Okay, been awhile, and missed much of the items from the forum, especially the Star Trek Legacy fiasco, I be think'n it's time to say a few words on that. Basically, I don't think that Legacy deserves some of the ratings it's gotten. Hell, when a game like Warhammer:Mark of Chaos can get a general score overall between 7 to 8 on most websites, whilst a game like Star Trek Legacy gets destroyed by raters...one has to wonder.
Star Trek Legacy is a Trekker's WET dream come true. Of course it's probably a Trekkie's worst nightmare...but that's besides the point...it's a generational thing. Point blank, the first requirement to actually enjoy this game is something an individual from the younger generation will be more likely to have than the older generation, because those of us young'uns (though not that young anymore) have that the older gents do not...is tech savvy and tech desire. We're just more likely to have the tech requirements to actually get this thing to run...and tech requirements is REQUIRED.
Like Mark of Chaos, which requires a bucketload of the newest and best gadgets just to run right, Star Trek Legacy practically demands that you have an up to date computer. That means that the min requirements listed probably are just enough to barely get the game to run...and might not even play all that well with them...with ALL THE SETTINGS SET AT MINUMUMS.
At double the minumums, you might be lucky to have it actually run so that you can play it...
That means you should have at least a GIG of RAM and a Vid Card with 256 VRAM or more...though Pixel Shader 1.4 and Direct X 9 compatible cards are still good. You also MUST have a good amount of FREE Harddrive space. I would suggest 2 to 4 GIGS of RAM and the latest generation of Vidcards. Even with that it takes some loading time. This is one area that some complained about with Legacy, but for some odd reason it's not as big a deal with Mark of Chaos. Mark of Chaos takes 3 to 5 minutes to load a scenario (2 minutes on the fastest recorded time for me) whilst Legacy on average does it in a minute...with the right specs. That's hands down, one arena that Legacy absolutely beats Mark of Chaos.
People complaining about Legacy's graphics...I would suggest you get another video card...or take a look at most of the games out now. I don't know what the heck people have been drinking (and I suppose I drink quite a bit meself at times...but I know my games pretty much) and Legacy's Graphics are damn good...period. NWN2, DarkStar ONe, WoW (now that has NO room to speak), Guild Wars, Prey, FEAR, hell, none of them really are as good of graphics as Legacy (or Mark of Chaos for that matter) with it's graphical settings on high. Some come just about equal, but none really make Legacy Graphics look aged, or old. Hell, even on the lowest settings Legacy looks just a wee bit worse than Bridge Commander (old Trek game) did when it was on it's highest settings. On the highest graphical settings, Legacy can make one go bug eyed...if one can get the game to run like it should, and has the actual specs to run it (and that's a big if...most people try to get by with something a little less than the latest and greatest).
This then is one of the great things about Legacy...and it's downfall as well. The graphics are great, but because of the actual requirements to get it to run...practically no one but a hard core gamer is going to have the capacity to see them! This is ALSO one of the biggest failings of Star Trek Legacy...because on an install it seems to default to having the graphical settings at a higher level. This means if you are on minimum requirements, you might crash the game (which will be running terribly and almost at a standstill at some points) just trying to get to the options to reset it so that you can actually run the game. The biggest thing to change if one can at that point, if they can even get to that screen is the anti-aliasing...but that's more of a tech thing which I won't get into too much.
I think this is one reason why the X-box Version is rated so much higher than the PC version...the X-box 360 has settings that are common to all their consoles, and hence the game doesn't require manipulation of graphic options to run. The PC, without the latest and greatest, requires manipulation, and even before that, might crash. This is because the idiot in charge of the installation of the game decided to have the default graphical settings at a high point, instead of the minimums. Many NON-technical savvy individuals have interpreted this as bugs...or bad programming. It's not really, it's just that they aren't tech savvy enough to understand what's happening...the only idiot however...is the guy who was in charge of the installation program for the PC. In fact, a TON of the problems seem to stem from the installation...such as abilities to reset things, and saves, and a whole slew of other items. Whoever was in charge of the installation program probably should be fired...or something...at least that person didn't do a repeat of the whole Pools of Radiance installation foopah (if you uninstalled it could delete your whole OS...also something repeated by NWN when it came out...but not as many made as big a deal about it), or at least that I can tell.
So...saying that you can actually run the game...
This is when it becomes the Trekker's dream. You can go in and literally select almost any ship from any era from the canon series! In fact, it get's better than that, there are ships from Tech manuals in there, inclusive of what they call the Apollo class.
Even better, they've mirrored some of the creations of SFB/Interplay...modified just enough so that they are unique, but identifiable enough for players, that they can tell what they are...and included them in the ship lists of available ships. Ships such as the Apollo refit and the Yorktown classes. Only Armada 2 (another Mad Doc game by the way) had as much diversity of ships (more actually in that game), but you couldn't have personal control as you do in Legacy. That makes this game AWESOME. I LOVE being able to have the selection of ships that I do. Any Star Trek fan should be absolutely tickled to death with the variety of ships available to them. Much like a hardcore Fantasy Warhammer Fan might be tickled by seeing their units actually come to life in Mark of Chaos...Star Trek Fans should be tickled to death about Legacy.
The game itself has a pretty good way of presenting it's campaign. The missions are about as varied as the Star Fleet command series...which means that sometimes they can get quite repetitive. However, they are created with a distinct feel, one that feels...well Star Trekky. This is something that Mark of Chaos DIDN'T replicate as well...in my opinion, it didn't really have that tabletop Warhammer Fantasy feel. However, Legacy's campaign DOES have a STar Trek type of approach.
Now then, onto the area where many of the complaints lie. The Gameplay. The gameplay resorts to being a cross between the Starfleet/Klingon Academy series and the Bridge Commander Series. Those who were looking for a Star Fleet Command feel...well...expect to be disappointed. This game is NOTHING like SFC. There are literally two different ways to control your ship...the micromanage way...or the easy way. Most complaining about the WASD keys are those who want to micromanage. This game is DESIGNED to use the keyboard and mouse simultaneously from what I can tell. You aren't supposed to be pressing fire with the keyboard really...if you are using it to guide the ship. ON the other hand if you are using the easy way to guide the ship...then using the keyboard becomes a hell of a lot easier. Or if you are a hardcore gamer and have your own specific gaming keyboard where you can assign whatever keys to be to whatever keyboard notations that you desire...then it's a moot point. You can assign keys as you wish. However, this gets to be a hardcore gamer thing again...which most are not. So, in that case, I would suggest simply using the easy mode, and forget the micromanaging...might as well play the game on the easiest setting as well...
In this, however, in some ways it is a lot less tactical than Bridge Commander or SFC...but then also at the same time, in some ways, MORE complex than Bridge Commander. It is less tactical in that hitting certain points on a ship have much less impact on the outcome of a battle than either of the two preceding games. ON the otherhand, with the manipulation of energy for ship weapons, engines, and other items, along with the control of up to four ships, it can be a little more complex. If one can switch quickly enough between ships it becomes more of a positioning game than anything else.
Because of the ease of how one can control the ships, the story line for the campaign, and the added complexity of positioning and control of a small fleet, I'd have to say this game ranks heads and tails higher on gameplay for me than Bridge Commander (but a far cry from Klingon Academy, or the Star Fleet Command Series).
There is one item that could rank it far lower...that is multiplayer. MP seems almost non-existent, and setting up a game...well...I haven't had much luck on that side myself. Of course typically I'm one who plays the Single Player game, and then sees what Mods are up and how easy it is to mod myself. The count would still be out for me on the Mod arena.
All of the above is made for the Hardcore PC gamer however...which is where the problems come in, and why you can see the differences between the Xbox version and the PC version.
The game itself is no different really...in fact they are the same game overall...with the same type missions, the same ship selection, and the same abilities. The differences are all technical ones...literally. With the Xbox 360 you don't have to wrestle around with minimum requirements just to get the game to run, or fiddle with the game itself to get it to run...it is just a simple put it in and it runs. I'd imagine a great deal of PC gamers don't have top of the line computers...and if you don't...with the settings set higher than your computer can handle...you'll run into what you think are bugs...but in reality is just a simple equation of your computer being unable to handle the game. The Xbox 360 doesn't have this problem for obvious reasons.
The second reason the X-box version is rated higher is that the controls are easier to understand in the Xbox 360 version. The Console player usually uses the same controller...and easily uses it in this game. The PC gamer has thousands of different configurations they might want to use...but unless they actually have the right stuff to do it...or understand how to do it...are not going to be able to really configure the game as they might want for control usage. It's not different from the Xbox version, but a different set of expectations from the type of gamers who play on each platform.
Hence, for the above two reasons the Xbox 360 version has gotten good reviews overall compared to the PC version being shortchanged (and from what I've seen from PC reveiwers on gamesites...I'm surprised most of them could even get Oblivion to run decently on their computers...though I have noticed a few flaws with Ati cards as opposed to Nvidia cards with Legacy).
Mark of Chaos had even less interesting campaigns, less intuitive controls, and less innovation than Legacy...and yet got better reviews. I can only surmise that to get a true review of the game of Legacy you're going to have to read an X-box 360 review.
Heck, in that light, unless you're a hardcore gamer who knows what they are doing with their computer...I'd say if you want to play Legacy and run it right...go out and get an Xbox 360 for it. Yes...it's that good I think. Simply put, if you are a Trekker (or at least from the younger generation that also likes the later Star Treks such as TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT), this is a MUST have game...and YES...getting a 360 just for this game is WORTH IT...period. If you are willing to upgrade your computer (which I might add will probably cost more than a 360 at this point...I can pick up a 360 for 299 USD currently...you'll probably end up spending more on your Video card upgrade alone for your PC than that) and spend time figuring out how things work with the PC version...IT IS WORTH IT just as much...but probably will take more effort than getting the 360.
This is an AWESOME game...and shouldn't have been panned by those who panned it in my opinion...Bethesda and Mad Doc REALLY got the short end of the stick on this one due to people's ignorance of the PC game...(To note...I've gotten it to work on 10 computers thus far that met the requirements...and worked WELL with NO flaws...which is overall probably more experience in how this game might actually work than most who might have put it on one...or maybe two...computers...). Mark of Chaos...Now that game....I think it's just I'm not quite as big a Warhammer Fantasy fan as I might have thought...
I do have a few complaints...but that's about Bethesda's design of Star Trek games in general...so I'll address that below.
And for those SFC fans who won't get anything SFC or SFB like from this game except some ships (which I think is really cool that they are in this game), you might try Tactical Assault also out from Bethesda. It is like SFC ULTRA light (meaning, about 10 times even lighter than SFC3 was from SFC2). In fact, look at Tactical Assault as SFC for an idiot's dummy of SFC. However, the missions like Legacy are very Star Trekky. I enjoyed Tactical Assault immensely, and rather sorry it didn't get greater notice from Star Trek gaming Fans.
However, both it and Legacy (and we'll toss in Encounters in that mix as well) have some problems in that they force you to play the campaign in certain ways. In Encounters and Tactical Assault you can't play ships in skirmishes until you've played the campaign and actually unlocked them. This rather stinks in my opinion, and shouts of poor design ability on Bethesda's part. Of even more stink, is that in Legacy and Encounters they force you to start in the Enterprise Era. Personally I like Star Trek...but Personally can't stand Enterprise era play. Going through that portion of the campaign REALLY sucks for me. It's @%Q$#@!$% stupid. If I want to play an Original Series portion, or TNG portion, just let me...instead of forcing me to play portions which I absolutely abhor!
If there's one major complaint I have about Bethesda's design that's the biggest complaint...other than that...their games overall rock. I would like it if they had a general war type game like the SFC series did...but for what they've given...I think ALL their games are grand additions to the Star Trek Gaming Franchise.
Topic: Oops, wrong forum, reposted in right one. (Long) (Read 1848 times)