Topic: SFC Future/GZ (Read 15605 times)

NannerSlug · « **Reply #20 on:** July 03, 2003, 09:20:27 pm »

sfc3 is closer than you think. many like it. sure, there need to be some things added and changed.. but its darned close.. and there are many, many other games which did just fine in the time of development - ranging from total annihilation to rainbow 6 and battlefield 1942.

sfb did provide a compelling base for the game.. but it is not the end all to be all.

if you have tried the tnz or dw mods, i think you will find that many of the gaps have been filled.. not that its complete, because there are a number of things which could have been added to the detail column (fya, lya, restrictions on ship yard, t-bombs, different arcs, individual hard point mass restrictions, individualized power managment) which would add more to it.. but it has a lot more potential and game play then you are giving it credit for.

FireSoul · « **Reply #21 on:** July 03, 2003, 09:41:28 pm »

Although I agree that many like SFC3 and that it's a game on its own, I don't agree on the following statement:

Quote:

sfb did provide a compelling base for the game.. but it is not the end all to be all.

For me it is. It's why I bought the games in the first place. I would not have touched the titles otherwise.

Jim · « **Reply #24 on:** July 03, 2003, 11:15:14 pm »

Absolutely. SFC is a great game because it is based on SFB. Not Trek. SFB could have changed all the names of the races and weapons and it would have still been the best space wargame ever made. And ADB could have had full control over all the content.

I think that someone *should* make SFC:GAW based entirely on SFB and add all the missing stuff back in. Change ALL the races to eliminate any mention of Trek so that you get rid of the licensing mess. The game doesn't need Trek as a crutch to survive.

And as to good Trek games... to date there aren't any. SFC is NOT a Trek game. It just happened to have called the original races names from Star Trek. I bet Steve Cole wishes he had made up his own races now.

Anyway... here's to hoping that someday the entire SFB rulebook gets computerized into a great game. If they make it, it will sell.

Jim

NannerSlug · « **Reply #28 on:** July 03, 2003, 11:49:29 pm »

actually scippy, there is a stark contrast between the goal of developing a good game and simply replicating the sfb rule set.. and when you compare everything that is in sfc and even basic elements of sfb - there are vast differences.. ranging from drone (missiles in sfc) and plasma speed to double internals to pfs to fighters/restrictions to the DAC and weapon effects. there are many more differences in sfc/sfb than what you might think.. but that is the truth. that is not to say that sfc does not use the sfb rule set as a basis -because it does.. but it artistically interprets many, many things if you were to try and compare them to said rule set. why were many elements artistically interpeted? because many elements would not work properly in a real time environment.. (speed 32 plasma anyone? speed 8 drones? burnable uim?)

sfc may have walked away from part of an audience.. but without marketing numbers infront of me, i take issue with the term "core". i do not say this out of disrespect. sfc was sold as a trek game first and foremost. yes, they used the sfb "inspired" rule set in the beginning.. but why was it used? again, was the purpose of the game to simply replicate sfb - or to build a good trek game and use sfb inspired rule set to make a good trek game. there is a vast difference between the two. one strives to replicate the board game exactly.. the other seeks to develop a good game and simply uses/intprets an already written rule set to achieve their means.

one other thing - and firesoul is correct.. the ultimate goal of the game is to make cash. that said, go back to the marketing numbers to see how the "core" of the game is determined (when it gets right down to it, the core is determined by that - not by somthing either of us would like to promote).

i would really, honestly love to see those numbers - and what the numbers of sfc1/2, op and 3 are. (and the marketing research done on each of those games)

FireSoul · « **Reply #29 on:** July 04, 2003, 12:20:13 am »

Fact remains that SFC2, EAW or OP, has a following.. a dedicated group of players. We are these players and We have our own reasons to play SFC2.

Now, Nanners, please end the argument. We've heard it all already. Of course I would like to say the same about SFC2 players dissing SFC3.. or EAW players dissing OP players, etc! The games are different. So what. Go play what you like best and leave it at that.

Ok? Enough? End of argument? Finished.
-- Luc

Kieran Forester · « **Reply #30 on:** July 04, 2003, 12:32:01 am »

Nanner,

Why are you pointing out the name differences between drones and missles as if it means something? They are the same thing, from game to game. A drone by any other name impacts just as hard..

Apart from what you pointed out, Nanner, I have to agree with Scippy - SFC1 through OP were as faithful to SFB as the developers could manage with the transition to real time and the limitations of the engine. Granted, there are some departures, but most of them were not because the developers didn't feel like putting them in, or didn't want to make a totally SFB-based game, but because whatever wasn't there was too difficult to code in, especially in OP when Taldren had finally squeezed in as much stuff from SFB as they could successfully code.

SFC3 did walk away from a very large part of its old audience, and it was only saved because it attracted a new group of twitch gamers that were veterans of other arcade-y TNG games(no offense intended guys). I know of few in the D2 forum who even have SFC3, and of those, fewer still who still have it installed on their machines. I can't give you exact sales numbers on SFC3, as I don't work for Taldren/Activision, but I have heard that they were quite disappointing - less than both SFC2 and OP. I'd like to see the numbers as well, myself, as this is only what I've heard from outside sources.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #31 on:** July 04, 2003, 01:02:27 am »

thats my point forrester.. im challenging even that belief about who the "core" is.. i think that the "core" sfc players = sfb players is a myth.. it is true that you can be an sfb and trek fan.. but who and what is the game aimed at - sfb players or the trek population? what was the core audience which was targeted via marketing.. you could be right and the core audience was sfb folk.. but i suspect market research might prove otherwise.. but niether of us have the numbers to prove it.

seperately, you might believe that sfc is very close.. but i beg to differ - i know more about sfb than what you might think.. (yes, the name drones/missiles.. there are differences in what those are a drone is different than a missile).. when you look at the sfb rule set as a whole - sfc uses a fraction of the rules and does not even stay true to many of the basics - whether your talking about double internals, burnable uim, the speeds of drones/plasma.. plasma D.. photons.. yes even g-racks.. (narrow salvos variable overloads.. etc) there are more differences than similarities between the two games.. thats not to demean anyone or anything - but is a statment of fact.. there had to be modifications and changes made for the game to be adapted to real time - and lord only knows why other things were not added in.. and that is not a bad thing, and yes, the result was very pleasing.

however, that does not mean that the rule set currently used is hard-core sfb.. nor does it mean that changes did not need to be made.. it just all depends on someone's personal opinion. especially when it comes to game development and the gaming industry. what some people really, truly want is not so much sfc1, 2, 3 - but a single sfc with expansion packs to it.. and thats not a bad thing either.. but you need to realize that in the gaming industry world you cant just add a couple of races and a couple of weapons and call it a new game. (and sell it to a publisher that way anyhow)

i hope some of this is making sense.

one other thing.. more people are playing sfc3 than you think. last night when i was on d3 for the tnz server i noticed there were ~ 100 folk on (this was like at 1-2 am my time) the patched servers.. (~ 35-40 on tnz - 25-30 on dom wars, and the other were scattered between another 10 or so servers) - i dont know how many are on unpatched.. like i said before.. sfc3 was not - nor has not been given a fraction of the time, support or effort by some.. had it recieved a demo and a supported patch a few months ago (like close to after release) i think you would see a much different story right now.. but even then, i am wondering what the sales numbers really are.

Mog · « **Reply #35 on:** July 04, 2003, 04:39:14 am »

Talking of personal insults, I distinctly remember a set of posts in the D3 forum by Nannerslug, describing his view of D2 and its players. The aim of the game, according to him, was hex munching and avoiding pvp. I, and many other D2 players, found the latter part extremely insulting. I am no coward, in fact I've often publicised the fact that pvp is what I play for. What's even more ironic is that said fellow was avoiding pvp left , right and centre on the recent SG3 server, under his pseudonym of SalsaFlavoredDoritos.

Typical Nannerslug BS.

FPF_TraceyG · « **Reply #36 on:** July 04, 2003, 07:15:56 am »

Rightyo, all you lot.
<gets out a very VERY big Phaser Assault Rifle from underneath the bar's counter>
<click> <----- sound of weapon being set ot disintegrate.

These sort of arguments will get people nowhere. Agree to disagree and leave it that, each to his/her own. Enough said. I can't believe this crap is being brought up again. Go out the back and the beat the living daylights out of each other if it will make you feel better, haven't we seen enough of this shcoolyard posturing already? Its a <fricken> game, treat it as such.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #37 on:** July 04, 2003, 12:19:33 pm »

actually mog - you leave out the previous thread(s) which were no more than insults and slams about sfc3 - the alledge post i made simply pointed out how the 2 dynas were designed - no more, no less. how you personally took it is upto you. in short, quit looking for a way to crucify me. (the d2 was designed and works best when you avoid pvp and hex munch.. dont believe me? how did we win sg3? d3 is designed for more pvp action and engaging your opponent.. those are facts and reflect nothing about the people playing the game)

yes toasty, firesoul has done quite a bit for op and what not, and my post was not made to belittle that effort at all. i think the work firesoul has put into the game is great and should be commended.

that said, though, there is a general lack of respect from some people around here for those who do play or work on enjoying sfc3. where is the respect for people like korah or pelican? why the constant insults for those who like and play sfc3?

in short - agree to disagree - but stop the stone throwing (if you dont believe me - read that other thread arround here where some guy thought sfc3 was too hard) and start supporting each other. i know that might be hard for some people - but its doable and is what is needed.

Demandred · « **Reply #38 on:** July 04, 2003, 01:16:44 pm »

What a shock - yet another thread with Nanner ranting on and on about how great SFC3 is and what fools we are for not worshipping it. Nanner, you play the game you like and we will play the game we like. Frankly, I'd rather you played SFC3, your constant attempts to give the Federation any and all advantages used to sicken me.

News:

Topic: SFC Future/GZ (Read 15605 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

NannerSlug

FireSoul

Mr. Hypergol

jimmi7769

Jim

NannerSlug

FireSoul

Scipio_66

NannerSlug

FireSoul

Kieran Forester

NannerSlug

NannerSlug

FireSoul

Toasty0

Mog

FPF_TraceyG

NannerSlug

Demandred

Chris Jones

Topic: SFC Future/GZ (Read 15605 times)