Topic: Gamespy's top 25 list (Read 14531 times)

Cyberkada · « **on:** September 15, 2003, 06:47:56 am »

From GameSpy.com:

Star Trek fans are kind of a funny bunch. There is, somewhere in the depths of their souls, a part of them that truly believes that the show is real. How else can you explain the frenzy over Starfleet Command? The game and its subsequent series exist merely because of fan whining that previous games like Starfleet Academy weren't "realistic" enough.

Realistic? We're talking about games that simulate starship combat based on a show that, for all its virtues, is hardly a very good representation of either military tactics or strategic brilliance. Yet, that cry of "realism" was why fans got so excited over Starfleet Command, a game based on the insanely detailed rules of an obscure old paper and pencil strategy game called Starfleet Battles.

In actual space you can't hear lasers being fired or explosions.The result was a thoroughly mediocre game that was overly complicated, slow, dull, had the interface from hell, included boring missions, and a campaign that was barely worthy of the name. Then a strange thing happened -- the quasi-religious aura that surrounds Star Trek the TV show seemed to descend over Starfleet Command. Internet forums and chat rooms were filled with rabid gamers espousing the virtues of an entirely average product and viciously flaming anyone who dared say anything bad about their long-awaited "realistic" simulation.

In fact, their support was so vocal that Interplay was convinced that if only the game was more "accessible," the sales might be better. They made quite a few improvements to the game resulting in the better but still mediocre Starfleet
Command II and Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates. Then, when the game moved over to Activision, it too was bowled over by the active fan community and came up with the completely pedestrian Starfleet Command III. Activision sold the same small number of units that the Interplay versions always did and quickly realized that a game that sells to the same small group of people every time, and has no appeal to a larger group, wasn't really the way to run a successful franchise.

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/september03/25overrated/index5.shtml

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #1 on:** September 15, 2003, 10:06:06 am »

"The mind is a terrible thing to waste."

TalonClaw · « **Reply #2 on:** September 15, 2003, 10:07:49 am »

I saw that and I see the guy as someone who needs to go back to playing on his PS2 and let the big boys play their favorite series in peace. I'm sorry the game is too hard for him. Maybe he should spend a little time and learn to play a more adult game like SFC where you have to think a little.

In actual space you can't hear lasers being fired or explosions.

Looks like he edited that out. Everyone knows explosions and weapons blast sounds are cool. Even in the vacuum of space.

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #3 on:** September 15, 2003, 11:58:02 am »

Quote:

I saw that and I see the guy as someone who needs to go back to playing on his PS2 and let the big boys play their favorite series in peace. I'm sorry the game is too hard for him. Maybe he should spend a little time and learn to play a more adult game like SFC where you have to think a little.

In actual space you can't hear lasers being fired or explosions.

Perhaps you feel insulted by his tone and comments about the game we love, but his point is valid.

SFC in all its incarnations has limited appeal beyond the fanbase. SFC3 all but proved that.
Taldren's next game is not SFC4 for a very good reason.

Sorry, but it's true. And this coming from a Mac guy who bought another computer (a PC!!!!) for the SOLE PURPOSE of playing SFC.

TalonClaw · « **Reply #4 on:** September 15, 2003, 12:06:31 pm »

Everyone wanted Galaxies at War not SFC3 Next Gen. This has always been a niche game but with a very large following.

kschang · « **Reply #5 on:** September 15, 2003, 12:43:07 pm »

Starfleet Command, you must admit, is pretty obscure stuff. The interaction between weapons and shields and whatnot are complex enough to boggle the mind.

SFC3 managed to simplify that, but as a result took out a LOT of the tactics and strategy and the "trade-offs" one must make as a captain.

I wouldn't say it's over-hyped though. SFC has always been a niche product for both Interplay and Activision.

If you want over-hyped, I'd say Star Wars: Rebllion.

Azrael · « **Reply #6 on:** September 15, 2003, 12:55:19 pm »

Holy poo!

I thought those were actually "your" thoughts on the matter.

Good thing I clicked on the Link!

Well, I guess the guy has a bit of a point.

(Except where he attempted to criticise Starfleet Battles, where he did nothing more than advise us early on that he's derpiving a village of it's idiot)

The funny thing is that people just don't seem to be able to put their "over-rated" Star Trek games down.

You don't have to be a convention attending shut in, who insists that his mother address him as "Commodore" at the dinner table to love the games.

They're entertaining to the casuall fan as well.

Flying Star Trek ships is cool.

The stupidest Star Trek Game I've ever played was on the Nintendo 64, where ships like the Enterprise virtually whipped and zipped all over the place, dogfighting like Fighter Jets (you could even do loops to get behind the enemy - how sad is that)!

Sounds to me that's the sort of game he wanted.

Well there's plenty of games like that out there?

Why doesn't he go play those instead.

Waah waah waah.

Fans aren't loyal to a game just because it's associated with Star Trek.

Let's face it. Many Trek games suck. Many games in general suck.

If SFC III was really so poor, why can't we all get it out of our computers and go play something else?

Bah. Load of poppycock.

Azrael

David Ferrell · « **Reply #7 on:** September 15, 2003, 01:21:00 pm »

Yes all games should be Doom/Quake/Castle Wofie et. all.

I have one word for our buddies at Gamespy: LOSERS

Thanks,

Dave

David Ferrell · « **Reply #9 on:** September 15, 2003, 04:03:44 pm »

I was speaking directly to the lamers and their top 25 list.

Just because a game is too hard for you, or is a niche game, doesn't
make it overrated.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't do or teach criticize the 1st two groups.

Learn it, love it.

Thanks,

Dave

Grav · « **Reply #10 on:** September 15, 2003, 04:48:55 pm »

hehe i like dave

Captain KoraH · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2003, 05:12:23 pm »

Since when does anyone really care what Gamespy thinks anyway? If I'm not mistaken they were lavishing SFC with praise when they thought it would bring them more clients. Personally I've never had any use for Gamespy myself. I never would have heard of that top 25 list if not for this thread.

3dot14 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 15, 2003, 06:05:10 pm »

a.) that reviewer obviously does not understand the concept of niche product...
(Go CounterStrike! not.)

b.) That list in the same breath critisized Morrowwind and NWN. So SFC is in fine company...

c.) Gamespy is of course entitled to their opinion. In fact, I'd say that this review has earned them quite a few website hits that are not normally there. It's just like any other media, who cares if right or wrong, as long as it sells.
Go Freedom of Speech!

kosh2000 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 15, 2003, 07:43:24 pm »

i say we find where he lives and beat him to death with a copy of the game muhhahahaha

feargusf · « **Reply #14 on:** September 15, 2003, 09:26:10 pm »

Has Gamespy ever given a game a review rating under 70%? Like most gaming news sites, it refuses to do anything that might actually offend one of the big boys. So Gamespy reporters wait until something is down, and then join in on the kicking. Wow! That's news! Same old schoolyard BS that we should be used to seeing by now.

Alexander1701 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 16, 2003, 12:24:01 am »

I shudder to think that Dominion Wars (not pelicans, the other one) was not #1 on this list.

Oh, wait, I forgot. it's disqualified on account of not being a game at all =P

Alexander

FPF_TraceyG · « **Reply #17 on:** September 16, 2003, 03:27:02 am »

Capitalism at work again, Gamespy's Top 25 who payed us the most list.
Well, I guess everyone has the right to aspire towards mediocrity if they wish.

The No.1 all time game in the entire history of the human race is actually a strategy game, which very few people ever master and has been ported to computer in a multitude of forms. That game of course is CHESS, but you wont see that on any corporate top 25 list because its not patentable.

As for SFC being a niche game because its too hard, that actually says more about the average IQ level of the corporate game reviewer than anything else and has very little to do with the product. Doom was fun when it first came out, but 40 million carbon copies of it bore me to tears, the novelty of better graphics wears off after 5 minutes.

762 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 16, 2003, 01:09:02 pm »

Dave, learn how to spell!

It's l4m3rz

David Ferrell · « **Reply #22 on:** September 16, 2003, 01:27:11 pm »

Sorry I'll have to brush up on my elite typing skillz.

Thanks,

Dave

FFZ · « **Reply #23 on:** September 16, 2003, 02:14:02 pm »

A game system that came from a boardgame over 25 years old, and is STILL popular, with beautiful graphics, and it's over rated?

This guy should go back to playing mario bros, maybe he can actually win at that.

Aenigma · « **Reply #24 on:** September 16, 2003, 04:04:42 pm »

Hey, old NES Mario Bros is cool!

I do not agree with Gamespy too. They misunderstood the word realisitic. SFC is a good approximation of space combat as it happens in the series, but what the director shows are only the action scenes, not the time when quantums are reloaded into their bays or phasers banks/arrays/emitters are recharging. Besides any space combat game shows as much, if not less, realism (id est laws of physics are completely obeyed) as any SFC game.

When they say that there are no moments of military tactics or strategic brilliance, i invite them to join a serious campaign and see how much strategy and tactics are in the game, despite the series' lack of it at most times.

I know for sure that, if Activision hadn't rushed SFC3 and cooperate(d/s) more when it comes to patching the game, it would have appealed to a substantially larger public, because negative news often scares people, or stops them playing after a couple of months. I never played SFC, SFC2, or SFC2:OP, but i dare say that the SFC-games are good games (with some minor flaws though, like being unable to lock my power distribution sliders

), and have a strong fanbase.

Oh, by the way, Dave, it's 1337 or 133t not elite

Aenigma

Alexander1701 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 16, 2003, 07:59:49 pm »

Please, please, Aenigma.

L337 would have been acceptable also =P

Alexander

NannerSlug · « **Reply #27 on:** September 16, 2003, 08:24:38 pm »

l33t h4><0rz pwnz j00!

Dambreville · « **Reply #29 on:** September 17, 2003, 10:44:33 am »

New Special Feature! Gamespy's Dumbest Moment. Creating the Special Feature "Overrated Games" and having no idea what they are talking about or even a good 25 to list.

Just a bunch of cry babies who want to create talk and hype. Well you did it, and you just lost a ton of credibility and readers. Nice job!

Do they get paid for that? Someone needs to be fired...

D. Boon's Ghost · « **Reply #30 on:** September 18, 2003, 10:35:04 am »

I was very interested in the reaction here to Gamespy's piece, so much so that I logged back on to this message board after a couple of months of inactivity.

For the most part I am pretty impressed by the reaction by most of the posters in this thread. Considering that Gamespy's one glaring criticism towards SFC was in fact an observation of the games community, that being the rabid 'fanboys', I would say that the reaction here is downright pleasant.

The thing that made me post, though, was Mr. Ferrell's comments. I, too, find them rather laughable considering Black9 will certainly be targeting the very same gamers that probably have owned Doom/Quake/Wolf at one time or another.
I wonder what will happen when that soon-to-be game reviewer, the 'loser' that he is, gets handed Black9 as his next write-up for Gamespy.

Losers perhaps, but Gamespy influences a large number of casual gamers with their reviews. From the casual gamers point of view, in my casual opinion, I believe the over-rated dub of SFC is warranted.

Captain KoraH · « **Reply #31 on:** September 18, 2003, 11:44:02 am »

Well everybody is entitled to an opinion. I'm reserving judgement on Black9 until I can see the game. I think it's cool for Taldren to branch out into a different genre. And just because Dave doesn't think every game should be a Doom clone doesn't also mean he has anything against Doom or Doom clones. It means exactly what it says, that every game shouldn't be a Doom clone. And if you think it means Dave hates Doom and Wolf and UT, then you're making that up because I don't see any words to that effect in Dave's post. I'm glad some people come out of retirement to make their opinions known, but I think they should put more thought into what they say, especially if it's the only thing they've said in a long time.

TalonClaw · « **Reply #32 on:** September 18, 2003, 12:21:35 pm »

At least they got the Derek Smart BC 3000 one right.

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/september03/25overrated/index8.shtml

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #34 on:** September 19, 2003, 11:30:47 am »

Hey people,

http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/topic.asp?fid=4135&tid=1161962

In case you all haven't done it yet, here's where you should tell GS what you think of the inclusion of SFC in the list. A few well deserved pages of thoughtful rebuttal from the "Fanboys" (and girls) here wouldn't hurt the SFC cause.
A word of suggestion, if I may. Give them your opinion, but resist quoting others. So as not to create anything out of context or have misquotes that may haunt some undeserving soul.

Dogmatix! · « **Reply #36 on:** September 19, 2003, 12:00:10 pm »

That was a funny read, Crimmy...heheh...

Parislord · « **Reply #38 on:** September 19, 2003, 04:00:28 pm »

Well, that's odd... I seem recall hundreds, if not thousands, of outraged posts on these boards about how their EAW and OP were sold to them broken or that the claims of the Dynaverse were at least wildly overrated. That this was another case of shame on the developer or the publisher for making claims on the box or in the ads that weren't in the code (what you might call hype).

While I find the review unfair in regard to its complexity (that's a gameplay featuer, you dope!), I can see why it might have earned a place on the list if the reviewers were half as upset about the release-state of the game as I was.

SFC is complex, but largely intuitive. If you want severely complicated (not unplayable, just REALLY detailed), check-out Falcon4.0/SP3 or Flanker 2.5.

The whole underlying point of the article seems to be that if consumers allow their purchasing decisions to be based on pre-release impressions, then that is where the money will concentrate its efforts. Rather than being bad for the game commuinity (despite my irritation at seeing one of my fav games on it), Gamespy is doing the community a service by pointing-out the very apparent cause-and-effect relationship between the people who listen to the hype and the way games are rushed through production, today.

James Formo · « **Reply #39 on:** September 19, 2003, 05:58:47 pm »

I think there is some truth in that GS article. SFBers I notice say there is alot of strategy in the game. Perhaps. But after 25 years I would have thought it would get mundane. I mean the choices are not complex really. Close and hose or saber duals.
Add ecm or eccm. Too tractor or not to. If you ask me, many who play this game just do the same thing ad naseum. Then there ego is involved big time and they think there smart for figuring out how to play it. There slow to accept any new change to the game at all. Slow to accept any ship designs that stray from there holy SFB or TMP, claiming that TMP reached the pinnacle of ship design. So 100 years later it would then be futile to create a new design? And 99.999% of TMP ships have a round saucer. Um theres little variety in that. Again holding on to the same ship, version, strategy et al..

Point in case is how everyone bashed OP for 2 years and now after 2 years its everyones favorite version. Thats how long it takes SFB players to accept anything to be done to the version of the game they are used to.

Parislord · « **Reply #41 on:** September 19, 2003, 07:44:54 pm »

To a certain extent, he is correct, however so it is in actual military strategy. You have to act in accordance with your weapons, since weapons, sensors, and maneuvering capabilties are fairly standardized within the fleets, so are the tactics. Doctrine calls for a commander to maneuver his assets within weapon constraints while attempting to obviate those of your OPFOR to the maximum extent possible and fire. Any individual combat in SFB or any wargame are largely similar to every other combat. Lamentably, there is no overal strategic facet to SFC to put the game in the perspective of actual warfare.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #42 on:** September 19, 2003, 08:11:41 pm »

It's just that there's a lot more to SFB tactically than there is to SFC. The tactical options are why it's stayed viable and popular for 25yrs. If your only experience with SFB is through SFC then you've only been exposed to a very small portion of the tactical complexity, and I do mean, very small. SFC just scratches the surface of the SFB ruleset.
I'm not saying this to put down SFC either. Just that judging SFB from SFC is truely like judging a book by it's cover.

Stategically, you're right. Put yourself in a position where you can deliver your weapons with maximum effectiveness while limiting those of your opponent. It really is that simple from a strategic point. How you accomplish that with all the possibilities in SFB is where all the tactics come into play.

James Formo · « **Reply #43 on:** September 19, 2003, 09:24:20 pm »

OK cool Rod. I just had a brain cramp. As it so happens I am frustrated with the lack of interest in SFC3. Like I posted about my mod over at SFC3 files about 2 weeks ago and it has 0 hits and 18 views. This forum is more active but SFC/OP is the game that people are mostly playing.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #44 on:** September 19, 2003, 11:19:11 pm »

NP James. Like I said, I wasn't trying to bash you. Sometimes it just seems like all the problems with SFC want to be blamed on SFB and the people who play it. I hope I didn't offend you. We're still buds, I hope.

I know it gets frustrating when you do a lot of work on something and nobody seems to notice. I think it's Activisions fault though about SFC 3 (TNG). They really blew it when they refused to work with Taldren. If they would have let Taldren have their way with SFC 3 then they could have nurtured it like they do with OP. I hope that it's not too late for the game. We'll see when the "Official" patch is approved.

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #47 on:** September 22, 2003, 11:11:15 pm »

Yeah, I saw that GameSpy article, too.

In ONE respect, I actually might consider it a compliment. Of the PC games listed in their list, as I recall, only SFC fell into what I would consider the 'niche' category. I mean, just being MENTIONED in this list is, to some degree, an acknowledgement that gamers should be aware of its existence. In Quake2's case, this is a given, but that's NOT the case with the SFC series. Note further that the article itself, while generally WRONG, at least points out that SFC HAS an energized following. With the exception of NeverwinterNights, which of the games listed can say that they still have an active presence on a large hardcore user base's hard drives?

Finally, my take on it was that the reviewers were pi$$ed off because SFC was a game they couldn't master in the first 15 minutes while still playing/reviewing countless other PC/console games. Hence it was too "nerdy." And if one is a sci-fi Trek-fan, not being able to play SFC well, once one is familiar with it, is a DEFINITE blow to one's ego. I can smell the sour grapes from here. So sour, in fact, that they had to put SFC on their 'list.' Uh-oh.

Meanwhile, we'll keep playing SFC long after Gamespy "Games-Of-The-Year" come and go.

-TF

David Ferrell · « **Reply #49 on:** September 23, 2003, 04:20:21 pm »

By my count, only 5 or 6 of the top 25 did NOT come out in the
last 3.5 years.

In addition, they added at least one more I will proudly stand
with:

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/september03/25overrated/index17.shtml

Thanks,

Dave

SFC Bennie · « **Reply #51 on:** September 23, 2003, 06:31:31 pm »

The interesting commonality between the SFC article and the Halo article was the putdown of "fanboys".

Scott Bennie

Mainwaring · « **Reply #52 on:** September 23, 2003, 06:55:40 pm »

Frankly, all that top 25 proved to me was that GameSpy's reviewers have something of an overinflated opinion of themselves. It was all over how they talked about many of the games, whether the titles deserved the list or not.

On the good side for them, they went to the effort to point out that 'overrated' doesn't mean 'bad'. Of course, they forgot to mention that their concepts of being overrated is related solely to their personal preferences in games, presenting it all more as objective fact. They also kinda failed in many cases to point out that some of the titles were hyped more by sites like their own and the fans than the companies who produced them. So whatever.

I read it, I smirked, I trashed the email it came in. It's just another gimmick to hold readership.

WDLL · « **Reply #54 on:** September 24, 2003, 07:42:42 am »

Are they crazy? Stupid? what?

about HALO, how can you say that the game is overrated because it uses as a controller a gamepad? are they freaking nuts?
It doesnt even make sense!

About SFC I won't say anything, others have said enough, I heard that BC3000 is on the list. IS THIS A FREAKING JOKE? How can a game that has been blasted by most (all?) reviewers across the globe as a could be but just not there game, with problems and not worth your time (BTW I do not agree but that is irrelevant) be overyhyped and overrated? OVERRATED??? reviews in magazines in the 40s is overrated? I have a suggestion for the people that wrote the list, get another job or go to a clinic.

I don't know what the other games in the list are, I do not want to check because I know I will propably have a stroke or something.

DarkElf · « **Reply #55 on:** October 04, 2003, 05:10:02 am »

WARNING:
Post below contains a rant. Please tell have your kids to leave the room now.

I cannot believe they did this. They must want to lose alot of their subscribers, and players. I have lost *all* respect for them.

Half the games they put on there do not deserve to be on that list. Period.

They earn a personal place in my toliet bowl with...

Final Fantasy 7
I'm not sure how many of you even heard of a PlayStation, or know what it is. I cannot accept that they put this game on their list. If its not, it is one of the greatest PlayStation games of all time. I cried during parts of it. I could name hundreds of people I have met at high school who have played this game. It made the local news. It set the standard by which all Role Playing Games are compared on.

It sold 2 million copies in THREE days, counting the USA only. It *still* sells today. I'm guessing its sold about 6 million copies worldwide to date. Final Fantasy 7 overrated? Pllease.

Trust me, Gamespy is going to get *a lot* less vistors now for this mistake ALONE. Gamers around the world are going to tear Gamespy a new one. Sacreligious.

Now they get: (I had to dig for this one)

Click the link below (beware, contains some harsh language, but I think most will find it funny)
http://www.sfcfed.net/darkelf/stfu-gsa.txt

They have the nerve to assult us, the very reason why they are here? I think they need to eat a nice big, steaming, bowl of their own $#!^. It's one thing to attack a game, but to attack the very people who play it is another. I like Star Trek, and I like StarFleet Command. Don't like that? Too bad. STFU GSA.

Gamester · « **Reply #56 on:** October 04, 2003, 10:55:42 am »

I found the list to be an interesting read. While I do not agree with all of their reasoning and choices, many of their selections had some pretty reasonable choices. As for SFC on the list - They were right in that (IMHO, of course) the single-player campaign kinda sucks.

I have played all the SFC games single player and haven't enjoyed any of them really (If they had a F&E like meta campaign, though. . . I can say that my biggest disappointment with SFC2 was that the single player campaign initially looked to me like F&E - but it was not to be). Where SFC came alive for me was LAN multiplayer. I can't really comment on any of the D2 stuff because I cannot play D2 through my router. Hell, I can only play SFC1 over gamespy (for whatever reason). I have configred my Microsoft Router every which way shy of Sunday, but no SFC2, OP or 3 love on Gamespy. And that's OK by me too. As I said I play the SFC series via LAN exclusively. AND IT'S FREAKING GREAT. BTW - OP has always been my favorite siince it came out. Maulers are wicked cool.

As for the community, this is probably the MOST polite and respectful online community I have ever seen. I like many different kind of games. For example, HomeWorld 2 (I beat it in four or five days) and C&C Generals (now with Zero Hour) forums are really bad. I wouldn't post there if my life depended on it because those ppl are MEAN. I have always found this community to be one of the highlights of what an on-line community should be like.

As far as the game being complex? It wasn't that bad really. I found SFC to be a game that was fairly easy to learn, but very hard to master. Hell, even my uncle can play it, and he is the Anti-Hotkey. In reality, at it's most basic level, just use 1, 2 and 3 to select your wesapons groups, rt-click tp select your target, lt-click to steer, weapons names turn RED - make 'em dead, press Z to fire. You don't really have to mess with the other systems too much, but your game will go much better if you at least learn them in a basic fashion. The ppl who master these systems though - they are truly formidable.

Just my opinion. . .
Gamester

Aenigma · « **Reply #57 on:** October 04, 2003, 05:04:38 pm »

Last week Gamespy published his top 25 UNDERrated games. Because i don't know more than two of them, i guess the rest must be very underrated or obscure (or i had a life at the moment it was published

)

One choice i entirely agree with is placing Planescape: Torment on the list. Just because that game kicks major RPG-a$$ when it comes to storyline and setting.

Aenigma

mathcubeguy · « **Reply #58 on:** October 04, 2003, 10:42:17 pm »

Anybody realise that most likely gamespy wouldnt have had your visit or two to their site without this wonderful piece of published garbage? It really did work in its purpose and get alot of site visits from us to their site.

Jim · « **Reply #59 on:** October 05, 2003, 12:05:51 am »

Quote:

In actual space you can't hear lasers being fired or explosions.

Unquote:

Hrm... this guy must be an engineering school dropout. Space is not a vaccum, and you CAN hear sounds in space. Our SETI program is constantly listening to the sounds of the universe. With the right listening equipment, you can hear explosions in space.

Jim

mathcubeguy · « **Reply #60 on:** October 05, 2003, 07:54:25 pm »

and, uh, which empire used lasers anyway?

Cyberkada · « **Reply #63 on:** September 15, 2003, 06:47:56 am »

From GameSpy.com:

Star Trek fans are kind of a funny bunch. There is, somewhere in the depths of their souls, a part of them that truly believes that the show is real. How else can you explain the frenzy over Starfleet Command? The game and its subsequent series exist merely because of fan whining that previous games like Starfleet Academy weren't "realistic" enough.

Realistic? We're talking about games that simulate starship combat based on a show that, for all its virtues, is hardly a very good representation of either military tactics or strategic brilliance. Yet, that cry of "realism" was why fans got so excited over Starfleet Command, a game based on the insanely detailed rules of an obscure old paper and pencil strategy game called Starfleet Battles.

In actual space you can't hear lasers being fired or explosions.The result was a thoroughly mediocre game that was overly complicated, slow, dull, had the interface from hell, included boring missions, and a campaign that was barely worthy of the name. Then a strange thing happened -- the quasi-religious aura that surrounds Star Trek the TV show seemed to descend over Starfleet Command. Internet forums and chat rooms were filled with rabid gamers espousing the virtues of an entirely average product and viciously flaming anyone who dared say anything bad about their long-awaited "realistic" simulation.

In fact, their support was so vocal that Interplay was convinced that if only the game was more "accessible," the sales might be better. They made quite a few improvements to the game resulting in the better but still mediocre Starfleet
Command II and Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates. Then, when the game moved over to Activision, it too was bowled over by the active fan community and came up with the completely pedestrian Starfleet Command III. Activision sold the same small number of units that the Interplay versions always did and quickly realized that a game that sells to the same small group of people every time, and has no appeal to a larger group, wasn't really the way to run a successful franchise.

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/september03/25overrated/index5.shtml

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #64 on:** September 15, 2003, 10:06:06 am »

"The mind is a terrible thing to waste."

TalonClaw · « **Reply #65 on:** September 15, 2003, 10:07:49 am »

I saw that and I see the guy as someone who needs to go back to playing on his PS2 and let the big boys play their favorite series in peace. I'm sorry the game is too hard for him. Maybe he should spend a little time and learn to play a more adult game like SFC where you have to think a little.

In actual space you can't hear lasers being fired or explosions.

Looks like he edited that out. Everyone knows explosions and weapons blast sounds are cool. Even in the vacuum of space.

TalonClaw · « **Reply #67 on:** September 15, 2003, 12:06:31 pm »

Everyone wanted Galaxies at War not SFC3 Next Gen. This has always been a niche game but with a very large following.

kschang · « **Reply #68 on:** September 15, 2003, 12:43:07 pm »

Starfleet Command, you must admit, is pretty obscure stuff. The interaction between weapons and shields and whatnot are complex enough to boggle the mind.

SFC3 managed to simplify that, but as a result took out a LOT of the tactics and strategy and the "trade-offs" one must make as a captain.

I wouldn't say it's over-hyped though. SFC has always been a niche product for both Interplay and Activision.

If you want over-hyped, I'd say Star Wars: Rebllion.

Azrael · « **Reply #69 on:** September 15, 2003, 12:55:19 pm »

Holy poo!

I thought those were actually "your" thoughts on the matter.

Good thing I clicked on the Link!

Well, I guess the guy has a bit of a point.

(Except where he attempted to criticise Starfleet Battles, where he did nothing more than advise us early on that he's derpiving a village of it's idiot)

The funny thing is that people just don't seem to be able to put their "over-rated" Star Trek games down.

You don't have to be a convention attending shut in, who insists that his mother address him as "Commodore" at the dinner table to love the games.

They're entertaining to the casuall fan as well.

Flying Star Trek ships is cool.

The stupidest Star Trek Game I've ever played was on the Nintendo 64, where ships like the Enterprise virtually whipped and zipped all over the place, dogfighting like Fighter Jets (you could even do loops to get behind the enemy - how sad is that)!

Sounds to me that's the sort of game he wanted.

Well there's plenty of games like that out there?

Why doesn't he go play those instead.

Waah waah waah.

Fans aren't loyal to a game just because it's associated with Star Trek.

Let's face it. Many Trek games suck. Many games in general suck.

If SFC III was really so poor, why can't we all get it out of our computers and go play something else?

Bah. Load of poppycock.

Azrael

David Ferrell · « **Reply #70 on:** September 15, 2003, 01:21:00 pm »

Yes all games should be Doom/Quake/Castle Wofie et. all.

I have one word for our buddies at Gamespy: LOSERS

Thanks,

Dave

David Ferrell · « **Reply #72 on:** September 15, 2003, 04:03:44 pm »

I was speaking directly to the lamers and their top 25 list.

Just because a game is too hard for you, or is a niche game, doesn't
make it overrated.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't do or teach criticize the 1st two groups.

Learn it, love it.

Thanks,

Dave

Grav · « **Reply #73 on:** September 15, 2003, 04:48:55 pm »

hehe i like dave

Captain KoraH · « **Reply #74 on:** September 15, 2003, 05:12:23 pm »

Since when does anyone really care what Gamespy thinks anyway? If I'm not mistaken they were lavishing SFC with praise when they thought it would bring them more clients. Personally I've never had any use for Gamespy myself. I never would have heard of that top 25 list if not for this thread.

3dot14 · « **Reply #75 on:** September 15, 2003, 06:05:10 pm »

a.) that reviewer obviously does not understand the concept of niche product...
(Go CounterStrike! not.)

b.) That list in the same breath critisized Morrowwind and NWN. So SFC is in fine company...

c.) Gamespy is of course entitled to their opinion. In fact, I'd say that this review has earned them quite a few website hits that are not normally there. It's just like any other media, who cares if right or wrong, as long as it sells.
Go Freedom of Speech!

kosh2000 · « **Reply #76 on:** September 15, 2003, 07:43:24 pm »

i say we find where he lives and beat him to death with a copy of the game muhhahahaha

feargusf · « **Reply #77 on:** September 15, 2003, 09:26:10 pm »

Has Gamespy ever given a game a review rating under 70%? Like most gaming news sites, it refuses to do anything that might actually offend one of the big boys. So Gamespy reporters wait until something is down, and then join in on the kicking. Wow! That's news! Same old schoolyard BS that we should be used to seeing by now.

Alexander1701 · « **Reply #79 on:** September 16, 2003, 12:24:01 am »

I shudder to think that Dominion Wars (not pelicans, the other one) was not #1 on this list.

Oh, wait, I forgot. it's disqualified on account of not being a game at all =P

Alexander

FPF_TraceyG · « **Reply #80 on:** September 16, 2003, 03:27:02 am »

Capitalism at work again, Gamespy's Top 25 who payed us the most list.
Well, I guess everyone has the right to aspire towards mediocrity if they wish.

The No.1 all time game in the entire history of the human race is actually a strategy game, which very few people ever master and has been ported to computer in a multitude of forms. That game of course is CHESS, but you wont see that on any corporate top 25 list because its not patentable.

As for SFC being a niche game because its too hard, that actually says more about the average IQ level of the corporate game reviewer than anything else and has very little to do with the product. Doom was fun when it first came out, but 40 million carbon copies of it bore me to tears, the novelty of better graphics wears off after 5 minutes.

762 · « **Reply #84 on:** September 16, 2003, 01:09:02 pm »

Dave, learn how to spell!

It's l4m3rz

David Ferrell · « **Reply #85 on:** September 16, 2003, 01:27:11 pm »

Sorry I'll have to brush up on my elite typing skillz.

Thanks,

Dave

FFZ · « **Reply #86 on:** September 16, 2003, 02:14:02 pm »

A game system that came from a boardgame over 25 years old, and is STILL popular, with beautiful graphics, and it's over rated?

This guy should go back to playing mario bros, maybe he can actually win at that.

Aenigma · « **Reply #87 on:** September 16, 2003, 04:04:42 pm »

Hey, old NES Mario Bros is cool!

I do not agree with Gamespy too. They misunderstood the word realisitic. SFC is a good approximation of space combat as it happens in the series, but what the director shows are only the action scenes, not the time when quantums are reloaded into their bays or phasers banks/arrays/emitters are recharging. Besides any space combat game shows as much, if not less, realism (id est laws of physics are completely obeyed) as any SFC game.

When they say that there are no moments of military tactics or strategic brilliance, i invite them to join a serious campaign and see how much strategy and tactics are in the game, despite the series' lack of it at most times.

I know for sure that, if Activision hadn't rushed SFC3 and cooperate(d/s) more when it comes to patching the game, it would have appealed to a substantially larger public, because negative news often scares people, or stops them playing after a couple of months. I never played SFC, SFC2, or SFC2:OP, but i dare say that the SFC-games are good games (with some minor flaws though, like being unable to lock my power distribution sliders

), and have a strong fanbase.

Oh, by the way, Dave, it's 1337 or 133t not elite

Aenigma

Alexander1701 · « **Reply #89 on:** September 16, 2003, 07:59:49 pm »

Please, please, Aenigma.

L337 would have been acceptable also =P

Alexander

NannerSlug · « **Reply #90 on:** September 16, 2003, 08:24:38 pm »

l33t h4><0rz pwnz j00!

Dambreville · « **Reply #92 on:** September 17, 2003, 10:44:33 am »

New Special Feature! Gamespy's Dumbest Moment. Creating the Special Feature "Overrated Games" and having no idea what they are talking about or even a good 25 to list.

Just a bunch of cry babies who want to create talk and hype. Well you did it, and you just lost a ton of credibility and readers. Nice job!

Do they get paid for that? Someone needs to be fired...

D. Boon's Ghost · « **Reply #93 on:** September 18, 2003, 10:35:04 am »

I was very interested in the reaction here to Gamespy's piece, so much so that I logged back on to this message board after a couple of months of inactivity.

For the most part I am pretty impressed by the reaction by most of the posters in this thread. Considering that Gamespy's one glaring criticism towards SFC was in fact an observation of the games community, that being the rabid 'fanboys', I would say that the reaction here is downright pleasant.

The thing that made me post, though, was Mr. Ferrell's comments. I, too, find them rather laughable considering Black9 will certainly be targeting the very same gamers that probably have owned Doom/Quake/Wolf at one time or another.
I wonder what will happen when that soon-to-be game reviewer, the 'loser' that he is, gets handed Black9 as his next write-up for Gamespy.

Losers perhaps, but Gamespy influences a large number of casual gamers with their reviews. From the casual gamers point of view, in my casual opinion, I believe the over-rated dub of SFC is warranted.

Captain KoraH · « **Reply #94 on:** September 18, 2003, 11:44:02 am »

Well everybody is entitled to an opinion. I'm reserving judgement on Black9 until I can see the game. I think it's cool for Taldren to branch out into a different genre. And just because Dave doesn't think every game should be a Doom clone doesn't also mean he has anything against Doom or Doom clones. It means exactly what it says, that every game shouldn't be a Doom clone. And if you think it means Dave hates Doom and Wolf and UT, then you're making that up because I don't see any words to that effect in Dave's post. I'm glad some people come out of retirement to make their opinions known, but I think they should put more thought into what they say, especially if it's the only thing they've said in a long time.

TalonClaw · « **Reply #95 on:** September 18, 2003, 12:21:35 pm »

At least they got the Derek Smart BC 3000 one right.

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/september03/25overrated/index8.shtml

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #97 on:** September 19, 2003, 11:30:47 am »

Hey people,

http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/topic.asp?fid=4135&tid=1161962

In case you all haven't done it yet, here's where you should tell GS what you think of the inclusion of SFC in the list. A few well deserved pages of thoughtful rebuttal from the "Fanboys" (and girls) here wouldn't hurt the SFC cause.
A word of suggestion, if I may. Give them your opinion, but resist quoting others. So as not to create anything out of context or have misquotes that may haunt some undeserving soul.

Dogmatix! · « **Reply #99 on:** September 19, 2003, 12:00:10 pm »

That was a funny read, Crimmy...heheh...

Parislord · « **Reply #101 on:** September 19, 2003, 04:00:28 pm »

Well, that's odd... I seem recall hundreds, if not thousands, of outraged posts on these boards about how their EAW and OP were sold to them broken or that the claims of the Dynaverse were at least wildly overrated. That this was another case of shame on the developer or the publisher for making claims on the box or in the ads that weren't in the code (what you might call hype).

While I find the review unfair in regard to its complexity (that's a gameplay featuer, you dope!), I can see why it might have earned a place on the list if the reviewers were half as upset about the release-state of the game as I was.

SFC is complex, but largely intuitive. If you want severely complicated (not unplayable, just REALLY detailed), check-out Falcon4.0/SP3 or Flanker 2.5.

The whole underlying point of the article seems to be that if consumers allow their purchasing decisions to be based on pre-release impressions, then that is where the money will concentrate its efforts. Rather than being bad for the game commuinity (despite my irritation at seeing one of my fav games on it), Gamespy is doing the community a service by pointing-out the very apparent cause-and-effect relationship between the people who listen to the hype and the way games are rushed through production, today.

James Formo · « **Reply #102 on:** September 19, 2003, 05:58:47 pm »

I think there is some truth in that GS article. SFBers I notice say there is alot of strategy in the game. Perhaps. But after 25 years I would have thought it would get mundane. I mean the choices are not complex really. Close and hose or saber duals.
Add ecm or eccm. Too tractor or not to. If you ask me, many who play this game just do the same thing ad naseum. Then there ego is involved big time and they think there smart for figuring out how to play it. There slow to accept any new change to the game at all. Slow to accept any ship designs that stray from there holy SFB or TMP, claiming that TMP reached the pinnacle of ship design. So 100 years later it would then be futile to create a new design? And 99.999% of TMP ships have a round saucer. Um theres little variety in that. Again holding on to the same ship, version, strategy et al..

Point in case is how everyone bashed OP for 2 years and now after 2 years its everyones favorite version. Thats how long it takes SFB players to accept anything to be done to the version of the game they are used to.

Parislord · « **Reply #104 on:** September 19, 2003, 07:44:54 pm »

To a certain extent, he is correct, however so it is in actual military strategy. You have to act in accordance with your weapons, since weapons, sensors, and maneuvering capabilties are fairly standardized within the fleets, so are the tactics. Doctrine calls for a commander to maneuver his assets within weapon constraints while attempting to obviate those of your OPFOR to the maximum extent possible and fire. Any individual combat in SFB or any wargame are largely similar to every other combat. Lamentably, there is no overal strategic facet to SFC to put the game in the perspective of actual warfare.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #105 on:** September 19, 2003, 08:11:41 pm »

It's just that there's a lot more to SFB tactically than there is to SFC. The tactical options are why it's stayed viable and popular for 25yrs. If your only experience with SFB is through SFC then you've only been exposed to a very small portion of the tactical complexity, and I do mean, very small. SFC just scratches the surface of the SFB ruleset.
I'm not saying this to put down SFC either. Just that judging SFB from SFC is truely like judging a book by it's cover.

Stategically, you're right. Put yourself in a position where you can deliver your weapons with maximum effectiveness while limiting those of your opponent. It really is that simple from a strategic point. How you accomplish that with all the possibilities in SFB is where all the tactics come into play.

James Formo · « **Reply #106 on:** September 19, 2003, 09:24:20 pm »

OK cool Rod. I just had a brain cramp. As it so happens I am frustrated with the lack of interest in SFC3. Like I posted about my mod over at SFC3 files about 2 weeks ago and it has 0 hits and 18 views. This forum is more active but SFC/OP is the game that people are mostly playing.

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #107 on:** September 19, 2003, 11:19:11 pm »

NP James. Like I said, I wasn't trying to bash you. Sometimes it just seems like all the problems with SFC want to be blamed on SFB and the people who play it. I hope I didn't offend you. We're still buds, I hope.

I know it gets frustrating when you do a lot of work on something and nobody seems to notice. I think it's Activisions fault though about SFC 3 (TNG). They really blew it when they refused to work with Taldren. If they would have let Taldren have their way with SFC 3 then they could have nurtured it like they do with OP. I hope that it's not too late for the game. We'll see when the "Official" patch is approved.

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #110 on:** September 22, 2003, 11:11:15 pm »

Yeah, I saw that GameSpy article, too.

In ONE respect, I actually might consider it a compliment. Of the PC games listed in their list, as I recall, only SFC fell into what I would consider the 'niche' category. I mean, just being MENTIONED in this list is, to some degree, an acknowledgement that gamers should be aware of its existence. In Quake2's case, this is a given, but that's NOT the case with the SFC series. Note further that the article itself, while generally WRONG, at least points out that SFC HAS an energized following. With the exception of NeverwinterNights, which of the games listed can say that they still have an active presence on a large hardcore user base's hard drives?

Finally, my take on it was that the reviewers were pi$$ed off because SFC was a game they couldn't master in the first 15 minutes while still playing/reviewing countless other PC/console games. Hence it was too "nerdy." And if one is a sci-fi Trek-fan, not being able to play SFC well, once one is familiar with it, is a DEFINITE blow to one's ego. I can smell the sour grapes from here. So sour, in fact, that they had to put SFC on their 'list.' Uh-oh.

Meanwhile, we'll keep playing SFC long after Gamespy "Games-Of-The-Year" come and go.

-TF

David Ferrell · « **Reply #112 on:** September 23, 2003, 04:20:21 pm »

By my count, only 5 or 6 of the top 25 did NOT come out in the
last 3.5 years.

In addition, they added at least one more I will proudly stand
with:

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/september03/25overrated/index17.shtml

Thanks,

Dave

SFC Bennie · « **Reply #114 on:** September 23, 2003, 06:31:31 pm »

The interesting commonality between the SFC article and the Halo article was the putdown of "fanboys".

Scott Bennie

Mainwaring · « **Reply #115 on:** September 23, 2003, 06:55:40 pm »

Frankly, all that top 25 proved to me was that GameSpy's reviewers have something of an overinflated opinion of themselves. It was all over how they talked about many of the games, whether the titles deserved the list or not.

On the good side for them, they went to the effort to point out that 'overrated' doesn't mean 'bad'. Of course, they forgot to mention that their concepts of being overrated is related solely to their personal preferences in games, presenting it all more as objective fact. They also kinda failed in many cases to point out that some of the titles were hyped more by sites like their own and the fans than the companies who produced them. So whatever.

I read it, I smirked, I trashed the email it came in. It's just another gimmick to hold readership.

WDLL · « **Reply #117 on:** September 24, 2003, 07:42:42 am »

Are they crazy? Stupid? what?

about HALO, how can you say that the game is overrated because it uses as a controller a gamepad? are they freaking nuts?
It doesnt even make sense!

About SFC I won't say anything, others have said enough, I heard that BC3000 is on the list. IS THIS A FREAKING JOKE? How can a game that has been blasted by most (all?) reviewers across the globe as a could be but just not there game, with problems and not worth your time (BTW I do not agree but that is irrelevant) be overyhyped and overrated? OVERRATED??? reviews in magazines in the 40s is overrated? I have a suggestion for the people that wrote the list, get another job or go to a clinic.

I don't know what the other games in the list are, I do not want to check because I know I will propably have a stroke or something.

DarkElf · « **Reply #118 on:** October 04, 2003, 05:10:02 am »

WARNING:
Post below contains a rant. Please tell have your kids to leave the room now.

I cannot believe they did this. They must want to lose alot of their subscribers, and players. I have lost *all* respect for them.

Half the games they put on there do not deserve to be on that list. Period.

They earn a personal place in my toliet bowl with...

Final Fantasy 7
I'm not sure how many of you even heard of a PlayStation, or know what it is. I cannot accept that they put this game on their list. If its not, it is one of the greatest PlayStation games of all time. I cried during parts of it. I could name hundreds of people I have met at high school who have played this game. It made the local news. It set the standard by which all Role Playing Games are compared on.

It sold 2 million copies in THREE days, counting the USA only. It *still* sells today. I'm guessing its sold about 6 million copies worldwide to date. Final Fantasy 7 overrated? Pllease.

Trust me, Gamespy is going to get *a lot* less vistors now for this mistake ALONE. Gamers around the world are going to tear Gamespy a new one. Sacreligious.

Now they get: (I had to dig for this one)

Click the link below (beware, contains some harsh language, but I think most will find it funny)
http://www.sfcfed.net/darkelf/stfu-gsa.txt

They have the nerve to assult us, the very reason why they are here? I think they need to eat a nice big, steaming, bowl of their own $#!^. It's one thing to attack a game, but to attack the very people who play it is another. I like Star Trek, and I like StarFleet Command. Don't like that? Too bad. STFU GSA.

Gamester · « **Reply #119 on:** October 04, 2003, 10:55:42 am »

I found the list to be an interesting read. While I do not agree with all of their reasoning and choices, many of their selections had some pretty reasonable choices. As for SFC on the list - They were right in that (IMHO, of course) the single-player campaign kinda sucks.

I have played all the SFC games single player and haven't enjoyed any of them really (If they had a F&E like meta campaign, though. . . I can say that my biggest disappointment with SFC2 was that the single player campaign initially looked to me like F&E - but it was not to be). Where SFC came alive for me was LAN multiplayer. I can't really comment on any of the D2 stuff because I cannot play D2 through my router. Hell, I can only play SFC1 over gamespy (for whatever reason). I have configred my Microsoft Router every which way shy of Sunday, but no SFC2, OP or 3 love on Gamespy. And that's OK by me too. As I said I play the SFC series via LAN exclusively. AND IT'S FREAKING GREAT. BTW - OP has always been my favorite siince it came out. Maulers are wicked cool.

As for the community, this is probably the MOST polite and respectful online community I have ever seen. I like many different kind of games. For example, HomeWorld 2 (I beat it in four or five days) and C&C Generals (now with Zero Hour) forums are really bad. I wouldn't post there if my life depended on it because those ppl are MEAN. I have always found this community to be one of the highlights of what an on-line community should be like.

As far as the game being complex? It wasn't that bad really. I found SFC to be a game that was fairly easy to learn, but very hard to master. Hell, even my uncle can play it, and he is the Anti-Hotkey. In reality, at it's most basic level, just use 1, 2 and 3 to select your wesapons groups, rt-click tp select your target, lt-click to steer, weapons names turn RED - make 'em dead, press Z to fire. You don't really have to mess with the other systems too much, but your game will go much better if you at least learn them in a basic fashion. The ppl who master these systems though - they are truly formidable.

Just my opinion. . .
Gamester

Aenigma · « **Reply #120 on:** October 04, 2003, 05:04:38 pm »

Last week Gamespy published his top 25 UNDERrated games. Because i don't know more than two of them, i guess the rest must be very underrated or obscure (or i had a life at the moment it was published

)

One choice i entirely agree with is placing Planescape: Torment on the list. Just because that game kicks major RPG-a$$ when it comes to storyline and setting.

Aenigma

mathcubeguy · « **Reply #121 on:** October 04, 2003, 10:42:17 pm »

Anybody realise that most likely gamespy wouldnt have had your visit or two to their site without this wonderful piece of published garbage? It really did work in its purpose and get alot of site visits from us to their site.

Jim · « **Reply #122 on:** October 05, 2003, 12:05:51 am »

Quote:

In actual space you can't hear lasers being fired or explosions.

Unquote:

Hrm... this guy must be an engineering school dropout. Space is not a vaccum, and you CAN hear sounds in space. Our SETI program is constantly listening to the sounds of the universe. With the right listening equipment, you can hear explosions in space.

Jim

mathcubeguy · « **Reply #123 on:** October 05, 2003, 07:54:25 pm »

and, uh, which empire used lasers anyway?

News: