Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series?

[David Ferrell]

No offense taken TF.  The sales of SFC3 are often thought to be low, but they are not.

At the moment, we are in the dark as far as the license goes.  We will continue to work
on a patch for SFC3 and hope it is released eventually.

TF, I hope you enjoy at least the single player campaign(s) for SFC3.  I think I did a lot of good
work in there and I think they are enjoyable.  Please get the Beta patch, it will increase
your enjoyment of the game.

Thanks,

Dave

 

[Tulwar]

Folks, since we've turned this thread into aa SFC2 vs. SFC3 flame war, so let me point out the obvious problems that many of us have with SFC3.

1.)  It has deprived us of the logical sequel to SFC2.

2.)  It lacks enough material to be considdered on par with SFC2.

3.)  It has split the SFC community.

These are significant wrongs. If SFC TNG were released after SFC GAW, and I saw a flame war, I would tell the GAW crowd to grow up.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  To add insult to injury, SFC3 lacks the content of SFC2:  8 races vs. 4, 6 shields vs 4, ect.  Because so many of us feel deprived, yet other like the new game better, these bloody flame wars go on under any general topic.

I would pobably buy a SFC title based on an improved version of SFC3, but not until SFC GAW is on my HD.

Now, will someone get us back on topic?  

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 Now, will someone get us back on topic?  

Yeah....back on topic.

My original thoughts at the beginning of this thread kind of revolved around the possibility that having the Trek liscense split might be good for all of us...sfc2 and sfc3 fans alike.

Like Tul said, most of the SFC2 fans probably would have had no problem with SFC TNG if it had been SFC4 instead.

The best solution to this rift  in the future would be to make two lines of SFC, but as long as a single publisher, Activision, controls everything, a product line split would have been 100%  impossible.  With multiple publishers a product split might not be AS impossible and perhaps other creative liscensing deals could be worked out.

And yes, thanks David for commenting.

[Scipio_66]

Quote:
I for one did not buy SFC2 or OP because it was SFB-related. <snip>  Me, like many more others than you'd think, bought it because it was the only decent Trek game released thus far...

Really?  And what, pray tell, made it the only decent Trek game released thus far?  I think you like it for what it is.  And what it is, of course, is SFB.  If you bought it and played it for a day before shelving it, then you may have purchased it because it was a Trek game and stopped because you didn't like its rule set.  If you kept playing it then you did so because you enjoyed the SFB rule set.

This is why I think it is silly for Nanner to say that the core audience of SFC1 and SFC2 are not SFB fans.  The core audience of a game is comprised of the people who like that game.  SFC is SFB.  Really, it is.  The (handful of) differences between the two are no more significant than the SFB house rules I've found in various gaming clubs across the country.  I've seen seeking weapons move various speeds, and I've played with miniatures using turn gauges -- rather than hexes -- and quarter-turn advance plotting -- surpisingly close to "real time".  Thus, the core audience of SFC1 and SFC2 were SFB players whether they knew this about themselves or not.

Some purchasers may not enjoy the process of setting up a board game on their tabletop and pushing carefully painted miniatures towards one another.  No worries, and with SFC there is now no need.  But if you still play SFC1 and SFC2 then you must like SFC1 and 2.  And if you like them, you like SFB.

Of course this all changed with SFC3 (sic).

-S'Cipio  

[David Ferrell]

You must remember nothing happens in a vacuum (except for boiling water at really low temps).

There couldn't have been a GAW due to licensing problems with Activision.

If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went
the way of the dinosaur.

Saying there should have been GAW first is like saying "I wish I were a fish".

Thanks,

Dave  

[NannerSlug]

first off, tulwar, you have some valid points in that i think sfc3 could have been more detailed and more content ala tnz.. (the popularity of the tnz and dominion war mod proves this out - and it proves how it could sell well).. but depriving someone of the logical conclusion of sfc2 and splitting the community? HA! most folks who play sfc3 are rather open to sfc2 (because it is another trek game).. they enjoy sfc3 better in most cases.. but most of the community splitting is done by those folk who are simply hard core sfb folk.. and that is their perogative.. no one can force you to like sfc3 - just as many folk who think that sfc2 isnt for them (and there are many out there - you should read some of the other trek forums.. i have read quite a few. its funny when you move beyond this forum some comments) play other games..

also, not true scippy!  there are more differences than similarities between sfc2 and sfb.. it is true that sfc1/2 and parts of op use sfb as a basis - but there are so many differences that you cannot claim that (even in fundamental elements like speed of weapons). sfc2 is not perfect - just as sfc3 is not perfect. however, the core audience ARE trek fans who are willing to play/try trek combat sims.. they are not set on a rule set persae - just as long as it works. that is the category i fall under.. we are gamers.. people who are looking for a good time and are willing to play/spend time and enjoy various games - and try things.. sfc has been an excellent series because of the many design decisions made by taldren and yes, the producers - whether interplay or activision. most of us are very open minded.. (dont believe me - check out the number of folk downloading the mods for sfc3 which are in the hundreds of megs)

also, much of why people play a game over and over again is because of the community, clan or fleet and personal experiences. that said, i think its fair to point out that it was not sfb that made sfc such a good game. it is true that it was a good basis - a good start, but it is not the end all to be all. there were many, many design decisions which made sfc a different animal.. check your marketing research and see who people would like to see in a trek combat game.. now if i have 5 million to invest in a game, where am i going to spend it?

ill be repetitve and say people should just let things go and enjoy what they enjoy instead of constantly harrassing the other side.. its tough enough for those who are not getting support from activision - but to add insult to injury is worse.

hate to bust some egos out there - but most of us enjoy the game because its trek.  thats not to say 3 is perfect, but to say that many of us are open and simply want a fun and enjoyable space combat sim.. sfc3 gives us that.. just wish it had more detail.  

[Scipio_66]

Quote:

also, not true scippy!

Is so.    Now where does that leave us?

Quote:
 there are more differences than similarities between sfc2 and sfb.

This statement is so far from true you really shouldn't have bothered taking the time to type it.

Quote:
 that said, i think its fair to point out that it was not sfb that made sfc such a good game.

Of course it was!  SFB is what the game *is*. You are staring at the Pacific ocean, seeing one island, and saying, "there is no water in the Pacific."

Quote:
hate to bust some egos out there - but most of us enjoy the game because its trek.

No, you enjoy it because it is *good* Trek.   How many *bad* Trek games did you keep playing for a year or more?

Quote:
just as many folk who think that sfc2 isnt for them (and there are many out there - you should read some of the other trek forums.. i have read quite a few. its funny when you move beyond this forum some comments) play other games..

Well of course other forums think differently!  I wouldn't expect it to be otherwise.  The core audience of SFC1/2  are SFB fans, because that is what those games are.  Other games are *not* SFB, and thus logically their core audience holds a different opinion about SFB.  I would not expect the core audience (ie. those who continue to play the game and consider it their favorite) of Bridge Commander to think the best way to make a Star Trek combat game is to import the SFB rule set.  I would expect them to think that using the BC rule set is the way to go.  That's why they play the game they do.  Likewise with SFC3 (sic).

-S'Cipio
 

[EmeraldEdge]

Quote:
SFC3 took what it needed from SFB and dropped the ''unrealistic'' aspects from it... like a set impusle speed limit, the inability to go in reverse

Hmmm, did you know that after a certain speed in Trek, you have to go to warp?  That's reality, too.  That's why they say 1/4 impulse speed, because in many cases it has been presented as a capped thing before you reach the necessity to go to warp.

As for Reverse, that is SFB hardcore (Kaufman retrograde, what a delight).  There was a huge lobby to bring this SFB rule to SFC, which is one of the reasons you have it for SFC3 (one of the many improvements the SFB crowd lobbied for).   SFB has rules for so much more than you probably realize.  It's a tremendous template for Trek combat.  It should also be noted that I believe they had to procure the license from ADB to make SFC3 because of it's SFB elements (I believe Erik said that somewhere).  So even this game isn't devoid of SFB stuff (like reverse)    

Edit:  As for the topic the splitting of the license.  Well, if it is split, there may be a possible splitting of product lines, but only one could carry the SFC name.  Whichever publisher purchases the name isn't going to want to share it with a current competitor.  "My june release SFC sold better than your June Release SFC, haha and you had the name first and let me use it!", that probably won't happen.  So, you would end up with one having to take a new name (something that SFC3 should have done in the first place,imo).  So, if they are split we'll have and two different companies happen to get the idea that it woudl be a good idea to do more Trek tactical combat games, then we'll have to see which line (or a new one) might come up with the name.

[Tumulorum Fossor]

 

Quote:
  If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went the way of the dinosaur.

--Dave Ferrell


Yes, that was my impression exactly.  Activision payed some serious money for that cross-license across TOS, TMP, & TNG, so one would have to be quite naive to expect that there wasn't significant pressure to make a game with enough broad-based appeal to justify that hefty license fee, so TNG SFC was essentially a fait accompli once Activision signed Taldren, regardless of even TALDREN'S opinion on the subject.  Again, I have no inside info on this, but based on the timing of everything, it does SEEM that Activision was also putting significant time constraints on Taldren probably because: (1) i software development, time=money, and Activision already was feeling shareholder heat to justify Viacom's license fee for ST, with possible panic arising due to lackluster performance relative to expectations of other (nonSFC) titles; and (2) to coincide with the release of Nemesis.

And we all don't have to be hollywood insider Entertainment Tonight moles to realize how Nemesis did in the box office.  And THAT'S not a stretch on my part.  

But my biggest hope was that SFC3 was going to be something like this:

SHIP MODELS:
Early Era=TOS, Ent
Middle Era=TMP/Movies
Late Era=TNG, DS9
Advanced (XShips)=Voyager

RACES:
Kzinti->Cardassian
Lyran->Bajoran
Tholian->Tholian
Orion->Maquis, Merchantman, etc.
Andromedan->Borg
ISC->Dominion
(but maintain the SFB ruleset in all the above translations).

Even if liberties had to be taken with the SFB 'history timeline,' as long as the weapons operated as per the SFB rules for the races.

Oh, yeah: toggable SFB Reverse Movement (there seems to be a rumor in this very thread that SFB does NOT allow reverse movement: untrue, just not implemented in SFC, but very famous strategies in SFB arise strictly due to reverse movement in starships. See "Kaufman Retrograde."), and toggable optional hidden cloak rules.

Klingons would get Stasis Field Generators, too!


THAT'S what I was hoping SFC3 was going to be: the Star Trek license and SFB gameplay working in tandem.  So I guess that becomes my wishlist for SFC4 - I just don't know if it is realistic at this point in time to expect a software publisher to produce such a game as that when Viacom demands such hefty money for the Star Trek license, such that a game that even REMOTELY suggests a niche market does not become economically viable.


Just my thoughts.

-TF

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 There couldn't have been a GAW due to licensing problems with Activision.

If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went
the way of the dinosaur.

Saying there should have been GAW first is like saying "I wish I were a fish".

Thanks,

Dave  

Sometimes these threads make me drink like a fish.

OK, back on topic again.

Again Dave, (not to butter your bread but) thanks for the comments.  Parkay!!!

I do understand why TNG SFC had to happen.  No problem.

So here is the million dollar question:

If the liscensing issues work out after all is said and done between Activision and Paramount (i.e. Trek liscense splits), would Taldren consider making a project proposal to whoever has TOS liscense for another SFB based SFC...i.e. a GAW-type game?

I just want to know if you guys would consider actively pursuing such a game if a new publisher got the TOS liscensing.  If it's something you guys will never again pursue then I would consider GAW dead completely.  Frankly no other company other than Taldren could even make the game in my opinion.

Does Taldren want to make GAW  eventually?  Are you guys "looking" for a way to do it?

If you can't answer these types of questions I understand.

Sigh.    

[olbuzzard]

Gentlemen  please answer me this...  why must we be at one extreme or the other  ...  blast teh SFC-1 and 2 games for sfc-3   or visa versa...  damn the sfc community to hell because they do not adhear to srtict SFB rules.   Goodness man...  if we did SFB to the rule book there would be some seroius changes in fed ships that shome of you would screem to high heaven as being unfair or out of balance...   and the same would be said if for example if the rules for Klingon ships were actually installed  ( the mutiny thing for beginners)

Before yu guys start flaming Olbuzzards butt  ...  please consider this  (then you can barbeQue as you see fit) :

Why not have the best of both worlds.  There are somethings about sfc-3 that are pretty cool  (But truthfully I dont like quite as well as OP)  Some of you have made remarks about OP that are out right slanderous attempting to intimidate others or make them feel less than "worthy" by not "measuring up to the standards of [insert your particular game you are pushing].   Frankly SFB was good in its time...  but extremeists drove most of us away from tourneys etc...  and the same thing is happening here all over again.  There are good aspects of these games that can be done up right and make one cool game...  leaving the varroius servers to set things up as needed.  Imagine a game that has less buggs !!  Imagine the potential of the things we have learned that will work ....   try for once to lay aside such rediculous bias and foolishness and pull   T O G E A T H E R !!!!!!!!

Go to either extreme ...  keep blasting the paint off the walls at every thing in sight that does not reflect [insert either SFC 1,2, OP or SFC-3] ...  keep it up bubba  !!!   No one will give a care one wheather anythig is ever developed or not !!!

 

[Mr. Hypergol]

olbuzzard,

I don't dislike SFC3, but my personal preference for SFC is a game closely based on SFB.  If I have to choose between the 2 games I'm definately interested ONLY in the SFB based game.  This comes partly from the fact that I have really enjoyed the board game since the early 80's (it's been one of my most popular hobbies) and have always desired a computer form of that game.  If both games are available I'd buy both, but I don't want the SFC3 form to REPLACE the SFC2 kind.  That's the source of the conflict.

I understand why SFC3 happened from a business standpoint, I just hope the source of the conflict can be fixed eventually with more games in the series.

I would like to see the original EAW storyline completed eventually, then I will be COMPLETELY satisfied.

I am really not interested in any other type of game in this genre.  The SFC series is the only Trek computer games I have ever owned.  None of the other Trek games seemed to be interesting enough for me to buy.

I have many games not based on SFB, I'm not interested in an SFC not based on SFB.  SFB is my favorite game, has been for many years.  I know what I like.  That's pretty much it for me.  It's really quite simple.  

[olbuzzard]

Nothig wrong with preferences ....  but there is more to consider than just one community or the other.  There must be room for both.  My suggestion is simple.  Use some of the SFC/SFB stuff as a foundation to build on.  It's obvious that only certain ones were use in the development of the game  (SFC-1 , 2 and OP )  It is also obvious that some things went south in the beta patch of sfc-3  ...  (wont go there) ...  but by leaving the SFB desgin entirely I think perhaps it left out some things that made the game more interesting.

Here is an example of something that is a particular interst of mine that frankly I love...  but some dont...  X-class ships.  Frankly the heavies .. (XCA calss ) were a bit over the top...   but they could be revamped ...  toned down a bit....  and still made more playable.

Something else to comsider ...  how about just a little different format??  Have you ever tried Freelancer.. on line ?  You can actually join a battle in progress.  Very interesting !!

If we dont occasionally look out side of the box....  we will never learn something new.  I'm 51 years old  ...  trust me ..  I know what I'm talking about on this one.  If the game were set up correctly ..  then the individual server admins could be more flexable.  If all you wanted was strict SFB  ( oh by the way please include proper Fed power management and proper torp use and hit ratios  as well as the Klingon mutany rules as well....  others too ..  just a couple that are not in there but managed to be conviently over looked) ..  then by all means set up the server accordingly.  If more up-to-date stuff is desired..  then again...  it's there..  But, my friend if you build a rigid structure ... that sir it its end. It should be noted that you already have SFB ..  parts of it..  SFC1,2 and OP.  If you simply want more of the same  then all you need is a simple expansion pack, not another new game.

 All  3 games do have some good points.  Now lets try to get them put togeather.  As well consider some fresh ideas that have worked on other games.  IMHO this community has a lot of very talented people in it.  There is no telling where  this thing could go if we work at it.

[Cpt. Chaos]

And just to throw in a couple more cents:

For us, SFC already represents a serious compromise away from SFB: no hex map, no energy allocation form, all the little tweaks and mods that resulted from the shift to real-time, a really wierd "clock" that doesn't seem to have anything to do with impulses, a general lack of numeric readouts, especially for things like shield strength, etc., etc.

So, from our point of view, we aren't moved by calls to 'compromise' any further.

In general, if you don't like SFB, what are you doing here?  This is an SFB game.  If you don't like SFB, why play a game based on SFB?  Go play some other Trek game, it's not like you don't have plenty to choose from...  Leave us what's left of our game and quit arguing to change it into something else.  You want something else, go play something else!

Sheesh!


Chaos

[Tulwar]

We all know that SFC3 is what it is simply because Activision had the money to buy the rights to ST TOS and could dictate to Tadren what type of game to produce and when to release it.  

[olbuzzard]

the kind of attitude you are displaying Capt Chaos is a lot of what is killing the community.  This type of response is exactly wht I'm talking about.  It's not "dumbing down a game" to grow.  It's not compromise to utilize other ideas that work to make a game more playable...  

If took your idea of SFB only and took it to it's logical conclusion i would tell you to stick to your game board and you and you friends would be happier.  ( and so would we)...  or at the very least..  you have EAW  ...  and all the mods you scould possible want  ...  maybe you need an expansion pack of sorts...  but you do not need to waste the resources of Taldren on another EAW   or SFB only game.  That would be a travisty of the worse possible kind.

But I'm not that type of person.  I still think that the right answer is some where between the SFC-3  (which did away with SFB altogeather)  and SFB extreamism ...  which as a genreal rule will strangle what life there is left in the community to death.

Personally..  i prefer to live.

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 If you simply want more of the same then all you need is a simple expansion pack, not another new game.
 

If that's all it takes then I'm all for it.  If a series of patches would give us Tholians and Andros then I'm all for it.  All I want is for SFC to be complete.  A new game is not necessarily needed for that I agree.

If somehow the Tholian web tech and Andro tech could be patched into OP then that would just about satisfy most of the SFB crowd.  Taldren could even provide basic UI's and just skip any new artwork required for these races.  Taldren could just have someone like Magnumman or Firesoul make a shiplist for them and the model community provide the needed models (I prefer Brezgonne's SFB Tholians personally).

If the Tholian and Andro Tech can be added to OP by Taldren, then GAW could be a perfect example of an SFC fan community creation.  The community could provide the models, shiplists, and campaigns with the mod tools already available.  Using the mission editors a series of fan-made single player missions could be put together to create single player campaigns telling the story of the Andro invasion and the Tholian conflicts (anyone remember Jim's SFC1 Hydran campaigns?...perfect example of what I'm saying).

I'm not a programmer, but just how hard would it be to add Web tech or Andro PA panels / displacement device to OP?  Anyone care to take a shot at this question?  Taldren?  David?  

[Scipio_66]

I think the next SFB-faithful game (which I hope will happen) needs more than just a few new races and more weapons.  The Dynaverse itself needs a serious update.  Especially the multi-player stabiity, the ability of the admin to control the shipyards, tighter admin ability to control which missions get offered in which hexes, and the and the ability of the admin to affect on-map AI behavior.  I'd love for scouts to be able to see enemy icons two hexs away.  I'd love all those leftover icons to stop cluttering the map.    If you need to take something from SFC3, the ability to form a "fleet" with allied players would be nice.

And oh yes, Old Buzzard, I absolutely agree that I'd like to see you Feds get variable overloads for your photons.  It really helps with their power management.  Good call there.  I'd like lots of other things too.  I'd love to see bolted plasma torps, the full ECM game, reserve power, plasma sabot........  the list never ends.  This game has so much room to grow.

-S'Cipio

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 I think the next SFB-faithful game (which I hope will happen) needs more than just a few new races and more weapons.  

Oh yes I agree....if they do make an entirely new game, it'll have to be much more than the above.

But it seems like all we can hope for anytime soon is OP patches that add content.  In that case I'll take what I can get.  

[Reverend]

No Scipio, I had a similar argument just an hour or so ago- I didnt say I liked it because it had SFB... I do not worship SFB as you- the ONLY reason I played it ws because it was the only decent Trek game out, where you get to fly a Star Trek spaceship around until you're blue in the face, without some pop-up from Picard telling you the Romulans are over there. Read my post, don't look for opportunities to twist words. It works on dummies, but on smart people, it makes your argumnet listless and compromisable. SFC3, SFC4, whatever, doesnt need any more SFB overpowering ruleset. Enough is enough. Take its most usable and fundamental points and drop the magical hex map. I don't drive to work through a hex map, I drive through a twon with interactive people and places all around me... my ''missions'' are already known or I find them along the way.