
-
You were talking about real EW, with your scud references. What changed your mind?
As for Nannerslug being right about AV, which right do you mean? That it is a bad idea compared to other ways of adding negative modifiers for targetting? Correct.
Does EW have to be represented by 6 boxes? Of course not, how sillly to think so in the TNG land of three sliders. It should be blindingly obvious to even the slowest out there that you should use an EW slider, with no feedback indicator to show just how much power is being put into spatial distortion fields or expanding the scanner relay field charge or whatever. It would even be possible to use the slider to undercharge the sensor array so that you could accidently target allies (oops). Or even more basic, since some like it that way, just have an EW on/off switch, just like EM.
So don't get wrapped up in those six EW units because it's a sad cop out on what could have been a lot better than Snoopy Vs The Red Baron.
-
As to distance being 10'000km or m or whatever, I've already tested and proved this can't possibly be the case unless every ship is several hundred kilometers long.
This is black-letter SFB, which SFC1, EAW and OP are based off of. Range 8 is 80,000 KM, range 1 is 10,000 KM. There is no debating this.
Check trek cannon sources. The range of a Photon in Kirk's time is 300,000 KM (30 in OP) and 4,000,000 KM in thre TNG era. When you consider how fast impluse speed is, ships would never get much closer.
Range of a Transporter in cannan Trek is 40,000 KM. How far can you lon a T-Bomb in OP?
The ships are NOT drawn to scale, can you imagine how silly the game would be if they were?
-
As to distance being 10'000km or m or whatever, I've already tested and proved this can't possibly be the case unless every ship is several hundred kilometers long.
This is black-letter SFB, which SFC1, EAW and OP are based off of. Range 8 is 80,000 KM, range 1 is 10,000 KM. There is no debating this.
Check trek cannon sources. The range of a Photon in Kirk's time is 300,000 KM (30 in OP) and 4,000,000 KM in thre TNG era. When you consider how fast impluse speed is, ships would never get much closer.
Range of a Transporter in cannan Trek is 40,000 KM. How far can you lon a T-Bomb in OP?
The ships are NOT drawn to scale, can you imagine how silly the game would be if they were?
Exactly correct.
As for the scale comment.....even the board game is way off scale. If the game were to scale and we kept the same ship counter size.....we'd have a hex board "miles" wide. ;D
-
I'm still around and reading the messages. Just been a little caught up in some things going on.... ;)
Woooohhhhh. This went OTT from the posters intent (me). ;)
Did y'all scare Harry away with techno babble?
<S>
WaterTiger
It doesn't appear so. ::)
-
Woooohhhhh. This went OTT from the posters intent (me). ;)
Did y'all scare Harry away with techno babble?
<S>
WaterTiger
I've been reading this thread, and my head hurts...
-
Woooohhhhh. This went OTT from the posters intent (me). ;)
Did y'all scare Harry away with techno babble?
<S>
WaterTiger
[Well Harry we seem to have simo-posted. My suggestion is take two aspirin then skip to the last line of this response and share some thoughts on that. I would be interested in your answer]
I think Harry might be wise to keep reading this thread along with all the other things he is about. Of course he could always buy Erik's book and find out how to make a game. (hehe) As a matter of fact I would do both and much more.
One of the prevailing ideas I see popping up from time to time is the idea that SFC1 was a "hit" and SFC2 sold many less copies because, as the assumption goes, SFC1 was two complex and turned off potential buyers coming back for seconds.
This subsumes of course that people that do want a rich tactical game are either a) a shrinking population and or b) a static population of gamers with potentially less buying power than the first person shooter or arcade style of gaming. AND that such a population is not going to grow or be important enough to take into account.
I am in total assumption mode when I say that Harry must or might believe that there is a market for in depth tactical gaming if he comes to a sight like this. And despite the occasional "nanner-diversion" to the contrary, I believe that is what this community is about. However Nanner and the other other SFC3 enthusiasts might actually think they are advocating in-depth tactical gaming as well, so our disagreement might be a matter of degrees, therefore putting us all in agreement but factionalized about certain things.
But the one idea I would like to see nailed down is why SFC2 didn't do as well as SFC1. I am simply not persuaded that people did not buy SFC2 because they found SFC1 concept too complex and unplayable. One thing that stands out in my mind is Interplay?s failure to provide a demo pre-release of the game. They may have been other marketing errors and blunders as well. The bugged out code and damage caused by a game that was in actuality falsely advertised (to what extent they advertised it at all considering they must have known they would be at risk) may have been big contributors.
I do not have answers only questions. But I do think reaching conclusions on assumptions that lack empirical waypoints may simply misdirect us.
Something possessed over 400,000 gamers to buy a game like this six years ago. Can they be possessed to do so again?
-
your right rondo, somthing did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked! bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadnt had so few ships and a few mulitplayer issues..
the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.
-
Hmmm Rondo...there was an SFC2 demo...here's a link to Chris jones mod's for it...
The first mod is dated oct 2000...
http://sfc.strategy-gaming.com/chrisjonesmods/sfc2mod.shtml
-
your right rondo, somthing did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked!
Damn...I could have sworn SFC1 had "Based Starfleet battles" right on the front of the box...*looks*.....yep...its still there...
bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadnt had so few ships and a few mulitplayer issues..
Or the fact that game play sucked...
the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.
But...but...but...you allready said this :
Posted by nanner:
but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time
I'm confused....
SFC1/EAW/OP are ALL based on SFB....
but you say: SFB is NOT trek...
So if SFC1/EAW/OP are BASED on SFB...and SFB is NOT trek....then SFC1/EAW/OP are not trek either....
So how could people have bought ANY of the first 3 games because of it being Trek...which you say it's not...
:-\
And as of late...I've seen this paraded out:
Posted by nanner:
SFC3 had too much cut out of it. whether it was a lack of arcs, t-bombs, ships or variants - it was just too cut up.
And
sfc3 has some good merrits - but too much detail was left out.
But...the ONLY thing NOT in SFC3 is the bulk of SFB content...the "detail"....
So how could it have "too much cut out"????? and yet be "superior" the SFC1,2, and OP???????
And what do you expect when you rip the soul out of a game (SFB) and replace it with....with...TREK?
:-\
And I really LOVE this comment:
Posted by Nanner:
I do realize that in the "grander gaming experience" that sfc1/2 and op were "complex" (one of the reasons why sfc2 dropped off significantly compared to sfc1).. but it had good, lasting game play - which is why sfc sales stayed constant instead of the release then dropped off the face of the earth like Bridge commander.
*shakes head*
HUH?
We allready KNOW that the DV debacle is what scared ALOT of people away from SFC2...and that OP being a stand alone "expansion" drove even more people off of OP sales...
But you're now trying to revise reality....in claiming that "complexity" drove off buyers...and at the same time wanting MORE complexity( or content) in SFC3....
by your logic....SFC3 should have outsold ALL previous versions...IIRC...you made the claim that SFC3 would be an even BIGGER success because it would be unfettered by the outdated anchor of SFB content...it would appeal to even MORE people(trek fans).....and poopooed the rest of us who predicted SFC3 wouldnt do as well due to a lack of content...
So I ask you this simple question.....is SFC trek?...or not?
Choose wisely. :skeptic:
-
But the one idea I would like to see nailed down is why SFC2 didn't do as well as SFC1. I am simply not persuaded that people did not buy SFC2 because they found SFC1 concept too complex and unplayable.
There is a general rule that sequels don't do as well as originals. However, I think this is usually the fault of the sequel simply trying to be a "redo" of an idea that's already been done without adding enough to be a truly fresh product. If you've already got the original, why do you need the copy?
SFC2 seemed prepared to break this genral rule. The D2 was a fantastic addition and made SFC2 a fresh and distinct product from SFC1. The problem was....... it didn't work.
I bought SFC2 before it went on the store shelves -- I actually made the stock boy go in the back and open a crate to get it for me -- without reading any reviews. But when I found that the D2 didn't work, the box sat on my shelf and gathered dust for several months.
Without the D2, SFC2 didn't really have anythng new to add to the game. Two new races and some nifty new sparkly lights, but that's hardly enough to make it *new*, and I already knew from SFB that the two new races weren't really ones I wanted to spend that much time playing. I'd already *done* single player campaigns. I'd already done mplay. I could still do both in the old game. I could still get online with my old SFB friends and play with SFC1. What was in this new box to get me excited? This made SFC2 an expansion rather than a sequel, which is fine!, but expansions never sell as well as new product.
When the D2 got sorted out I came back to SFC2 and became a fanatic until the present. However, I imagine many others didn't buy at first because the game didn't work as advertised. Unlike me, they didn't buy a non-working copy and leave it on the shelf until it worked. Their "purchase moment" passed and they simply never came back.
The same thing happened with OP. Nothing new was added to the game except a few weapons and more racial slots. These things were greatly appreciated by me, but they don't fundamentally expand the game. The D2 was exactly the same as the old D2, except it had even more bugs and a pirate layer that *still* doesn't really work. (Though it is infinitely better now than it was, for which I am grateful.) This made OP and expansion rather than a sequel, which is fine!, but expansions will never sell as many copies as new games.
I still hope for SFC4. (You know, someday.....). However I hope it goes much further than simply adding Andros and Tholians. It needs to increase the ability of the admin to control production ques in his dyna, edit his database, edit his D2 mission pack, affect economy and alliances through player actions, and add new funcionality like scouts, variable overlaoads, mix and match drones, and supply raids.
Oh, yes, and single internals. ;)
The fact that it needs to remain faithful to SFB goes without saying!
But I'd still like to see actual figures for sales, excluding the copies of SFC1 that were given away for free with a purchase of SFC2. Once working, SFC2 is a vastly better game than SFC1.
-S'Cipio
-
But the one idea I would like to see nailed down is why SFC2 didn't do as well as SFC1. I am simply not persuaded that people did not buy SFC2 because they found SFC1 concept too complex and unplayable.
There is a general rule that sequels don't do as well as originals. However, I think this is usually the fault of the sequel simply trying to be a "redo" of an idea that's already been done without adding enough to be a truly fresh product. If you've already got the original, why do you need the copy?
SFC2 seemed prepared to break this genral rule. The D2 was a fantastic addition and made SFC2 a fresh and distinct product from SFC1. The problem was....... it didn't work.
I bought SFC2 before it went on the store shelves -- I actually made the stock boy go in the back and open a crate to get it for me -- without reading any reviews. But when I found that the D2 didn't work, the box sat on my shelf and gathered dust for several months.
Without the D2, SFC2 didn't really have anythng new to add to the game. Two new races and some nifty new sparkly lights, but that's hardly enough to make it *new*, and I already knew from SFB that the two new races weren't really ones I wanted to spend that much time playing. I'd already *done* single player campaigns. I'd already done mplay. I could still do both in the old game. I could still get online with my old SFB friends and play with SFC1. What was in this new box to get me excited? This made SFC2 an expansion rather than a sequel, which is fine!, but expansions never sell as well as new product.
When the D2 got sorted out I came back to SFC2 and became a fanatic until the present. However, I imagine many others didn't buy at first because the game didn't work as advertised. Unlike me, they didn't buy a non-working copy and leave it on the shelf until it worked. Their "purchase moment" passed and they simply never came back.
The same thing happened with OP. Nothing new was added to the game except a few weapons and more racial slots. These things were greatly appreciated by me, but they don't fundamentally expand the game. The D2 was exactly the same as the old D2, except it had even more bugs and a pirate layer that *still* doesn't really work. (Though it is infinitely better now than it was, for which I am grateful.) This made OP and expansion rather than a sequel, which is fine!, but expansions will never sell as many copies as new games.
I still hope for SFC4. (You know, someday.....). However I hope it goes much further than simply adding Andros and Tholians. It needs to increase the ability of the admin to control production ques in his dyna, edit his database, edit his D2 mission pack, affect economy and alliances through player actions, and add new funcionality like scouts, variable overlaoads, mix and match drones, and supply raids.
Oh, yes, and single internals. ;)
The fact that it needs to remain faithful to SFB goes without saying!
But I'd still like to see actual figures for sales, excluding the copies of SFC1 that were given away for free with a purchase of SFC2. Once working, SFC2 is a vastly better game than SFC1.
-S'Cipio
"Oh, yes, and single internals."
Darn and you were doing so well.
(Scanning back through ancient saurian memories of forums past and realizing we risk another admonition from Watertiger (and he another -10 in karma) about staying on topic).
(taking a deep breath): uh I think they tried single internals but the game was "too fast". What I mean is that single internals left little room for error in a turn based game it worked but in a real time context not so...unless you played at speed 3, it didn't. The original SFC had double shields and double intenals but they found they could make the shields normal and to specs.
(closes eyes and prays and waits for Scipio reply: "Nah, you Gorns are just inernals hogs. SFB had it right.")
Translation for Harry: Internals pretty much translate to how much damage a ship can take.
-
Hmmm Rondo...there was an SFC2 demo...here's a link to Chris jones mod's for it...
The first mod is dated oct 2000...
[url]http://sfc.strategy-gaming.com/chrisjonesmods/sfc2mod.shtml[/url]
Hey Crim we both been on this gig since nearly the beginning but I don't remember the demo being out. But I may be having a "senior" moment.
-
I would Agree...single internals would just make for too short a game with no chance of recovery in a pitched battle...
Just like double shields made for TOO long a game with little chance of beating an experienced player outright...
The biggest sticker IMHO was too many spares for repairs...which has been pretty much taken care of...
-
(closes eyes and prays and waits for Scipio reply: "Nah, you Gorns are just inernals hogs. SFB had it right.")
Hey! I am Gorn!
I know the designers decided single internals and shields made the game go "too fast"; I just happen to think they were wrong. ;) After the hue and cry over doube internals and double shields, it was learned that shields could be made singe-strenght with a simple shiplist edit. Single internals, however, require some real code work. So we got the shields.
I still think that double internals cause more game-balance problems with heavy-crunch weapons than it solves in regards to gameplay. I've also played with shiplists that come as close as they can to single internals, and find them fun.
I'd love to be able to fly a campaign with single internals and find out if I'm right.
-S'Cipio
-
But the one idea I would like to see nailed down is why SFC2 didn't do as well as SFC1. I am simply not persuaded that people did not buy SFC2 because they found SFC1 concept too complex and unplayable.
There is a general rule that sequels don't do as well as originals. However, I think this is usually the fault of the sequel simply trying to be a "redo" of an idea that's already been done without adding enough to be a truly fresh product. If you've already got the original, why do you need the copy?
SFC2 seemed prepared to break this genral rule. The D2 was a fantastic addition and made SFC2 a fresh and distinct product from SFC1. The problem was....... it didn't work.
I bought SFC2 before it went on the store shelves -- I actually made the stock boy go in the back and open a crate to get it for me -- without reading any reviews. But when I found that the D2 didn't work, the box sat on my shelf and gathered dust for several months.
Without the D2, SFC2 didn't really have anythng new to add to the game. Two new races and some nifty new sparkly lights, but that's hardly enough to make it *new*, and I already knew from SFB that the two new races weren't really ones I wanted to spend that much time playing. I'd already *done* single player campaigns. I'd already done mplay. I could still do both in the old game. I could still get online with my old SFB friends and play with SFC1. What was in this new box to get me excited? This made SFC2 an expansion rather than a sequel, which is fine!, but expansions never sell as well as new product.
When the D2 got sorted out I came back to SFC2 and became a fanatic until the present. However, I imagine many others didn't buy at first because the game didn't work as advertised. Unlike me, they didn't buy a non-working copy and leave it on the shelf until it worked. Their "purchase moment" passed and they simply never came back.
The same thing happened with OP. Nothing new was added to the game except a few weapons and more racial slots. These things were greatly appreciated by me, but they don't fundamentally expand the game. The D2 was exactly the same as the old D2, except it had even more bugs and a pirate layer that *still* doesn't really work. (Though it is infinitely better now than it was, for which I am grateful.) This made OP and expansion rather than a sequel, which is fine!, but expansions will never sell as many copies as new games.
I still hope for SFC4. (You know, someday.....). However I hope it goes much further than simply adding Andros and Tholians. It needs to increase the ability of the admin to control production ques in his dyna, edit his database, edit his D2 mission pack, affect economy and alliances through player actions, and add new funcionality like scouts, variable overlaoads, mix and match drones, and supply raids.
Oh, yes, and single internals. ;)
The fact that it needs to remain faithful to SFB goes without saying!
But I'd still like to see actual figures for sales, excluding the copies of SFC1 that were given away for free with a purchase of SFC2. Once working, SFC2 is a vastly better game than SFC1.
-S'Cipio
I hate to say this but I don't think you will see SFB in any future SFC games.This why SFC3 is different than the rest as Viacom and Paramount have the entire say on what goes into a game and they want to stick to the original as seen on TV and the movies.That why there are no drones in SFC3 they never used them.
I think you will see SFC4 game made entirely different more like SFC3 though but yes more playable races and it won't be made by Taldren because they aren't around that could be the answer to as why Quicksilver won't release the source code.This I assume though.There will be a new Dynaverse for it as well.
-
Hmmm Rondo...there was an SFC2 demo...here's a link to Chris jones mod's for it...
The first mod is dated oct 2000...
[url]http://sfc.strategy-gaming.com/chrisjonesmods/sfc2mod.shtml[/url]
Hey Crim we both been on this gig since nearly the beginning but I don't remember the demo being out. But I may be having a "senior" moment.
HEHE ;D
Well...I DO remember having to do a 70MB DL overnight on my crappy 56k....I pre-orderd SFC2 and got it the day of release...I deleted the demo when I installed SFC2...
I also remember that the very first game lobby for SFC2 AND the demo was.....*ta ta ta DAH*...on M-player...I still have my beta test disk...we tested multi play on M-pig because the DV didnt work (had to be totally rewritten)...
Peeps used to wonder were the hell we were at ;D....many of us had the "show when logged on" activated...but we had our own lobby....
I also remember being completely JACKED when I was accepted as a tester... :woot:
-
Age...
Quicksilver...which source code won't they release? (keeping fingers crossed).
-
Hmmm Rondo...there was an SFC2 demo...here's a link to Chris jones mod's for it...
The first mod is dated oct 2000...
[url]http://sfc.strategy-gaming.com/chrisjonesmods/sfc2mod.shtml[/url]
Hey Crim we both been on this gig since nearly the beginning but I don't remember the demo being out. But I may be having a "senior" moment.
HEHE ;D
Well...I DO remember having to do a 70MB DL overnight on my crappy 56k....I pre-orderd SFC2 and got it the day of release...I deleted the demo when I installed SFC2...
I also remember that the very first game lobby for SFC2 AND the demo was.....*ta ta ta DAH*...on M-player...I still have my beta test disk...we tested multi play on M-pig because the DV didnt work (had to be totally rewritten)...
Peeps used to wonder were the hell we were at ;D....many of us had the "show when logged on" activated...but we had our own lobby....
I also remember being completely JACKED when I was accepted as a tester... :woot:
hmmm...
Looks over at medicine cabinet, grabs some vitamin B12
(gulp) (gulp) (gulp)
ehhh ::)
-
I hate to say this but I don't think you will see SFB in any future ... games.
They told me that for 20 years. But then look! Along came SFC1!
This why SFC3 is different than the rest as Viacom and Paramount have the entire say on what goes into a game
Paramount had the entire say of what goes into a Trek-based computer game long before SFC1. They said yes to SFB once, they can do so again.
<nudges Harry in a friendly manner>
I just hope it doesn't take another 20 years.
-S'Cipio
-
(closes eyes and prays and waits for Scipio reply: "Nah, you Gorns are just inernals hogs. SFB had it right.")
Hey! I am Gorn!
I know the designers decided single internals and shields made the game go "too fast"; I just happen to think they were wrong. ;) After the hue and cry over doube internals and double shields, it was learned that shields could be made singe-strenght with a simple shiplist edit. Single internals, however, require some real code work. So we got the shields.
I still think that double internals cause more game-balance problems with heavy-crunch weapons than it solves in regards to gameplay. I've also played with shiplists that come as close as they can to single internals, and find them fun.
I'd love to be able to fly a campaign with single internals and find out if I'm right.
-S'Cipio
I knew there was something about you I liked. ;D
I have found you can add and subtract internals to a degree on the shiplist but they don't all add up. The ship doesn't quite behave (damage wise) right.
Well who knows now that drone defense, ECM, plasma, and other stuff is working more like it is supposed to you might be right.
But how to test...
-
I hate to say this but I don't think you will see SFB in any future ... games.
They told me that for 20 years. But then look! Along came SFC1!
This why SFC3 is different than the rest as Viacom and Paramount have the entire say on what goes into a game
Paramount had the entire say of what goes into a Trek-based computer game long before SFC1. They said yes to SFB once, they can do so again.
<nudges Harry in a friendly manner>
I just hope it doesn't take another 20 years.
-S'Cipio
Jeeze Scip you just scored two three pointers in a row...where dat karma button!!!!
-
Yeah, I remember downloading the demo, and it was totally bugged (heh, go figure ;)). Seemed like there was some major bug with the Mirak or something (could have been something with drones, I don't quite remember). Still I played it like a maniac for a while, just to look at some of the new UI additions.
-
your right rondo, somthing did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked! bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadnt had so few ships and a few mulitplayer issues..
the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.
And if it hadn't "felt" like I was flying around an f-16 in space. Hell I liked Klingon Academy more than BC... and that IS saying something.
The best trek game I have ever played (I have never played SFB in my life but I would love to now) is SFC 1 and 2. I soon came to realize this was due to SFB, it was the corner stone. I bought SFC1 because I got to play a trek game where I got to run the ship... the whole damn thing. I loved it because the rules made for HOURS of fun play alone and online. SFB is directly responsible for why I loved the game... Star Trek is why I wanted to play it.
GE-Raven
-
Posted by Age:
I hate to say this but I don't think you will see SFB in any future SFC games.
Then they better find another source of content....that is relatively balanced, full of rich detail, and been play tested for twenty years...or it will ...hmmm...BE...not much different than SFC3...
This why SFC3 is different than the rest as Viacom and Paramount have the entire say on what goes into a game and they want to stick to the original as seen on TV and the movies.
Well...the "official" reason we where givin was that ACTI didnt have rights for TOS...and the SFB content is based on TOS...
Taldren said they made the game that ACTI wanted.....ACTI said that they bought the game that Taldren made....
Chicken and egg if ya ask me...
I also suspect that the Taldren team was a little sick of SFB content by that point...seeing the amount of time it took to get things "almost" perfect...and the amount of grief it took from fans to get things "almost" perfect...
Taldren set the bar very high....and fans expected them to make it over...which IMHO...they did...but through commitment to finnishing the game...which they did...
That why there are no drones in SFC3 they never used them.
See above...
I think you will see SFC4 game made entirely different more like SFC3 though
Well..to be blunt...I'll keep playing Op then...
but yes more playable races
I agree..this is a MUST....whatever content the game is based on (no it doesnt have to be SFB...but it had better be "just as good" if not better....but that means a longer DEV time...to get everything in and balanced...and UN balanced game will die just as fast as a plain old crappy one...)
and it won't be made by Taldren because they aren't around
No...but Erik IS...and like he allways say's...
"The future is bright"
So one can never know exactly what the future will bring....but if its going to be doneby someone else....it shouldnt be called SFC4...that would imply that Taldren was in on the DEV...
that could be the answer to as why Quicksilver won't release the source code.This I assume though.
Well...dont assume anything....cuz we dont know anything yet... ;)
There will be a new Dynaverse for it as well.
I would hope so...and I hope someone took good notes when we provided all those suggestions to Erik in what SFC fans wanted out of another SFC game...
Alot of peeps felt kinda cheated when the suggestions for the SFC3 "GAW" dynaverse where jacked into SFC3 "TNG" dynaverse...without the content to go with it...
If you could meld SFC3 functionality with SFC:OP content...and *cough* advertise it as well as Elite Force was pushed (at the end of EVERY Voyager episode).....you'd have a smash hit!
-
I hate to say this but I don't think you will see SFB in any future ... games.
They told me that for 20 years. But then look! Along came SFC1!
This why SFC3 is different than the rest as Viacom and Paramount have the entire say on what goes into a game
Paramount had the entire say of what goes into a Trek-based computer game long before SFC1. They said yes to SFB once, they can do so again.
<nudges Harry in a friendly manner>
I just hope it doesn't take another 20 years.
-S'Cipio
They won't let SFB be associated with Star Trek anymore sorry Scipio.They pulled the License from ADB sometime ago to use Star Trek.They could prevent them from using UFP,Klingons,Romulans and Gorn. These are known races in Star Trek universe.They will use a new developer and a publisher one they can count one as to the source code ? all of them.
When you have a jewel in the Nile would you give it up not unless you want lots of money for it.
I guess we will have stay tuned for the future of Star Trek gaming.
Then agian Harry might get an eye strian by reading all of this.
-
I hate to say this but I don't think you will see SFB in any future ... games.
They told me that for 20 years. But then look! Along came SFC1!
This why SFC3 is different than the rest as Viacom and Paramount have the entire say on what goes into a game
Paramount had the entire say of what goes into a Trek-based computer game long before SFC1. They said yes to SFB once, they can do so again.
<nudges Harry in a friendly manner>
I just hope it doesn't take another 20 years.
-S'Cipio
They won't let SFB be associated with Star Trek anymore sorry Scipio.They pulled the License from ADB sometime ago to use Star Trek.They could prevent them from using UFP,Klingons,Romulans and Gorn. These are known races in Star Trek universe.They will use a new developer and a publisher one they can count one as to the source code ? all of them.
When you have a jewel in the Nile would you give it up not unless you want lots of money for it.
I guess we will have stay tuned for the future of Star Trek gaming.
Then agian Harry might get an eye strian by reading all of this.
Huuzzzahhhh!!!!
Then perhaps the logical next move is to ADB. Change the FED,KLING etc etc before it is too late.
Seems like they are a deer caught in the headlights waiting to become road kill. Eventually the charity extended to them will be removed unless they make the move first.
Once that is done a future developer could make the game modable to a point. Lets say you could change race names with a push pf the button etc...all on the up and up.
Models might be a problem but where does a Fed CC end and some other "Confederation" begin in terms of nacelles, saucer section etc. Might as well make that modable too.
ahhhhh....
Time for a BEER!!!!!!!
-
Posted by Age:
[They won't let SFB be associated with Star Trek anymore sorry Scipio.
You understand...that's like saying..."They wont let ice cubes be associated with water anymore"
They pulled the License from ADB sometime ago to use Star Trek.
Hmmm...really?
Sheesh...dont tell these people
http://www.starfleetgames.com/
They got the words "Star trek" plastered all over the page....
They could prevent them from using UFP,Klingons,Romulans and Gorn.
Rule Number one.....IF they "could" do it...they "would" do it...and would have done so allready...
These are known races in Star Trek universe.
Really?...I'm shocked :o
They will use a new developer and a publisher one they can count one as to the source code ? all of them.
Huh?...sorry...you're breakin up a bit...
When you have a jewel in the Nile would you give it up not unless you want lots of money for it.
If I had the jewel of the nile...I'd NEVER give it up....I'd charge LOTS of money for people to see it though...
I guess we will have stay tuned for the future of Star Trek gaming.
Right...but plaese stop telling us what that future WONT be...cuz you dont know anymore than any of us...
Then agian Harry might get an eye strian by reading all of this.
Possibly....but I really bet he's getting a sore neck from shaking his head.....LOL
-
I'd love to be able to fly a campaign with single internals and find out if I'm right.
-S'Cipio
It is doable now. I'd bet real money this can be done with a mission script (it happens on accident all the time :) )
-
your right rondo, somthing did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked! bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadnt had so few ships and a few mulitplayer issues..
the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.
Actually, trek had very little to do with it for me. I bought them because of SFB lol.
-
your right rondo, somthing did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked! bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadnt had so few ships and a few mulitplayer issues..
the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.
Actually, trek had very little to do with it for me. I bought them because of SFB lol.
Yep same here.
-
Me three!...even though I had never played it... :o
-
your right rondo, somthing did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked! bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadnt had so few ships and a few mulitplayer issues..
the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.
Actually, trek had very little to do with it for me. I bought them because of SFB lol.
Yep same here.
Me three but I am big on Trek and would not mind seeing a "good" cannon Trek game.
I think the ley to that is startships should not fly like fighterplanes.
-
Copy cat! ;D
-
I bought the game becuase of the TV Shows and Movies.You might want to look at the source code thread.
-
mommy, my head still hurts! :'(
p.s. As I said a couple pages back, don't make any assumptions as to my presence here. It was originally to discuss some points in my interview. Regardless of my headache, it is an interesting read.
-
sfc3 sold a hell of a lot more than what you thought.
ready for the bomb shell? from what i understand sfc3 sold as many units as sfc2 in the initial release even with the limited time sfc3 was given.
combine the fact that there was ZERO support for the game (lets see how good sfc2 or op would do with a couple of "beta" patches) and that activision RMA'd any remaining copies of sfc3 and whola..
i would challenge anyone to sell sfc with out the trek and see how far it gets. anyone in the gaming industry knows the reality of the matter. even erik did. why do you think sfc3 went forward?
the problem with sfc3 is that they cut too much out in the level of detail (and i dont mean sfb rules) and number of ships.
but regardless of what anyone says here it doesnt change a thing about where we are headed or what is going to happen.
you may like the game because it was sfb based - but the reason for sfc's success in sales is because it was a trek game which had depth to it.. by that i mean that unlike bridge commander, there were more than 4 ships to fly.. and when someone had different models than you - you didnt get just a blank screen staring you in the face, like bridge commander.
there are many, many reasons.. but again, that doesnt change a thing. i best leave at that.
-
You were talking about real EW, with your scud references. What changed your mind?
As for Nannerslug being right about AV, which right do you mean? That it is a bad idea compared to other ways of adding negative modifiers for targetting? Correct.
Does EW have to be represented by 6 boxes? Of course not, how sillly to think so in the TNG land of three sliders. It should be blindingly obvious to even the slowest out there that you should use an EW slider, with no feedback indicator to show just how much power is being put into spatial distortion fields or expanding the scanner relay field charge or whatever. It would even be possible to use the slider to undercharge the sensor array so that you could accidently target allies (oops). Or even more basic, since some like it that way, just have an EW on/off switch, just like EM.
So don't get wrapped up in those six EW units because it's a sad cop out on what could have been a lot better than Snoopy Vs The Red Baron.
Err, no I was talking about real AV with scuds. A scud's EW apparently consists of 'falling apart while flying' from what i've read.
And i'd pay for a game that featured snoopy vs. the red baron.
And since I like throwing wrenches in people's statistics, I will state for the record that I found SFC1 completely by accident. I bought OP after playing it though.
Since i'm throwing wrenches, i'll throw another in. I don't play SFC3. Never tried it. Not that i'm against it, as I didn't get it as my computer at the time wouldn't support it. However, i'm not obtuse to adding rules that are not SFB into SFC. Not because they are or aren't realistic, are or aren't SFB or even are or aren't 'Trek.'
It's because, (as I believe i've mentioned before) it adds interest. Tactical intrest. A new doohickey to consider, no matter how strangely construed the doohickey, so long as the doohickey added tastefuly, makes for a more intresting, tactical game.
It's this tastefullness, or gameplay if you prefer, that draws the majority of people to or from a game. I enjoy the current incarnations not because they're SFB, or because of or lack of realism. I enjoy it because it's a trek game, and because it has a level of complexity that interests me. Even the Puzzle Of The Twelve Boxes.
Let's say someone were to add AV to the game. Cry war and beat the devlopers blue, tar and feather and all, but to me, it's just another consideration. Or perhaps something odd and unexpected, like varying shield arc to race, such as the federation having four, the klingons having eight, the romulans having six, and some sucker stuck with only one.
I can't understand why anyone at this point would even bother trying to get me to believe something is true (as far as cannon goes) using of all things, a technical manual. Oh please. I've yet to find two of those wastes of perfectly good trees that actually managed to agree with one another.
I don't really care either, if one can follow what i'm saying. Range 2 can be twenty thousand klicks, twenty klicks, twenty feet, twenty billion cubits or twenty bananas, so long as 2 is the shortest distance I should fire my, photon, quantum, impossiblium, totalus crapium or even Futon Torpedoes. Or whatever range, so long as there's a weapons chart kicking around by which I can figure it out for myself.
I play the game because it is intresting. Not for names, or labels, or companies, at least other than trek.
So long as it's intresting, so long as it's tasteful, so long as it brings to me that wonderful "Old Navy and Thundering Guns of the 42nd" back to me, i'll keep playing.
-
...
And i'd pay for a game that featured snoopy vs. the red baron.
But you don't need to, it's freeware! ;D
(http://snoopy2.sourceforge.net/screenshots/qnx.png)
The developer's page is here:
http://snoopy2.sourceforge.net/index.html
(note: I've never tried it, just happened to run across the link ;D )
dave
-
OMG!!!1 I'm getting it right freakin' now!
edit: Simple star controlish fun. Though you can't be snoopy vs. ai baron. :3
-
or even Futon Torpedoes.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:
You just cost me a new glass of scotch and a new keyboard. Not to mention the pain and suffering! (GlenMorangie hurts when it comes out of your nose.) I hope you are pleased with yourslef!
-S'Cipio with the Sore Snout
-
You were talking about real EW, with your scud references. What changed your mind?
As for Nannerslug being right about AV, which right do you mean? That it is a bad idea compared to other ways of adding negative modifiers for targetting? Correct.
Does EW have to be represented by 6 boxes? Of course not, how sillly to think so in the TNG land of three sliders. It should be blindingly obvious to even the slowest out there that you should use an EW slider, with no feedback indicator to show just how much power is being put into spatial distortion fields or expanding the scanner relay field charge or whatever. It would even be possible to use the slider to undercharge the sensor array so that you could accidently target allies (oops). Or even more basic, since some like it that way, just have an EW on/off switch, just like EM.
So don't get wrapped up in those six EW units because it's a sad cop out on what could have been a lot better than Snoopy Vs The Red Baron.
Err, no I was talking about real AV with scuds. A scud's EW apparently consists of 'falling apart while flying' from what i've read.
And i'd pay for a game that featured snoopy vs. the red baron.
And since I like throwing wrenches in people's statistics, I will state for the record that I found SFC1 completely by accident. I bought OP after playing it though.
Since i'm throwing wrenches, i'll throw another in. I don't play SFC3. Never tried it. Not that i'm against it, as I didn't get it as my computer at the time wouldn't support it. However, i'm not obtuse to adding rules that are not SFB into SFC. Not because they are or aren't realistic, are or aren't SFB or even are or aren't 'Trek.'
It's because, (as I believe i've mentioned before) it adds interest. Tactical intrest. A new doohickey to consider, no matter how strangely construed the doohickey, so long as the doohickey added tastefully, makes for a more intresting, tactical game.
It's this tastefullness, or gameplay if you prefer, that draws the majority of people to or from a game. I enjoy the current incarnations not because they're SFB, or because of or lack of realism. I enjoy it because it's a trek game, and because it has a level of complexity that interests me. Even the six Puzzle Of The Twelve Boxes.
Let's say someone were to add AV to the game. Cry war and beat the devlopers blue, tar and feather and all, but to me, it's just another consideration. Or perhaps something odd and unexpected, like varying shield arc to race, such as the federation having four, the klingons having eight, the romulans having six, and some sucker stuck with only one.
I can't understand why anyone at this point would even bother trying to get me to believe something is true (as far as cannon goes) using of all things, a technical manual. Oh please. I've yet to find two of those wastes of perfectly good trees that actually managed to agree with one another.
I don't really care either, if one can follow what i'm saying. Range 2 can be twenty thousand klicks, twenty klicks, twenty feet, twenty billion cubits or twenty bananas, so long as 2 is the shortest distance I should fire my, photon, quantum, impossiblium, totalus crapium or even Futon Torpedoes. Or whatever range, so long as there's a weapons chart kicking around by which I can figure it out for myself.
I play the game because it is intresting. Not for names, or labels, or companies, at least other than trek.
So long as it's intresting, so long as it's tasteful, so long as it brings to me that wonderful "Old Navy and Thundering Guns of the 42nd" back to me, i'll keep playing.
And of course you realize that SFB, the game that inspired SFC, was itself inspired by the naval simulation board games that came before it. Which is one reason why it works.
-
your right rondo, something did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked! bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadn't had so few ships and a few multiplayer issues..
the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.
Actually, trek had very little to do with it for me. I bought them because of SFB lol.
Yep same here.
Me three but I am big on Trek and would not mind seeing a "good" cannon Trek game.
I think the ley to that is startships should not fly like fighterplanes.
Ditto! I'll do you all one better though. When I first heard of SFC all that I had was an old handmedown PC that I used to chat online with. It wasn't capable of playing SFC (or any other game AFAIK). So, I went to the store, bought a comp that was capable of running SFC, and purchased EAW and OP the same night. I essentially paid $1000.00 to play SFB on a computer.
Why don't you hire Dave Ferrell (if Dave's available), since he already knows this game inside and out, and let him do Galaxies at War for real (This is where the "let bygones be bygones that I mentioned in a previous post applies.). From what I hear that the budgets are for Producing games you could probably get it done for a song (relatively speaking). Give him a big enough budget to hire a team (I doubt that it'd have to be a big team. Maybe some people who have done very professional work for free on these games in the past. Toss'em a bone, they deserve it.) that would be willing to work for enough money to live decently on during the development, plus a % after release. It'd cost you very little, I'm sure. Since they have a stake in the final outcome, they'd be very motivated to make a successfull game (I've worked on commision most of my life. Can you tell?).
-
Err, no I was talking about real AV with scuds. A scud's EW apparently consists of 'falling apart while flying' from what i've read.
And i'd pay for a game that featured snoopy vs. the red baron.
And since I like throwing wrenches in people's statistics, I will state for the record that I found SFC1 completely by accident. I bought OP after playing it though.
Since i'm throwing wrenches, i'll throw another in. I don't play SFC3. Never tried it. Not that i'm against it, as I didn't get it as my computer at the time wouldn't support it. However, i'm not obtuse to adding rules that are not SFB into SFC. Not because they are or aren't realistic, are or aren't SFB or even are or aren't 'Trek.'
It's because, (as I believe i've mentioned before) it adds interest. Tactical intrest. A new doohickey to consider, no matter how strangely construed the doohickey, so long as the doohickey added tastefuly, makes for a more intresting, tactical game.
It's this tastefullness, or gameplay if you prefer, that draws the majority of people to or from a game. I enjoy the current incarnations not because they're SFB, or because of or lack of realism. I enjoy it because it's a trek game, and because it has a level of complexity that interests me. Even the Puzzle Of The Twelve Boxes.
Let's say someone were to add AV to the game. Cry war and beat the devlopers blue, tar and feather and all, but to me, it's just another consideration. Or perhaps something odd and unexpected, like varying shield arc to race, such as the federation having four, the klingons having eight, the romulans having six, and some sucker stuck with only one.
I can't understand why anyone at this point would even bother trying to get me to believe something is true (as far as cannon goes) using of all things, a technical manual. Oh please. I've yet to find two of those wastes of perfectly good trees that actually managed to agree with one another.
I don't really care either, if one can follow what i'm saying. Range 2 can be twenty thousand klicks, twenty klicks, twenty feet, twenty billion cubits or twenty bananas, so long as 2 is the shortest distance I should fire my, photon, quantum, impossiblium, totalus crapium or even Futon Torpedoes. Or whatever range, so long as there's a weapons chart kicking around by which I can figure it out for myself.
I play the game because it is intresting. Not for names, or labels, or companies, at least other than trek.
So long as it's intresting, so long as it's tasteful, so long as it brings to me that wonderful "Old Navy and Thundering Guns of the 42nd" back to me, i'll keep playing.
I'm guessing that this wisdom should be filed with:
As to distance being 10'000km or m or whatever, I've already tested and proved this can't possibly be the case unless every ship is several hundred kilometers long.
I mean we wouldn't want to confuse anybody and give them a completely wrong idea of what SFC is about would we. At least what you think it's about (hint - a game about starships, big things .... in space)
-
The Patriot was originally designed to shoot down planes, not as an ABM defense system. It had very little problems hitting the scuds. As someone mentioned though, the scuds had a nasty habit of breaking up on entry. The patriots weren't advanced enough to target the section of the missile that contained the payload. Instead it locked onto the largest section of the vehicle, which generally was a section that carried the fuel for the missile. In the current Iraq conflict the patriot had an almost perfect intercept record (At least that's what we've been told so far.) One silkworm cruise missile managed to evade it. All other targets were successfully engaged. Including, unfortunately, some allied aircraft that ventured into the patriots defensive zone. Shooting down something as large (or as small) as a fighter proved no problem at all for the system. AV made absolutely no difference. It locked on and you were toast. Again, I want to say that the "friendly fire" incidents were an awful occurrence. I'm not trying to glorify them in any way.
-
I wouldn't mind a simplified version of SFC if (BIG IF) simplifying handling a starship meant controlling a single ship was micro-managing part of a fleet. The selection of weapons on a ship would have to relate to a specific role that ship is to fill in a fleet. This is a strength in the basic concept of SFB.
A computer fleet game might have to drastically divert from the mechanics of SFB to be playable in real time, unless multiple players were to be able to link up into battle groups. This could be a connectivity nightmare, but possibly easier for developers than creating whole new rulesets. I have no idea of how much computer power and bandwidth massive linking would require.
As far as EW vs AV goes: AV strikes me as a ridiculous concept for large ship combat, while EW seems to have been thrown into SFB as an afterthought. In a strategic game, AV would not be considered at all, where as subtle differences in sensor suites on various ships would make significant differences.
SFC, except SFC3, has significant tactical depth, but not much of a strategic game. There is little or no "fleet" in any of the Starfleet titles. SFC (except SFC3) teases with fleet elements, but does not satisfy. SFC3 doesn't even tease. These games do not make it possible to simulate a 24t
Question to the community: Am I the only one who wishes to command/serve a fleet, or does everyone want to simply conquer the galaxy with starcruiser?
-
your right rondo, somthing did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked! bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadnt had so few ships and a few mulitplayer issues..
the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.
Actually, trek had very little to do with it for me. I bought them because of SFB lol.
Bought SFC1 because it was SFB, and then SFC2 after the D2 was fixed. Until then I avoided all Star Trek games like the plague (still do really) because they are crap games, which is a shame. Why can't there be another Star Trek game that has the goods, like Starcraft for eg?
-
I wouldn't mind a simplified version of SFC if (BIG IF) simplifying handling a starship meant controlling a single ship was micro-managing part of a fleet. The selection of weapons on a ship would have to relate to a specific role that ship is to fill in a fleet. This is a strength in the basic concept of SFB.
A computer fleet game might have to drastically divert from the mechanics of SFB to be playable in real time, unless multiple players were to be able to link up into battle groups. This could be a connectivity nightmare, but possibly easier for developers than creating whole new rulesets. I have no idea of how much computer power and bandwidth massive linking would require.
As far as EW vs AV goes: AV strikes me as a ridiculous concept for large ship combat, while EW seems to have been thrown into SFB as an afterthought. In a strategic game, AV would not be considered at all, where as subtle differences in sensor suites on various ships would make significant differences.
SFC, except SFC3, has significant tactical depth, but not much of a strategic game. There is little or no "fleet" in any of the Starfleet titles. SFC (except SFC3) teases with fleet elements, but does not satisfy. SFC3 doesn't even tease. These games do not make it possible to simulate a 24t
Question to the community: Am I the only one who wishes to command/serve a fleet, or does everyone want to simply conquer the galaxy with starcruiser?
This may not be the answer you want, but yes I would love a fleet game, but not if it degenerated into RTS mayhem. Let me fight the SFB fleet games with ISC eschelons and carrier battle groups and I will pay three times the price of SFC:TNG. Go one step further and let me play F&E style campaigns and I will pay four times the price. This would be two separate games of course.
-
The Patriot was originally designed to shoot down planes, not as an ABM defense system. It had very little problems hitting the scuds. As someone mentioned though, the scuds had a nasty habit of breaking up on entry. The patriots weren't advanced enough to target the section of the missile that contained the payload. Instead it locked onto the largest section of the vehicle, which generally was a section that carried the fuel for the missile. In the current Iraq conflict the patriot had an almost perfect intercept record (At least that's what we've been told so far.) One silkworm cruise missile managed to evade it. All other targets were successfully engaged. Including, unfortunately, some allied aircraft that ventured into the patriots defensive zone. Shooting down something as large (or as small) as a fighter proved no problem at all for the system. AV made absolutely no difference. It locked on and you were toast. Again, I want to say that the "friendly fire" incidents were an awful occurrence. I'm not trying to glorify them in any way.
Yay! I didn't dream up that dateline or whatever it was!
-
This may not be the answer you want, but yes I would love a fleet game, but not if it degenerated into RTS mayhem. Let me fight the SFB fleet games with ISC eschelons and carrier battle groups and I will pay three times the price of SFC:TNG. Go one step further and let me play F&E style campaigns and I will pay four times the price. This would be two separate games of course.
Amen :notworthy: :notworthy:
SFBers might not be a huge gaming group, but we're very devoted. I'd pay a couple hundred dollars for a game that was as true to SFB as possible (in real time) and DONE RIGHT. No halfway done systems. Real G-racks, plasma-D, full on systems including EW, Sp. Sensors, reserve power, labs, etc... I'd also pay $50.00 a pop for real expansions, just like I've done for the past dozen or so years with SFB (No I haven't played it since the '70's like some have. :lol:). ...and definitely add the F&E style campaigning (and the advanced boarding party rules, while you're at it. What an awesome FPS we'd have.)
-
I wouldn't mind a simplified version of SFC if (BIG IF) simplifying handling a starship meant controlling a single ship was micro-managing part of a fleet. The selection of weapons on a ship would have to relate to a specific role that ship is to fill in a fleet. This is a strength in the basic concept of SFB.
A computer fleet game might have to drastically divert from the mechanics of SFB to be playable in real time, unless multiple players were to be able to link up into battle groups. This could be a connectivity nightmare, but possibly easier for developers than creating whole new rulesets. I have no idea of how much computer power and bandwidth massive linking would require.
As far as EW vs AV goes: AV strikes me as a ridiculous concept for large ship combat, while EW seems to have been thrown into SFB as an afterthought. In a strategic game, AV would not be considered at all, where as subtle differences in sensor suites on various ships would make significant differences.
SFC, except SFC3, has significant tactical depth, but not much of a strategic game. There is little or no "fleet" in any of the Starfleet titles. SFC (except SFC3) teases with fleet elements, but does not satisfy. SFC3 doesn't even tease. These games do not make it possible to simulate a 24t
Question to the community: Am I the only one who wishes to command/serve a fleet, or does everyone want to simply conquer the galaxy with starcruiser?
There. See that? I want a destroyer flotillia. I want a frigate group.
If anyone recalls from flames that hearken to a time long, long ago on a fourm far, far away, I was once fanatically opposed to single ship fighting only. The BCH-fest, as it is called.
Despite having relented due to the fact this is the technical reality we live in, I'm still of this opinion. I want to see more intresting old navy action. I want to see the six destroyers of Captain Fat suprise and ambush the pair of patrol frigates of Sum Dum Gui, which sends the sector into a state of contestment. I want a Destroyer fleet vs. the Bismark senario, even if no one really managed to do anything other than lose sleep during that particular historical battle snippet.
I want to see meaningful roles for ships other than battlecruisers. Escorting destroyer flotillias, frigate patrol groups, cruiser groups even, cruisin' for a brusin'. Scouts that do something. Line ships that do something other than act as AI fodder. Meaningful fleets that are something more complicated than 3 BCH > 2 BCH. Even meaningful supply is something we currently lack.
I want to see more diverse fleet roles. Reconnisance, exploration, supply, merchant marineing, and a whole slew of intresting things to do other than pointing shooty bit A at Victim B and pressing the fire key.
Why settle for Captain when you can be Grand 1st Admiral of All That You See? Eh? Eh?
Or be Lieutenant Commander Sum Won Elys, the guy that runs from all the fights, but everyone needs because he commands a fast resupply frigate, essential for those front liners that loose crewmen and shooty bits at an alarming rate.
Yes, I want that.
-
Here's one for you. I bought SFC because I loved Trek (more specifically TOS &TMP), and SFB was the best implementation of that universe that I have ever seen. When I saw the add for SFC1 I thought, wow this Trek game looks cool, but when I read the text and saw that it was based on SFB, I was sold right then and there. I generally avoided Trek games because, as others have said, they stunk. They lacked almost any kind of gameplay, for the most part, and that was if they even worked. This one I was definitely onboard for. When I read that SFC2 was in development, I though "Oh, cool I'll have to get that one" but when I read about the D2, I pre-ordered that baby.
I kind of laugh (because it's better than crying) when I hear about how SFB isn't real Trek, and they didn't have weapon X in Trek because the enterprise didn't fire one, or system Y. Yet there are countless Trek games out there that make all sorts of stuff up, and have elements that just don't make much sense, at least SFB is a longstanding ruleset that has stood the test of time. As I've often said, I'd buy a Trek game not based on SFB if it was up to par on depth and gameplay, but to me SFB is like a seal of quality that guarantees it's going to have at least a little something to offer other than an hour or two of pretty graphics and then off to the old game droor.
-
What cleav, rod, holo, and EE said...
THNX guys...you all saved me a lot of typing ;D
-
What cleav, rod, holo, and EE said...
THNX guys...you all saved me a lot of typing ;D
ditto - big time! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: all y'all ;D
dave
-
Question to the community: Am I the only one who wishes to command/serve a fleet, or does everyone want to simply conquer the galaxy with starcruiser?
Yes, either give me AI wingmen that aren't totally uselss or re-write the engine so 10v10 player battles are possible.
-
Ditto! I'll do you all one better though. When I first heard of SFC all that I had was an old handmedown PC that I used to chat online with. It wasn't capable of playing SFC (or any other game AFAIK). So, I went to the store, bought a comp that was capable of running SFC, and purchased EAW and OP the same night. I essentially paid $1000.00 to play SFB on a computer.
I can identify with that.
I was a dyed in the wool Mac fan all through college, grad school, and a couple of jobs. For at least 12 years, Mac and UNIX were all I'd touch. I'd sworn I would never go near a Wintel machine. I was in fact shopping for a new, more powerful Mac when a friend showed me the demo for SFC1.
Wow, did that change my computing life. My plans to purchase a new Mac got shelved. In the time since, I've built three new PCs, bought three new MS-OS, and spent who knows how much on new software.
All so I could play SFB on a computer. And you know what? I'd do it again.
-S'Cipio
-
Question to the community: Am I the only one who wishes to command/serve a fleet, or does everyone want to simply conquer the galaxy with starcruiser?
Yes, either give me AI wingmen that aren't totally uselss or re-write the engine so 10v10 player battles are possible.
SFC1 actually had a better fleet controll system than it's follow on's. You coudl do a lot of things with the simple commands they had. (sigh)...
One of the cool things I would do is put my AI ship in the lead with my human controlled ship trailing. This forced my opponnent to fired mostly on it. My trailing ship was on overloads and all the good stuff. Aother time I assigned two of my ships to attack another group and then circle around with me true lead ship. Was really cool...
-
A computer fleet game might have to drastically divert from the mechanics of SFB to be playable in real time, unless multiple players were to be able to link up into battle groups. This could be a connectivity nightmare, but possibly easier for developers than creating whole new rulesets. I have no idea of how much computer power and bandwidth massive linking would require.
I don't think this would be any more bandwidth intensive to work out since linking into battle groups can be a 'lobby' function to place yourself in a group before entering a battle already in progress. It could be like Return to Castle Wolfenstein where players not currently in-game stage up as reinforcements, which queue into the game in progress (as a group) at regular intervals.
As far as EW vs AV goes: AV strikes me as a ridiculous concept for large ship combat, while EW seems to have been thrown into SFB as an afterthought. In a strategic game, AV would not be considered at all, where as subtle differences in sensor suites on various ships would make significant differences.
Agreed that Angular Velocity does not make sense, but Electronic Warfare does make sense. The reason that EW has its appeal is because it relates closely to an important aspect of modern naval combat operations. And it's not so far fetched in Trek where the concept of 'jamming' has come up on more than one occasion, even as it wasn't treated necessarily in an EW context.
SFC, except SFC3, has significant tactical depth, but not much of a strategic game. There is little or no "fleet" in any of the Starfleet titles. SFC (except SFC3) teases with fleet elements, but does not satisfy. SFC3 doesn't even tease. These games do not make it possible to simulate a 24t
Right, and the reason for this is that SFC is a real-time game, and for that, you have to consider player interfacing and control overload: there is only so much a player can do from second to second. You *can* give a player too much to control in a real-time game.
This may not be the answer you want, but yes I would love a fleet game, but not if it degenerated into RTS mayhem. Let me fight the SFB fleet games with ISC eschelons and carrier battle groups and I will pay three times the price of SFC:TNG. Go one step further and let me play F&E style campaigns and I will pay four times the price. This would be two separate games of course.
And see, the first thing that came to mind when it came to fleet games was *gasp* Armada 1 and 2. Yet, those do fall into the RTS mayhem category, and while fun, focus gameplay on a completely different area than SFC. SFC is about the ships. It's about the systems. It's about the crew. It's about playing the role of captain or admiral and knowing how to use a vessel or group of vessels to great tactical effect. Its the details of coordinating these complex instruments of space warfare that puts SFC in its special place in the hearts of Star Trek fans.
There are two ways I can see of extending SFC into fleet operations and still retain the complex, thinking-man's flavor that we have enjoyed with SFB and SFC's 1 and 2:
1. Fleet operations is a multiplayer affair where one person controls no more than a 'wing' of three ships, yet can coordinate with up to 7 other players as a fleet.
2. Make the gameplay be turn-based, where you can control an arbitrary number of ships and explore each of them in detail, issuing plot orders, defining targets, and letting the turn play out under AI control for 60 seconds (or something like that) at a time. This is how Combat Mission works for WWII combat, and believe me, the gameplay is rich in depth and very compelling to watch. This also allows Play by Email engagements for those of us who love to play, but don't have hours at a time to play major engagements.
-
I kind of laugh (because it's better than crying) when I hear about how SFB isn't real Trek, and they didn't have weapon X in Trek because the enterprise didn't fire one, or system Y. Yet there are countless Trek games out there that make all sorts of stuff up...
...not to mention the shows themselves. 'Real Trek' is a moving target and leaves lots of room for interpretation. In fact, going all the way back to TOS production, it was Roddenberry's intent that for the sake of drama, they show and reveal only what they need of the Trek universe, its inhabitants, and its workings to further the story, yet leave enough to the mind's eye to fill in the rest. I think SFB represents an excellent example of such 'outward thinking' to go from a compelling drama to a compelling strategy game. The question is, is there room for yet-another game system to move in with its own interpretation of the Trek universe for the sake of entertainment? What are the risks of having too many different game systems? What are the risks of abandoning established ones?
...and have elements that just don't make much sense, at least SFB is a longstanding ruleset that has stood the test of time. As I've often said, I'd buy a Trek game not based on SFB if it was up to par on depth and gameplay, but to me SFB is like a seal of quality that guarantees it's going to have at least a little something to offer other than an hour or two of pretty graphics and then off to the old game (drawer).
Yes, I think that the SFB label is truly a platinum trademark among Star Trek circles, and any game sporting the SFB stamp is sure to garner immediate attention and respect from fans because it has a long accepted and deeply explored history. For many fans, that is Trek. Why should we diverge from that? One of the concerns that many intellectual property holders have with regards to derivative products is the threat of dilution of the property such that is loses clear definition and strays from a company's intended direction. Yet, when well-established derivative products such as SFB are cast aside as no longer valid, such dilution inevitably occurs. If yet another game developer comes in and portrays Star Trek tactics in a whole new way, as fans we may get conflicting messages about what starship combat in the Trek universe is all about. I am a little uncertain about whether this 'not-invented-here' syndrome should continue with Star Trek interactive entertainment for this reason. Star Trek has to grow and explore strange new worlds in order to thrive, but should it do so in the manner of remolding itself every so often or instead supporting already established lore?
-
Ditto! I'll do you all one better though. When I first heard of SFC all that I had was an old handmedown PC that I used to chat online with. It wasn't capable of playing SFC (or any other game AFAIK). So, I went to the store, bought a comp that was capable of running SFC, and purchased EAW and OP the same night. I essentially paid $1000.00 to play SFB on a computer.
I can identify with that.
I was a dyed in the wool Mac fan all through college, grad school, and a couple of jobs. For at least 12 years, Mac and UNIX were all I'd touch. I'd sworn I would never go near a Wintel machine. I was in fact shopping for a new, more powerful Mac when a friend showed me the demo for SFC1.
Wow, did that change my computing life. My plans to purchase a new Mac got shelved. In the time since, I've built three new PCs, bought three new MS-OS, and spent who knows how much on new software.
All so I could play SFB on a computer. And you know what? I'd do it again.
-S'Cipio
S'Cipio! Don't go into the light! Turn away from the light! ;)
I did as you, but I didn't fall off the edge of the cliff.
One PC for SFC -> next box and all software was Mac.
Mac is unix now. It's not too late. Reclaim your soul! Run a perl script again! On a Mac! ;D
Oh, and Harry: Next Trek game cross-platform?
Pretty please with sugar?
I'd rather upgrade my Mac to play a new Trek title.
...but if I upgrade only to play the next Blizzard offering or Doom 3, so be it.
-
To get back on topic, I will ask a question regarding the interview with Harry:
Yes that article is old...we're at a different stage now. All I can say is that when we finally are able to share more concrete news, you'll see that we really are taking a different approach from the way things were done in the past and it will be very focused. Some may agree with what we do, some won't. But I'm doing everything I can to influence changes. Part of that is community involvement.
Skepticism is ok. Just keep an open mind.
One of the key words you are using is "focussed". There are two ways I can interpret this. Either VCP will put focus and attention to one product release at a time and endeavor to make it a real standout, OR VCP will endeavor to make products that each have a specific approach, that appeals to a certain type of gameplay, without trying to be too many things at once.
Would you be able to clarify on this? Many thanks.
-
To get back on topic, I will ask a question regarding the interview with Harry:
Yes that article is old...we're at a different stage now. All I can say is that when we finally are able to share more concrete news, you'll see that we really are taking a different approach from the way things were done in the past and it will be very focused. Some may agree with what we do, some won't. But I'm doing everything I can to influence changes. Part of that is community involvement.
Skepticism is ok. Just keep an open mind.
One of the key words you are using is "focussed". There are two ways I can interpret this. Either VCP will put focus and attention to one product release at a time and endeavor to make it a real standout, OR VCP will endeavor to make products that each have a specific approach, that appeals to a certain type of gameplay, without trying to be too many things at once.
Would you be able to clarify on this? Many thanks.
I would say it's a combination of both. Like I said in the interview, you're not going to see the market flooded with Trek games like in the past. quality not quantity. I'm trying not to be too vague right now ;) As soon as we can make an announcement it will become clearer.
-
To get back on topic, I will ask a question regarding the interview with Harry:
Yes that article is old...we're at a different stage now. All I can say is that when we finally are able to share more concrete news, you'll see that we really are taking a different approach from the way things were done in the past and it will be very focused. Some may agree with what we do, some won't. But I'm doing everything I can to influence changes. Part of that is community involvement.
Skepticism is ok. Just keep an open mind.
One of the key words you are using is "focussed". There are two ways I can interpret this. Either VCP will put focus and attention to one product release at a time and endeavor to make it a real standout, OR VCP will endeavor to make products that each have a specific approach, that appeals to a certain type of gameplay, without trying to be too many things at once.
Would you be able to clarify on this? Many thanks.
I would say it's a combination of both. Like I said in the interview, you're not going to see the market flooded with Trek games like in the past. quality not quantity. I'm trying not to be too vague right now ;) As soon as we can make an announcement it will become clearer.
That's a thought.
Back to fleets duking it out in space. What was the best Fleet to Fleet Sci Fi game?
Given: SFC (IMHO) was the best ship to ship SCI Fi game. (with some fleet elements...(small squadron combat)
The above question not addressed to Harry.
-
I don't know of any good space fleet PC games. But then I don't like realtime style Homeworld games. I liked Harpoon though, but it was wet navy and single player only and I could slow it down to real real time, or pause to think if I wanted to. Some sort of time limits are needed for online multiplayer though or you have to go PBEM. Anyway my preference is for a thinking fleet game and not a "twitch" to see who has the fastest fingers game. If I want twitch I drag out StarCraft.
-
I don't know of any good space fleet PC games. But then I don't like realtime style Homeworld games. I liked Harpoon though, but it was wet navy and single player only and I could slow it down to real real time, or pause to think if I wanted to. Some sort of time limits are needed for online multiplayer though or you have to go PBEM. Anyway my preference is for a thinking fleet game and not a "twitch" to see who has the fastest fingers game. If I want twitch I drag out StarCraft.
Come to think of it I can't remember one either.
-
wow, the love in this place is unbelieveable...we can't win either way.
However, let me clarify:
-I oversee Trek gaming only...nothing to do with the shows or movies. It's a big company.
-Concerning the all eras game, that was in response to the quesiton if we would consider one. I said it's not out of the question.
-We haven't been saying things will get better time and time again...this isn't the same ole company line. Actually, for the past year, we haven't really said much of anything. But I mean what I say when I say wait a few months. Things are changing. Especially with regards to the community and future or else I wouldn't have agree to this interview with a fan site in the first place. I don't know where this thing about us (gaming) being consistently vague comes from.
-I also mean what I say about recreating this illustrious franchise. More details will be provided soon as I have said. And I can promise you it will surprise you.
Hope this helps clarify things.
Harry
Looking forward to it, Harry. :)
-
I don't know of any good space fleet PC games. But then I don't like realtime style Homeworld games. I liked Harpoon though, but it was wet navy and single player only and I could slow it down to real real time, or pause to think if I wanted to. Some sort of time limits are needed for online multiplayer though or you have to go PBEM. Anyway my preference is for a thinking fleet game and not a "twitch" to see who has the fastest fingers game. If I want twitch I drag out StarCraft.
Come to think of it I can't remember one either.
Well I've waited long enough. (now after those famous words around ten folks will pile on)
Seems to me a space game doesn't really lend itself to large scale fleet engagements in the same way that a naval simulation does. Or at least in the PC context. Or perhaps the potential has never been realized.
Seems to me it would be a risk unless they (Harry?s group) have some definite ideas. I remember an episode in TNG or DS9 where whole messes of Federation starships take on a BORG cube (or cubes?). It was a very exciting episode. But tactically it seems like this comes down to power gaming. Not much replay value there.
Compare that to the fun you can have in a Naval simulation. The tactics even in open sea battles are still rich with possibilities. I loved to play hypothetical battles involving moderately sized fleets. One of my best games was a loss between me (US and my Japanese opponent no carriers either side).
To make a long story short it was 3 Iowa class battleships vs the Yamamoto and 4 more older Jap battleships plus 7 US heavy battle cruisers, 12 US light cruisers and destroyers, 12 US PT boats (vs 6 Japanese heavy BC and 12 Jap light and destroyers).
The thing I remember most about this battle was my opponents had deployed a Japanese destroyer in front of the battleships with a smokescreen until the were "set" in firing position. I put too much stock in my tactic of deploying the PT boats into a fast line abreast strike at their heavy cruiser squadron (lost 7 PT boats). I also lost the New Jersey and though I sunk one of the older Battleships...compliments of the Iowa...The Yamamoto was only marginally damaged and still servicable.
heh, here a cool game...
Description:
Enigma: Rising Tide
offers an alternate history where three giant factions -- the United States, Imperial Germany, and the League of Free Nations -- fought for supremacy on and under the oceans of Earth. Players take command of deck guns, launch torpedoes, and drop depth charges in furious naval combat. Submarines, destroyers, merchantmen, corvettes, and other vessels are available during the team-oriented tactical combat. Players use voice-activated commands and encrypted communiqués throughout missions assigned according to strategic concerns. Enigma's ocean physics adjust depending on the changing weather conditions. ~ Mark Hoogland, All Game Guide
http://www.chumbo.com/info.asp?s=625904408501&ptr=YPS
I might give this a go...
-
In space you can't smell the seawater...
darn this looks good...
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/pc/enigma/0902/enigma_screen008.jpg)