Topic: Gamespy's top 25 list (Read 14364 times)

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

and, uh, which empire used lasers anyway?

Aenigma · « **Reply #61 on:** October 06, 2003, 11:08:41 am »

Quote:

and, uh, which empire used lasers anyway?

The Galactic Empire and the Rebel Alliance... oh wait, that's a different game

Aenigma

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

News:

Topic: Gamespy's top 25 list (Read 14364 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

mathcubeguy

Aenigma

The_Infiltrator

Cyberkada

Rod O'neal

TalonClaw

**DONOTDELETE**

TalonClaw

kschang

Azrael

David Ferrell

Strafer

David Ferrell

Grav

Captain KoraH

3dot14

kosh2000

feargusf

DreadlordGW

Alexander1701

Topic: Gamespy's top 25 list (Read 14364 times)

DONOTDELETE