Topic: Gamespot Editor's SFC1 Comment (Read 6600 times)

Mr. Hypergol · « **on:** July 02, 2003, 07:41:55 pm »

Check out the middle of this page:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/index.html

Interesting to see someone complement SFC1 again. Must be why everyone is still playing SFC1/2. Maybe what Trek gaming needs now is Galaxies at War!!!

Now that Activision is out of the way.....maybe the chances got a little better.

3dot14 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 02, 2003, 09:25:42 pm »

hear hear!

NannerSlug · « **Reply #2 on:** July 02, 2003, 09:52:31 pm »

check your numbers hyper.. while there might be more gsa players for sfc.. there are by far more people playing d3 than any of the d2/op.. even during the sg3 campaign. different games, different focuses. activision leaving was a BAD thing in that i doubt anyone will pick up or try to sign a contract with paramount. i might be wrong.. lets hope i am wrong.. but for me, any way you cut it its bad.

for what its worth.. NONE of the sfc products have equaled or suppassed sfc1. yes, i like and still play sfc2/op.. but at the same time, i am not as narrow minded as to say that 2/op is better.. its different. i like both quite a bit actually.

jimmi7769 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 02, 2003, 10:13:16 pm »

Quote:

, i am not as narrow minded as to say that 2/op is better.. its different. i like both quite a bit actually.

Good-Ole-Nanner ;-)

Tulmahk · « **Reply #4 on:** July 03, 2003, 03:29:52 am »

The hatred of the Starfleet Battles Old Guard finally turned in on itself, and was directed at the latest offering in the SFC line. The line they supposedly loved so much. This led to lower-than-expected sales.

Congratulations SBOG! You've contributed to the end of the SFC line.

So go right ahead and keep playing SFC1, waiting for the second coming in the form of GaW.

Too bad it isn't going to happen.

What the next Star Trek starship combat sim is going to need is a new producer and a new developer.

Sten · « **Reply #7 on:** July 03, 2003, 09:52:16 am »

Damn I knew I shouldn't have bought 2 copies of SFC3. Had I known buying this game would destroy the SFC franchise I would have passed on SFC3.

I prefer SFC1, EAW, and OP to SFC3.

Guess what my 12 year old daughter does also. She thinks the game is to easy. She only played it on D3. The only thing she wants to see from SFC3 in OP is Romulans with a real cloak. <crossed fingers>

Oh and the ability for us both to get online together and fly as a team like we can with SFC3, and thats the only selling point for me about SFC3. I can play on a D3 with only 1 IP.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #8 on:** July 03, 2003, 10:28:43 am »

Tulmahk, relax.. people on both sides need to move away from being grumpy at each other.

sfc1 was an excellent game - and was a unique ground breaking trek game. people played it and liked it. however, the numbers for 2 and op were not as much. we dont know the numbers for 3, but we can assume that it was not what they expected or planned. however, i can tell you that it did reach a new crowd and recieved the best ratings in a long time.. BUT THERE WAS NO DEMO.. nor was there any sort of official patch to rectify much needed fixes.

to me, i am really tired of seeing the split in the community.. but it will probably always be there unfortunately.

anyhow.. best thing to do is just let it go and see what happens. whether people like it or not, though, activision was a good thing that happened to the sfc series in that they at very least invested money into the project. had they not - things would be considerably more bleak than they are now.

IndyShark · « **Reply #11 on:** July 03, 2003, 03:52:30 pm »

I bought SFC3 and enjoyed it for a month or so.

I bought SFC2/OP and LOVED it for a year or two.

I bought SFC1 and played it for six months or so.

Please, God let there be a SFC4 based on SFC2 or OP!!!! Forget what I said about Christy Brinkley! I really want this and my wife would be upset if I started playing with Christy....!

Magnum357 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 03, 2003, 08:07:14 pm »

I think I agree with you guys. Although I do like SFC3 and still play it alot, making the game have hardly any roots from SFC1,2, and OP was not a wise move. Like what 3Dot14 said, just because you slap the "Starfleet Command" name on it or the Star Trek name on a title, doesn't mean it will sell just aswell as before. The game mechanics are so different in SFC3 compared to the previous versions that it literly is a whole different game. Most fans of the earlier versions (a good chunk of which are SFB fans) saw that their was little point in buying the 3 version since EAW and OP's game systems where proven tested by the old Paper and Pencel system of SFB. SFB's rule system has been around for over 20 years and has a large following. A good majority of SFB fans bought SFC1, 2, and OP because its based on their rule system. Since SFC3 has completely different mechanics, their was little point in buying the title.

If the rumors are true that Activision is going to sue Viacom, and that Star Trek's financial worth is going down the toilet, why not make a deal with ADB and base this so called "Galaxies at War" with the blessing of that small company? Granted, it would not be Star Trek, but with the way Star Trek is going lately its getting too expensive to buy the licence anyway and it might be a whole lot cheaper to negotiate with ADB. Also, you know then that since it is based on the SFB game mechanics, you will certainly get the SFB crowd back. Heck, you might even convince ADB to do make some more material for SFB based on time periods of later Generations (like their version of what ships would be like in the Next Generation of SFB). Both Taldren and ADB could flourish together if they neogotiated with one another. Forget Star Trek, if the franchise is really dieing, then what is the point in trying to get the licence for it?

NannerSlug · « **Reply #14 on:** July 03, 2003, 08:11:45 pm »

a better designed game in your own opinion, pi.

the demise of the series has far more involved than either side would like to admit. would GaW have sold more? HELL NO! the core of the sfc series is probably not sfb folk - but folk like my self who like star trek. the sfb engine did well and provided hours of fun - that is true... but it is also true that a good game does not have to be based on that rule set to work.

do we know how bad sfc3 went? not really.

GaW might be popular around here and a few other places.. but you ask the average person - or do your market research - would you buy a game with tholians and andros or with the borg and species whatever/ dominion.. hmm.. wonder which would get the vote..

could sfc3 play have been improved.. in hindsight, probably (i miss my t-bombs. heh) - but not for the reasons you might think.. there are many, many folk playing both the patched and unpatched servers who are enjoying the game.. and that is with no official support from activision.. and NO DEMO for sfc3.. the demo thing is a killer for me, simply put.

ask your self - do you buy a game which does not have a demo. my answer is no. i want to try the game before i lay out 50 bucks on it. the only game i have not done so is with R6: raven shield.. and that has more to do with research for punkbuster than game play (though the game play is sweet). there was a demo for sfc1 and for sfc2.. but none for sfc3.. in my opinion - i think that hurt a problem which already exisisted because of the whole beta/official patch situation. lets put sfc2/op is the same boat as sfc3 is now and see how many people would have purchased it.

finally, regarding the "core of the game." many of us simply enjoy playing a good game - what rule set it uses doesnt matter as long as the game is good. i am fairly confident that many folks didnt read the box or play the game and say *gasp* they changed the whole game on me - this is an outrage. they simply played the game and either like it or they dont. reminder: it is possible for folks to like both.. but i know that goes against some people's conventional wisdom.

in short, lighten up and play the game. either you like it or you dont.

one other thing, for the most part, you dont get the evil balance complaining threads that you did with sfc2. THAT is in its self an accomplishment. instead of focusing on all the negative things - why not point out the positives.. but that would be counter productive and actually prove that people buy the game for it being a solid trek combat simulator instead of being an sfb game (which is what i believe is the case).

i would love to see the sales numbers on each of the games at this point.

3dot14 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 03, 2003, 08:25:32 pm »

LOL. The Isreali and Palestinians will get peace faster than we do, Nanner. I am really beginning ro see this World (real world) conflict at a newer level. Just imagine that we can't even agree to a game design, let alone politics, and world issues.

I disagree with most of your post, and I have counters for them, and no doubt you will disagree with all my counter and counter and counter...

What we need is someone who has a vision (not Bush, right now, it's Sharon) who is willing to blink first. (Vision, Blink, get it?

)

I will make a mental to avoid this subject as much as possible. (I may still be baited into it in the future, I am sorry to admit.) Peace.

Demandred · « **Reply #16 on:** July 03, 2003, 09:01:16 pm »

I've noticed an interesting thing recently (may just be in the GFL but I would doubt it). More and more people are coming back to SFC2/OP from SFC3. I wouldn't really know as I haven't played SFC3, but it seems to me like the game has less staying power than the earlier versions.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #17 on:** July 03, 2003, 09:11:37 pm »

well pi, i think a lot can be done by people simply accepting that a) there is more than 1 right answer to a question regarding preferences in games we play.. its all about personal opinion. b) realize and yes, respect that the other person's likes are different - not any less than your own.

simply put - you can agree to disagree. swallow our pride and just say - hey, that might be what you like, but i might like somthing different.. it really is that simple.. (think camaro vs mustang debate.. THAT can get heated. lol)

all the nagging/slandering of sfc3 does no more than irritate me. i like sfc3. i love the TNZ and DW mods.. so sue me.

that does not make sfc2 any better or worse..

here is another example.. which is better.. counter strike or rainbow 6.. battlefield 1942 or medal of honor.. its all about opinion, pi.

and i do firmly believe that the core group of this game who spend money on this game are trek fans.. but is that what there is an issue over.. the alledged soul of this group.. trek or sfb? at that point i would really, truly love to see the marketing research they did for sfc3.. and trust me, they had to do some sort of marketing research.. you dont just spend several million dollars on computer game development without doing your homework.

like wise, i also believe its true regarding the whole patch/no demo process and the impact it has had on this game/series. i also doubt that many of the sfc3 players visit here - but are out there on their own.. how many people heard of korah or pelican before sfc3? what about many of the other new folk who enjoy sfc3?

again pi - just agree to disagree.. but one thing i can do, is supportive of the OP/eaw patch process and pray for an sfc3 patch.

Mr. Hypergol · « **Reply #18 on:** July 03, 2003, 10:31:44 pm »

Nanner,

I like you and respect you for standing your ground. I disagree with you but hey.....it's a good and interesting debate.

You know what my real problem is?

They made SFC3 TNG instead of SFC3 GAW....and then SFC4 TNG.

That just irks me.

Damn them!!!

News:

Topic: Gamespot Editor's SFC1 Comment (Read 6600 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Mr. Hypergol

3dot14

NannerSlug

jimmi7769

Tulmahk

Cleaven

WillWeasel

Sten

NannerSlug

Mr. Hypergol

Lepton1

IndyShark

3dot14

Magnum357

NannerSlug

3dot14

Demandred

NannerSlug

Mr. Hypergol

jimmi7769

Topic: Gamespot Editor's SFC1 Comment (Read 6600 times)