Crim.. the simple truth is .. no one is allowed to think "out side the box" of SFB .. without getting their butt ripped a new one.
I would dare say that the same holds for those who wish to think inside the box, if they think that the box holds something of more value than what is outside of it. There are those (and you know who they are) who jump all over anyone who even mentions SFB. Both sides are to blame. Especially in the ground of SFC. SFC isn't exactly SFB, and sometimes it requires elements not of, or slightly differing, from SFB in order to gel with the non-SFB elements that are in the game and cannot be changed.
As far as SFB/SFC not being Trek, why? Because it adds things to the existing Trek universe? Does SFC not have Klingons, Romulans, Gorn, and the like? Does it not have Phasers, Photons, Disruptors, plasma? Does it not feature the visual likenesses of all the major races and their ships? So why isn't it trek? New races and weapons? Well, how many Trek games add their own weapons and races created for the game? I would dare say most if not all. Could it not be said then that there have never been any Trek games? Could it not then be said that it is those who are unwilling to "think outside the box" that are having trouble accepting SFB as Trek, simply because it has something a little more than the stock elements that they happen to be familiar with in a Trek episode (and I still contest that many SFB elements can be shown in the trek universe, just because it wasn't fired by the Enterprise it's considered taboo by many). Hmmm.
and before we jump all over certain elements of this community I would add that there are destructive elements in every community, even the Trek one, as recent events have shown (but I wont' go into here).
I am not angry with you personally. But I do remember all the flame wars during the Taldren boards. I remember the 8 page dissertation that was a charactor smear against my son. At the core of that ... "SFB" .. accept it or suffer the consequences. There is a long list we could get into .. but I flatly refuse to..
I wouldn't say he was all that innocent himself. He employed many the same tactics, throwing out blanket labels and the like. "My version of Trek only, accept it or suffer the consequences".
If there is another game ( and that is a BIG IF when it really gets down to it ) ... I genuinely hope that we can move on and IF there were "ELEMENTS" of BOTH games ... and maybe the 3-D technology of BC .. that might be worth looking into. But, to once again start another flame war over this matter .. NO .. NOT going to do it.
I'm with you there, I would love a fully realized 3d universe you could travel around in, take planets and territory for your empire, explore, etc. But it would have to have tactical depth too, not the bland stuff of SFC3 but I would dare say more than SFC2 and not just in weapons, all sorts of systems (maybe the Falcon 4 of starship simulators, lol)
The reaction I see here suggests that there is a lack of desire for a "NEW" game. Developers would be looking for something fresh .. ideas with possibilities. The idea that they would be wanting to simply "rehash" old ideas is unlikely.
If a new game was based on the SFB ruleset that instantly makes it "rehashing" old ideas? There is so much more to SFB than ever made it into SFC, and alternate rules for some of the stuff that is in SFC, like invisible cloak and on down the line. As I've said before I don't think any new Trek game has to be SFB based to be good, but SFB does offer a tremendous base and jumping off point. Something shouldn't be scorned because it has an in depth preexisting ruleset at it's core. Especially in a range of games that have little to no core and lack of flavor to each races play, to have something that offers it is something a little more unique. Is it impossible to achieve it without SFB yes, but in my view most companies appear unwilling to dedicate the time and money (and lack the willingness and creativity) to do so. Especially in a licensed property where they know that a large chunk of their audience is going to buy it just because of the name and picture on the cover. Isn't making any Trek game really "rehashing old ideas"? It's the same old Federation, same old Klingons, same old ship designs, weapons, etc. Heck, in the case of a lot of the games, it even has the same characters. Yet, they still make the games, because people want more, and they find new ways to package the what already existed. What would SFC2 have been without the D2? To me it was little more than an expansion until the D2 came online. A couple new races and weapons, whoopty doo! But the D2 was something new and fresh (and hasn't really been attempted by anyone else that I can see, and I wish they would). Just because you use the same ruleset as a core doesn't mean there isn't anything new or fresh to do with it. You want to talk about rehashing, oh look another game with a Borg invasion, or strange alien bug infestation, or Romulan pot... zzzzz (Ok, Romulan plots are always cool and interesting as long as they don't have ridges on their heads. lol
). But it doesn't have to be, because it's what you do with it that makes it good and interesting.
If you find this truth offensive... I might suggest that the problem is not with me or anyone else. The problem just might be something else .. dunno why you and a few others cant see past SFB. That is something I can not help.
And other people don't seem to be able to see past the letters "SFB" for what potential is really inside the package. I'm not saying that SFB is the only way, but it is a way. Both sides of the hardline are at fault for many of the travesties that have occurred.
Oh, and btw, since I didn't say this after your first post, it's good to see you around again too.
Topic: Starfleetcommand 4: Posssible ????? (Read 11406 times)