Topic: Do we need another Star Trek Command Game?

[EmeraldEdge]

They were far more advanced than that in the TNG era.

Wouldn't you say that we are now far more advanced than we were in say WWI or the Civil War?   Yet, we still use bullets, don't we.   Those bullets are hardly the same as the ones used back in those days, but the bullet is still used.   Missiles have evolved over time as well, just as every weapon system does.  The guns from the civil war are completely obsolete, and would be next to useless in modern warfare, are we to believe that in the Trek universe, they invent a weapon and never advance it?   We know this isn't true, because they do it repeatedly during the course of single episodes, so to say that missiles are old tech and they advanced beyond that isn't really a reasonable arguement, especially given that they talk about drone/missile tech in post-TMP Trek several times (and fighters )

[Harry]

I heard from a pretty reliable source that Taldren basically had one in the bag ... or close.

Anyone know where it went? Can it be finished?

<S>

WaterTiger

I think youre talking about SFC3... wait... SFC3 isnt reliable... hmmm what could he be talking about?

No Flyer, there was something in the works -- a game like SFC4 almost complete. It is in the can somewhere.

I want to know if it can be revived. Who has it? Where is it? Can we ( the community) fix it or complete it?

Who knows this answer?

<S>

WaterTiger

A game like SFC4 almost complete?  Not to my knowledge.

[airBiscuit]

Hmmmmmm,The First Earth Romulan war was fought with missles...Cannon from TOS

Did you see that in a TOS episode? Will it sell enough games to make a profit after all the costs associated with putting the game out? If that were to be a small part of the game, in a selectable era, it might work. But if the entire game is based on a board game it probably won't ever see a store shelf Atleast not in this current market where the competition sells alot more action and options.

SFC *was* based on a board game.  It simply extrapolated a turn based system into a fluid realtime system.  The key to SFC's success was that it tapped into a well-established set of ship types, weapons, and races, all brought to life by a deeply involving, time-tested game that has been upheld and studied and extrapolated on by countless fans for nearly three decades.  Sometimes it pays to stand on the shoulders of giants, instead of trying to be one yourself.  Familiarity breeds affinity.

Star Trek interactive games need to really think about how they set themselves up against the competition.  They are practically in a genre all their own, with a deep history propped up and perpetuated by fans for nearly four decades.  It's not Star Wars.  It's not The Matrix.  It's not Chronicles of Riddick or Doom 3.  Trying to turn Star Trek into an action game invariably causes it to fall flat on its face in the final analysis.  It's not what we like Star Trek for.  Star Trek has been successful when it has managed to satisfy our expectations on what we feel the Star Trek universe to be.  The successful and appreciated espisodes are the ones that satisfy what we have already learned, but also supplant our understanding with a new twist; something that takes our Trek universe and expands it in new directions.  The fans take over and extrapolate and explore all kinds of possibilities from the plot twists, and this process repeats itself.

Games like SFB represent just such fan extrapolation.  It's taking what we understand and then adding deeper derivatives, elements behind the scenes, that potentially make the universe even more interesting and also help to explain concepts that are otherwise glossed over.  These features allow us to explore and participate in the Star Trek universe on a deeper intellectual level than a television series can hope to cover, and yet it's that interest that perpetuates and uplifts the television series because it *involves* the fan base in that universe.  They are now a part of that universe.

I think that is why fans express themselves loudly when they find the latest Star Trek television installments tromping all over what they have come to understand.  They are also greatly disappointed when a Star Trek game title lacks depth, production values, or doesn't contain the elements that feel like a Star Trek experience.  Trying to make a Trek game feel like Age of Empires or Wing Commander means it will feel just like that, not it's own unique experience.  We have had 30 or so years of Star Trek marketing that can tell us a great deal about what has worked well with the consumer fan base and what has not.  It's a voice that the licensors and licensees should be listening to and following up on.  I would posit that it's not eye-candy that makes a successful Star Trek game, otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about SFB right now.  It's a rich, developed universe played out in such a way that is exciting and intellectually satisfying.  It's space drama at its best, backed up by a wealth of speculative science.  It's our hope for the future of humanity writ large.

[Hyperion]

i think we do.

although the SFc community is somewaht fractured these days it would have some immediate name recognition as oppoosed to a new game venue. Now personally i have to say that if it was a sequel or a redo of the SFC3 game i would not but it (as i havent bought SFC3). The trick is create something that would appeal to eveyone tought that as it may be.

I rather liked the depth of the SFC - SFC2:OP line and feel that they leeched a great deal of the complexity of the games to come up with SFC3. I refuse to engage in the SFB vs SFC war that still seems to be going on here. SFB is not SFC, however SFB was the basis of the original three games and were very succesful. SFC3 was a bold experiment and a risky tie in with Star Trek Nemisis which if it had been succesful we may have very wellhad Taldren still in business. Yet the sad facts are that Nemsis did extremely poorly at the theatre and the hoped for connection between the movie and SFC3 did not come to pass. I want a big fan of the whole idea when i first heard about it and figured things for myself, it seemed a bit of a crap shoot to take a succesful series of games and alter it drastically simply to coincide with a feature film. But the tall foreheads at Taldren/Activision did it and now we have to live with it.

Harry Lang has mentioned in another thread that Paramount intends to take back the rights to all the games and begin to produce a line of games through a single developer or perhaps just a very few. I personally think thats a good idea but at this point i believe the press release is just hype as no facts about any of the publishers or games has ben released or even ready for release.

If they do i think they should run with the systems that have come from the first three games. They by this point work very well and are tried and true. And although this maybe something risky to say i believe that the SFC1 to SFC2:op would appeal to all the people here even though those who enjoy SFC3 probably may not fall in love with them they would likey still enjoy the games even though the SFC3 sysytem was not picked to proceed with the project. Of the posts that i have read here, very few people have said that they "Hated" SFC1-SFC2:OP just they thought SFC3 was superior. diferences of opinion aside i thin Paramount and whoever ends up being their developer would see the financial reasons at least to appealing to the broadest base possible of Star Trek gaming fans for a new SFC game

[Tulwar]

I'm pretty sure that SFC OP was made from the material material they were working up for SFC GAW.  When Activision moved in on the SFC franchise, Taldren hurried up and released what they could finish as OP.  I've heard there are things such as TR beams buried in the OP code.  Taldren had done very little on GAW before Activision started calling the shots.