Something that would please everybody?
That would be difficult. SFC3 was stripped of everything I liked about SFC, yet some people really enjoy it. My lack of understanding of the appeal of SFC3 makes it impossible for me to concieve of something that will work for that camp.
The fact that the studios did not feel any complution to maintain continuity between TOS and TNG does not help. An example would be basic starship architechture. The Klingon K'T'Inga fired photon torpedoes from the same place the D-7 had its main deflector dish,and the Reliant had no main defector while the Enterprise still devoted a huge section to this device.
The only way I could see a streamlined interface work for me is if it automated functions, rather than eliminating functions. The match speed function in SFC3 was an actual improvement. The fact that once you reinforced a specific shield, you had to reinforce a specific shield for the rest of the mission did just the opposet.
The one aspect of SFC that always bothered me was that it was too much of a first person shooter. The opperation of any single ship in close combat is far too involved for much in the way of fleet control. The only way to improve this aspect is by actively promoting fleets.
As soon as SFC came out, people started organizing fleets. The fleets started using BC or RW to communicate in game, so more complicated tactics could be employed. A Dynaverse where participating fleets could have greater control of their empires do much to these ends.
I have only seen one disparaging comment about a Harpoon-like game, but I don't know if anybody could concieve of the difficultly of juggling hundreds of starships in dozens of battle groups. I don't know if it would be possible to do that in multi-player.
An improved Dynaverse could actually do this without making a game for us hard-core war-gamers. Create rules for information sharing and detection. While between missions, individual captains could choose between active scanning, passive scanning, and using a cloak. Information could be shared between units, so a scout could stalk targets for main battle units. It would be nice to know where your starbases are, and not blunder around the map blindly. Territory could be conquered by simply setting up a listening post. The number, and typed of missions would be defined by what was actually out there to fight. One should not have to play a mission in unguarded space to take it.
The player should have the option of choosing between commander's, captain's, and admiral's rulesets, plus difficultly factor. This would allow the uninitiated to work thier way up to the "real game."
I would like to see the timeline between TOS an TNG brought togeter. I would like to see the game hinted at in SFC2, i.e. SFC GAW. If I had that game, I would be very open to a TNG game that threw the SFB rules out the window, but not one as poorly executed as SFC TNG.
I'm trying not to flame here, but what I wish to get acorss is that my most serious problem with SFC3 has nothing to do with rulesets, AV or the TNG setting. Music, skins, and stabily (especially single player stablity) are important quality issues. Also, If there is to be an "all new" game, it needs to be a new game. SFC3 looked to me as if somebody had merely slapped Activion's Starship Creator into a stripped-down version of OP, with a control lay-out that appeared to be avoiding copyright infringments more than providing playablity. I hated having to put the disk in my computer to play the game. Putting that disk in my computer made me feel dirty, like I had been used. Of course I was disappointed that it meant there would be no GAW, but I'm angry about paying $50.00 for a game that doesn't even run with my SiS AMD chipset!
The major driver, from Activision's veiwpoint is that they want to stay current with what is showing on television and in the theatres. Their timing for a TNG game was a bit late. Marketing was too far ahead of development. SFC TNG was released unfinnished without allowing Taldren to produce the game that had obviously been planned. They simply combined assets to put together a product they could sell in short order, at the end of TNG's run.
A publisher should recognise that SFC did not come into being over-night. It is based on a boardgame that has survived over a quarter of a century. ST TNG will be in syndication for decades. This means ST products will be markable for the forceable future. I think Taldren was working alone these lines, and deleberately left a number of things out of SFC2 so that they would include them in future titles. A wise buisness move for Activision would have been to continue that line, learning to blend the rulesets that they created for their own games into SFC as it matured. Hades! Even and old SFBer like me would want to drive a Galaxy-Class cruiser, eventually. The game would grow slowly as more markets opened. Of course, players would drift away, but aunts and uncles would buy the new title for nieces and nephews.
It appears that OP was meant to be SFC3 GAW, but was rushed into production while Taldren still had the rights to produce it. It appeared to the SFC community as "half a game," so few people bought it. It should spent more time in production. SFC TNG should hve spent a lot more time in production. To be fair, SFC3 is very good for the speed at which it was produced. Whatever Taldren does next, should not be rushed!
What could I say about a product that would please both camps? I only know what I want. I want a good strategic game. I want to order ships around, or just be a part of that. I want a game where I have to think about more than the target I'm aiming at. The last thing I want is a game that is more of a first person shooter. There are other titles that do that.
Did I mention that I want SFC GAW?
Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP (Read 33050 times)