Topic: Before Activision Took Over, What Was the Plan for the SFC Series?

[SFC Bennie]

Quote:
Quicksilver, wasnt that a software company who back in the 90s first attempted to make a computer game from SFB, but went belly up?  

Nope. Quicksilver's still in business.

Scott Bennie  

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:

Quote:
Quicksilver, wasnt that a software company who back in the 90s first attempted to make a computer game from SFB, but went belly up?  

Nope. Quicksilver's still in business.

Scott Bennie  

Ok, so why did they not complete their version of SFB on computer?

[SFC Bennie]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Quicksilver, wasnt that a software company who back in the 90s first attempted to make a computer game from SFB, but went belly up?  

Nope. Quicksilver's still in business.

Scott Bennie  

Ok, so why did they not complete their version of SFB on computer?  

I don't believe they were the company that was working on SFB on computer (aside from SFC 1, which they completed with Interplay),  but I'm not absolutely positive about this.

Scott Bennie  

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 That would prob. mean making a game people think they can market. Which pushes you toward ACTION games rather than Strat games.
 

I still don't understand what is so un-marketable about SFC!?  When I go to EB at the mall the shelves are full of strategy games.  Most of them utter crap.  Yet, are all these games losing money?  If strategy games don't sell, why are company's still making them?

I just don't buy the idea that SFC is unmarketable.  The SFC series is some of the best strategy games on the market today.  And, it is one of the few that focuses on "tactical" level strategy.  There are so many games that are utter crap that still sell well.

The problem is marketing.  Interplay did not do a good job of getting the SFC message out in my opinion because they were hurting financially.  Activision dumbed down the game and then tied it in to a mediocre Trek movie.  Considering all these factors that were working against SFC, I think it did pretty well.

If the SFC series were picked up by a publishing company that embraced it and put some real marketing power into it, the game would sell better.

There are rumors that Paramount is no longer going to split up the Trek liscense by "era", but will liscense Trek games by "type" of game...i.e. FPS, RTS, Sim, console.  If this is true then the next SFC could be done as an "all eras" game encompassing TOS, TMP, TNG, DS9, etc. all together.  I think if this idea was developed and a strong strategic element was added to the game for better campaigns this game would fly off the shelves.

There are so many possibilites.  All we need is a publisher with some vision.  

[starwolf3500]

An "all era" game with selectable eras (more advanced than the current SFC1 and 2 eras) and the ability to "add" races would be very cool.  Imagine a Campaign Setup Screen where you select era then select up to 9 races (but not required to select all 9), select their status (ie friendly, hostile, ect but would default based on era) and then have the ability to select map areas to start the races in.  Ahhh, to dream......  

[The_Infiltrator]

Quote:
 That would prob. mean making a game people think they can market. Which pushes you toward ACTION games rather than Strat games.
 

The one thing that really annoys me about the gaming industry is the total lemming mentality. Conventional wisdom rules the day. You can't do X because X won't sell. X won't sell because of reasons Y and Z - look at game A and B, for examples.

Except that the reason why A and B didn't sell has nothing to do with their style, or format usually. The main reason that they probabally didn't sell is that they, as games, were no good. As simple as that. The fact is that this has been shown time and time again. Take RPG's for example. A few years back, they were basically dead as a gaming genre. People were saying that the time of RPG's was dead. Then Baldur's Gate was released. Suddenly it's one of the hottest types of games around - just look at the good games you can get in this area. The reason was, of course, that Baldur's Gate rocked. It was great and was recognized with anyone with half a brain and about the same interest in the genre as great.

Again and again, you'll see this pattern. Before the release of Warcraft, Command and Conquer, and Total Annihilation, there were no such things as a real time game. After their release, so many companies decided that this was the next thing, that this was the only way of the future. The subsequent rush of RTS games were mostly crap and didn't sell very well - however, because of the first three that sold tons (again, because they were great or good games) the industry took the wrong lesson yet again and decided that this meant that you had to be a real time game in order to sell. Now turn based games are largely dead. I'll reveal yet another secret: turn based isn't bad. It's perfectly fine - as long as the game that it's in is a good one.

Why is this important? Because it seems that the wrong conclusions (IMO) about SFC are being drawn in the same way. I'll do a postmortem on the SFC series right here, and why they worked or didn't work:

SFC I: The first. Nothing quite like it had been seen before. It offered a different gaming experience than had been quite seen before. There are a few games that are possibly comparable (perhaps the great naval battles series that I was playing on my 486) but nothing with the exact combination of elements that had been seen before. And also it was good. Therefore, it hit 2 important elements - not only was it good, it was also different than what had come before. Not exactly what I would call revolutionary, but it had that element of the "gaming leap foward" that most great games seem to have. And people bought it, for those reasons.

SFC II: Basically, SFC II (EAW) is more of the same. It adds in a few things, but not enough to make the person who bought SFC I casually to invest more money into it. It added only 2 races and a few other weapons, plus fighters and PF's. It also added the D2. Now this was potentially a big step foward - except that the D2 has never worked well. In fact, when the game was first released (when casual fans would be paying attention) it did not work even at all (not Taldren's fault, but still). Even after it was enabled it worked very poorly, with costant bug issues and problems. These problems and facts combined meant that the appeal of the game was less than the original. Therefore, it sold less. Simple. In short, the More of the Same approach ensured that the game would be less sucessful than before, as it just didn't offer enough improvements to justify parting with hard earned gaming dollars from the casual supporter.

SFC III: SFC III is more of the same, and not more of the same. Which is it's problem. It's more of the same in areas where it should change, and quite different in the areas where it should have stayed the same. Summarizing SFC III can be done easily: It's not a very good game. The design decisions made make it feel like a fighter game, something akin to Decent: Freespace. Considering the subject matter, this ensures most of the people who previously bought SFC I or II feel somewhat alienated when considering SFC III. Not only that, but what really is advanced significantly over what was available before? Officers? Done in SFC I. Ship configurations? New, but does this justify in of itself a 40-50 dollar expense? SFC III it seems to me simultaneously alienated the previous core audience that had been buying the games of the series previously and failed to offer enough to convince completely new players to buy into the game to make up for this loss. Looking back at it you must wonder if Paramount/Activision just attempted to ride the coattails of a new star trek movie to sucess. When this movie however (like the game) wasn't very good, this sunk SFC III's chances. Combine all of the above with the patch snafu (still not resolved) and you have a game that no one really wants.

What does a new SFC game need to succeed to the level of the first? In short, risk. Risk, as in any business venture, the only way that true breakthroughs are made. Perhaps Taldren should be congratulated in the attempt with SFC III, as this was a risky move - the problem is that the wrong types of decisions were made on what should be risked. The main thing, however, that should be taken from the experience of history is that conventional wisdom is frequently wrong when it comes to computer games. The main key to success is to come up with a good idea, work on it until it is complete, and then release a great game. If this is done, people will buy it and it will sell.

Anyway, my 2c as Autolycus used to say.

[David Ferrell]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Quicksilver, wasnt that a software company who back in the 90s first attempted to make a computer game from SFB, but went belly up?  

Nope. Quicksilver's still in business.

Scott Bennie  

Ok, so why did they not complete their version of SFB on computer?  

As Scott said, they did, it was called SFC.  Jester_OC started out as a Quicksilver
employee and moved to Taldren after SFC1.

Thanks,

Dave

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Quicksilver, wasnt that a software company who back in the 90s first attempted to make a computer game from SFB, but went belly up?  

Nope. Quicksilver's still in business.

Scott Bennie  

Ok, so why did they not complete their version of SFB on computer?  

As Scott said, they did, it was called SFC.  Jester_OC started out as a Quicksilver
employee and moved to Taldren after SFC1.

Thanks,

Dave  

I see, well thanks for that. I had heard of a first attempt at computerising SFB as far back as 1990 buy a company called Quicksilver, I didnt realise that was the same company who did SFC. I guess the next question to ask then, is what hapenned after SFC1 with Quicksilver and how was the trophy passed onto Taldren? Thanks.

[GT-Keravnos]

I am thinking of interesting swear words against Activision right now, (and they would be in Greek so I could write them here), but still, things being what they are...

It all comes down to money. Activision has them, I don't. So, whatever I could say at some point is pretty pointless, if I can't back it up with cash. In the end it is all about money. So, why Romero was allowed to make games? Yet his attitude sold to the game companies, the bravado he sold them was what was worth. Basically NOTHING! And thus, millions of wasted dollars later, some still don't get it.

The best WAY to evolve for OP right now would be the following...

OP 2, or GAW, with both Andros and Thols, BUT on a GRAND strategic scale, aka Federation+Empire. Grand strategy with the AI fleets being the little games you and me play today and every day.

I know this is probably just a well wish, but it could and would work. Think about it. They made a strategy game about running a banana island (tropico). It sold. Could not Grand scale strategy with ships that MEAN something sell? I don't know maybe I am missing something here, but it is too good a thing to let go of. That may be just me, but I feel that a Grand strategy OP 2 or GAW would sell like muffins.

But then every gaming company wants to find what makes Sims tick and sell, and will try anything to make it work.

In fact, I fully expect a First person SIMS game to come out. I mean, that is what the public truly wants. RIGHT?
   

[Alidar Jarok]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Quicksilver, wasnt that a software company who back in the 90s first attempted to make a computer game from SFB, but went belly up?  

Nope. Quicksilver's still in business.

Scott Bennie  

Ok, so why did they not complete their version of SFB on computer?  

As Scott said, they did, it was called SFC.  Jester_OC started out as a Quicksilver
employee and moved to Taldren after SFC1.

Thanks,

Dave  

I see, well thanks for that. I had heard of a first attempt at computerising SFB as far back as 1990 buy a company called Quicksilver, I didnt realise that was the same company who did SFC. I guess the next question to ask then, is what hapenned after SFC1 with Quicksilver and how was the trophy passed onto Taldren? Thanks.  

Wasn't it Quicksilver that made Master of Orion 3?

[David Ferrell]

Marc or Erik would be better people to talk about Quicksilver/Interplay and Taldren
as they were actually there.

Yes Quicksilver did MOO3.

Thanks,

Dave

[NCC2012]

(looks at the GaW material)

*sigh* Okay, if one of us wins a major lottery jackpot....

 

[Jester_OC]

Well that is a complicated story.  It all depends on who you talk to.  For me it was simple.  I felt that the climate within quicksilver did not suit me anymore.  Actually 3  of the SFC1 core programmers (the ones that worked on it from the start til the end) left Quicksilver after SFC. All three ended up in start ups.  I ended up at Taldren because I worked with the guys who started it and we got along great. So back to the quicksilver losing SFC thing.  They made a bid that Interplay deemed too costly, the game industry being what it is and Interplay as strapped for cash as it was, needed a bunch of guys to do it for dirt cheap.  Erik Zach and Sean had been planning on starting a company for a while and saw an opportunity.  They got the contract.  But it was not clear if they would be their own entity or part of interplay.  After a while I let it slip that I was planning on leaving Quicksilver, and I was honored that they asked me to join them to be the Lead Programmer on SFC2 (and the Pay hike helped a hell of a lot).   Over time it was decided that Taldren (then unnamed but Black Nine was brought up as a title) would be its own company.  And that is about it.  Now Erik/Quicksilver may know much more of the true dealings on getting the contract but I was kept blissfully ignorant.

These are my views and may NOT represent the true political nature of what REALLY went down.

Hope that helps.

For the most accurate rendition, ask Erik and Bill Fisher from Quicksilver and decide for yourself.

Jester_OC

[3dot14]

Quote:
In fact, I fully expect a First person SIMS game to come out. I mean, that is what the public truly wants. RIGHT?    

Unfortunately, I'd say you are right.

[Mr. Hypergol]

O.k., now that GAW and SFB based SFC is caput......I'm curious.

What was the original plan for the SFC series before Activision took over?

Was there a plan to have a volume 3 that added Tholians and Andros?  Or was this always a pipe dream due to the programming limitations of the SFC graphics engine?  For example, were web effects and displacement devices considered too difficult to implement with the current SFC engine?

Can any current or former Taldren employee's satisfy my curiosity?  

[ActiveX]

The answer is no...

Now the new question is: Which question was I answering...

[kziti kat]

In my mind I see they had a choice to make after SFC:EAW:  To go with OP because lots of people wanted playable Orions or to add the Andromodans and Tholians.  I just wish the following of the game was good enough to support further expansions.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Wouldn't it all depend on Interplay, Paramount, and Activision.  If Interplay had kept the rights to TOS and SFC, but not gotten any new rights, Taldren would make a TOS game.

It all depends on stuff Taldren never had control of.

[David Ferrell]

When I was hired in January 2000, the plan was to do 2 then 3 with
Andros and Tholians for Interplay.

Many art assets were created for 3.

Thanks,

Dave

[Strafer]

Quote:

Many art assets were created for 3.
 

*GASP*

You tease!!!