Topic: "'Starfleet Command' is Serious Strategy", says Startrek.com

[Magnum357]

I disagree their.  I hate those big boxes.  Most games usually don't have much for manuals and such anyways, and with all that large space in the box, just moving the box around can damage the manuals and materials more then the smaller boxes.  I often wondered why the PC industry always made the boxes so big.

[Tremok]

 I never had anything damaged with the big boxes. Even if they are sparse the design the box so that everything is firmly packed down.

And most of the games I bought had big manuals full of story, info, and techincal details. They deepen the game.  They were the size of small novels. I got packets of nifty advertisement and upcoming projects. Customer support sheets, note books.

Now I get small little boxes with a jewel case and some packette they try to pass off for a manual. If I am going to pay 60 dollars for a box then I want it to be big, heavy, and full of stuff.    

[TheSatyr]

Personally,I prefer a real manual rather then the "cliff notes" versions we get now in the small boxes.

[ThirdLeg]

/thread off

OK, I hate to take this thread further off topic, but I gotta comment on manuals and boxes real fast. I personally believe that the industry is using the small box excuse as a reason for not having a good manual printed. Of couse, this is completely a bad excuse. Take a look at the retail version of Combat Mission. It came with a 200+ page manual and was very well done. Although the font for a manual in a small box might be small, it can still exist. Mostly I believe that not having a printed manual saves the publisher money. Although I can sympathize with them, I'm not remotely prepared to waste a $45 printer cartridge just to print out a manual. A manual falls under the category of customer support and many customer issues could be solved with a well done manual, especially if it had a FAQ section. You have no idea how many calls my store gets for tech support questions, which technically we're not required to answer. Of course we try to answer them, but it's a shame when the little guy across the counter gets berated by a customer when a good manual would have solved the problem.

/thread on  

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 Personally,I prefer a real manual rather then the "cliff notes" versions we get now in the small boxes.

Game publishers are probably reducing their costs (and hence increasing their profits) more by "skimping out" on the game manuals rather than what they are saving on the boxes.  The box size is more important as an excuse for making the manuals smaller rather than any significant savings in materials costs of the boxes themselves.  The manuals used to be a large part of the shipping weight....not any more.

Publishers should  make more extensive manuals for their games available for download if they are not going to ship them with the game CD's.  That would alieviate many of the concerns of the more serious gamers.

Of course, since the trend in entertainment seems to be toward "dumbing down", this also allows for smaller manuals and hence more money for the publisher.

All of this just means less for the customer.....not a good trend.  

EDIT:  Looks like ThirdLeg beat me by a few seconds.

[feargusf]

The manuals for all of the SFC games would have fit in one of those small boxes. In fact, the manuals for every Star Trek game that I've bought are small enough for the small boxes.  

[Scipio_66]

Quote:
As some of you may know, I'm a lowly grunt at a Gamestop store (Software Etc. in this case). SFC1 was delisted from our system about a year and a half ago. SFC2 and OP were both delisted about a month ago. Why you ask? It's not because they weren't selling. It's because they were still shipping in the big boxes and our store is clearing out all of those.  

Blech!  I hate those small boxes.  I want a real manual.  All the best games have real manuals.  I also want a real box with real info on the game (preferably with a front surface that opens to give even more info) so I can get a real idea of what the game is like by picking up the box from the shelf.  

Quote:
I disagree their. I hate those big boxes. Most games usually don't have much for manuals and such anyways, and with all that large space in the box

Another reason I don't buy most games.  

-S'Cipio
 

[Demandred]

Quote:
The manuals for all of the SFC games would have fit in one of those small boxes. In fact, the manuals for every Star Trek game that I've bought are small enough for the small boxes.    

You don't have the original ring-bound SFC1 manual then. It's much bigger than a jewel case.

[EmeraldEdge]

I think he was talking about the small boxes that games are now being packaged in, rather than just the jewel case iteself.  I'll have to find my manuals and see if it will fit in the box that SFC3 came in (it's in really good condition, being protected by sitting for months in the back of a droor somewhere).  I LOVED the SFC1 manual, wish more games could spring for that kind of book, sadly most are moving away from manuals (not that a lot of games need much of one, sadly).

Quote:
 I like those large boxes. Bigger pictures, larger manuals, more stuff inside. I feel like I'm getting less for my money with those puny small boxes.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.    

Imagine the surprise when you open a big box to find the small box inside!  That's happened to me several times.  I thought "What the @#)(@#$!"  the whole purpose of the small box is to cut down on packaging costs and to take up less shelf space, what kind of sense does it make to put the small box in the big one?

[Maxillius]

I miss my SFC1 manual.  I gave it away like a retard though  It had so much more information on the different races than the other SFC game manuals do.

[TheSatyr]

The Combat Mission manuals were a trip...I've seen smaller novels...*LOL*

[Tremok]

Quote:
The manuals for all of the SFC games would have fit in one of those small boxes. In fact, the manuals for every Star Trek game that I've bought are small enough for the small boxes.    

 Reading this, I tried. It wasn't even close. The SFC1 and SFC2 manuals are much too wide to fit in the boxes.

The Klingon Academy manual (the best manual I ever owned) was bigger than the box itself.

The Mechcommander and Homeworld: Cataclysm manuals (both excellent) could in no possible way fit into a small box short of burning them into ashes.  

[Mike H]

Quote:
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/gaming/news/article/1559.html

Quote:


 07.18.2003
REVIEW: "Starfleet Command" is Serious Strategy

 

Heh!!  Yes, and later this week, they will be posting a shocking revelation that the Earth is actually ROUND !!!!  

[Fahrenheit]

Smaller boxes mean that retail stores can stock more games on the shelves.

They mean that you can ship more in a single case.

They mean that you save money on packaging.  I mean, how many times have you opened a big box only to find it full of cardboard, a 16-page "manual", a registration card, some ads for the publisher's other products, and a jewel case with a CD?

I like the small boxes.

F°
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters." -- Alan Simpson

[ThirdLeg]

To a major extent I agree with you Farenheit. The small boxes mean we (retailers) no longer have to pull our hair out in frustration during the holiday season. We can fit roughly 3.33 times more boxes on the shelf (or roughly 33 small boxes for every 10 big boxes), which helps out alot with backstocking. Personally, I feel the new, uniformly sized boxes also lend to a more attractive appearance as well. As I said before, publishers citing the small boxes on lack of a comprehensive manual is bogus.  

[feargusf]

That's weird. I'll admit that I haven't bought a small-box game since SFC3, but I was going by the width of the manual compared to the width of the jewel-case. They must be putting the jewel-cases in them the thinner way. Goes to show what happens when you post an assumption  

[Jwest]

Quote:

Quote:
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/gaming/news/article/1559.html

Quote:


 07.18.2003
REVIEW: "Starfleet Command" is Serious Strategy

 

Heh!!  Yes, and later this week, they will be posting a shocking revelation that the Earth is actually ROUND !!!!  

LIes - Lies I say - the earth is flat, I've seen it from space, flat as a plate. It's all plasma and mirrors -
Jwest, Charter member of the Flat Earth Society, Off-World Branch  

[3dot14]

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/gaming/news/article/1559.html

Quote:


 07.18.2003
REVIEW: "Starfleet Command" is Serious Strategy
 

Remember the thrilling cat-and-mouse game between Mark Lenard's Romulan Commander and Captain James T. Kirk in the Original Series episode "Balance of Terror?" This is the kind of strategy and game play one can expect from Interplay's "Star Trek: Starfleet Command."

There are two kinds of computer games, the kind that one can install and start playing immediately and the kind that takes some time to learn. "Star Trek: Starfleet Command" falls into the latter category, but don't think that takes away from the game. Many of the plug-and-play games wear out quickly, the nuances of deep space combat getting lost in a simplistic approach where it's all about dexterity versus strategy.

"Star Trek: Starfleet Command" is a real-time naval combat game that, although complex at first, provides a realistic and challenging experience, transcending the standard "shoot-em-up-in-space" games.

Taking place in the pre-Star Trek: The Next Generation era (late 23rd Century but before the opening of "Star Trek Generations"), "Star Trek: Starfleet Command" is filled with a plethora of player options. The game boasts over 50 campaign missions, 6 different Star Trek races to play (Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Gorn, Lyran and Hydran, each with 44 different ships to choose from) and dozens of display panels. It should be noted that the Lyrans and Hydrans do not originate from the Star Trek canon.

Again, the staggering amount of details involved make the player have to do what a real Star Trek ship Captain does- engage an enemy while staying on top of numerous critical systems (helm, weapons, shields, life support, etc.). The result of all these details can be a bit overwhelming at first but the upshot to familiarity with "Star Trek: Starfleet Command" is a multilayered game where true naval strategy wins out over brute force or sheer numbers.

Since learning everything about captaining a ship into combat is crucial to the game, there is an extended tutorial that features the voice of George Takei (Hikaru Sulu), talking you through the complex commands. And, just to allay any fears that the game is all about flying a starship, there are plenty of opportunities in the tutorial to play with the weapons. Hearing Takei's booming voice say "Alright, now let's blow something up!" is a treat.

Again, this is not a game where you kill five minutes. "Star Trek: Starfleet Command" requires a substantial time investment to get started and used to the controls, but the game is so deep with campaigns and missions that once you get proficient, the hours fly by at warp speed.

For more information about Interplay, click here.

[3dot14]

In an era where "retro" is a style, it's only fitting that we get an SFC1 review 4 years late. (In fact, it's almost the 4th anniversary of its release.)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the review. Although I am somewhat puzzled by:
a.) its timing (At a time of falling-out between Activisiona nd Paramount, an Interplay game -- a now "classic"aka old -- game gets some praise. No it can't be, Interplay _cannot_possibly_ afford the licence back again and publish SFC:GAW... *shakes head vehemently*)
b.) its target. We all agree SFC1 was good. (There maybe doubters, but I don't think anyone (still) HERE will dispute that.) But why the resurgence? Won't it be better to promote the "newest" Interplay version -- SFC2 or OP? (although SFC1's racial menus are big turn-ons...)
c.) and lastly, its source. Startrek.com, Paramount's official site. (which incidently has undergone a revision for the worse IMHO. I miss LCARS format site. But the new ones aren't too bad...) It's like a blessing from the top... (although it did take trouble in pointing out Hydran and Lyran's "non-canon" origins)

Well. It may be an media push to promote "non-Activision" trek games. To bolster Paramount's case that it's not Trek games' fault, but ATVI's imcompetence (which I agree) that resulted in the mess.) Or it simply may be a new marketing tool to mine the nexr licence holder. Or it may be a simple and heartfelt praise by its author without ulterior motive, and I am overthinking things.

But no matter. To the author of the article, if youa re reading this, THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Uh...somebody really needs to send this guy SFC2, OP, and SFC3.....

Although we all know he's right.....he's WAY late on SFC1....