Topic: SFC Future/GZ (Read 15437 times)

NannerSlug · « **Reply #80 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 #81 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 #82 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 #83 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.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #84 on:** July 04, 2003, 01:09:26 am »

Quote:

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

thats fine firesoul.. and i think its great.. but i think the main issue here i personally would like to see put to rest are a) the personal insults ive seen laid here at people who play play or prefere sfc3 b) the assumption that sfc2 is superior or that the "core" of sfc fandom are the sfb only folk and c) sfc3 has recieved the short end of just about every stick possible.

in short.. yeah, the games are different - if you love sfc2 and op, thats great (they are not bad games - i certain enjoyed playing them or why would i be here?) and i think its wonderful some of the improvments that have been made and forth comming.. however, at the same time, would it be possible to let people enjoy what they play and please refrain from insulting them, or the games they enjoy (i am not saying you do, but i know others have). instead, would it be possible to lift a helping finger as a pose to throwing a stone?

take it easy.

Mog · « **Reply #87 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 #88 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 #89 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 #90 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.

Kieran Forester · « **Reply #92 on:** July 04, 2003, 03:06:42 pm »

Nanner, it's been said multiple times that the G-racks could not be coded in the way they were in SFB- thus the quick and dirty fix that was in SFC2, i.e. the addition of an AMD6 and treating the G-rack as a standard A-rack. No, it's not 'hardcore' SFB, but it's a good deal closer than you may think. The game was primarily aimed at Trek fans, as I could tell from the early ads for SFC1 in magazines and such, but as it turns out, its 'core' audience ended up with a majority of SFB fans. I myself bought SFC1 because it was Trek, but I bought SFC2 and OP because it was SFB-based Trek. Heck, I enjoyed my experience of the SFB universe so much just from my experiences with SFC that I bought Federation and Empire and all its supplements. Face it, Nanner, even with your known and clearly evident pro-SFC3 bias, you have to realize that the best computer games have been SFC1 and 2 - the ones, coincedentally, the ones based on SFB. Even your beloved SFC3 keeps some of the SFB elements, watered down though they may be.

And finally, I didn't say people weren't playing SFC3, I said that its overall sales numbers weren't as good as its predecessors. There's a difference. You'd never be able to tell that maybe, say, only 5,000 copies of a game were sold if all those 5,000 played online.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #93 on:** July 04, 2003, 04:10:05 pm »

Just for the record, I play SFC1, SFC OP, and SFC3 contantly. I'm a long time SFB fan (which is part of the reason why I like making SFB ships) but I'm also a Star Trek fan. I don't know why their is such infighting between the SFC3 crowd and the SFB/SFC crowd. I try to consider both games rule sets as different time lines. SFC3 is fun to play, but only online from my experience. The Computer AI is not really complex at all and you only get a good challenge when playing others online. SFC OP and SFC1 are great even if you just play the AI, but a killer experience if you play head to head. Just so many tactics and strategies that require you to really know your ships and race tactics well.

I do like SFc3 though. The rule system in that game needs more refinement I think (need more weapon systems and more race balancing and more races in my opinioin), but I would have to say that it is by far the best Star Trek ship combat game out their. SFB/SFC1,2,OP have this already covered with years of proven tested game experience with SFB.

What I would like to see Taldren (or whoever do) is make both a SFB style game and a TNG type game jointly. They already have the game engines and rule systems in place for both games, all they need to do is refine and develope the TNG game more and add more stuff from the SFB universe in the SFB style game. You could have two games, one called SFC: Galaxies at War (based on SFB rules) and another game called SFC: The Next Generation (based on SFC3 rules only refined and developed).

Komodo · « **Reply #94 on:** July 04, 2003, 05:27:27 pm »

Magnum- you've got it right

I really doubt we see anything more SFC ever again though.

I played 'em all too, and enjoyed each version for their own merit. Well. I actually think I wasted $ on OP LOL. That's just me though- many had fun with it and still do. I just wish I could partake in the excellent SFC3 mods I've heard so much about! I'd really like to see what all the hubbub is about. Unfortunatley I just don't have the resources- I'm still surprised I could even run the standard game with little problem. I'm not spending another cent on this machine though! Better to save it for a new one (one can hope lol)

Mog- I'm surprised at you. Being a member of a shrinking membership, I'd expected better behaviour by now. Going incognito was a double bonus which we had some fun with. FUN Too many have too long of memories, and much too little forgiveness. I'm pretty sure of all the crap you guys heaped on Paul, did you see any coming back your way? It's one thing to offer an opinion (regardless of knowing how it will be taken), quite another to punish someone for it. Bad form.

And that's what this place is all about- offering opinions- isn't it?

Whiplash · « **Reply #95 on:** July 04, 2003, 10:04:32 pm »

Ya know, thats true. I have Dominion Wars and Klingon Academy if I want a Star Trek game NOT based on SFB. And lots of other space games too. But the SFC series is the only games based on SFB, a game I consider to be largely superior to any other Trek combat game invented thus far. When SFC left that unique niche, it lost all the uniqueness I really cared about. And got dumbed down so bad that I have now been playing SFC2 for a longer time than I played SFC3 even if you count only the time I've played since SFC3 was released.

I think time has shown which game has had the greater popularity and staying power, a fact which I repeatedly screamed from the time the concepts were announced, and which has sadly come true. I think it comes from not understanding the game dynamics that made SFC/SFC so absorbing in the first place. Tactical variety. Slow speed means lots of power for shields and overloads, but to contend with seeking weapons, you must go fast. Those kinds of tactical pressures were mostly eliminated from SFC3 and thats why it is an inferior game. Too bad game developers don't listen to people with 15 years of experience in SFB (not only me, but plenty of others), and who have the silly notion that they can do a better game practically overnight.

W.

Tulwar · « **Reply #96 on:** July 08, 2003, 12:18:32 am »

I see the future of SFC very clearly. SFC TNG through fan base for this series into chaos. I doubt that any new game in this series will be produced for a very long time. Eventually, someone from Tadren, or ADB will pick up the game again and pony up the capital to rewrite it. In the near future, I only see declining intrist, as Activision realizes that they can't just dump thier content into somebody else's franchise without cosequenses. I see SFC EAW in about 10 to 20 years. I'll pre-order it, even if I'm so old, I have to pay my grandson to man the helm!

Tulwar · « **Reply #97 on:** July 08, 2003, 12:22:52 am »

Whoops! I meant to say, "I see SFC GAW" in about 10 to 20 years." In any case, I expect it to be very well polished, in a very attractive package! I waited 15 years for SCF1, what's another 15, now that I know it's technicly and economicly possible?

Davey E · « **Reply #98 on:** July 08, 2003, 07:38:04 am »

Got SFC1 , 2 , OP and 3

SFC3 is not on my hard drive anymore, as i simply find it boring and limited tactically
Not a patch on SFC2 / OP

Those simulations will be long played after SFC3 is dead

Now give us SFC GAW or else

VelvetAcidChrist · « **Reply #99 on:** July 26, 2003, 07:09:13 am »

well i ve to agree with baron although i only had tng mod and just plaed sfc3 hardcore for like 2 months.
i still have it installed but dont play it anymore its just out of intrest till they change some serious stuff like baron requested.

News:

Topic: SFC Future/GZ (Read 15437 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

NannerSlug

FireSoul

Kieran Forester

NannerSlug

NannerSlug

FireSoul

Toasty0

Mog

FPF_TraceyG

NannerSlug

Demandred

Chris Jones

Kieran Forester

Magnum357

Komodo

Whiplash

Tulwar

Tulwar

Davey E

VelvetAcidChrist

Topic: SFC Future/GZ (Read 15437 times)