Ok, a lot of folks talk about "can't be SFB based, only Paramount canon", but what is Paramount canon really? For many it's just phasers, photons, disruptors, and sometimes plasma. zzzzz. When you really look at Trek, though, you find so much more. We've been down the road before. Trek has shown that fighters exist, drones, etc. it pretty much goes on down the line of what's available in SFB, except for a couple of races like the Lyrans and ISC who have nothing to stand on canon wise for their weaponry, I don't believe, but then the race themselves don't really (ok, the Lyrans have a little bit, but I keep hearing because they weren't in live action that it doesn't count as canon). Really though, they encounter small "race of the week" races that have had far more fantastic technology that differs from theirs. Why is it so abhorrent because someone happened to put it in a table top game first?
So now we all know that these things have appeared on the screen (even if just in a minor, minor role. Some still want to deny it though) after having done the research. Now let's take a look at all the other Trek games that people have loved over the years. Hmmmm. They all seem to invent stuff that didn't exist in Trek. The special weapons that certain ship classes have (I flash back to Armada sometimes) sometimes have no ground to stand on as far as canon I dont' believe do they? What about Elite force? Why does is it so bad to others when an SFB ruleset is used as the base (not even firmly adhered to) of a game rather than someone just throwing stuff together and pulling it out of where the sun don't shine? Beats me, but I wonder if a game like SFC was released and the fact that it was officially SFB based had been kept secret (yeah, there would be those who would see it on the outside, but if officially it wasn't so) then I wonder how the "other side" would have cried?
Anyhow, I was also thinking about the comment:
Like DUH....if these two games are flops....nothing we may say to Bethesda will influence another title
Is that really true though? Let's look at the fact that Bethesda has probably ponied up a fairly large sum of money to secure the rights to all Trek eras on all platforms. (yeah, we know the history of things like that. I thought they said they were going to divide things differently so they didn't run into that wall again, but that's life I guess) So, if these games don't do well, are they just going to say "well, I guess we'll take a loss on the millions we paid for the license rights" or are they going to try to find a way to make some money off of it? Now, I'm not saying that folks shouldn't buy the game. TA looks interesting to me and if I had a hand held I would probably buy it unseen. I'd wait to see more before I bought for someone else (there were those burned by the SFCIII experience and I wouldn't want to taint them further before a good version of that kind of gameplay came out) though. That's just me. I would think that if they are aware of the problem that occurred with watering down SFCIII and a simple hand held game didn't cut they mustered then they might still be willing to look at doing a more complex PC version. You know, realizing that making an imitation just doesn't cutting it, and then finally biting the bullet and making the real thing.
Anyhow, I would think that they would try to make something of the license even if these two games fail (but like I said I'd buy TA if I had a hand held, and I kind of like the name TA).
I have to agree with what Crim is saying though. The guys from Quicksilver did say some important things (or at least allude to them). There still appears to be interest in doing another SFC title. They did say they had folks from the SFC1 era (I don't think we need to talk about how good that title was) who still had affection for that game. We could certainly do a lot worse than getting the guys who made the most immersive SFC title of all, to do a new one. That, however is up to Bethesda. I would think that an organized campaign on Bethesda is warranted. We gather as much information as we can about past titles in case asked about it, but we start slow and build, peaking about the time TA comes out. That way it doesn't appear as though we have a lot of folks who quickly lose interest, but if we peak at release it will be at the height of sales (hopefully) and they will be in a joy zone more condusive to saying "Yeah, let's do something bigger!"
Heck, I'm serious about even doing a rally and holding up signs outside Bethesda (get what press you can there to cover it, of course) and rally for a new SFC. Then, if they actually ever do agree we absolutely have to put our money where our mouth is and make sure lots of people buy it (and those who buy it buy lots of it, although that could backfire on a sequel which may not do as well if people don't buy as many multiple copies
) and get the real machine working to publicize it and get the word out.
Hey, maybe we should have a separate forum to discuss the movement, maybe "SFC: Operation Bethesda"
Topic: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot... (Read 29984 times)