Hm. I'd be lying if I said that it didn't feed my imagination, but that's not the biggest reason why I still play it.
The among oldest games on my computer are XCOM, Master of Magic and Star Control 2 (it's been re-released as freeware, btw). Among the newer games that I still remember would be such as Age of Sail II: Privateer's Bounty. Why i'm still playing these, well over six years after they were released is markedly similar to why I still play Starfleet Command or AoS2:PB.
I would say why i'm still here is because of the depth of play. Just like sweating at the screen, wondering if there's a plasma toting alien around the darkened corner, or exploring the depths of space in the Vindicator, eyes open for minerals, or the fluffy, happy feeling one gets when a stalwart group of settlers stop and become the new outpost of your magical Myrrian empire, I would say it's the sheer emersion of play that keeps me hooked. When closing with a plasma user, as a fed I watch that range counter like someone counting the seconds to the midnight hour, desperately hoping that the plasma fired at my ally wasn't a psudeo; When fighting klingons I can almost hear the hiss of a coolant line bursting when that D7 hits me over and over again, never allowing the pressure to drop, in my engines or in my tatical situation.
In games such as these there's more 'personality.' (when and where multiplayer is relavant; XCOM and MoM need player designed patches to do multi-play) What happens in the game is linked both to the race that is played, and the mentality of the player. Like in AoS2, preference of the player means alot more in this game than, say, Diablo. Proxies or overloads? Given the right ship, both are valid tatics; What one will choose depends alot more on the captain than the ship itself (and, probably, if the fed's a good fed, their opponent's ship). Like in AoS2, some people like the bigger ships. The ships 'o the line. The 1st-2nd class vessels with multiple gun decks and a hull that can take a beating. Others prefer those small ships, the frigates and even sloops of the day; Smaller, faster, and in trouble if it ends up in a battleship's gunsights. Some prefer that ancient combination between the two that's the basis for all modern cruisers; Knock the little ones and run from the big ones. And of course, there's even more variety within, such as the british tendency to overgun their ships with carronade, making genuine smashers... if you're crazy to get close enough. Inbetween the BB's, the DN's, the CA's, the DD's, the FF's and all their variants, most of us that have stuck around have a ship 'personality'; a prefered hull class perhaps, or a prefered race (in the same way the French over marined their ships in the age of sail, so do klingons).
Most of all, in these games there is sufficient complexity that there is always choice, which leads to the implication that victory is done generally through better captaincy as opposed to a better ship. It's not a chess game; It's not a proscribed A defeats B such as Master of Orion 2's techwar like strategy. It's not a game purely of numbers, like the production twitch fests that Starcraft, Command and Conquer, and such related games can easily become. It's a game like Heavy Gear 1, where the equipment you're given is a third of the equasion, and the other two thirds is your ablity to use that equipment to it's fullest potential. Although it's too late, to be succinct, the victory generally comes from thinking, rather than a proscribed formula or ablity to do the same thing faster than someone else. There is a point where seconds will count (as in all real time games) and a DN will defeat a FF 95% of the time, but rather than the norm, these are the extremes in an otherwise very well thought out tatical game. The endless tatical combinations that can create victory or defeat is what keeps me hooked more than anything else, and is what will keep me playing for many years to come.
As i've stated exaustivly before, I came across SFC by accident; In a fun pack of multiple games. I didn't think that SFC 1 would be much more than another mediocre trek sim, but after playing it for a few minutes I saw the potential. From that moment I was utterly hooked, grabbing OP as soon as it hit the shelves (I was unaware of the community at large and the time, and the stigma that apparently surrounded OP, but eh.) In the sleepless months that followed I tried every day to get a little better at firing my alpha, a little smarter at where my energy went, and a little wiser as to what the enemy would do, computer or otherwise. You know, I never *did* end up trying those other games in the trek pack...
In summary, it would be the depth of immersion, the game's 'personality', and above all it's overwhelming complexity that keeps me hooked to the game.
Yes, you could probably consider me a hardcore strategy/tabletop tatics gamer,
Holocat.
P.S. The word succinct has no place *anywhere* in this and I apologize for using it twice in this document. Thank you.
Topic: Staying Power of this Old game (Read 3214 times)