Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 12, 2003, 01:37:07 pm
I'm beginning to wonder if the "all eras" SFC game idea is even a possibility anymore now that Activision has dumped their Trek liscense.
Since Activision owned all the Trek eras they were in the unique position of being able to do an "all eras" game. They apparently paid 20 million or so for those rights....that's lots of bucks.
As it turns out Activision seem to be having a hard time getting enough profit for a return on their 20 million investment. So since they now see it was a bad idea from the start they are trying to weasel their money back from Paramount using the court system.
My thoughts are this:
1) Will a single publisher ever again want to buy all the Trek era liscenses considering what it costs for them all?
2) Or, will the liscenses end up getting split up again?
I'm betting that the liscense will be split up again because no new publisher will want to pay the huge cost of the entire liscense as opposed to a cheaper portion of the liscense.
Does this means that the SFC liscense would also have to split?
Perhaps whoever picks up the TOS liscense could eventually make a Galaxies at War "SFC Classic" based on SFB and whoever gets the TNG liscense could expand on SFC3 if they preferred. I wonder what would happen? Does the SFC liscense have to go one way or another? TOS or TNG? Or can it split into two product lines? Would one leg have to give up the name SFC?
Anyone care to speculate what their thoughts are?
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 12, 2003, 02:29:54 pm
My personal preference would be to have the name go with the product that would follow the SFC1/2/OP series. The reasoning behind this is not just because I have such a vast preference for those games over the other, but that there were more of them, and an unfinished storyline.
I would think that if someone does one day return to SFC they would probably (if they are wise) take a look at how many people are still playing each of the versions (possibly taking age of product into account as well as other factors) and go with a continuation of that line (assuming they don't want to spring out in yet another arm of SFC, ugh!)
Post by: Dash Jones on July 12, 2003, 09:03:11 pm
Just had to pull ya strings!
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 14, 2003, 09:45:30 am
It's in Paramount's interest to just drop the deal with Activision and make a new deal with someone else as soon as possible. If Paramount goes years without Trek games being made it's just money lost for everyone involved. It's also not worth the legal costs to fight Activision while Paramount is losing money because no Trek games are being made. I'm sure this is what Activision is betting on.
I think the liscense will be split up after what just happened to Activision. Activision just bit off more than they could chew. The same would be true of any other company.
I think Activision and Paramount will settle out of court very quickly. Paramount will want to distribute the liscensing to other companies as quickly as possible. Activision want's their money back so they can move on too.
I guess it is possible that after they settle Activision still gets a piece of the pie for a lower price. I can see them getting the TNG liscense again. I seriously doubt Activision would want the TOS liscense.
As far as SFC is concerned, if Activision get's the TNG liscense again you can just about bet they won't make a sequel to SFC3. The best hope for more TNG SFC is if another company gets TNG Liscense and takes a stab at SFC4. Still I think this is unlikely based on the sales performance of SFC3 and what the TNG liscense would cost.
The big question for the entire SFC line is whether the SFC product line would split with the Trek liscense. If Activision gets the TNG liscense "only" does this mean they retain the rights to all future uses of the SFC name? If they do, Activision could kill the SFC line off completely with no hope of even another TOS based game....i.e. SFC: Galaxies at War, even if some other company owned the TOS liscense. Or perhaps a simple renaming of the game would solve this technicality? Hell it might be better to dump the name "Starfleet Command" anyway, because it's kind of been tarnished by SFC3's sales performance. Forget "Star Trek SFC Galaxies at War"....just call it "Star Trek Galaxies at War".
Now what about the TOS liscense? Let's just assume that the SFC line can split with the Trek liscense. Are you guys ready for some "wild" speculation? Here goes.......If Trek is in general decline you can bet that TOS is the "most declined"....for this reason I bet it's a lot cheaper than the other parts of the Trek liscense making it in a price range that smaller publishers might be able to afford. I wonder if Taldren could afford something like that? If Black 9 is a big hit they might be able to have enough money to afford TOS liscensing. What would this mean....I wonder? Could Taldren afford to self publish another SFB based SFC using an enhanced OP engine......perhaps maybe a subscription service? Could they make an SFC that adds a strategic layer based on F&E? I wonder what it would take to create a senario like this?
For those of us who long for SFC Galaxies at War based on the original SFC games, we can only hope that whoever gets the TOS liscensing got it cheap and it's worth their while to fund the completion of the SFB based game storyline. And we have to hope that the SFC line can also be split so Activision or whoever gets the TNG liscense can't kill the line off for good. It would be nice to know what the possibilites were, however remote.
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 14, 2003, 10:25:42 am
I really doubt that Activision could lay claim on the title SFC. Seeing as how there were 3 SFC titles before the Activision one.
I, for one, would be willing to buy expansions/updates for SFC if it was the only way economically for Taldren to be able to do it. A weapons pack that say adds multiple drone types, variable photon OL, plasma shotguns, more SP and SS targeting options, Orion option mts. etc... Maybe a power management pack that allows full use of reserve power, quick arming of single turn weapons, more flexible Orion engine doubling... If that could turn a profit then maybe GAW could grow out of that.
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 14, 2003, 05:48:45 pm
Quote:
The best, although not the most likely scenario, would be if the licensing for the TOS was affordable enough for ADB to pick it up and for them to hire Taldren to do the games. IMO
Ahhh, Sweet Bliss!!!
But do you think ADB could really afford to hire Taldren?, especially after paying Paramount's blood money?
Chaos
Post by: Magnum357 on July 14, 2003, 08:28:08 pm
As for SFC TNG, I think their is a slim chance it will ever be a reality, just by the fact that the show Enterprise and Nemisis have completely destroyed the entire franchise. Even if Paramont dishes out the licence to other people, it just will never have the same type of financial firepower as it once did. Don't get me wrong, I like SFC3, I just don't think another version is going to be a reality.
I say talk to ADB and work up a deal. They might be willing to listen.
Post by: Kid Carrson on July 14, 2003, 08:40:41 pm
I think you're exactly correct. Taldren needs to radically rethink how they deal with the SFC series. They will have a hard time getting many hundreds of thousands of buyers for a game, but they have an extremely loyal core of devoted followers who will pay dearly for the right type of product. Their model has already been laid out for them by ADB. Take ADB's concept of expansion modules and packages and instead sell upgrade/modifications to SFC OP. Here's how I think they should do it.
1. Fine tune a list of realistic "wants" from the community that people are seriously willing to pay for. Ask for suggestions, then trim it down to five or so.
2. Have One person in Taldren sheppard the expansion patch to fruition, and allow some within the community to help.
3. Demand that the community "pay with their wallets" prior to beginning work. How? Set up a paypal / credit card online arrangement, require the community to pony up a certain amount of money for an expansion pack that can be done by X date. Taldren would determine that they would need revenue of at least $30,000 for expansion patch 1, $50,000 for expansion patch 2, etc. Let the community decide what gets done first by voting with their wallets.
4. When paying for the expansion patch, I would suggest a two or three tier pay arrangement, as follows (remember economics 101 guys and gals, price discrimination can maximize profits when applied intelligently). Level 1 - pay $20, get the expansion patch when completed. Level 2 - pay $50 - start from the beta, have some input in catching bugs, etc. Level 3- $100 or more - be involved in the design of the expansion patch, involved in the Beta, etc. I'd suggest the Level 3 have a limited number of slots be available and have community members bid (like EBAY) for them.
5. Each patch should be able to work from the existing SFC OP, and preferably would allow a number of the expansion patches to work well together when bought.
6. If the dedicated and rabid community can make some money for Taldren from intelligent expansion patches, then at some point we the community can rightly suggest "let's make a Galaxies at War" expansion or new game, again with the community making a dollar committment prior to creation.
7. Just a few ideas for expansions:
a. A weapons expansion pack with variations of existing weapons and others near and far.
b. An expansion that allows all races to have PF's, or all Fighters, or both.
c. An expansion that creates an F & E type of deeper level overplay strategic structure (or even a simpler version that allows a true strategic level)
d. An expansion that allows for FMSE for SFC OP.
e. An expansion that allows multiplayers to capture ships.
f. An expansion that allows single player skirmish to select any and all terrains.
Hey Taldren, please think about it. I think that you can do this with just one or two employees working part time on various aspects, and using the community for the rest. And if the community is too cheap to commit to the level needed to make an expansion, then enough is said from all parties. And I personally think you guys could do this right and really make some decent money from expansion patches.
Kid Carrson
Post by: Storvick on July 14, 2003, 08:55:30 pm
Post by: Tulwar on July 14, 2003, 10:32:41 pm
This articles I've read say this lawsuit is almost completely unprecidented. To me, it sounds desparate. Seeing how Activison jumped into the SFC franchise without any considderation of Tadren's existing customers, it would seem that Activision is prone to aggressive and reckless buisness practices.
Since ST is one of Activision's main product lines, this will be a major loss of revenue. For Viacom, the precident of allowing companies to renegotciate this kind of contract is disasterous. Both companies will fight this for as long as they can. Viacom, being the larger company, with so many other assets, can afford to fight this much longer.
That may be the reason that this sort of case is so rare. Even if you are right, you can still lose. Court battles often turn into wars of attrition. There are so many layers of over-worked courts, that one may die of old-age before recieving satisfaction.
Activision has to have a rock solid case if they are to win this fight. Viacom will not settle until they know that they are going to lose repeatedly in court. From what I've read, Viacom feels themselves on solid ground. I see Activision as the one to act in the more risky fashion.
The best case for SFC is if Activision loses quickly and loses big, especially if Activision ends up having to sell the rights to ST in bankruptcy court.
One thing I would dearly love to know: How many people did SFC3 attract compared to the number it alienated? That is, minus the people screaming for their money back.
BTW, another SFB based game will be created. The question is, will it be the beautiful work of Taldren in the next couple of years, or somebody else's in the twenty?
Post by: Tulwar on July 14, 2003, 11:04:17 pm
Quote:
Take ADB's concept of expansion modules and packages and instead sell upgrade/modifications to SFC OP.
I don't think that model will work for an online, muli-player game. They'll have to simply bump up the price on a single package. Pay servers might be an additional source of revenue, but a lot of people won't tolerate that. Then again, a lot of people might just be willing to pay for an alternative to GS.
NWN hit the shelves at $70.00 and came down to about half that in a year. There are a lot of people who will shell out for an intitial offering, while the product continues to sell at profitable, yet more reasonable price later on. Most of SFC GAW has already been developed, the problem is, how many people will buy any SFC product after SFC3? SFC3 created a terrible rift within this community. Would GAW be profiable selling only a hundred-fifty thousand units at $70.00 each?
Post by: Cleaven on July 14, 2003, 11:25:12 pm
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 14, 2003, 11:55:06 pm
Quote:
all I can say is if they make another SFC game but with only SFB stuff then they just lost one customer that has been buying SFC stuff since they first came out. I did not buy SFC for the SFB stuff. I bought SFC since it has been the best Star Trek ship command game that is out there.
Unless the only SFC game you bought and will continue to buy is SFC3, then you've already bought SFC "with only SFB stuff" and did come back for more. Maybe you aren't aware, but SFC1/2/OP was "with only SFB stuff". The GAW that folks are talking about is just the finish to the "teaser" ending already in OP. I would like to go on record asking, "If you're going to make a game with Tholians based on SFB, then don't leave out the Seltorians, please.
." My $.02 on an TNG based game is give us races/systems/rules, that isn't "SFB stuff" so that you/Taldren won't have to deal with the direct comparisons. SFB has had too long to refine it's ruleset for someone to be reasonably expected to design something superior in around 1/10th the time. Since Taldren is now linked to the SFB ruleset by their previous titles, they are in the unenviable position of being held up to that ruleset with anything else that they come out with that's based on Trek. Not by everyone I know, but by a lot of us. Unless they "run off" all those who bought SFC because it was "with only SFB stuff", and that would be lost revenue.
Post by: Magnum357 on July 15, 2003, 12:17:50 am
Besides, another title based on SFB rules could still use many concepts from SFC3. Like did you know that in SFB rules, their is an option for Cloak ships to actually have hidden cloaked ships like in SFC3? Or that their is actually warping in SFB rules, its called "Disenganging by exceleration" which really meant warping off the board map. And other concepts from SFC3 could be implemented in a SFC:GAW game like adding more weapon systesm based on SFC3. Just because the game is based on SFB rules doesn't mean it wouldn't be totally useless for you.
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 15, 2003, 12:42:05 am
Quote:
In my opinion, I think the best hope for SFC is for Taldern to forget the Paramount licencing attogether and try to negotiate a deal with ADB. I bet the cost would be considerably cheaper compared to paramonts and it would be based on SFB universe. That way, a SFC:GAW would actually be a reality. And instead of ADB fighting with Taldren all the time about copying their rule system, they should help them out because if they work togetheir, they can benefit each other. Their are some things in SFB that SFC can recreate so their will always be a need for people to by the board game.
ADB already made such a deal with Interplay and Taldren. That was how we got SFC1 and SFC2 and OP. The entity you really need to worry about is Paramount.
The hold-up for electronic SFB had (has) always been Paramount. ADB had always claimed that their contract gave them permission to make computer games built upon SFB, whereas Paramount claimed that it does not. As Steve Cole (the head of ADB) has always said, "If you've got the money to fight Paramount, you go right ahead." (I guess Activision does. At least it seems to think that it does.)
I have little doubt that ADB would agree to another SFB-based computer game with no problems. They still print articles about SFC in their Captain's Log magazine. Getting Paramount not to storm in and torpedo the deal with (expensive) litigation would be the trick.
-S'Cipio
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 01:39:21 am
If any mythology deserved such a universe, it would be Star Trek. There was simply not enough put into the game. It is a flop. You all got your SFB games, why can't you be happy with that? If you want Eras at War, then mod it- many of our finer modders/moddellers have done so for you already; stop praying for more Nitpicking of the Nth Degree. Let the rest of us have our online consistent universe we have been seeking... that which would feel like you are flying a massive starship thorugh a gargantuan galaxy; not where you feel like you're moving a damned bitmapped pwter model on a online board (bored) game.
If one were to make another Star Trek game, it would need to be of drastic differences than is previously granted. Yes, the SFC(3)-style of combat is pretty much flawless. Easy to learn, hard to master. THIS will draw consumers, not another re-hash of another game.
This is not a flame, I personally like many of you- just plea for consideration- such a change/addition wouldn't lose any of the elements we all enjoy... I just would like to see a little more "playable realism". I have a ship- give me an ocean on which to sail.
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 15, 2003, 01:56:45 am
Quote:
It is of astronomically astounding levels of surprise and simultaneous dismay that I see all this worry over ANOTHER SFB game.... didn't we just have three in a row?
Actually, it's been quite a while since OP hit the shelves as a new product. 'Twould be nice to see a new one faithfully done. We've got plasma sabot and carronades to add.
Quote:
What made people run from SFC3 wasn't because it had less of the SFB
Less SFB is certainly what sent me running.
Quote:
SFB never sold.
What do you mean? The game started in the late 70's and is still in print. New customers show up all the time. Expansions are printed at regular intervals (I just bought the newest one, hot off the presses, yesterday). It just expanded into GURPS. All of the bills are paid and the company has no debts.
-S'Cipio
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 01:59:20 am
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 15, 2003, 02:00:32 am
So you want this giant expanse to realistically sail your starship on?
Picard: Data set course for Alpha-yadi-yadi-yada.
Data: Course set. At our current speed we should be there in 3days, 14hrs, 22min.
Picard: Make it so. I'm going to be in my ready room. Inform me if something, anything happens.
Do you really want reality?
Post by: FireSoul on July 15, 2003, 02:04:12 am
I bought and play this game (SFC:OP) because it's SFB-based. I did not buy SFC3. I will not buy a Trek game that's not SFB-based unless it is a SPECTACULARLY OVERWHELMINGLY WONDERFUL game.
oh.. and I didn't buy another game since SFC:OP except for an updated version of UO.
-- Luc
PS. Someone once posted to me "who do you think you are, the savior of OP?"
Updated answer: No, but you should see the stuff I'm doing for it.
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 02:10:43 am
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 02:12:58 am
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 02:17:48 am
Post by: NannerSlug on July 15, 2003, 03:29:50 am
everyone can just agree to disagree about rule sets and leave it at that. there are just about as many opinions on this game as there are people. thats life. what we should be looking positively about is that all the games have inspired enough people to enjoy the game and leave it at that.
let me remind some folk of somthing.. what do you think would have happened if during sfc2 there was no demo and the same type of support we have seen with sfc3? hmm.. i think that is a good reason why if anything, there are issues.. but here is another news flash - sfc3 is still going strong game wise.. sure, not as many on gsa.. but there are no leagues.. most of the folk are on d3.. and even without an official patch, that section has been bumping around 100 folk at 2 am in the morning - and thats on modded servers that require 100s of megs of downloads and installs.
my only point is dont sell sfc3 short like some people have.
when its all said and done these are games. lets just leave it at that.
and yes, sfc1, 2, op and sfc3 are all TREK games first and foremost.. the rule sets are tools used to accomplish an objective.. so no, the "core" crowd is not sfb folk - the "core" are trek fans.. that doesnt take away anything from sfc1/2/op - but that rule set/those who like that rule set do not have ownership on the community. it should be big enough for everyone.
Post by: Cleaven on July 15, 2003, 05:32:27 am
It's like saying that we've had chess for a thousand years so it's time to get rid of it because it's past it's use-by date. Don't take people for fools when they can recognise that quality and value for money endures. A quality product will go on and on until it is replaced by something better or the market disappears. SFB and F&E are still in publication when almost all other board games published in that era are gone, so the evidence is that the SFB market is still there.
And to go on and say that "SFB never sold." is even more incredulous. As you can easily see, not only did it sell well, but it has sold well for a long, long time. Of course this is not to imply that SFB is as successful as Monopoly, but it is successful.
And none of this detracts from any success of SFC:TNG and it's off-shoots, but I will happily bet that SFB will still be selling after all the current Star Trek games have given up the ghost.
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 08:55:03 am
Post by: Sethan on July 15, 2003, 09:03:46 am
Quote:
It is of astronomically astounding levels of surprise and simultaneous dismay that I see all this worry over ANOTHER SFB game.... didn't we just have three in a row?
We had 3 in a row, and years later, people are still playing them.
Quote:
What made people run from SFC3 wasn't because it had less of the SFB shackles- it was because it wasn't a consistent, continuous space universe... just like Earth and Beyond, just like Eve Genesis, and the other fully interactive space sims that tragically outsell the SFC series.
Um, SFC2 and SFC:OP didn't have a "consistent, continuous space universe" like the other games you describe either - and yet years after their release, people are still playing them.
Methinks the problems with SFC3 lie elsewhere.
Quote:
SFB never sold.
It sold, and continues to sell. That would be why the company is still releasing new products for it.
Quote:
If any mythology deserved such a universe, it would be Star Trek. There was simply not enough put into the game. It is a flop.
Actually, from a naval combat game standpoint, the SFB (Starfleet) Universe is far more detailed than the Star Trek Universe. There was plenty to put into a game - and several successful ones have been made on that basis.
Quote:
You all got your SFB games, why can't you be happy with that?
We did indeed get 3 SFB based games - and we like them. We want more. You got your Trek based games - dozens of them (mostly bad). Why can't you be happy with that?
Quote:
If you want Eras at War, then mod it- many of our finer modders/moddellers have done so for you already; stop praying for more Nitpicking of the Nth Degree.
To some extent this has been done - but there are limits beyond which the current game engine will not allow the modelers and scripters to go. There is much that could be done with a new game engine - including adding some of the features of SFC3.
Quote:
Let the rest of us have our online consistent universe we have been seeking... that which would feel like you are flying a massive starship thorugh a gargantuan galaxy; not where you feel like you're moving a damned bitmapped pwter model on a online board (bored) game.
Mod it.
You can't? Gee - too bad. Now you know what we feel like when we can't mod something into the game that WE want.
You have your "online consistent universe" in other games - leave ours alone. Go mod the other games if you want a Trek flavor to your online consistent universe.
Quote:
If one were to make another Star Trek game, it would need to be of drastic differences than is previously granted. Yes, the SFC(3)-style of combat is pretty much flawless. Easy to learn, hard to master. THIS will draw consumers, not another re-hash of another game.
Different != Success. SFC3 was different.
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 09:04:40 am
I meant Star Trek fandom... in general...
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 09:31:28 am
Why can't you have the best of both worlds? I don't think its too much to ask. Sethan wrote much material on the Rhiannasu- I wish there was a place where we all log on to, physically meet right in front of Rhiannasu (Romulus- whichever, sorry for the wrong words), and chat through ship channels or duke it out SFC-style, either way. Is that to much to ask for?
That wouldn't be a flavor, it'd be a little of both. Then if we got done talking, we could warp out and go about our business- fight something, scan something, rescue someone, whatever. Doing that, at your own discretion, would be against SFB rules... you'd have to disengage, and fall off the hex map... not to mention a couple of other grumbles. If I made you (bigger) SFB fans mad, I'm sorry, I was just hoping that we could see it as SFB giving us a great backbone, but we needing to take it and run, to build a body from it and expand out; SFB made ships, maybe a ocean could be built around it. Is this any better?
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 15, 2003, 09:52:49 am
All I want is for them to find a way to finish the EAW storyline and add the remaining major races Andros and Tholians.
WWWWAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Reverand says we need to move on.........the problem is they didn't finish what they started!!!!!
WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
I don't hate SFC3...hell I bought several copies of the damn game!!!!!!
WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
I just want them to finish what they started somehow.....then I'll be out of everyone's hair......
WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
If they would just program WEB.......we'd have Tholians......we've got Brez's models.......
If they would just program the andro displacement, PA panels, and TR beams, the fans could make the models and shiplists!!
WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Anybody got a hanky...........
It just that they are SOOOOO CLOSE to finishing what they started.........
<sniffle>
Post by: Lepton1 on July 15, 2003, 11:50:32 am
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 15, 2003, 12:54:55 pm
Think about how the other software makers do it:
They let you try it for 2 weeks free.
Then they sell you version 2.0 for 50 bucks. If you want to download it you can, or you can have them send you a disc. If you want them to send you printed instructions (as opposed to a printable .pdf), that's another 30 bucks. Over the next year or so, they come out with 2.1, 2.2, 2.4. 2.5 and 2.6, all freely downloadable to anyone who bought 2.0.
Then they come out with 3.0, for 55 bucks, or only maybe 20 bucks if you bought 2.0. Over the next year, you get 3. 1, 3.2, 3.3, etc.
So, the loyal patrons get a year's worth of new stuff for 20 bucks, they get all their friends to try it, the company stays in business, and everyone gets most of the new features they want (eventually.)
One trick would be to allow someone with 2.0 to continue playing on the dynaverse with people who bought 3.0, only they don't get to use the new goodies that 3.0 added. (That model works for features, but I don't know how it would work with bug fixes, maybe you would want to seperate bug fix downloads, that would continue to be free for everyone, from new feature downloads, that people would pay for, if that makes sense.) Too complicated? Well come on, if we weren't all brains to begin with, we wouldn't be playing this game. ;^)
Now, onto licensing... Interplay had to license both Star Trek TOS & TMP from Paramount, as well as SFB from ADB? Is that a correct understanding? I always understood that Paramount refused to admit that ADB's 'license', (which they actually sub-licensed from Lou Zocci, for the Starfleet Technical Manual, or some such, before the advent of the computer game and before Paramount really woke up to the licensing monster that is Trek...) ever included the right to make SFB into a computer game. In fact, for a while, they were denying that ADB's license was valid enough to cover SFB in the first place, though they seem to have eventually backed off that...
So now, Paramount HAS granted the right to make Trek computer games to other companies, and you have to have THAT license, from Paramount, PLUS the license from ADB... And Taldren purchased the ADB license to make OP, right? But they (or who ever they contract out to,) still need the Paramount Trek License to legaly make GAW...
Does anyone out there have a firm grasp of copyright law? Anyone who knows the actual legal ins and outs of this situation? We need a detailed description from someone who really knows...
Hey, Reverend, have you tried BattleCruiser 3000? Just asking...
Chaos
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 03:51:19 pm
Chaos, I haven't seen Battlecruiiser 3000.... what does it have that SFC doesn't, no offense?
Hope I haven't made Sethan too mad, though he was pretty harsh on me- sokay, I'm adamant about my wishes too.
Where can we go from here? Petition the next licensee? Make us a real game this time- GAW, EAW, whatever, just make us a finished game for Pete's sake.
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 03:54:03 pm
Post by: Sethan on July 15, 2003, 05:10:07 pm
Quote:
Chaos, I haven't seen Battlecruiiser 3000.... what does it have that SFC doesn't, no offense?
A: Derek Smart.
A better question is "What does SFC have that BC3k doesn't?"
A: Working code.
Seriously, BC3k was supposed to have the kind of persistent universe you are talking about.
Quote:
Hope I haven't made Sethan too mad, though he was pretty harsh on me- sokay, I'm adamant about my wishes too.
Where can we go from here? Petition the next licensee? Make us a real game this time- GAW, EAW, whatever, just make us a finished game for Pete's sake.
I'm not mad - I rarely get emotionally involved in these discussions. Sorry if I was harsh on you.
I actually have no objection to the persistent and contigouous universe idea as a part of SFC. I particularly like the idea of being able to join a battle in progress. I DO have an objection to tossing out the part of the game that works, in favor of trying something different, just to try something different.
I don't think SFC3's problem is the lack of a persistent universe - none of the other SFC games have had one. If you want to find out why it didn't do as well as the others in the long term, you need to look at the differences between SFC3 and SFC2.
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 15, 2003, 08:22:51 pm
The Star Trek licensing debacle will take a long time to sort out. A LONG time. The ripple effects abound. For the most part, the curse of the Star Trek games continue because, IMHO, the programming budgets and the licensing budgets don't have enough room to accommodate one another. In other words, in order for ANY software publisher to get the rights to the collective ST universe, they have to sink in mega $. These mega $ get yanked from the programming budget. Furthermore, there immediately is placed on the programmers a TREMENDOUS amount of pressure to make a game that will generate rapid and large sales. Why? Because so much money was sunk into the license that a game without broad-based appeal is (perceived as) a lost cause: the publishers will NEVER realize their initial investment. SFC3 is a perfect example of this: Activision secures the rights to ST, and wants a winner. They get Taldren for SFC, given that SFC2 was such a success, but they tell Taldren to 'de-geek' it.
Make it more palatable to the general public.
Taldren protests, but, hey, who's paying the bills? Activision. The suits say it needs to be dumbed down, so Taldren does what it can to still leave some appeal to the SFBer, but for the most part, hope that the loyalties to SFC outweigh the loyalties to SFB for the hardcore old school SFC2ers. And gamble that the software sales by John Q. Public will totally overwhelm the lost sales from the old-schoolers who are not hip to SFC3. That's the hand they got dealt and they played it the only way they could play it, frankly.
But SFC3s disappointing sales will serve unfortunately as ammo for the naysayers in ANY software publishing house. They will say that a hardcore gamers game in a Star Trek universe won't sell. They'll have this position despite the fact that, IMHO, SFC3 tanked precisely because it ALIENATED the hardcore gamers in the first place in the hopes of getting wider appeal. I do not have faith in neither Activision nor Paramount to have the insight to realize that the Star Trek license just can't carry a poorly balanced game. Never has, never will.
On the other hand, a well-balanced game without the license CAN hold its own. Not a MEGA success, but possibly hold its own. But it is a risk.
The sure-fire success, IMHO, is the synergy realized when the ST license happens to be on a well-balanced game.
But like I said, the suits will NOT see it that way.
So, IMHO, the best we can hope for is either:
Long-term Scenario 1: Orion PIrates gets old, but ages tremendously gracesfully due to the staunch support of the hardcore gamers who don't get a comparable product for the foreseeable future. Eventually, either OP goes open source or someone on their own figures out enough to effectively unlock it for heavy modding, and all kinds of stuff happens. This is like the 5 year plan. 10 years down the road, some gaming company realizes that this fricking game is STILL around after all these years and decides to update it to 2014 standards. By then, the Trek licensing snafus have run their course and publishers are more willing to take "chances" on 'niche' games that trade style for substance. Fun, fun fun.
Long-term Scenario 2: Taldren, or some other company, gets in bed with ADB which licenses out SFB but removes all Trek references. They listen to the customers and leave the graphics/UI code moddable enough that pesky members of the gaming community Star-Trekkify the game on their own, without Paramount's official blessing. Working against this: ADB inherently has an incentive to NOT allow a game to be TOO moddable and eat into their boardgame sales. Also Paramount might be total douchebags and intervene on third party modders of the StarTrekless SFC. But I see that as rather difficult to control.
Anyhow, that's how I see it.
Note there is no "Short-term Scenario." Because simply speaking I don't see anything remarkable happening in the short-term (except for FireSoul's tremendous support for OP, and the release of the highly-anticipated OP Dynaverse stability patch!).
Thanks,
TF
Post by: Magnum357 on July 15, 2003, 09:42:37 pm
http://www.copyright.gov/
Now, back to what Tumulorum Fossor was talking about. I completely agree with his theories about all this crap happening. That is why I suggested that Taldren just work a deal with ADB and forget a deal with Paramont. As I have stated above, I find it unlikely that Paramont would win this legal battle under copyright laws so Taldren and ADB really should not worry about this. I'm also certain that ADB would make for a much more afordable contract negotiation then Paramounts Multi-million dollar Trek License. I think both ADB and Taldren could benefit from this deal greatly.
As for Activision, hey what can I see, it just shows you how greedy that corperation really is. They made this deal with Taldren because they thought they could make money hand over fist! They deserved what they got in my opinion. I hope Taldren considers my theory and just let Activision and Paramont duke it out while they try to make a good SFB based game.
Now Reverend, I can understand why you think SFB is out of style. It is a rather old game and was made not too long after I was born, but it has a proven Navel Combat system and a very loyal set of fans (myself included). I like SFC3 too, but so far from what I have seen of this Activision/Viacom situation, I think another SFC TNG title is slim to none. But as I stated before, a lot of SFC3 elements could be added to a SFC GAW. Hidden Cloaks, Warping (a 1 minute delay as stated in SFB rules), and making weapons modable could be a few of many features that could make GAW not only a SFB game but a TNG game if someone wanted too.
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 11:24:41 pm
with the copyright laws as they stand, I don't see much more changing in the future either. All we can do I suppose is hope some company realizes the small but trusty market we as ST/SFB fans provide, and attempt to cash in on it again. Wish w could organize some sort of polite protest and get some work done... I suspect it wouldn't be exactly what any of us hoped for, but some work is better than none.
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 15, 2003, 11:46:39 pm
Quote:
Ok, hold on people... let me get this straight. After reading all this thread-fighting for about a half an hour, Scipio_66 informs us that the reason why ADB never have built a Computer board game of SFB is because Paramount comes in and says "that their copy right protection of SFB doens't protect you if make it for the computer"? Am I right on this understanding? Well, all I can say is Paramount has been using smoke and mirrors to scare ADB into thinking this. I'm pretty sure that Paramount would never win a court case if ADB actually made their own computer game. For what basis could Paramount sue ADB for violating the Star Trek Licence? Trust me guys, this is all just scare tactics on Paramonts part. Just got to this website for copyright laws and you will understand what I mean....
http://www.copyright.gov/
ADB just believes that even if somehow they could afford the court fight with Paramount's lawyers, They're supposed to have a lot of them
, that the income from the computer game, or even expanding SFB to other eras, wouldn't justify the expense. I read a post by SVC where he stated that not only did ADB have the legal right to produce a computer game, that the licensing of different eras didn't even apply to there license with Paramount.Remember, when they got their license Trek was dead and gone. A failed TV series. Nothing more.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 16, 2003, 12:02:13 am
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that Paramount would never win a court case if ADB actually made their own computer game.
Even if Paramount has a weak case it would still cost ADB a lot of money in legal fees to defend themselves. It's money they probably can't spare. I'm sure the profit margins for ADB products are tight. ADB does well because Steven V. Cole runs a tight ship. They probably don't have the kind of money needed to take on Paramount.
Paramount tolerates ADB because ADB behaves itself. Paramount could probably sweep ADB away if they became a real problem for Paramount and started challenging them. It's a fine line for ADB to walk.
Lastly, Erik Bethke said it takes a lot of money to produce and distribute computer games. Erik was looking for a way that Taldren could self publish their own games eventually, but he said it would be difficult to do until they got a couple of "hits" under their belt and started getting some solid royalties income rolling in.
If Taldren is having trouble self-publishing with all of their programmming and business talent fine tuned for making computer games, then ADB would find it nearly impossible to make their own computer games because they don't have the programming resources required.
However, if Taldren and ADB were to pool their resources perhaps that would be enough for Taldren and ADB to jointly publish an "SFB total conversion of OP"? In this kind of relationship ADB would provide the concept material and Taldren would create the programming to implement it. The development costs shouldn't be anywhere close to as high as a totally new game because the OP engine is already developed.....it would just have to be enhanced and upgraded. With resources from both Taldren and ADB combined the two companies should be able to pay the costs of packaging and distribution that are normally covered by a separate publisher. If development costs were kept down, even if the game sold fewer units than previous SFC games, they could still turn a profit. This game would not carry the name SFC, but would be marketed as actual SFB material.
Just some ideas. It would be nice if Erik would comment on these ideas.
Post by: Tulwar on July 16, 2003, 01:02:30 am
Activision on the other hand, they bought high and are selling low. As long as any ST program is in production, they don't have a leg to stand on in court. Even if there wasn't, Activision would be in a difficult legal position. I hope Viacom eats them for breakfast! They deserve it.
Post by: David Ferrell on July 16, 2003, 12:06:10 pm
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Aversham on July 16, 2003, 12:17:32 pm
Quote:
SFC3 did not have disappointing sales.
Thanks,
Dave
Nope, just disappointed customers.
Sorry Dave, nothing personal, but a lot of us bought that game on the assumption it would still be SFB based; we felt betrayed. (Though our faith in Taldren has been shaken, we still hold out hope...)
Post by: Reverend on July 16, 2003, 12:58:27 pm
Post by: NannerSlug on July 16, 2003, 01:01:53 pm
that said, there are many folks who like (some even love) sfc3, and whos only dissappointment was the lack of an official patch (or how long it took to get the beta patch out due to red tape) to fix simple issues like the anticloak cheat/follow bug.. there are a few that will be nice when they get squashed (like the out of sync/loading bug) or leaving a mission and for what ever reason not getting your full prestiege.
that doesnt make the game perfect. far from it. there could be much more detail put into the game - ranging from specific hard point mass restrictions to the ability to manage power more to more ships.. (oh yeah - tbombs. heh) however, it doesnt mean its a POS like a few people think it is (simply because it doesnt use the sfb rule set).
so to say there are disappointed customers isnt exactly telling the whole story. there might be some - but to group all those people into a single group is wrong. also, judging by the number of people playing on d3 at 2 am in the morning (especially when more than half are on servers that require hundreds of megs of downloads), people are enjoying the game. again, that doesnt make the game perfect, but i do not believe you are painting an altogether accurate.
on a seperate note...
sfc3 did not have disappointing sales? that sounds great! thanks for the info.. just wish we could find out some more info.
this is good news (for all)!
Post by: NannerSlug on July 16, 2003, 01:03:47 pm
Quote:
No, better yet, a lot more of us were expecting it to not just turn in one diection and stop, but have a consistent universe attached to it. Thanks for the one line reply, Dave!! Why don't you speculate on this further, instead of just being flippant. Tell us to shut- up, give an opionion, or state a fact with numbers... don't hold out on us.
i dont think dave can comment on exact numbers unless he wants to be slapped with a lawsuit from ativi/ get fired. it was nice to get that morsel, though.
Post by: Sethan on July 16, 2003, 01:20:21 pm
Quote:
SFC3 did not have disappointing sales.
Thanks,
Dave
Never said it did.
The true measure of a game is not how well it sells, but how many people it sold to are still playing it years afterwards.
High sales is great in the short term - but if most of those people play the game for a week or a month and then never touch it again, that doesn't bode well for sequels.
SFC2 has maintained a strong following despite its having been out for several years. I don't think that's happening with SFC3.
In SFC2's case the reason is twofold:
1) A highly complex fun game that is accessible to new players but takes work to master.
2) A tremendous level of support from the developer.
In SFC3's case, it was designed to have a broader appeal and so initial sales were higher - but the complexity is lacking, reducing replay value.
The amount of support Taldren has been able to give SFC3 has also been more limited than for the SFC2 series, due to Activision's 'one patch' policy, and the absence of a Khoromag-type situation for SFC3.
Post by: NannerSlug on July 16, 2003, 01:29:37 pm
sfc3 has already recieved several mods and is growing.. that ability to adapt and grow and add in much of the detail which was not in the inital release will help it sustain growth. the base sfc3 game has recieved a fraction of the support from its publisher (no demo, no official patch yet) yet is doing quite well. could you say that for sfc2? hard to say, but given the adverse conditions '3 has gone through, i think its done quite well.
in short, lets talk a year or even 18 months after its release and we will see.
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 16, 2003, 01:36:47 pm
Quote:
if you bought sfc3 and felt like it was going to be another incarnation - then you might not have done the proper research. it was well known for a very, very long time that they were going away from the sfb rule set for sfc3.
It has been widely proffessed that the vast majority of gamers do, not only, not come to these forums but don't browse the internet for game information, etc. This has been the main vocal support for the "most gamers don't want SFB" crowd, since most the people here want it. So, if it is in fact true that most do not use the internet for their gaming information or even if they only occassionally, then it is highly likely that they did not get this information. I don't believe it's printed on the box, is it? No big sign at the software store at the SFC3 display?
edit: Question. Which is better. A buggy demo that plays very similar to the game that came before, making people wince at the bugs in even the demo and the thought of what the actual game might be like, or no demo at all? Major advertised feature missing with many missed promises of release and eventual buggy release (not to mention massively buggy game release in general) and some patches stretched out over years, or a release with a few bugs no missing features, and a beta patch?
Post by: NannerSlug on July 16, 2003, 01:41:30 pm
but you know what - neither side can prove its case, so it probably should be left alone.. my main point was that it is wrong to lump everyone into the same group.
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 16, 2003, 01:50:47 pm
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 16, 2003, 03:03:06 pm
"SFC3 did not have disappointing sales."
I stand corrected, and am sincerely glad that SFC3 did NOT have disappointing sales and that I was incorrect in making that statement. I do not have any privileged information in that regard and that statement was my impression just based on the general buzz of SFC3 relative to SFC and SFC2, and is HARDLY scientific.
I did not mean to offend.
But I cannot help but get the feel that even at this point, SFC2's following, despite its age, is currently comparable to SFC3's following, and that SFC3 support within the gaming community is decaying at a more rapid rate than SFC2 support. That, coupled with Activision's remarkable complaint to Viacom implies that Activision was disappointed with the sales of Star Trek software (Armada, Elite Force, SFC3, Bridge Commander, Armada 2, Elite Force 2, Away Team). Of those seven titles, 4 were games that did well enough that they either got a sequel or were a sequel themselves while under Activision, leaving 3 titles holding-the-bag so to speak: Bridge Commander, Away Team, and SFC3. Of the 3, clearly Away Team was the big loser, but just as clearly, Activision could not have been overwhelmed with sales of the other remaining titles either. Activision's apparent lack of support of Taldren in trying to get a patch going (and that's just hearsay I my part: I have no concrete info on it), furthers suspicion. But once again, it's all conjecture.
Also, it's just an educated guess here, but I would think the target sales for SFC3 would be significantly higher than for SFC2: bigger budget(?), more complete license, and more EXPENSIVE license agreement. But to the casual observer, at least at this point in time, SFC3's following seems to be comparable and not clearly larger than SFC. And, as I already said, I suspect SFC3's interest-decay to be much more rapid than SFC2's. But, obviously, I could be wrong.
Now don't get me wrong: as an SFC/Taldren fan, even an SFB-oriented one, for SFC3 to be considered within the industry as a success is A Very Good Thing. It dramatically increases the likelihood that SFC will eventually continue hand-in-hand with the Star Trek license even across a THIRD publisher (to continue across 2 publishers is impressive enough in this business, by the way). Personally, however, I hope that SFC2's long-term interest will serve as the catalyst for an SFC4 rather than SFC3's short-term(?) sales figures. Why? Because if the impetus for SFC4 is perceived as being due to SFC3's commercial success, it will likely migrate further from my beloved SFB mechanics in the hopes of broadening the market for the initial sales spike. Whereas if SFC2's slavish following is perceived as the impetus for SFC4, then I would expect SFC4 to be MORE SFBish in rules.
But once again, I did not mean to offend with my [mis]characterization of SFC3 sales as disappointing. Furthermore, I'm grateful for the SFC:OP support! Thanks, David Ferrell (and everyone else so involved)!
I DO think it would be an interesting question to ask everyone in this thread:
"If SFC4 ever materializes, will it be because of the success/persistence of SFC3 OR the success/persistence of SFC2[OP/EAW]?
Just curious to hear what other people think.
Thanks!
-TF
P.S.: While trying to get an idea about the market demand for SFC3 by perusing ebay listings, I couldn't fight the temptation: I went ahead an just PURCHASED a copy of SFC3, because even though it leaves most of my beloved SFB rulebook bleeding and dying at the side of the road, it just LOOKS so darned cool! UI looks good, good price [now], and the beta patch available for download. Besides, I already have SFC, EAW, and OP. Might as well give 3 a shot. But damned if I'll get used to only 4 shields
!
Post by: Reverend on July 16, 2003, 04:15:58 pm
SFC3 took what it needed from SFB and dropped the ''unrealistic'' aspects from it... like a set impusle speed limit, the inability to go in reverse, and in-system or in-battle warp. We also lost many logical and crucial systems, like autopilot (point defense), and so on.
If SFC3 didn't have the SFC title, it might have sold even more. It just feels to me and many others with a SFB-heavy game, is that you're driving a Ferrari Testarossa without a reverese gear and won't go above 2nd gear, and no headlights. Seems to hamper it some; I am flying a bitmapped game piece on board- like I've said before. Sorry if am giving SFB fans a hard time, I was just hoping that they take SFC3 and push it to anotehr level, leaving the modablity capacity strong. Keep the same aspects from SFB we had, but keep the rules reduction in there.
I know, its like asking for cake and getting a slice with no fork, but it drew this many newcomers, and I bet thsoe newcomers have tried SFC2 and are enjoying it as well.
Thanks for the space, and for reading it....
Dave, give us some more input, you know we all appreciate it when you speak.
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on July 16, 2003, 04:34:25 pm
HAND!
Post by: David Ferrell on July 16, 2003, 04:44:54 pm
At the moment, we are in the dark as far as the license goes. We will continue to work
on a patch for SFC3 and hope it is released eventually.
TF, I hope you enjoy at least the single player campaign(s) for SFC3. I think I did a lot of good
work in there and I think they are enjoyable. Please get the Beta patch, it will increase
your enjoyment of the game.
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Tulwar on July 16, 2003, 05:11:17 pm
1.) It has deprived us of the logical sequel to SFC2.
2.) It lacks enough material to be considdered on par with SFC2.
3.) It has split the SFC community.
These are significant wrongs. If SFC TNG were released after SFC GAW, and I saw a flame war, I would tell the GAW crowd to grow up. Unfortunately, that is not the case. To add insult to injury, SFC3 lacks the content of SFC2: 8 races vs. 4, 6 shields vs 4, ect. Because so many of us feel deprived, yet other like the new game better, these bloody flame wars go on under any general topic.
I would pobably buy a SFC title based on an improved version of SFC3, but not until SFC GAW is on my HD.
Now, will someone get us back on topic?
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 16, 2003, 05:55:17 pm
Quote:
Now, will someone get us back on topic?
Yeah....back on topic.
My original thoughts at the beginning of this thread kind of revolved around the possibility that having the Trek liscense split might be good for all of us...sfc2 and sfc3 fans alike.
Like Tul said, most of the SFC2 fans probably would have had no problem with SFC TNG if it had been SFC4 instead.
The best solution to this rift in the future would be to make two lines of SFC, but as long as a single publisher, Activision, controls everything, a product line split would have been 100% impossible. With multiple publishers a product split might not be AS impossible and perhaps other creative liscensing deals could be worked out.
And yes, thanks David for commenting.
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 16, 2003, 06:00:56 pm
Quote:
I for one did not buy SFC2 or OP because it was SFB-related. <snip> Me, like many more others than you'd think, bought it because it was the only decent Trek game released thus far...
Really? And what, pray tell, made it the only decent Trek game released thus far? I think you like it for what it is. And what it is, of course, is SFB. If you bought it and played it for a day before shelving it, then you may have purchased it because it was a Trek game and stopped because you didn't like its rule set. If you kept playing it then you did so because you enjoyed the SFB rule set.
This is why I think it is silly for Nanner to say that the core audience of SFC1 and SFC2 are not SFB fans. The core audience of a game is comprised of the people who like that game. SFC is SFB. Really, it is. The (handful of) differences between the two are no more significant than the SFB house rules I've found in various gaming clubs across the country. I've seen seeking weapons move various speeds, and I've played with miniatures using turn gauges -- rather than hexes -- and quarter-turn advance plotting -- surpisingly close to "real time". Thus, the core audience of SFC1 and SFC2 were SFB players whether they knew this about themselves or not.
Some purchasers may not enjoy the process of setting up a board game on their tabletop and pushing carefully painted miniatures towards one another. No worries, and with SFC there is now no need. But if you still play SFC1 and SFC2 then you must like SFC1 and 2. And if you like them, you like SFB.
Of course this all changed with SFC3 (sic).
-S'Cipio
Post by: David Ferrell on July 16, 2003, 06:17:06 pm
There couldn't have been a GAW due to licensing problems with Activision.
If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went
the way of the dinosaur.
Saying there should have been GAW first is like saying "I wish I were a fish".
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: NannerSlug on July 16, 2003, 06:40:38 pm
also, not true scippy! there are more differences than similarities between sfc2 and sfb.. it is true that sfc1/2 and parts of op use sfb as a basis - but there are so many differences that you cannot claim that (even in fundamental elements like speed of weapons). sfc2 is not perfect - just as sfc3 is not perfect. however, the core audience ARE trek fans who are willing to play/try trek combat sims.. they are not set on a rule set persae - just as long as it works. that is the category i fall under.. we are gamers.. people who are looking for a good time and are willing to play/spend time and enjoy various games - and try things.. sfc has been an excellent series because of the many design decisions made by taldren and yes, the producers - whether interplay or activision. most of us are very open minded.. (dont believe me - check out the number of folk downloading the mods for sfc3 which are in the hundreds of megs)
also, much of why people play a game over and over again is because of the community, clan or fleet and personal experiences. that said, i think its fair to point out that it was not sfb that made sfc such a good game. it is true that it was a good basis - a good start, but it is not the end all to be all. there were many, many design decisions which made sfc a different animal.. check your marketing research and see who people would like to see in a trek combat game.. now if i have 5 million to invest in a game, where am i going to spend it?
ill be repetitve and say people should just let things go and enjoy what they enjoy instead of constantly harrassing the other side.. its tough enough for those who are not getting support from activision - but to add insult to injury is worse.
hate to bust some egos out there - but most of us enjoy the game because its trek. thats not to say 3 is perfect, but to say that many of us are open and simply want a fun and enjoyable space combat sim.. sfc3 gives us that.. just wish it had more detail.
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 16, 2003, 07:13:08 pm
Quote:
also, not true scippy!
Is so.
Now where does that leave us? Quote:
there are more differences than similarities between sfc2 and sfb.
This statement is so far from true you really shouldn't have bothered taking the time to type it.
Quote:
that said, i think its fair to point out that it was not sfb that made sfc such a good game.
Of course it was! SFB is what the game *is*. You are staring at the Pacific ocean, seeing one island, and saying, "there is no water in the Pacific."
Quote:
hate to bust some egos out there - but most of us enjoy the game because its trek.
No, you enjoy it because it is *good* Trek. How many *bad* Trek games did you keep playing for a year or more?
Quote:
just as many folk who think that sfc2 isnt for them (and there are many out there - you should read some of the other trek forums.. i have read quite a few. its funny when you move beyond this forum some comments) play other games..
Well of course other forums think differently! I wouldn't expect it to be otherwise. The core audience of SFC1/2 are SFB fans, because that is what those games are. Other games are *not* SFB, and thus logically their core audience holds a different opinion about SFB. I would not expect the core audience (ie. those who continue to play the game and consider it their favorite) of Bridge Commander to think the best way to make a Star Trek combat game is to import the SFB rule set. I would expect them to think that using the BC rule set is the way to go. That's why they play the game they do. Likewise with SFC3 (sic).
-S'Cipio
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 16, 2003, 07:35:57 pm
Quote:
SFC3 took what it needed from SFB and dropped the ''unrealistic'' aspects from it... like a set impusle speed limit, the inability to go in reverse
Hmmm, did you know that after a certain speed in Trek, you have to go to warp? That's reality, too. That's why they say 1/4 impulse speed, because in many cases it has been presented as a capped thing before you reach the necessity to go to warp.
As for Reverse, that is SFB hardcore (Kaufman retrograde, what a delight). There was a huge lobby to bring this SFB rule to SFC, which is one of the reasons you have it for SFC3 (one of the many improvements the SFB crowd lobbied for). SFB has rules for so much more than you probably realize. It's a tremendous template for Trek combat. It should also be noted that I believe they had to procure the license from ADB to make SFC3 because of it's SFB elements (I believe Erik said that somewhere). So even this game isn't devoid of SFB stuff (like reverse)
Edit: As for the topic the splitting of the license. Well, if it is split, there may be a possible splitting of product lines, but only one could carry the SFC name. Whichever publisher purchases the name isn't going to want to share it with a current competitor. "My june release SFC sold better than your June Release SFC, haha and you had the name first and let me use it!", that probably won't happen. So, you would end up with one having to take a new name (something that SFC3 should have done in the first place,imo). So, if they are split we'll have and two different companies happen to get the idea that it woudl be a good idea to do more Trek tactical combat games, then we'll have to see which line (or a new one) might come up with the name.
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 16, 2003, 07:53:17 pm
Quote:
If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went the way of the dinosaur.
--Dave Ferrell
Yes, that was my impression exactly. Activision payed some serious money for that cross-license across TOS, TMP, & TNG, so one would have to be quite naive to expect that there wasn't significant pressure to make a game with enough broad-based appeal to justify that hefty license fee, so TNG SFC was essentially a fait accompli once Activision signed Taldren, regardless of even TALDREN'S opinion on the subject. Again, I have no inside info on this, but based on the timing of everything, it does SEEM that Activision was also putting significant time constraints on Taldren probably because: (1) i software development, time=money, and Activision already was feeling shareholder heat to justify Viacom's license fee for ST, with possible panic arising due to lackluster performance relative to expectations of other (nonSFC) titles; and (2) to coincide with the release of Nemesis.
And we all don't have to be hollywood insider Entertainment Tonight moles to realize how Nemesis did in the box office. And THAT'S not a stretch on my part.
But my biggest hope was that SFC3 was going to be something like this:
SHIP MODELS:
Early Era=TOS, Ent
Middle Era=TMP/Movies
Late Era=TNG, DS9
Advanced (XShips)=Voyager
RACES:
Kzinti->Cardassian
Lyran->Bajoran
Tholian->Tholian
Orion->Maquis, Merchantman, etc.
Andromedan->Borg
ISC->Dominion
(but maintain the SFB ruleset in all the above translations).
Even if liberties had to be taken with the SFB 'history timeline,' as long as the weapons operated as per the SFB rules for the races.
Oh, yeah: toggable SFB Reverse Movement (there seems to be a rumor in this very thread that SFB does NOT allow reverse movement: untrue, just not implemented in SFC, but very famous strategies in SFB arise strictly due to reverse movement in starships. See "Kaufman Retrograde."), and toggable optional hidden cloak rules.
Klingons would get Stasis Field Generators, too!
THAT'S what I was hoping SFC3 was going to be: the Star Trek license and SFB gameplay working in tandem. So I guess that becomes my wishlist for SFC4 - I just don't know if it is realistic at this point in time to expect a software publisher to produce such a game as that when Viacom demands such hefty money for the Star Trek license, such that a game that even REMOTELY suggests a niche market does not become economically viable.
Just my thoughts.
-TF
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 16, 2003, 07:58:17 pm
Quote:
There couldn't have been a GAW due to licensing problems with Activision.
If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went
the way of the dinosaur.
Saying there should have been GAW first is like saying "I wish I were a fish".
Thanks,
Dave
Sometimes these threads make me drink like a fish.
OK, back on topic again.
Again Dave, (not to butter your bread but) thanks for the comments. Parkay!!!
I do understand why TNG SFC had to happen. No problem.
So here is the million dollar question:
If the liscensing issues work out after all is said and done between Activision and Paramount (i.e. Trek liscense splits), would Taldren consider making a project proposal to whoever has TOS liscense for another SFB based SFC...i.e. a GAW-type game?
I just want to know if you guys would consider actively pursuing such a game if a new publisher got the TOS liscensing. If it's something you guys will never again pursue then I would consider GAW dead completely. Frankly no other company other than Taldren could even make the game in my opinion.
Does Taldren want to make GAW eventually? Are you guys "looking" for a way to do it?
If you can't answer these types of questions I understand.
Sigh.
Post by: olbuzzard on July 16, 2003, 09:26:45 pm
Before yu guys start flaming Olbuzzards butt ... please consider this (then you can barbeQue as you see fit) :
Why not have the best of both worlds. There are somethings about sfc-3 that are pretty cool (But truthfully I dont like quite as well as OP) Some of you have made remarks about OP that are out right slanderous attempting to intimidate others or make them feel less than "worthy" by not "measuring up to the standards of [insert your particular game you are pushing]. Frankly SFB was good in its time... but extremeists drove most of us away from tourneys etc... and the same thing is happening here all over again. There are good aspects of these games that can be done up right and make one cool game... leaving the varroius servers to set things up as needed. Imagine a game that has less buggs !! Imagine the potential of the things we have learned that will work .... try for once to lay aside such rediculous bias and foolishness and pull T O G E A T H E R !!!!!!!!
Go to either extreme ... keep blasting the paint off the walls at every thing in sight that does not reflect [insert either SFC 1,2, OP or SFC-3] ... keep it up bubba !!! No one will give a care one wheather anythig is ever developed or not !!!
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 16, 2003, 09:49:18 pm
I don't dislike SFC3, but my personal preference for SFC is a game closely based on SFB. If I have to choose between the 2 games I'm definately interested ONLY in the SFB based game. This comes partly from the fact that I have really enjoyed the board game since the early 80's (it's been one of my most popular hobbies) and have always desired a computer form of that game. If both games are available I'd buy both, but I don't want the SFC3 form to REPLACE the SFC2 kind. That's the source of the conflict.
I understand why SFC3 happened from a business standpoint, I just hope the source of the conflict can be fixed eventually with more games in the series.
I would like to see the original EAW storyline completed eventually, then I will be COMPLETELY satisfied.
I am really not interested in any other type of game in this genre. The SFC series is the only Trek computer games I have ever owned. None of the other Trek games seemed to be interesting enough for me to buy.
I have many games not based on SFB, I'm not interested in an SFC not based on SFB. SFB is my favorite game, has been for many years. I know what I like. That's pretty much it for me. It's really quite simple.
Post by: olbuzzard on July 16, 2003, 10:39:37 pm
Here is an example of something that is a particular interst of mine that frankly I love... but some dont... X-class ships. Frankly the heavies .. (XCA calss ) were a bit over the top... but they could be revamped ... toned down a bit.... and still made more playable.
Something else to comsider ... how about just a little different format?? Have you ever tried Freelancer.. on line ? You can actually join a battle in progress. Very interesting !!
If we dont occasionally look out side of the box.... we will never learn something new. I'm 51 years old ... trust me .. I know what I'm talking about on this one. If the game were set up correctly .. then the individual server admins could be more flexable. If all you wanted was strict SFB ( oh by the way please include proper Fed power management and proper torp use and hit ratios as well as the Klingon mutany rules as well.... others too .. just a couple that are not in there but managed to be conviently over looked) .. then by all means set up the server accordingly. If more up-to-date stuff is desired.. then again... it's there.. But, my friend if you build a rigid structure ... that sir it its end. It should be noted that you already have SFB .. parts of it.. SFC1,2 and OP. If you simply want more of the same then all you need is a simple expansion pack, not another new game.
All 3 games do have some good points. Now lets try to get them put togeather. As well consider some fresh ideas that have worked on other games. IMHO this community has a lot of very talented people in it. There is no telling where this thing could go if we work at it.
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 16, 2003, 11:05:45 pm
For us, SFC already represents a serious compromise away from SFB: no hex map, no energy allocation form, all the little tweaks and mods that resulted from the shift to real-time, a really wierd "clock" that doesn't seem to have anything to do with impulses, a general lack of numeric readouts, especially for things like shield strength, etc., etc.
So, from our point of view, we aren't moved by calls to 'compromise' any further.
In general, if you don't like SFB, what are you doing here? This is an SFB game. If you don't like SFB, why play a game based on SFB? Go play some other Trek game, it's not like you don't have plenty to choose from... Leave us what's left of our game and quit arguing to change it into something else. You want something else, go play something else!
Sheesh!
Chaos
Post by: Tulwar on July 16, 2003, 11:12:00 pm
Post by: olbuzzard on July 16, 2003, 11:32:49 pm
If took your idea of SFB only and took it to it's logical conclusion i would tell you to stick to your game board and you and you friends would be happier. ( and so would we)... or at the very least.. you have EAW ... and all the mods you scould possible want ... maybe you need an expansion pack of sorts... but you do not need to waste the resources of Taldren on another EAW or SFB only game. That would be a travisty of the worse possible kind.
But I'm not that type of person. I still think that the right answer is some where between the SFC-3 (which did away with SFB altogeather) and SFB extreamism ... which as a genreal rule will strangle what life there is left in the community to death.
Personally.. i prefer to live.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 16, 2003, 11:34:05 pm
Quote:
If you simply want more of the same then all you need is a simple expansion pack, not another new game.
If that's all it takes then I'm all for it. If a series of patches would give us Tholians and Andros then I'm all for it. All I want is for SFC to be complete. A new game is not necessarily needed for that I agree.
If somehow the Tholian web tech and Andro tech could be patched into OP then that would just about satisfy most of the SFB crowd. Taldren could even provide basic UI's and just skip any new artwork required for these races. Taldren could just have someone like Magnumman or Firesoul make a shiplist for them and the model community provide the needed models (I prefer Brezgonne's SFB Tholians personally).
If the Tholian and Andro Tech can be added to OP by Taldren, then GAW could be a perfect example of an SFC fan community creation. The community could provide the models, shiplists, and campaigns with the mod tools already available. Using the mission editors a series of fan-made single player missions could be put together to create single player campaigns telling the story of the Andro invasion and the Tholian conflicts (anyone remember Jim's SFC1 Hydran campaigns?...perfect example of what I'm saying).
I'm not a programmer, but just how hard would it be to add Web tech or Andro PA panels / displacement device to OP? Anyone care to take a shot at this question? Taldren? David?
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 17, 2003, 12:01:47 am
I think the next SFB-faithful game (which I hope will happen) needs more than just a few new races and more weapons. The Dynaverse itself needs a serious update. Especially the multi-player stabiity, the ability of the admin to control the shipyards, tighter admin ability to control which missions get offered in which hexes, and the and the ability of the admin to affect on-map AI behavior. I'd love for scouts to be able to see enemy icons two hexs away. I'd love all those leftover icons to stop cluttering the map.
If you need to take something from SFC3, the ability to form a "fleet" with allied players would be nice.And oh yes, Old Buzzard, I absolutely agree that I'd like to see you Feds get variable overloads for your photons. It really helps with their power management. Good call there. I'd like lots of other things too. I'd love to see bolted plasma torps, the full ECM game, reserve power, plasma sabot........ the list never ends. This game has so much room to grow.
-S'Cipio
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 17, 2003, 12:13:56 am
Quote:
I think the next SFB-faithful game (which I hope will happen) needs more than just a few new races and more weapons.
Oh yes I agree....if they do make an entirely new game, it'll have to be much more than the above.
But it seems like all we can hope for anytime soon is OP patches that add content. In that case I'll take what I can get.
Post by: Reverend on July 17, 2003, 01:02:26 am
Post by: Reverend on July 17, 2003, 01:31:08 am
Lets all petition Taldren for a open-source patch for OP...a final request... that'll give the ''hardcore" SFB fans ( you know who Im talking about) the room they need to mod themselves silly, since any patch forthe ultimate SFB game won't be good enough for them anyhow. Let us petition them for such a patch- universe bigger, extra races, interactive planets (oh, wait, isn't that what I was asking for?}, and a couple of extras that will be mentioned again, then the rest of us that only tolerated this series this long was becuase it was the ONLY, yes only, 3-D Star Trek game that allowed self-direction and allowed you to drive and shoot all by your little lonesome self, can move on. Finally.
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 17, 2003, 03:08:47 am
Quote:
the kind of attitude you are displaying Capt Chaos is a lot of what is killing the community.
...pardon me while I wipe the blood from my hands... (don't you hate it when it gets in the keyboard?)
Quote:
If took your idea of SFB only and took it to it's logical conclusion
Yes, yes, please do! That's all we're asking.
Quote:
i would tell you to stick to your game board
But a computer game is better (less arguments, yes?)
Quote:
you have EAW
Well, actually I have OP...
Quote:
but you do not need to waste the resources of Taldren on another EAW or SFB only game. That would be a travisty of the worse possible kind.
"Wasting their resources"? "Travesty"? Sorry, that's just too much attitude for me...
Quote:
But I'm not that type of person. I still think that the right answer is some where between the SFC-3 (which did away with SFB altogeather) and SFB extreamism ... which as a genreal rule will strangle what life there is left in the community to death.
To tell the truth, my idea of SFB is somewhere around the Commander's Edition along with the carrier/fighter and race supliments, circa, maybe, 1984 or so.
Doomsday is an overgrown cancerous tumor, IMHO. And the necessity to continue publishing new rules is what lead to that condition... Doomsday was sold to us as IT. The END. The FINAL WORD. It wasn't of course, just a new, and fabulously more complex jumping-off point for even more expansion. At this point, you have to be very freaky indeed to have the whole thing any where close to memorized... And THAT is what killed that community, at least for me.
SFC is something of a relief in that sense... Learning the game engine is so much easier than memorizing and arguing over something like the Doomsday rules (instead, we come here and argue over the game engine...)
So let me qualify myself: I want the game engine closer to SFB in 1984.
So far we have only partially achieved that state, and so in that sense we still have plenty of room to grow. I just want the thing to grow towards SFB (1984), not away from it.
And as for Trek Fandom, I have vivid memories of first seeing the Enterprise floating in its wierdly-lit, matte-space, on a Sunday afternoon some time in the early 70's... The first book I bought with my own money, (in the 3rd grade, at the school book fair) was Stephen Whitefield's 'The Making of Star Trek'. After that, I gobbled the show up. I also remember the excitement among my friends (who at the time had been working out their own 'space combat' rules) when we first got ahold of Alien Space, and then those little plastic bags of SFB itself... Then the movie came out (just a rip off of 'NOMAD', damn, couldn't they come up with something more original? Like a real war with the Klingons or Romulans?) Somewhere around the middle of Next Gen, I sort of lost interest in the show. It was just getting to be too much of a PC soap opera.
So I would have to say at this point, that I am much more a fan of SFC than of the shows themselves. And truthfully, much more of a fan of SFC than of SFB (at least of Doomsday...) I don't consider myself a 'Trek Fan'. I consider myself an old SFB'er who now plays SFC.
Chaos
Post by: Cleaven on July 17, 2003, 06:49:07 am
The other opinion seems to be that the boardgame is a flawed system that detracts from a potentially (but not actually) good PC game. Anybody who supports the implimentation of boardgame systems is therefore ruining whatever hope there is for a good game to be made out of a bad game. Efforts must be made to excise dice, hexes and turns (and the artifacts produced by them) from the game. Instead ideas from other games should be incorporated to improve SFC.
I don't see how to resolve these two opinions, because they lead in oppposite directions. One gets you a cross between Armada 3 and Bridge Commander 2 (ughh) and the other gets you SFB/F&E on the computer, with dice and hexmaps. Clearly I favour the latter, but more importantly people need to recognise that these two things cannot co-exist in the one game because they are clearly two separate games. It's hard enough to build and sell one good PC game, but to build two and put them in the same box? Surely this is madness in a commercial arena? So let the people in charge of TNG make their follow-on to all the other TNG games. And let the SFC series continue to add components and rules from the board game in an effort to come closer to the original concept.
Besides, I want my next game to be made by the people who made OP, not the people who made Armada and Bridge Commander (or the other BC <shudders>) .
Post by: Toasty0 on July 17, 2003, 07:13:07 am
Quote:
I don't see how to resolve these two opinions, because they lead in oppposite directions. One gets you a cross between Armada 3 and Bridge Commander 2 (ughh) and the other gets you SFB/F&E on the computer, with dice and hexmaps. Clearly I favour the latter, but more importantly people need to recognise that these two things cannot co-exist in the one game because they are clearly two separate games. It's hard enough to build and sell one good PC game, but to build two and put them in the same box? Surely this is madness in a commercial arena? So let the people in charge of TNG make their follow-on to all the other TNG games. And let the SFC series continue to add components and rules from the board game in an effort to come closer to the original concept.
Sorry to quote only a portion of your post Cleaven, but is is the above part that I wish respond to.
You state it is madness to combine two game types in one game. On the surface, even in an almost knee-jerk fashion I want to jump up and holler that you are correct. I would've done so up to about 4 weeks ago. Then I played Rise of Nation that combines RTS and TBS to create a very fine player campaign game.
After looking at this game from many different angles I conclude that it really isn't all that hard to combine genre and style (am I being redundant?) types as long as it's a fully synthesized(sp) seemless whole.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Cleaven on July 17, 2003, 07:26:13 am
Post by: Sethan on July 17, 2003, 08:35:53 am
Quote:
There couldn't have been a GAW due to licensing problems with Activision.
If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went
the way of the dinosaur.
Saying there should have been GAW first is like saying "I wish I were a fish".
No argument from me. Taldren made the game someone would pay them to make. Nobody can fault them for that.
I'm just hoping someone will eventually pay Taldren to make GaW. That sales of SFC3 were not disappointing is good (and bad) news on that front - good because the people who bankroll such things may decide there is a future in another SFC - bad because they may decide it needs to happen in a SFC3 rather than a GaW style.
Hopefully once Activision weasels out from the Trek license, it will end up with someone who will allow / bankroll GaW. The cost of the Trek license should be lower at that point, which will help.
Whether there is a GaW or not, I'd love to see more (non-trek based) space games from Taldren. I don't know that the Honor Harrington universe idea ever went anywhere, but that would be high on my list.
Now i've just got to get a steady job so I can afford a copy of SFC3.
Post by: Reverend on July 17, 2003, 08:58:09 am
Post by: Sethan on July 17, 2003, 09:34:23 am
Quote:
I don't see how to resolve these two opinions, because they lead in oppposite directions. One gets you a cross between Armada 3 and Bridge Commander 2 (ughh) and the other gets you SFB/F&E on the computer, with dice and hexmaps. Clearly I favour the latter, but more importantly people need to recognise that these two things cannot co-exist in the one game because they are clearly two separate games. It's hard enough to build and sell one good PC game, but to build two and put them in the same box? Surely this is madness in a commercial arena? So let the people in charge of TNG make their follow-on to all the other TNG games. And let the SFC series continue to add components and rules from the board game in an effort to come closer to the original concept.
Got to agree with Toasty0, Cleaven. SFC and SFC2 did resolve the two opinions - and fairly well. Changes were made to make SFB's turn-based rules work in a real-time environment, and for the most part those changes work very well without hurting the game. For the most part, that is because (IMO), for the board game rules that would not translate into a real-time game, Taldren looked at the intent of what the SFB rules were trying to accomplish, and then designed a system that retained the intent of the SFB rule, even if the SFC system actually operated completely differently.
There are a number of rules in SFB that make sense from an 'in game universe' standpoint, that are clunky and difficult precisely because the game is turn based. Getting the same effect while changing the rule mechanics is something that Taldren did very well overall.
Even in an SFC2 based GaW, there is still room for Taldren to do more of that without hurting the flavor or balance of the game (and in fact, improving it). The trick is in knowing where it is OK to modify, and where things need to be left alone.
As others have said, from an SFC2 base, the area that has the most room for improvement is the Dynaverse. Scores of pages have been written about how the Dyna could be improved, and I won't repeat them here - but I am looking forward to seeing what Taldren does with the Dyna if we are able to get another SFC title.
Post by: TheSatyr on July 17, 2003, 11:24:13 am
I consider GAW to be a horse on life support. It's not quite a dead horse...but it's pretty close to being dead. Too many things have to happen for a GAW to be made.
As for the idea of an Expansion or patch to bring in andros and tholians...not real likely to ever happen. Who's going to pay Taldren to make either one? A patch would require new models,new artwork,new graphics...and they do have to pay people to create them.
An Expansion can only be done if they have a publisher willing to pay them to make one. Interplay might have been willing to to it,but they lost the licenses. Activision apparently doesn't even want an expansion to SFC3,so there is no way they'd pay for an expansion to a game by another publisher.
(And you know things are getting slow around here when the old Star Trek vs SFB arguements start up again.).
Post by: David Ferrell on July 17, 2003, 11:26:26 am
http://www.sfbonline.com/
or find someone to code what you want. A direct translation of SFB on
the computer with "no compromises" would be a horrendous failure,
considering the amount of money required to complete a modern
software project of this scope and the number of potential customers (IMO).
Thanks,
Dave
Listen... do you smell something?
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 17, 2003, 01:19:37 pm
Thanks, Dave.
You have access to more marketing data than I do, so I assume you've at least looked at the 'total conversion' idea, and rejected it due to lack of a potential market. You either trust that data or you don't. Do you know what the total estimated size of the SFB market is? Compared to, say total sales of EAW, are we talking a small fraction? Or a larger fraction? I'm curious what your numbers show...
If SFB online had a computer AI as an opponent, that would be great. That would be very close to the dream. I have no way to put a price tag on that sort of project, do you have a rough guess?
Chaos
Post by: Tulwar on July 17, 2003, 04:50:23 pm
Unfortunately, it was too successful, and someone had to stop or acquire it lest it be competion for their game system. 
Maybe Activision has come to see that SFC only has a niche audience and finds the license to TOS to be nothing more than a liablity. I doubt that's the case. If Activision thinks that any enterprise would draw a single customer away from their products, they will do everything on earth to stop it.Considdering the state of the license, I think Taldren should work on something Tadren can control the rights to. Taldren put an increadable amount of value into SFC. Whatever they work on, if left to their own devices, will definitely be worth having.
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 17, 2003, 05:43:05 pm
Quote:
Doomsday is an overgrown cancerous tumor, IMHO. And the necessity to continue publishing new rules is what lead to that condition... Doomsday was sold to us as IT. The END. The FINAL WORD. It wasn't of course, just a new, and fabulously more complex jumping-off point for even more expansion.
Doomsday (Captain's Edition) wasn't marketed as an end to expansion. It was marketed as the end to ADB's old practice of tinkering with the rules even when they weren't broken. As gamers lobbied for "neat" rules tweaks, commander's edition SFB got full of errata (which wasn't really errata, since it wasn't correcting errors) to the point that unless you were very active in the community you could never be sure the rules hadn't changed since your last game or (especially) convention.
Doomsday was sold in 1991 with a pledge that "This is IT. The game is now stable. From now on we will fill loopholes and fix errors, but no more tinkering for the sake of tinkering."
ADB has kept their word on this pledge and the game has remained remarkably stable ever since. Captain's Log magazine issues have often contained the phrase "Player X came up with a neat idea and in the old days we might have tried it out. But given the new policy, we can't."
New products still come out, but that's as it should be, IMHO. The SFB game covers from pre-Enterprise to well into TNG. Given that large a time frame, it still has lots of room to grow. Again, IMHO. Obviously your milage varies.
-S'Cipio
Post by: olbuzzard on July 17, 2003, 06:27:03 pm
Here is an example of somthing that I personally like very well.. ( but know it had to change) X-Ships !! Anyone who has been around me for very long knows of my fondness of the X-Class ships. But... if it helps matters continue to mover forward.. then they must be redesigned .... toned down before reinstituting..(yeah I know.. most of you think they are a joke any ways) But, to a degree that is my point. Many of us have differing opinions on ships, races to be utilized, game formats, map sizes, GSA or Dynaversa formats and a host of other things. Trying to find a common groud for all of is not going to be easy. I never said it would. BUT I do believe that it is a MUST !! If you want to find fault or pass judgement on me for that.. then so be it. Guilty as charged.
Consider this ... of all the copies of SFC-1, 2, OP and 3 that have been sold ... of those how many still are on line... and of those how many still hold to such a narrow, SFB only philisophy. In reality the numbers continue to grow smaller and smaller. That is not the sort of thing developers who will be willing to invest aprx 1/2 million or more want to see.
I will always maintain that what we are attempting to do is the best for everyone in a collective sense of the word. There's got to be a way... Please excuse me if we have been a bit rough around the edges in our discussion (olbuzzards have a tendency to be that way some times.) I guess that is why the name stuck as it did !!
AS ironic as this may sound... please continue this thread. But please try to let a crack of light in.
Thanks
Post by: Cleaven on July 17, 2003, 07:49:35 pm
Post by: Alidar Jarok on July 17, 2003, 08:55:06 pm
Using google, it didn't take me long to find Taldren's forums (I actually found Starfleet Universe first, and followed links to sfc3.net and taldren.com). Unfortunately, a few days after I had found Taldren's forums (before I had registered, though) the forums were taken down due to somebody posting porn (I'm sure most of you remember it, so there is no need for me to get into it). Anyway, for a liittle while, they wouldn't allow new members (which included me). Finally, they quietly lifted the ban, and I was allowed to join. Here I learned about SFB, and was convinced to try the Hydrans, Lyrans, Mirak, etc (which I never played because they weren't really Star Trek).
When SFC3 came out, it was a lot of fun. However, the game wasn't as fun as SFC2 (nestalgia I guess).
OK, I kind of whent away from the point I was trying to make. I had more fun playing in the SFB universe, but SFC3 did have some improvements I liked. I've always believed that GaW should have features from both SFC2 and 3 (obviously aimed more towards 2, since that is the time period). By features from SFC3, I don't mean "lack of features" (T-Bombs, Drones, etc), but actual features (I know reverse, and maybe officers, not sure, are part of SFB, so that's not what I'm talking about, but some features that were brand new and worked well)
Post by: TheSatyr on July 17, 2003, 09:27:57 pm
Post by: NannerSlug on July 17, 2003, 09:37:18 pm
i believe the core with that issue and a few others is detail, to put it simply. there are a few things i believe that could still be done in a patch for sfc3 that could add some detail and help out tremendously.. whether thats adding in a few more arcs or ships released by date (if they were to put in releasing ships by date then i would nearly have my dream trek game - cause you could do a tos-present mod)..
play wise, i think the weapons could be juiced a little more.. sure, heck, even add in a type of missile or so (might be interesting for tactical decisions - but note that none of the main races in star trek use missiles - i think the ferengi do - so i feel like they should be on the low end of the balance spectrum). i do miss t-bombs though.. i also think if the weapons were juiced just a bit more..
just a few thoughts.
Post by: olbuzzard on July 17, 2003, 09:46:57 pm
Can someone please check and make sure there is not an intruder using Nanners login eheheheheh hahaha hohohoho !!!
this is definately a Kodak moment !!!
Post by: TheSatyr on July 18, 2003, 02:31:46 am
The whole "you have to get the game out for Nemesis" thing hurt alot.
SFC3 is a good game,but I think Taldren's hands "may" have been tied by what Activision (and Viacom) wanted.
(Just guesses on my part...but that's how it looks from where I'm sitting).
Post by: Davey E on July 18, 2003, 09:26:25 am
Problem was it seemed far to complicated for someone like me who liked to shoot things up (1st person shooters anyone)
I,d never heard of SFB,
I was however eagerly awaiting KA (Klingon Academy) with baited breath, It looked tremendous, and it was for about 4 weeks, Nice shiny ships and brilliant explosions etc - But that was it - It was strategically and tactically crap
I then bought SFC2 EAW and sort of liked it,
I did,nt really understand the complexities that went behind such a simulation (not a game IMHO)
Then i saw my 1st SFB material and that was it - HOOKED, In my ignorance i cried "Oh if i could only play this on the PC)
When i realised i could - That was it - I fell in love with SFC, and everything to do with it (Yea, even the bugs
)This to me is what makes ST real, If the televsion series had used this material (SFB) as a perameter to work off, Then ST combat would of been brilliant, and not the at best above average fire and hope its ok material that it is
I bought SFC OP and the love story continued - This is amazing i told my friends, and many of them went on to purchase the game,
I looked for a clan/team that would enable me to takle part in a full scale scenario (eg: General War) We call ours the VG (Virtual Galaxy) and its great, I also thought the Dynaverse was very special as well
In my 2 years now in STOC (Starfleet Tactical Operation Command) or TOC for short,
I have realised now what a fantastic simulation the SFC series is and have spent many a late hour playing with my USA and european buddies etc
When SFC 3 came out, i like most people waited with baited breath,
When it was released and i played it for the 1st tiem, i was confused, There seemed nothing to base the movement, turn rates etc, It seemed like an unfinished product - More like a shoot em up with big spaceships, The more and more i played it, the more and more bored i became,
I found the combat sterile and uninspiring compared to SFC EAW and OP, and thus deleted it off my hard drive - What a dissapointment
IMHO,
SFC is SFB or it don,t work
You can call SFC TNG what you want, but its not a patch (and you ain,t even got one of those yet
) on 1 & 2Look at the numbers in the Gamespy lobby and se how many are on EAW compered to SFC3 now,
1 & 2 will be played a long time after SFC3 is dead,
I bought SFC3 because i wanted to help Taldren in the long run as they are the only chance we have of SFC GAW, However
I will NOT buy another SFC type of game that is not SFB based
Thats my Opinion - I take it i am entitled to it
Post by: RazalYllib on July 18, 2003, 07:37:20 pm
My take on the whole ST license thing was decided some time ago.
(btw 1984 was a good year for SFB)
When the first movies were made and the TNG series on the air,
I thought it was a shame that ADB material didnt make in.
(Imagine the replacement of the TNG background with the ADB material- Picard piloting CA at the beginning of
the General War before the Klingons invade, which happens at the end of Season #3
Season #4 ending the Romulan Invasion, Heck they could even be Present in Operation Calvery, or present
when the Macarthur crashes into to Remus...ah, what could have been)
The ADB Star Fleet Universe, is a unique version of the ST universe
and is a much more interesting place.
It should be kept pure and uncorrupted, and I hope this does not mean that
the movies and series would impact on indepedent ADB universe that
just happens to have the name Star Trek.
I belive that a legal point could be made, only by ADB btw, that all materials
produced by ADB under the name SFB,
is an original work eligiable for
award of a derivitive copyright.
SFB material is based soley on some not all material from TOS, and the work done by Franz Joseph
Designs. ADB bought the rights for that material-no doubt there, which they still have, and then developed
and invented original material from that point on. This occurred before the 1st ST movie was even contemplated.
You can look at as two independent time lines, the only simularities are a few names here and there; Taken
as a whole, there are more differences than simularitys. All ADB has to do is convince a Judge.
Then, the GAW folks will be in a much better position to get their hearts desire as far as licenseing issues are
concerned. Someone is bound to finance it.
I dont mind the "Official Star Trek Universe", it just seems a little bland for my tastes.
SFC3 is not all that bad, bit arcadey for my personal preferances, but overall a good job
especially the innate flexibilty in re: to player mods.
But I prefer OP.
I hope the legal wranglings do not impact on the potential for GAW should someone with the cash to pay for its developement and distribution costs comes forth out of the wilderness. They would probably have to grovel
and cough up unnessarry cash if they were not affiliated with Viacom and/or Activision. Which is quite a shame.
Majority of the ST fans I have encountered over the years have never heard of a Hydran or Lyran or Kzinti (cept for the Niven Fans) I related a couple storys, showed off a captains log with some good fiction in it. Like the one with the Klingon Vandel...been awhile. They were pleasantly surprised at how rich and detailed this little indepedent ST universe was.
If ADB had full rights to what I feel is their original material, despite was Viacom says, it would a good thing for all involved.
Post by: David Ferrell on July 18, 2003, 08:09:12 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 18, 2003, 08:42:40 pm
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 18, 2003, 10:07:53 pm
Thanks for enlightening us on this a bit. I appreciate hearing from someone who has a better understanding on the two sides of the licensing argument between ADB and Paramount. Now if we could get the whole PC game licensing situation for Trek settled quickly that would be wonderful. I hope that when you used past tense to describe your love for SFB it wasn't intentional. I'm one of those still holding on to the thinnest of straws for a continuation of the SFB theme from Taldren.
BTW, the support that you at Taldren have continued to show us is commendable and appreciated beyond any words that I can find. Thanks again for the OP patch, and everything else you all have done.
Post by: olbuzzard on July 18, 2003, 11:25:27 pm
Over I agee with the idea of a class of ship that has access to some of the srtonger weapons between TOS and TNG. Once you get to TNG I think it is a good idea to be able to have a limited carry over from the past genereations as a type of refit that is still being used.
Heck we do that in RW in the Air Force and Naval aircraft. We just now retired the Battleship Missouri a few years ago. Soooo in my estimation it would not be unlikely to take some of the more popular ships and use them as a refit class ship (like the CLC for example) ... just another thought.. (BTW.. there are some Klingon, Rommie and other classics that would be available as well. That was just one example that I'm personally acquainted with)
As well ... returning to more that 4 races is a good idea. Klingon, Romulan, ISC, Gorn (just for example) with some from TNG woukld help move things in the right direction as well.
Post by: David Ferrell on July 19, 2003, 12:18:47 am
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 19, 2003, 03:08:36 am
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 19, 2003, 09:03:28 am
Quote:
Sorry about my previous post, my Tourette's syndrome was acting up again.
I saw nothing wrong with that post......it was totally on topic. Or perhaps your boss thought it was TOO on topic.
Post by: olbuzzard on July 19, 2003, 02:32:31 pm
funny thing.. this 40g had drive is almost full... found a great buy on a 120g by a major player in the industry for $125. Soooooo looks like we spend a little more cash in the next week or so.
Man i love this game !!! LOL !!!!!!
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 19, 2003, 03:39:02 pm
Post by: olbuzzard on July 19, 2003, 04:29:20 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 12, 2003, 01:37:07 pm
I'm beginning to wonder if the "all eras" SFC game idea is even a possibility anymore now that Activision has dumped their Trek liscense.
Since Activision owned all the Trek eras they were in the unique position of being able to do an "all eras" game. They apparently paid 20 million or so for those rights....that's lots of bucks.
As it turns out Activision seem to be having a hard time getting enough profit for a return on their 20 million investment. So since they now see it was a bad idea from the start they are trying to weasel their money back from Paramount using the court system.
My thoughts are this:
1) Will a single publisher ever again want to buy all the Trek era liscenses considering what it costs for them all?
2) Or, will the liscenses end up getting split up again?
I'm betting that the liscense will be split up again because no new publisher will want to pay the huge cost of the entire liscense as opposed to a cheaper portion of the liscense.
Does this means that the SFC liscense would also have to split?
Perhaps whoever picks up the TOS liscense could eventually make a Galaxies at War "SFC Classic" based on SFB and whoever gets the TNG liscense could expand on SFC3 if they preferred. I wonder what would happen? Does the SFC liscense have to go one way or another? TOS or TNG? Or can it split into two product lines? Would one leg have to give up the name SFC?
Anyone care to speculate what their thoughts are?
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 12, 2003, 02:29:54 pm
My personal preference would be to have the name go with the product that would follow the SFC1/2/OP series. The reasoning behind this is not just because I have such a vast preference for those games over the other, but that there were more of them, and an unfinished storyline.
I would think that if someone does one day return to SFC they would probably (if they are wise) take a look at how many people are still playing each of the versions (possibly taking age of product into account as well as other factors) and go with a continuation of that line (assuming they don't want to spring out in yet another arm of SFC, ugh!)
Post by: Dash Jones on July 12, 2003, 09:03:11 pm
Just had to pull ya strings!
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 14, 2003, 09:45:30 am
It's in Paramount's interest to just drop the deal with Activision and make a new deal with someone else as soon as possible. If Paramount goes years without Trek games being made it's just money lost for everyone involved. It's also not worth the legal costs to fight Activision while Paramount is losing money because no Trek games are being made. I'm sure this is what Activision is betting on.
I think the liscense will be split up after what just happened to Activision. Activision just bit off more than they could chew. The same would be true of any other company.
I think Activision and Paramount will settle out of court very quickly. Paramount will want to distribute the liscensing to other companies as quickly as possible. Activision want's their money back so they can move on too.
I guess it is possible that after they settle Activision still gets a piece of the pie for a lower price. I can see them getting the TNG liscense again. I seriously doubt Activision would want the TOS liscense.
As far as SFC is concerned, if Activision get's the TNG liscense again you can just about bet they won't make a sequel to SFC3. The best hope for more TNG SFC is if another company gets TNG Liscense and takes a stab at SFC4. Still I think this is unlikely based on the sales performance of SFC3 and what the TNG liscense would cost.
The big question for the entire SFC line is whether the SFC product line would split with the Trek liscense. If Activision gets the TNG liscense "only" does this mean they retain the rights to all future uses of the SFC name? If they do, Activision could kill the SFC line off completely with no hope of even another TOS based game....i.e. SFC: Galaxies at War, even if some other company owned the TOS liscense. Or perhaps a simple renaming of the game would solve this technicality? Hell it might be better to dump the name "Starfleet Command" anyway, because it's kind of been tarnished by SFC3's sales performance. Forget "Star Trek SFC Galaxies at War"....just call it "Star Trek Galaxies at War".
Now what about the TOS liscense? Let's just assume that the SFC line can split with the Trek liscense. Are you guys ready for some "wild" speculation? Here goes.......If Trek is in general decline you can bet that TOS is the "most declined"....for this reason I bet it's a lot cheaper than the other parts of the Trek liscense making it in a price range that smaller publishers might be able to afford. I wonder if Taldren could afford something like that? If Black 9 is a big hit they might be able to have enough money to afford TOS liscensing. What would this mean....I wonder? Could Taldren afford to self publish another SFB based SFC using an enhanced OP engine......perhaps maybe a subscription service? Could they make an SFC that adds a strategic layer based on F&E? I wonder what it would take to create a senario like this?
For those of us who long for SFC Galaxies at War based on the original SFC games, we can only hope that whoever gets the TOS liscensing got it cheap and it's worth their while to fund the completion of the SFB based game storyline. And we have to hope that the SFC line can also be split so Activision or whoever gets the TNG liscense can't kill the line off for good. It would be nice to know what the possibilites were, however remote.
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 14, 2003, 10:25:42 am
I really doubt that Activision could lay claim on the title SFC. Seeing as how there were 3 SFC titles before the Activision one.
I, for one, would be willing to buy expansions/updates for SFC if it was the only way economically for Taldren to be able to do it. A weapons pack that say adds multiple drone types, variable photon OL, plasma shotguns, more SP and SS targeting options, Orion option mts. etc... Maybe a power management pack that allows full use of reserve power, quick arming of single turn weapons, more flexible Orion engine doubling... If that could turn a profit then maybe GAW could grow out of that.
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 14, 2003, 05:48:45 pm
Quote:
The best, although not the most likely scenario, would be if the licensing for the TOS was affordable enough for ADB to pick it up and for them to hire Taldren to do the games. IMO
Ahhh, Sweet Bliss!!!
But do you think ADB could really afford to hire Taldren?, especially after paying Paramount's blood money?
Chaos
Post by: Magnum357 on July 14, 2003, 08:28:08 pm
As for SFC TNG, I think their is a slim chance it will ever be a reality, just by the fact that the show Enterprise and Nemisis have completely destroyed the entire franchise. Even if Paramont dishes out the licence to other people, it just will never have the same type of financial firepower as it once did. Don't get me wrong, I like SFC3, I just don't think another version is going to be a reality.
I say talk to ADB and work up a deal. They might be willing to listen.
Post by: Kid Carrson on July 14, 2003, 08:40:41 pm
I think you're exactly correct. Taldren needs to radically rethink how they deal with the SFC series. They will have a hard time getting many hundreds of thousands of buyers for a game, but they have an extremely loyal core of devoted followers who will pay dearly for the right type of product. Their model has already been laid out for them by ADB. Take ADB's concept of expansion modules and packages and instead sell upgrade/modifications to SFC OP. Here's how I think they should do it.
1. Fine tune a list of realistic "wants" from the community that people are seriously willing to pay for. Ask for suggestions, then trim it down to five or so.
2. Have One person in Taldren sheppard the expansion patch to fruition, and allow some within the community to help.
3. Demand that the community "pay with their wallets" prior to beginning work. How? Set up a paypal / credit card online arrangement, require the community to pony up a certain amount of money for an expansion pack that can be done by X date. Taldren would determine that they would need revenue of at least $30,000 for expansion patch 1, $50,000 for expansion patch 2, etc. Let the community decide what gets done first by voting with their wallets.
4. When paying for the expansion patch, I would suggest a two or three tier pay arrangement, as follows (remember economics 101 guys and gals, price discrimination can maximize profits when applied intelligently). Level 1 - pay $20, get the expansion patch when completed. Level 2 - pay $50 - start from the beta, have some input in catching bugs, etc. Level 3- $100 or more - be involved in the design of the expansion patch, involved in the Beta, etc. I'd suggest the Level 3 have a limited number of slots be available and have community members bid (like EBAY) for them.
5. Each patch should be able to work from the existing SFC OP, and preferably would allow a number of the expansion patches to work well together when bought.
6. If the dedicated and rabid community can make some money for Taldren from intelligent expansion patches, then at some point we the community can rightly suggest "let's make a Galaxies at War" expansion or new game, again with the community making a dollar committment prior to creation.
7. Just a few ideas for expansions:
a. A weapons expansion pack with variations of existing weapons and others near and far.
b. An expansion that allows all races to have PF's, or all Fighters, or both.
c. An expansion that creates an F & E type of deeper level overplay strategic structure (or even a simpler version that allows a true strategic level)
d. An expansion that allows for FMSE for SFC OP.
e. An expansion that allows multiplayers to capture ships.
f. An expansion that allows single player skirmish to select any and all terrains.
Hey Taldren, please think about it. I think that you can do this with just one or two employees working part time on various aspects, and using the community for the rest. And if the community is too cheap to commit to the level needed to make an expansion, then enough is said from all parties. And I personally think you guys could do this right and really make some decent money from expansion patches.
Kid Carrson
Post by: Storvick on July 14, 2003, 08:55:30 pm
Post by: Tulwar on July 14, 2003, 10:32:41 pm
This articles I've read say this lawsuit is almost completely unprecidented. To me, it sounds desparate. Seeing how Activison jumped into the SFC franchise without any considderation of Tadren's existing customers, it would seem that Activision is prone to aggressive and reckless buisness practices.
Since ST is one of Activision's main product lines, this will be a major loss of revenue. For Viacom, the precident of allowing companies to renegotciate this kind of contract is disasterous. Both companies will fight this for as long as they can. Viacom, being the larger company, with so many other assets, can afford to fight this much longer.
That may be the reason that this sort of case is so rare. Even if you are right, you can still lose. Court battles often turn into wars of attrition. There are so many layers of over-worked courts, that one may die of old-age before recieving satisfaction.
Activision has to have a rock solid case if they are to win this fight. Viacom will not settle until they know that they are going to lose repeatedly in court. From what I've read, Viacom feels themselves on solid ground. I see Activision as the one to act in the more risky fashion.
The best case for SFC is if Activision loses quickly and loses big, especially if Activision ends up having to sell the rights to ST in bankruptcy court.
One thing I would dearly love to know: How many people did SFC3 attract compared to the number it alienated? That is, minus the people screaming for their money back.
BTW, another SFB based game will be created. The question is, will it be the beautiful work of Taldren in the next couple of years, or somebody else's in the twenty?
Post by: Tulwar on July 14, 2003, 11:04:17 pm
Quote:
Take ADB's concept of expansion modules and packages and instead sell upgrade/modifications to SFC OP.
I don't think that model will work for an online, muli-player game. They'll have to simply bump up the price on a single package. Pay servers might be an additional source of revenue, but a lot of people won't tolerate that. Then again, a lot of people might just be willing to pay for an alternative to GS.
NWN hit the shelves at $70.00 and came down to about half that in a year. There are a lot of people who will shell out for an intitial offering, while the product continues to sell at profitable, yet more reasonable price later on. Most of SFC GAW has already been developed, the problem is, how many people will buy any SFC product after SFC3? SFC3 created a terrible rift within this community. Would GAW be profiable selling only a hundred-fifty thousand units at $70.00 each?
Post by: Cleaven on July 14, 2003, 11:25:12 pm
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 14, 2003, 11:55:06 pm
Quote:
all I can say is if they make another SFC game but with only SFB stuff then they just lost one customer that has been buying SFC stuff since they first came out. I did not buy SFC for the SFB stuff. I bought SFC since it has been the best Star Trek ship command game that is out there.
Unless the only SFC game you bought and will continue to buy is SFC3, then you've already bought SFC "with only SFB stuff" and did come back for more. Maybe you aren't aware, but SFC1/2/OP was "with only SFB stuff". The GAW that folks are talking about is just the finish to the "teaser" ending already in OP. I would like to go on record asking, "If you're going to make a game with Tholians based on SFB, then don't leave out the Seltorians, please.
." My $.02 on an TNG based game is give us races/systems/rules, that isn't "SFB stuff" so that you/Taldren won't have to deal with the direct comparisons. SFB has had too long to refine it's ruleset for someone to be reasonably expected to design something superior in around 1/10th the time. Since Taldren is now linked to the SFB ruleset by their previous titles, they are in the unenviable position of being held up to that ruleset with anything else that they come out with that's based on Trek. Not by everyone I know, but by a lot of us. Unless they "run off" all those who bought SFC because it was "with only SFB stuff", and that would be lost revenue.
Post by: Magnum357 on July 15, 2003, 12:17:50 am
Besides, another title based on SFB rules could still use many concepts from SFC3. Like did you know that in SFB rules, their is an option for Cloak ships to actually have hidden cloaked ships like in SFC3? Or that their is actually warping in SFB rules, its called "Disenganging by exceleration" which really meant warping off the board map. And other concepts from SFC3 could be implemented in a SFC:GAW game like adding more weapon systesm based on SFC3. Just because the game is based on SFB rules doesn't mean it wouldn't be totally useless for you.
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 15, 2003, 12:42:05 am
Quote:
In my opinion, I think the best hope for SFC is for Taldern to forget the Paramount licencing attogether and try to negotiate a deal with ADB. I bet the cost would be considerably cheaper compared to paramonts and it would be based on SFB universe. That way, a SFC:GAW would actually be a reality. And instead of ADB fighting with Taldren all the time about copying their rule system, they should help them out because if they work togetheir, they can benefit each other. Their are some things in SFB that SFC can recreate so their will always be a need for people to by the board game.
ADB already made such a deal with Interplay and Taldren. That was how we got SFC1 and SFC2 and OP. The entity you really need to worry about is Paramount.
The hold-up for electronic SFB had (has) always been Paramount. ADB had always claimed that their contract gave them permission to make computer games built upon SFB, whereas Paramount claimed that it does not. As Steve Cole (the head of ADB) has always said, "If you've got the money to fight Paramount, you go right ahead." (I guess Activision does. At least it seems to think that it does.)
I have little doubt that ADB would agree to another SFB-based computer game with no problems. They still print articles about SFC in their Captain's Log magazine. Getting Paramount not to storm in and torpedo the deal with (expensive) litigation would be the trick.
-S'Cipio
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 01:39:21 am
If any mythology deserved such a universe, it would be Star Trek. There was simply not enough put into the game. It is a flop. You all got your SFB games, why can't you be happy with that? If you want Eras at War, then mod it- many of our finer modders/moddellers have done so for you already; stop praying for more Nitpicking of the Nth Degree. Let the rest of us have our online consistent universe we have been seeking... that which would feel like you are flying a massive starship thorugh a gargantuan galaxy; not where you feel like you're moving a damned bitmapped pwter model on a online board (bored) game.
If one were to make another Star Trek game, it would need to be of drastic differences than is previously granted. Yes, the SFC(3)-style of combat is pretty much flawless. Easy to learn, hard to master. THIS will draw consumers, not another re-hash of another game.
This is not a flame, I personally like many of you- just plea for consideration- such a change/addition wouldn't lose any of the elements we all enjoy... I just would like to see a little more "playable realism". I have a ship- give me an ocean on which to sail.
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 15, 2003, 01:56:45 am
Quote:
It is of astronomically astounding levels of surprise and simultaneous dismay that I see all this worry over ANOTHER SFB game.... didn't we just have three in a row?
Actually, it's been quite a while since OP hit the shelves as a new product. 'Twould be nice to see a new one faithfully done. We've got plasma sabot and carronades to add.
Quote:
What made people run from SFC3 wasn't because it had less of the SFB
Less SFB is certainly what sent me running.
Quote:
SFB never sold.
What do you mean? The game started in the late 70's and is still in print. New customers show up all the time. Expansions are printed at regular intervals (I just bought the newest one, hot off the presses, yesterday). It just expanded into GURPS. All of the bills are paid and the company has no debts.
-S'Cipio
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 01:59:20 am
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 15, 2003, 02:00:32 am
So you want this giant expanse to realistically sail your starship on?
Picard: Data set course for Alpha-yadi-yadi-yada.
Data: Course set. At our current speed we should be there in 3days, 14hrs, 22min.
Picard: Make it so. I'm going to be in my ready room. Inform me if something, anything happens.
Do you really want reality?
Post by: FireSoul on July 15, 2003, 02:04:12 am
I bought and play this game (SFC:OP) because it's SFB-based. I did not buy SFC3. I will not buy a Trek game that's not SFB-based unless it is a SPECTACULARLY OVERWHELMINGLY WONDERFUL game.
oh.. and I didn't buy another game since SFC:OP except for an updated version of UO.
-- Luc
PS. Someone once posted to me "who do you think you are, the savior of OP?"
Updated answer: No, but you should see the stuff I'm doing for it.
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 02:10:43 am
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 02:12:58 am
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 02:17:48 am
Post by: NannerSlug on July 15, 2003, 03:29:50 am
everyone can just agree to disagree about rule sets and leave it at that. there are just about as many opinions on this game as there are people. thats life. what we should be looking positively about is that all the games have inspired enough people to enjoy the game and leave it at that.
let me remind some folk of somthing.. what do you think would have happened if during sfc2 there was no demo and the same type of support we have seen with sfc3? hmm.. i think that is a good reason why if anything, there are issues.. but here is another news flash - sfc3 is still going strong game wise.. sure, not as many on gsa.. but there are no leagues.. most of the folk are on d3.. and even without an official patch, that section has been bumping around 100 folk at 2 am in the morning - and thats on modded servers that require 100s of megs of downloads and installs.
my only point is dont sell sfc3 short like some people have.
when its all said and done these are games. lets just leave it at that.
and yes, sfc1, 2, op and sfc3 are all TREK games first and foremost.. the rule sets are tools used to accomplish an objective.. so no, the "core" crowd is not sfb folk - the "core" are trek fans.. that doesnt take away anything from sfc1/2/op - but that rule set/those who like that rule set do not have ownership on the community. it should be big enough for everyone.
Post by: Cleaven on July 15, 2003, 05:32:27 am
It's like saying that we've had chess for a thousand years so it's time to get rid of it because it's past it's use-by date. Don't take people for fools when they can recognise that quality and value for money endures. A quality product will go on and on until it is replaced by something better or the market disappears. SFB and F&E are still in publication when almost all other board games published in that era are gone, so the evidence is that the SFB market is still there.
And to go on and say that "SFB never sold." is even more incredulous. As you can easily see, not only did it sell well, but it has sold well for a long, long time. Of course this is not to imply that SFB is as successful as Monopoly, but it is successful.
And none of this detracts from any success of SFC:TNG and it's off-shoots, but I will happily bet that SFB will still be selling after all the current Star Trek games have given up the ghost.
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 08:55:03 am
Post by: Sethan on July 15, 2003, 09:03:46 am
Quote:
It is of astronomically astounding levels of surprise and simultaneous dismay that I see all this worry over ANOTHER SFB game.... didn't we just have three in a row?
We had 3 in a row, and years later, people are still playing them.
Quote:
What made people run from SFC3 wasn't because it had less of the SFB shackles- it was because it wasn't a consistent, continuous space universe... just like Earth and Beyond, just like Eve Genesis, and the other fully interactive space sims that tragically outsell the SFC series.
Um, SFC2 and SFC:OP didn't have a "consistent, continuous space universe" like the other games you describe either - and yet years after their release, people are still playing them.
Methinks the problems with SFC3 lie elsewhere.
Quote:
SFB never sold.
It sold, and continues to sell. That would be why the company is still releasing new products for it.
Quote:
If any mythology deserved such a universe, it would be Star Trek. There was simply not enough put into the game. It is a flop.
Actually, from a naval combat game standpoint, the SFB (Starfleet) Universe is far more detailed than the Star Trek Universe. There was plenty to put into a game - and several successful ones have been made on that basis.
Quote:
You all got your SFB games, why can't you be happy with that?
We did indeed get 3 SFB based games - and we like them. We want more. You got your Trek based games - dozens of them (mostly bad). Why can't you be happy with that?
Quote:
If you want Eras at War, then mod it- many of our finer modders/moddellers have done so for you already; stop praying for more Nitpicking of the Nth Degree.
To some extent this has been done - but there are limits beyond which the current game engine will not allow the modelers and scripters to go. There is much that could be done with a new game engine - including adding some of the features of SFC3.
Quote:
Let the rest of us have our online consistent universe we have been seeking... that which would feel like you are flying a massive starship thorugh a gargantuan galaxy; not where you feel like you're moving a damned bitmapped pwter model on a online board (bored) game.
Mod it.
You can't? Gee - too bad. Now you know what we feel like when we can't mod something into the game that WE want.
You have your "online consistent universe" in other games - leave ours alone. Go mod the other games if you want a Trek flavor to your online consistent universe.
Quote:
If one were to make another Star Trek game, it would need to be of drastic differences than is previously granted. Yes, the SFC(3)-style of combat is pretty much flawless. Easy to learn, hard to master. THIS will draw consumers, not another re-hash of another game.
Different != Success. SFC3 was different.
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 09:04:40 am
I meant Star Trek fandom... in general...
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 09:31:28 am
Why can't you have the best of both worlds? I don't think its too much to ask. Sethan wrote much material on the Rhiannasu- I wish there was a place where we all log on to, physically meet right in front of Rhiannasu (Romulus- whichever, sorry for the wrong words), and chat through ship channels or duke it out SFC-style, either way. Is that to much to ask for?
That wouldn't be a flavor, it'd be a little of both. Then if we got done talking, we could warp out and go about our business- fight something, scan something, rescue someone, whatever. Doing that, at your own discretion, would be against SFB rules... you'd have to disengage, and fall off the hex map... not to mention a couple of other grumbles. If I made you (bigger) SFB fans mad, I'm sorry, I was just hoping that we could see it as SFB giving us a great backbone, but we needing to take it and run, to build a body from it and expand out; SFB made ships, maybe a ocean could be built around it. Is this any better?
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 15, 2003, 09:52:49 am
All I want is for them to find a way to finish the EAW storyline and add the remaining major races Andros and Tholians.
WWWWAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Reverand says we need to move on.........the problem is they didn't finish what they started!!!!!
WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
I don't hate SFC3...hell I bought several copies of the damn game!!!!!!
WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
I just want them to finish what they started somehow.....then I'll be out of everyone's hair......
WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
If they would just program WEB.......we'd have Tholians......we've got Brez's models.......
If they would just program the andro displacement, PA panels, and TR beams, the fans could make the models and shiplists!!
WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Anybody got a hanky...........
It just that they are SOOOOO CLOSE to finishing what they started.........
<sniffle>
Post by: Lepton1 on July 15, 2003, 11:50:32 am
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 15, 2003, 12:54:55 pm
Think about how the other software makers do it:
They let you try it for 2 weeks free.
Then they sell you version 2.0 for 50 bucks. If you want to download it you can, or you can have them send you a disc. If you want them to send you printed instructions (as opposed to a printable .pdf), that's another 30 bucks. Over the next year or so, they come out with 2.1, 2.2, 2.4. 2.5 and 2.6, all freely downloadable to anyone who bought 2.0.
Then they come out with 3.0, for 55 bucks, or only maybe 20 bucks if you bought 2.0. Over the next year, you get 3. 1, 3.2, 3.3, etc.
So, the loyal patrons get a year's worth of new stuff for 20 bucks, they get all their friends to try it, the company stays in business, and everyone gets most of the new features they want (eventually.)
One trick would be to allow someone with 2.0 to continue playing on the dynaverse with people who bought 3.0, only they don't get to use the new goodies that 3.0 added. (That model works for features, but I don't know how it would work with bug fixes, maybe you would want to seperate bug fix downloads, that would continue to be free for everyone, from new feature downloads, that people would pay for, if that makes sense.) Too complicated? Well come on, if we weren't all brains to begin with, we wouldn't be playing this game. ;^)
Now, onto licensing... Interplay had to license both Star Trek TOS & TMP from Paramount, as well as SFB from ADB? Is that a correct understanding? I always understood that Paramount refused to admit that ADB's 'license', (which they actually sub-licensed from Lou Zocci, for the Starfleet Technical Manual, or some such, before the advent of the computer game and before Paramount really woke up to the licensing monster that is Trek...) ever included the right to make SFB into a computer game. In fact, for a while, they were denying that ADB's license was valid enough to cover SFB in the first place, though they seem to have eventually backed off that...
So now, Paramount HAS granted the right to make Trek computer games to other companies, and you have to have THAT license, from Paramount, PLUS the license from ADB... And Taldren purchased the ADB license to make OP, right? But they (or who ever they contract out to,) still need the Paramount Trek License to legaly make GAW...
Does anyone out there have a firm grasp of copyright law? Anyone who knows the actual legal ins and outs of this situation? We need a detailed description from someone who really knows...
Hey, Reverend, have you tried BattleCruiser 3000? Just asking...
Chaos
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 03:51:19 pm
Chaos, I haven't seen Battlecruiiser 3000.... what does it have that SFC doesn't, no offense?
Hope I haven't made Sethan too mad, though he was pretty harsh on me- sokay, I'm adamant about my wishes too.
Where can we go from here? Petition the next licensee? Make us a real game this time- GAW, EAW, whatever, just make us a finished game for Pete's sake.
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 03:54:03 pm
Post by: Sethan on July 15, 2003, 05:10:07 pm
Quote:
Chaos, I haven't seen Battlecruiiser 3000.... what does it have that SFC doesn't, no offense?
A: Derek Smart.
A better question is "What does SFC have that BC3k doesn't?"
A: Working code.
Seriously, BC3k was supposed to have the kind of persistent universe you are talking about.
Quote:
Hope I haven't made Sethan too mad, though he was pretty harsh on me- sokay, I'm adamant about my wishes too.
Where can we go from here? Petition the next licensee? Make us a real game this time- GAW, EAW, whatever, just make us a finished game for Pete's sake.
I'm not mad - I rarely get emotionally involved in these discussions. Sorry if I was harsh on you.
I actually have no objection to the persistent and contigouous universe idea as a part of SFC. I particularly like the idea of being able to join a battle in progress. I DO have an objection to tossing out the part of the game that works, in favor of trying something different, just to try something different.
I don't think SFC3's problem is the lack of a persistent universe - none of the other SFC games have had one. If you want to find out why it didn't do as well as the others in the long term, you need to look at the differences between SFC3 and SFC2.
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 15, 2003, 08:22:51 pm
The Star Trek licensing debacle will take a long time to sort out. A LONG time. The ripple effects abound. For the most part, the curse of the Star Trek games continue because, IMHO, the programming budgets and the licensing budgets don't have enough room to accommodate one another. In other words, in order for ANY software publisher to get the rights to the collective ST universe, they have to sink in mega $. These mega $ get yanked from the programming budget. Furthermore, there immediately is placed on the programmers a TREMENDOUS amount of pressure to make a game that will generate rapid and large sales. Why? Because so much money was sunk into the license that a game without broad-based appeal is (perceived as) a lost cause: the publishers will NEVER realize their initial investment. SFC3 is a perfect example of this: Activision secures the rights to ST, and wants a winner. They get Taldren for SFC, given that SFC2 was such a success, but they tell Taldren to 'de-geek' it.
Make it more palatable to the general public.
Taldren protests, but, hey, who's paying the bills? Activision. The suits say it needs to be dumbed down, so Taldren does what it can to still leave some appeal to the SFBer, but for the most part, hope that the loyalties to SFC outweigh the loyalties to SFB for the hardcore old school SFC2ers. And gamble that the software sales by John Q. Public will totally overwhelm the lost sales from the old-schoolers who are not hip to SFC3. That's the hand they got dealt and they played it the only way they could play it, frankly.
But SFC3s disappointing sales will serve unfortunately as ammo for the naysayers in ANY software publishing house. They will say that a hardcore gamers game in a Star Trek universe won't sell. They'll have this position despite the fact that, IMHO, SFC3 tanked precisely because it ALIENATED the hardcore gamers in the first place in the hopes of getting wider appeal. I do not have faith in neither Activision nor Paramount to have the insight to realize that the Star Trek license just can't carry a poorly balanced game. Never has, never will.
On the other hand, a well-balanced game without the license CAN hold its own. Not a MEGA success, but possibly hold its own. But it is a risk.
The sure-fire success, IMHO, is the synergy realized when the ST license happens to be on a well-balanced game.
But like I said, the suits will NOT see it that way.
So, IMHO, the best we can hope for is either:
Long-term Scenario 1: Orion PIrates gets old, but ages tremendously gracesfully due to the staunch support of the hardcore gamers who don't get a comparable product for the foreseeable future. Eventually, either OP goes open source or someone on their own figures out enough to effectively unlock it for heavy modding, and all kinds of stuff happens. This is like the 5 year plan. 10 years down the road, some gaming company realizes that this fricking game is STILL around after all these years and decides to update it to 2014 standards. By then, the Trek licensing snafus have run their course and publishers are more willing to take "chances" on 'niche' games that trade style for substance. Fun, fun fun.
Long-term Scenario 2: Taldren, or some other company, gets in bed with ADB which licenses out SFB but removes all Trek references. They listen to the customers and leave the graphics/UI code moddable enough that pesky members of the gaming community Star-Trekkify the game on their own, without Paramount's official blessing. Working against this: ADB inherently has an incentive to NOT allow a game to be TOO moddable and eat into their boardgame sales. Also Paramount might be total douchebags and intervene on third party modders of the StarTrekless SFC. But I see that as rather difficult to control.
Anyhow, that's how I see it.
Note there is no "Short-term Scenario." Because simply speaking I don't see anything remarkable happening in the short-term (except for FireSoul's tremendous support for OP, and the release of the highly-anticipated OP Dynaverse stability patch!).
Thanks,
TF
Post by: Magnum357 on July 15, 2003, 09:42:37 pm
http://www.copyright.gov/
Now, back to what Tumulorum Fossor was talking about. I completely agree with his theories about all this crap happening. That is why I suggested that Taldren just work a deal with ADB and forget a deal with Paramont. As I have stated above, I find it unlikely that Paramont would win this legal battle under copyright laws so Taldren and ADB really should not worry about this. I'm also certain that ADB would make for a much more afordable contract negotiation then Paramounts Multi-million dollar Trek License. I think both ADB and Taldren could benefit from this deal greatly.
As for Activision, hey what can I see, it just shows you how greedy that corperation really is. They made this deal with Taldren because they thought they could make money hand over fist! They deserved what they got in my opinion. I hope Taldren considers my theory and just let Activision and Paramont duke it out while they try to make a good SFB based game.
Now Reverend, I can understand why you think SFB is out of style. It is a rather old game and was made not too long after I was born, but it has a proven Navel Combat system and a very loyal set of fans (myself included). I like SFC3 too, but so far from what I have seen of this Activision/Viacom situation, I think another SFC TNG title is slim to none. But as I stated before, a lot of SFC3 elements could be added to a SFC GAW. Hidden Cloaks, Warping (a 1 minute delay as stated in SFB rules), and making weapons modable could be a few of many features that could make GAW not only a SFB game but a TNG game if someone wanted too.
Post by: Reverend on July 15, 2003, 11:24:41 pm
with the copyright laws as they stand, I don't see much more changing in the future either. All we can do I suppose is hope some company realizes the small but trusty market we as ST/SFB fans provide, and attempt to cash in on it again. Wish w could organize some sort of polite protest and get some work done... I suspect it wouldn't be exactly what any of us hoped for, but some work is better than none.
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 15, 2003, 11:46:39 pm
Quote:
Ok, hold on people... let me get this straight. After reading all this thread-fighting for about a half an hour, Scipio_66 informs us that the reason why ADB never have built a Computer board game of SFB is because Paramount comes in and says "that their copy right protection of SFB doens't protect you if make it for the computer"? Am I right on this understanding? Well, all I can say is Paramount has been using smoke and mirrors to scare ADB into thinking this. I'm pretty sure that Paramount would never win a court case if ADB actually made their own computer game. For what basis could Paramount sue ADB for violating the Star Trek Licence? Trust me guys, this is all just scare tactics on Paramonts part. Just got to this website for copyright laws and you will understand what I mean....
http://www.copyright.gov/
ADB just believes that even if somehow they could afford the court fight with Paramount's lawyers, They're supposed to have a lot of them
, that the income from the computer game, or even expanding SFB to other eras, wouldn't justify the expense. I read a post by SVC where he stated that not only did ADB have the legal right to produce a computer game, that the licensing of different eras didn't even apply to there license with Paramount.Remember, when they got their license Trek was dead and gone. A failed TV series. Nothing more.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 16, 2003, 12:02:13 am
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that Paramount would never win a court case if ADB actually made their own computer game.
Even if Paramount has a weak case it would still cost ADB a lot of money in legal fees to defend themselves. It's money they probably can't spare. I'm sure the profit margins for ADB products are tight. ADB does well because Steven V. Cole runs a tight ship. They probably don't have the kind of money needed to take on Paramount.
Paramount tolerates ADB because ADB behaves itself. Paramount could probably sweep ADB away if they became a real problem for Paramount and started challenging them. It's a fine line for ADB to walk.
Lastly, Erik Bethke said it takes a lot of money to produce and distribute computer games. Erik was looking for a way that Taldren could self publish their own games eventually, but he said it would be difficult to do until they got a couple of "hits" under their belt and started getting some solid royalties income rolling in.
If Taldren is having trouble self-publishing with all of their programmming and business talent fine tuned for making computer games, then ADB would find it nearly impossible to make their own computer games because they don't have the programming resources required.
However, if Taldren and ADB were to pool their resources perhaps that would be enough for Taldren and ADB to jointly publish an "SFB total conversion of OP"? In this kind of relationship ADB would provide the concept material and Taldren would create the programming to implement it. The development costs shouldn't be anywhere close to as high as a totally new game because the OP engine is already developed.....it would just have to be enhanced and upgraded. With resources from both Taldren and ADB combined the two companies should be able to pay the costs of packaging and distribution that are normally covered by a separate publisher. If development costs were kept down, even if the game sold fewer units than previous SFC games, they could still turn a profit. This game would not carry the name SFC, but would be marketed as actual SFB material.
Just some ideas. It would be nice if Erik would comment on these ideas.
Post by: Tulwar on July 16, 2003, 01:02:30 am
Activision on the other hand, they bought high and are selling low. As long as any ST program is in production, they don't have a leg to stand on in court. Even if there wasn't, Activision would be in a difficult legal position. I hope Viacom eats them for breakfast! They deserve it.
Post by: David Ferrell on July 16, 2003, 12:06:10 pm
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Aversham on July 16, 2003, 12:17:32 pm
Quote:
SFC3 did not have disappointing sales.
Thanks,
Dave
Nope, just disappointed customers.
Sorry Dave, nothing personal, but a lot of us bought that game on the assumption it would still be SFB based; we felt betrayed. (Though our faith in Taldren has been shaken, we still hold out hope...)
Post by: Reverend on July 16, 2003, 12:58:27 pm
Post by: NannerSlug on July 16, 2003, 01:01:53 pm
that said, there are many folks who like (some even love) sfc3, and whos only dissappointment was the lack of an official patch (or how long it took to get the beta patch out due to red tape) to fix simple issues like the anticloak cheat/follow bug.. there are a few that will be nice when they get squashed (like the out of sync/loading bug) or leaving a mission and for what ever reason not getting your full prestiege.
that doesnt make the game perfect. far from it. there could be much more detail put into the game - ranging from specific hard point mass restrictions to the ability to manage power more to more ships.. (oh yeah - tbombs. heh) however, it doesnt mean its a POS like a few people think it is (simply because it doesnt use the sfb rule set).
so to say there are disappointed customers isnt exactly telling the whole story. there might be some - but to group all those people into a single group is wrong. also, judging by the number of people playing on d3 at 2 am in the morning (especially when more than half are on servers that require hundreds of megs of downloads), people are enjoying the game. again, that doesnt make the game perfect, but i do not believe you are painting an altogether accurate.
on a seperate note...
sfc3 did not have disappointing sales? that sounds great! thanks for the info.. just wish we could find out some more info.
this is good news (for all)!
Post by: NannerSlug on July 16, 2003, 01:03:47 pm
Quote:
No, better yet, a lot more of us were expecting it to not just turn in one diection and stop, but have a consistent universe attached to it. Thanks for the one line reply, Dave!! Why don't you speculate on this further, instead of just being flippant. Tell us to shut- up, give an opionion, or state a fact with numbers... don't hold out on us.
i dont think dave can comment on exact numbers unless he wants to be slapped with a lawsuit from ativi/ get fired. it was nice to get that morsel, though.
Post by: Sethan on July 16, 2003, 01:20:21 pm
Quote:
SFC3 did not have disappointing sales.
Thanks,
Dave
Never said it did.
The true measure of a game is not how well it sells, but how many people it sold to are still playing it years afterwards.
High sales is great in the short term - but if most of those people play the game for a week or a month and then never touch it again, that doesn't bode well for sequels.
SFC2 has maintained a strong following despite its having been out for several years. I don't think that's happening with SFC3.
In SFC2's case the reason is twofold:
1) A highly complex fun game that is accessible to new players but takes work to master.
2) A tremendous level of support from the developer.
In SFC3's case, it was designed to have a broader appeal and so initial sales were higher - but the complexity is lacking, reducing replay value.
The amount of support Taldren has been able to give SFC3 has also been more limited than for the SFC2 series, due to Activision's 'one patch' policy, and the absence of a Khoromag-type situation for SFC3.
Post by: NannerSlug on July 16, 2003, 01:29:37 pm
sfc3 has already recieved several mods and is growing.. that ability to adapt and grow and add in much of the detail which was not in the inital release will help it sustain growth. the base sfc3 game has recieved a fraction of the support from its publisher (no demo, no official patch yet) yet is doing quite well. could you say that for sfc2? hard to say, but given the adverse conditions '3 has gone through, i think its done quite well.
in short, lets talk a year or even 18 months after its release and we will see.
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 16, 2003, 01:36:47 pm
Quote:
if you bought sfc3 and felt like it was going to be another incarnation - then you might not have done the proper research. it was well known for a very, very long time that they were going away from the sfb rule set for sfc3.
It has been widely proffessed that the vast majority of gamers do, not only, not come to these forums but don't browse the internet for game information, etc. This has been the main vocal support for the "most gamers don't want SFB" crowd, since most the people here want it. So, if it is in fact true that most do not use the internet for their gaming information or even if they only occassionally, then it is highly likely that they did not get this information. I don't believe it's printed on the box, is it? No big sign at the software store at the SFC3 display?
edit: Question. Which is better. A buggy demo that plays very similar to the game that came before, making people wince at the bugs in even the demo and the thought of what the actual game might be like, or no demo at all? Major advertised feature missing with many missed promises of release and eventual buggy release (not to mention massively buggy game release in general) and some patches stretched out over years, or a release with a few bugs no missing features, and a beta patch?
Post by: NannerSlug on July 16, 2003, 01:41:30 pm
but you know what - neither side can prove its case, so it probably should be left alone.. my main point was that it is wrong to lump everyone into the same group.
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 16, 2003, 01:50:47 pm
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 16, 2003, 03:03:06 pm
"SFC3 did not have disappointing sales."
I stand corrected, and am sincerely glad that SFC3 did NOT have disappointing sales and that I was incorrect in making that statement. I do not have any privileged information in that regard and that statement was my impression just based on the general buzz of SFC3 relative to SFC and SFC2, and is HARDLY scientific.
I did not mean to offend.
But I cannot help but get the feel that even at this point, SFC2's following, despite its age, is currently comparable to SFC3's following, and that SFC3 support within the gaming community is decaying at a more rapid rate than SFC2 support. That, coupled with Activision's remarkable complaint to Viacom implies that Activision was disappointed with the sales of Star Trek software (Armada, Elite Force, SFC3, Bridge Commander, Armada 2, Elite Force 2, Away Team). Of those seven titles, 4 were games that did well enough that they either got a sequel or were a sequel themselves while under Activision, leaving 3 titles holding-the-bag so to speak: Bridge Commander, Away Team, and SFC3. Of the 3, clearly Away Team was the big loser, but just as clearly, Activision could not have been overwhelmed with sales of the other remaining titles either. Activision's apparent lack of support of Taldren in trying to get a patch going (and that's just hearsay I my part: I have no concrete info on it), furthers suspicion. But once again, it's all conjecture.
Also, it's just an educated guess here, but I would think the target sales for SFC3 would be significantly higher than for SFC2: bigger budget(?), more complete license, and more EXPENSIVE license agreement. But to the casual observer, at least at this point in time, SFC3's following seems to be comparable and not clearly larger than SFC. And, as I already said, I suspect SFC3's interest-decay to be much more rapid than SFC2's. But, obviously, I could be wrong.
Now don't get me wrong: as an SFC/Taldren fan, even an SFB-oriented one, for SFC3 to be considered within the industry as a success is A Very Good Thing. It dramatically increases the likelihood that SFC will eventually continue hand-in-hand with the Star Trek license even across a THIRD publisher (to continue across 2 publishers is impressive enough in this business, by the way). Personally, however, I hope that SFC2's long-term interest will serve as the catalyst for an SFC4 rather than SFC3's short-term(?) sales figures. Why? Because if the impetus for SFC4 is perceived as being due to SFC3's commercial success, it will likely migrate further from my beloved SFB mechanics in the hopes of broadening the market for the initial sales spike. Whereas if SFC2's slavish following is perceived as the impetus for SFC4, then I would expect SFC4 to be MORE SFBish in rules.
But once again, I did not mean to offend with my [mis]characterization of SFC3 sales as disappointing. Furthermore, I'm grateful for the SFC:OP support! Thanks, David Ferrell (and everyone else so involved)!
I DO think it would be an interesting question to ask everyone in this thread:
"If SFC4 ever materializes, will it be because of the success/persistence of SFC3 OR the success/persistence of SFC2[OP/EAW]?
Just curious to hear what other people think.
Thanks!
-TF
P.S.: While trying to get an idea about the market demand for SFC3 by perusing ebay listings, I couldn't fight the temptation: I went ahead an just PURCHASED a copy of SFC3, because even though it leaves most of my beloved SFB rulebook bleeding and dying at the side of the road, it just LOOKS so darned cool! UI looks good, good price [now], and the beta patch available for download. Besides, I already have SFC, EAW, and OP. Might as well give 3 a shot. But damned if I'll get used to only 4 shields
!
Post by: Reverend on July 16, 2003, 04:15:58 pm
SFC3 took what it needed from SFB and dropped the ''unrealistic'' aspects from it... like a set impusle speed limit, the inability to go in reverse, and in-system or in-battle warp. We also lost many logical and crucial systems, like autopilot (point defense), and so on.
If SFC3 didn't have the SFC title, it might have sold even more. It just feels to me and many others with a SFB-heavy game, is that you're driving a Ferrari Testarossa without a reverese gear and won't go above 2nd gear, and no headlights. Seems to hamper it some; I am flying a bitmapped game piece on board- like I've said before. Sorry if am giving SFB fans a hard time, I was just hoping that they take SFC3 and push it to anotehr level, leaving the modablity capacity strong. Keep the same aspects from SFB we had, but keep the rules reduction in there.
I know, its like asking for cake and getting a slice with no fork, but it drew this many newcomers, and I bet thsoe newcomers have tried SFC2 and are enjoying it as well.
Thanks for the space, and for reading it....
Dave, give us some more input, you know we all appreciate it when you speak.
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on July 16, 2003, 04:34:25 pm
HAND!
Post by: David Ferrell on July 16, 2003, 04:44:54 pm
At the moment, we are in the dark as far as the license goes. We will continue to work
on a patch for SFC3 and hope it is released eventually.
TF, I hope you enjoy at least the single player campaign(s) for SFC3. I think I did a lot of good
work in there and I think they are enjoyable. Please get the Beta patch, it will increase
your enjoyment of the game.
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Tulwar on July 16, 2003, 05:11:17 pm
1.) It has deprived us of the logical sequel to SFC2.
2.) It lacks enough material to be considdered on par with SFC2.
3.) It has split the SFC community.
These are significant wrongs. If SFC TNG were released after SFC GAW, and I saw a flame war, I would tell the GAW crowd to grow up. Unfortunately, that is not the case. To add insult to injury, SFC3 lacks the content of SFC2: 8 races vs. 4, 6 shields vs 4, ect. Because so many of us feel deprived, yet other like the new game better, these bloody flame wars go on under any general topic.
I would pobably buy a SFC title based on an improved version of SFC3, but not until SFC GAW is on my HD.
Now, will someone get us back on topic?
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 16, 2003, 05:55:17 pm
Quote:
Now, will someone get us back on topic?
Yeah....back on topic.
My original thoughts at the beginning of this thread kind of revolved around the possibility that having the Trek liscense split might be good for all of us...sfc2 and sfc3 fans alike.
Like Tul said, most of the SFC2 fans probably would have had no problem with SFC TNG if it had been SFC4 instead.
The best solution to this rift in the future would be to make two lines of SFC, but as long as a single publisher, Activision, controls everything, a product line split would have been 100% impossible. With multiple publishers a product split might not be AS impossible and perhaps other creative liscensing deals could be worked out.
And yes, thanks David for commenting.
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 16, 2003, 06:00:56 pm
Quote:
I for one did not buy SFC2 or OP because it was SFB-related. <snip> Me, like many more others than you'd think, bought it because it was the only decent Trek game released thus far...
Really? And what, pray tell, made it the only decent Trek game released thus far? I think you like it for what it is. And what it is, of course, is SFB. If you bought it and played it for a day before shelving it, then you may have purchased it because it was a Trek game and stopped because you didn't like its rule set. If you kept playing it then you did so because you enjoyed the SFB rule set.
This is why I think it is silly for Nanner to say that the core audience of SFC1 and SFC2 are not SFB fans. The core audience of a game is comprised of the people who like that game. SFC is SFB. Really, it is. The (handful of) differences between the two are no more significant than the SFB house rules I've found in various gaming clubs across the country. I've seen seeking weapons move various speeds, and I've played with miniatures using turn gauges -- rather than hexes -- and quarter-turn advance plotting -- surpisingly close to "real time". Thus, the core audience of SFC1 and SFC2 were SFB players whether they knew this about themselves or not.
Some purchasers may not enjoy the process of setting up a board game on their tabletop and pushing carefully painted miniatures towards one another. No worries, and with SFC there is now no need. But if you still play SFC1 and SFC2 then you must like SFC1 and 2. And if you like them, you like SFB.
Of course this all changed with SFC3 (sic).
-S'Cipio
Post by: David Ferrell on July 16, 2003, 06:17:06 pm
There couldn't have been a GAW due to licensing problems with Activision.
If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went
the way of the dinosaur.
Saying there should have been GAW first is like saying "I wish I were a fish".
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: NannerSlug on July 16, 2003, 06:40:38 pm
also, not true scippy! there are more differences than similarities between sfc2 and sfb.. it is true that sfc1/2 and parts of op use sfb as a basis - but there are so many differences that you cannot claim that (even in fundamental elements like speed of weapons). sfc2 is not perfect - just as sfc3 is not perfect. however, the core audience ARE trek fans who are willing to play/try trek combat sims.. they are not set on a rule set persae - just as long as it works. that is the category i fall under.. we are gamers.. people who are looking for a good time and are willing to play/spend time and enjoy various games - and try things.. sfc has been an excellent series because of the many design decisions made by taldren and yes, the producers - whether interplay or activision. most of us are very open minded.. (dont believe me - check out the number of folk downloading the mods for sfc3 which are in the hundreds of megs)
also, much of why people play a game over and over again is because of the community, clan or fleet and personal experiences. that said, i think its fair to point out that it was not sfb that made sfc such a good game. it is true that it was a good basis - a good start, but it is not the end all to be all. there were many, many design decisions which made sfc a different animal.. check your marketing research and see who people would like to see in a trek combat game.. now if i have 5 million to invest in a game, where am i going to spend it?
ill be repetitve and say people should just let things go and enjoy what they enjoy instead of constantly harrassing the other side.. its tough enough for those who are not getting support from activision - but to add insult to injury is worse.
hate to bust some egos out there - but most of us enjoy the game because its trek. thats not to say 3 is perfect, but to say that many of us are open and simply want a fun and enjoyable space combat sim.. sfc3 gives us that.. just wish it had more detail.
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 16, 2003, 07:13:08 pm
Quote:
also, not true scippy!
Is so.
Now where does that leave us? Quote:
there are more differences than similarities between sfc2 and sfb.
This statement is so far from true you really shouldn't have bothered taking the time to type it.
Quote:
that said, i think its fair to point out that it was not sfb that made sfc such a good game.
Of course it was! SFB is what the game *is*. You are staring at the Pacific ocean, seeing one island, and saying, "there is no water in the Pacific."
Quote:
hate to bust some egos out there - but most of us enjoy the game because its trek.
No, you enjoy it because it is *good* Trek. How many *bad* Trek games did you keep playing for a year or more?
Quote:
just as many folk who think that sfc2 isnt for them (and there are many out there - you should read some of the other trek forums.. i have read quite a few. its funny when you move beyond this forum some comments) play other games..
Well of course other forums think differently! I wouldn't expect it to be otherwise. The core audience of SFC1/2 are SFB fans, because that is what those games are. Other games are *not* SFB, and thus logically their core audience holds a different opinion about SFB. I would not expect the core audience (ie. those who continue to play the game and consider it their favorite) of Bridge Commander to think the best way to make a Star Trek combat game is to import the SFB rule set. I would expect them to think that using the BC rule set is the way to go. That's why they play the game they do. Likewise with SFC3 (sic).
-S'Cipio
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 16, 2003, 07:35:57 pm
Quote:
SFC3 took what it needed from SFB and dropped the ''unrealistic'' aspects from it... like a set impusle speed limit, the inability to go in reverse
Hmmm, did you know that after a certain speed in Trek, you have to go to warp? That's reality, too. That's why they say 1/4 impulse speed, because in many cases it has been presented as a capped thing before you reach the necessity to go to warp.
As for Reverse, that is SFB hardcore (Kaufman retrograde, what a delight). There was a huge lobby to bring this SFB rule to SFC, which is one of the reasons you have it for SFC3 (one of the many improvements the SFB crowd lobbied for). SFB has rules for so much more than you probably realize. It's a tremendous template for Trek combat. It should also be noted that I believe they had to procure the license from ADB to make SFC3 because of it's SFB elements (I believe Erik said that somewhere). So even this game isn't devoid of SFB stuff (like reverse)
Edit: As for the topic the splitting of the license. Well, if it is split, there may be a possible splitting of product lines, but only one could carry the SFC name. Whichever publisher purchases the name isn't going to want to share it with a current competitor. "My june release SFC sold better than your June Release SFC, haha and you had the name first and let me use it!", that probably won't happen. So, you would end up with one having to take a new name (something that SFC3 should have done in the first place,imo). So, if they are split we'll have and two different companies happen to get the idea that it woudl be a good idea to do more Trek tactical combat games, then we'll have to see which line (or a new one) might come up with the name.
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 16, 2003, 07:53:17 pm
Quote:
If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went the way of the dinosaur.
--Dave Ferrell
Yes, that was my impression exactly. Activision payed some serious money for that cross-license across TOS, TMP, & TNG, so one would have to be quite naive to expect that there wasn't significant pressure to make a game with enough broad-based appeal to justify that hefty license fee, so TNG SFC was essentially a fait accompli once Activision signed Taldren, regardless of even TALDREN'S opinion on the subject. Again, I have no inside info on this, but based on the timing of everything, it does SEEM that Activision was also putting significant time constraints on Taldren probably because: (1) i software development, time=money, and Activision already was feeling shareholder heat to justify Viacom's license fee for ST, with possible panic arising due to lackluster performance relative to expectations of other (nonSFC) titles; and (2) to coincide with the release of Nemesis.
And we all don't have to be hollywood insider Entertainment Tonight moles to realize how Nemesis did in the box office. And THAT'S not a stretch on my part.
But my biggest hope was that SFC3 was going to be something like this:
SHIP MODELS:
Early Era=TOS, Ent
Middle Era=TMP/Movies
Late Era=TNG, DS9
Advanced (XShips)=Voyager
RACES:
Kzinti->Cardassian
Lyran->Bajoran
Tholian->Tholian
Orion->Maquis, Merchantman, etc.
Andromedan->Borg
ISC->Dominion
(but maintain the SFB ruleset in all the above translations).
Even if liberties had to be taken with the SFB 'history timeline,' as long as the weapons operated as per the SFB rules for the races.
Oh, yeah: toggable SFB Reverse Movement (there seems to be a rumor in this very thread that SFB does NOT allow reverse movement: untrue, just not implemented in SFC, but very famous strategies in SFB arise strictly due to reverse movement in starships. See "Kaufman Retrograde."), and toggable optional hidden cloak rules.
Klingons would get Stasis Field Generators, too!
THAT'S what I was hoping SFC3 was going to be: the Star Trek license and SFB gameplay working in tandem. So I guess that becomes my wishlist for SFC4 - I just don't know if it is realistic at this point in time to expect a software publisher to produce such a game as that when Viacom demands such hefty money for the Star Trek license, such that a game that even REMOTELY suggests a niche market does not become economically viable.
Just my thoughts.
-TF
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 16, 2003, 07:58:17 pm
Quote:
There couldn't have been a GAW due to licensing problems with Activision.
If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went
the way of the dinosaur.
Saying there should have been GAW first is like saying "I wish I were a fish".
Thanks,
Dave
Sometimes these threads make me drink like a fish.
OK, back on topic again.
Again Dave, (not to butter your bread but) thanks for the comments. Parkay!!!
I do understand why TNG SFC had to happen. No problem.
So here is the million dollar question:
If the liscensing issues work out after all is said and done between Activision and Paramount (i.e. Trek liscense splits), would Taldren consider making a project proposal to whoever has TOS liscense for another SFB based SFC...i.e. a GAW-type game?
I just want to know if you guys would consider actively pursuing such a game if a new publisher got the TOS liscensing. If it's something you guys will never again pursue then I would consider GAW dead completely. Frankly no other company other than Taldren could even make the game in my opinion.
Does Taldren want to make GAW eventually? Are you guys "looking" for a way to do it?
If you can't answer these types of questions I understand.
Sigh.
Post by: olbuzzard on July 16, 2003, 09:26:45 pm
Before yu guys start flaming Olbuzzards butt ... please consider this (then you can barbeQue as you see fit) :
Why not have the best of both worlds. There are somethings about sfc-3 that are pretty cool (But truthfully I dont like quite as well as OP) Some of you have made remarks about OP that are out right slanderous attempting to intimidate others or make them feel less than "worthy" by not "measuring up to the standards of [insert your particular game you are pushing]. Frankly SFB was good in its time... but extremeists drove most of us away from tourneys etc... and the same thing is happening here all over again. There are good aspects of these games that can be done up right and make one cool game... leaving the varroius servers to set things up as needed. Imagine a game that has less buggs !! Imagine the potential of the things we have learned that will work .... try for once to lay aside such rediculous bias and foolishness and pull T O G E A T H E R !!!!!!!!
Go to either extreme ... keep blasting the paint off the walls at every thing in sight that does not reflect [insert either SFC 1,2, OP or SFC-3] ... keep it up bubba !!! No one will give a care one wheather anythig is ever developed or not !!!
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 16, 2003, 09:49:18 pm
I don't dislike SFC3, but my personal preference for SFC is a game closely based on SFB. If I have to choose between the 2 games I'm definately interested ONLY in the SFB based game. This comes partly from the fact that I have really enjoyed the board game since the early 80's (it's been one of my most popular hobbies) and have always desired a computer form of that game. If both games are available I'd buy both, but I don't want the SFC3 form to REPLACE the SFC2 kind. That's the source of the conflict.
I understand why SFC3 happened from a business standpoint, I just hope the source of the conflict can be fixed eventually with more games in the series.
I would like to see the original EAW storyline completed eventually, then I will be COMPLETELY satisfied.
I am really not interested in any other type of game in this genre. The SFC series is the only Trek computer games I have ever owned. None of the other Trek games seemed to be interesting enough for me to buy.
I have many games not based on SFB, I'm not interested in an SFC not based on SFB. SFB is my favorite game, has been for many years. I know what I like. That's pretty much it for me. It's really quite simple.
Post by: olbuzzard on July 16, 2003, 10:39:37 pm
Here is an example of something that is a particular interst of mine that frankly I love... but some dont... X-class ships. Frankly the heavies .. (XCA calss ) were a bit over the top... but they could be revamped ... toned down a bit.... and still made more playable.
Something else to comsider ... how about just a little different format?? Have you ever tried Freelancer.. on line ? You can actually join a battle in progress. Very interesting !!
If we dont occasionally look out side of the box.... we will never learn something new. I'm 51 years old ... trust me .. I know what I'm talking about on this one. If the game were set up correctly .. then the individual server admins could be more flexable. If all you wanted was strict SFB ( oh by the way please include proper Fed power management and proper torp use and hit ratios as well as the Klingon mutany rules as well.... others too .. just a couple that are not in there but managed to be conviently over looked) .. then by all means set up the server accordingly. If more up-to-date stuff is desired.. then again... it's there.. But, my friend if you build a rigid structure ... that sir it its end. It should be noted that you already have SFB .. parts of it.. SFC1,2 and OP. If you simply want more of the same then all you need is a simple expansion pack, not another new game.
All 3 games do have some good points. Now lets try to get them put togeather. As well consider some fresh ideas that have worked on other games. IMHO this community has a lot of very talented people in it. There is no telling where this thing could go if we work at it.
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 16, 2003, 11:05:45 pm
For us, SFC already represents a serious compromise away from SFB: no hex map, no energy allocation form, all the little tweaks and mods that resulted from the shift to real-time, a really wierd "clock" that doesn't seem to have anything to do with impulses, a general lack of numeric readouts, especially for things like shield strength, etc., etc.
So, from our point of view, we aren't moved by calls to 'compromise' any further.
In general, if you don't like SFB, what are you doing here? This is an SFB game. If you don't like SFB, why play a game based on SFB? Go play some other Trek game, it's not like you don't have plenty to choose from... Leave us what's left of our game and quit arguing to change it into something else. You want something else, go play something else!
Sheesh!
Chaos
Post by: Tulwar on July 16, 2003, 11:12:00 pm
Post by: olbuzzard on July 16, 2003, 11:32:49 pm
If took your idea of SFB only and took it to it's logical conclusion i would tell you to stick to your game board and you and you friends would be happier. ( and so would we)... or at the very least.. you have EAW ... and all the mods you scould possible want ... maybe you need an expansion pack of sorts... but you do not need to waste the resources of Taldren on another EAW or SFB only game. That would be a travisty of the worse possible kind.
But I'm not that type of person. I still think that the right answer is some where between the SFC-3 (which did away with SFB altogeather) and SFB extreamism ... which as a genreal rule will strangle what life there is left in the community to death.
Personally.. i prefer to live.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 16, 2003, 11:34:05 pm
Quote:
If you simply want more of the same then all you need is a simple expansion pack, not another new game.
If that's all it takes then I'm all for it. If a series of patches would give us Tholians and Andros then I'm all for it. All I want is for SFC to be complete. A new game is not necessarily needed for that I agree.
If somehow the Tholian web tech and Andro tech could be patched into OP then that would just about satisfy most of the SFB crowd. Taldren could even provide basic UI's and just skip any new artwork required for these races. Taldren could just have someone like Magnumman or Firesoul make a shiplist for them and the model community provide the needed models (I prefer Brezgonne's SFB Tholians personally).
If the Tholian and Andro Tech can be added to OP by Taldren, then GAW could be a perfect example of an SFC fan community creation. The community could provide the models, shiplists, and campaigns with the mod tools already available. Using the mission editors a series of fan-made single player missions could be put together to create single player campaigns telling the story of the Andro invasion and the Tholian conflicts (anyone remember Jim's SFC1 Hydran campaigns?...perfect example of what I'm saying).
I'm not a programmer, but just how hard would it be to add Web tech or Andro PA panels / displacement device to OP? Anyone care to take a shot at this question? Taldren? David?
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 17, 2003, 12:01:47 am
I think the next SFB-faithful game (which I hope will happen) needs more than just a few new races and more weapons. The Dynaverse itself needs a serious update. Especially the multi-player stabiity, the ability of the admin to control the shipyards, tighter admin ability to control which missions get offered in which hexes, and the and the ability of the admin to affect on-map AI behavior. I'd love for scouts to be able to see enemy icons two hexs away. I'd love all those leftover icons to stop cluttering the map.
If you need to take something from SFC3, the ability to form a "fleet" with allied players would be nice.And oh yes, Old Buzzard, I absolutely agree that I'd like to see you Feds get variable overloads for your photons. It really helps with their power management. Good call there. I'd like lots of other things too. I'd love to see bolted plasma torps, the full ECM game, reserve power, plasma sabot........ the list never ends. This game has so much room to grow.
-S'Cipio
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 17, 2003, 12:13:56 am
Quote:
I think the next SFB-faithful game (which I hope will happen) needs more than just a few new races and more weapons.
Oh yes I agree....if they do make an entirely new game, it'll have to be much more than the above.
But it seems like all we can hope for anytime soon is OP patches that add content. In that case I'll take what I can get.
Post by: Reverend on July 17, 2003, 01:02:26 am
Post by: Reverend on July 17, 2003, 01:31:08 am
Lets all petition Taldren for a open-source patch for OP...a final request... that'll give the ''hardcore" SFB fans ( you know who Im talking about) the room they need to mod themselves silly, since any patch forthe ultimate SFB game won't be good enough for them anyhow. Let us petition them for such a patch- universe bigger, extra races, interactive planets (oh, wait, isn't that what I was asking for?}, and a couple of extras that will be mentioned again, then the rest of us that only tolerated this series this long was becuase it was the ONLY, yes only, 3-D Star Trek game that allowed self-direction and allowed you to drive and shoot all by your little lonesome self, can move on. Finally.
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 17, 2003, 03:08:47 am
Quote:
the kind of attitude you are displaying Capt Chaos is a lot of what is killing the community.
...pardon me while I wipe the blood from my hands... (don't you hate it when it gets in the keyboard?)
Quote:
If took your idea of SFB only and took it to it's logical conclusion
Yes, yes, please do! That's all we're asking.
Quote:
i would tell you to stick to your game board
But a computer game is better (less arguments, yes?)
Quote:
you have EAW
Well, actually I have OP...
Quote:
but you do not need to waste the resources of Taldren on another EAW or SFB only game. That would be a travisty of the worse possible kind.
"Wasting their resources"? "Travesty"? Sorry, that's just too much attitude for me...
Quote:
But I'm not that type of person. I still think that the right answer is some where between the SFC-3 (which did away with SFB altogeather) and SFB extreamism ... which as a genreal rule will strangle what life there is left in the community to death.
To tell the truth, my idea of SFB is somewhere around the Commander's Edition along with the carrier/fighter and race supliments, circa, maybe, 1984 or so.
Doomsday is an overgrown cancerous tumor, IMHO. And the necessity to continue publishing new rules is what lead to that condition... Doomsday was sold to us as IT. The END. The FINAL WORD. It wasn't of course, just a new, and fabulously more complex jumping-off point for even more expansion. At this point, you have to be very freaky indeed to have the whole thing any where close to memorized... And THAT is what killed that community, at least for me.
SFC is something of a relief in that sense... Learning the game engine is so much easier than memorizing and arguing over something like the Doomsday rules (instead, we come here and argue over the game engine...)
So let me qualify myself: I want the game engine closer to SFB in 1984.
So far we have only partially achieved that state, and so in that sense we still have plenty of room to grow. I just want the thing to grow towards SFB (1984), not away from it.
And as for Trek Fandom, I have vivid memories of first seeing the Enterprise floating in its wierdly-lit, matte-space, on a Sunday afternoon some time in the early 70's... The first book I bought with my own money, (in the 3rd grade, at the school book fair) was Stephen Whitefield's 'The Making of Star Trek'. After that, I gobbled the show up. I also remember the excitement among my friends (who at the time had been working out their own 'space combat' rules) when we first got ahold of Alien Space, and then those little plastic bags of SFB itself... Then the movie came out (just a rip off of 'NOMAD', damn, couldn't they come up with something more original? Like a real war with the Klingons or Romulans?) Somewhere around the middle of Next Gen, I sort of lost interest in the show. It was just getting to be too much of a PC soap opera.
So I would have to say at this point, that I am much more a fan of SFC than of the shows themselves. And truthfully, much more of a fan of SFC than of SFB (at least of Doomsday...) I don't consider myself a 'Trek Fan'. I consider myself an old SFB'er who now plays SFC.
Chaos
Post by: Cleaven on July 17, 2003, 06:49:07 am
The other opinion seems to be that the boardgame is a flawed system that detracts from a potentially (but not actually) good PC game. Anybody who supports the implimentation of boardgame systems is therefore ruining whatever hope there is for a good game to be made out of a bad game. Efforts must be made to excise dice, hexes and turns (and the artifacts produced by them) from the game. Instead ideas from other games should be incorporated to improve SFC.
I don't see how to resolve these two opinions, because they lead in oppposite directions. One gets you a cross between Armada 3 and Bridge Commander 2 (ughh) and the other gets you SFB/F&E on the computer, with dice and hexmaps. Clearly I favour the latter, but more importantly people need to recognise that these two things cannot co-exist in the one game because they are clearly two separate games. It's hard enough to build and sell one good PC game, but to build two and put them in the same box? Surely this is madness in a commercial arena? So let the people in charge of TNG make their follow-on to all the other TNG games. And let the SFC series continue to add components and rules from the board game in an effort to come closer to the original concept.
Besides, I want my next game to be made by the people who made OP, not the people who made Armada and Bridge Commander (or the other BC <shudders>) .
Post by: Toasty0 on July 17, 2003, 07:13:07 am
Quote:
I don't see how to resolve these two opinions, because they lead in oppposite directions. One gets you a cross between Armada 3 and Bridge Commander 2 (ughh) and the other gets you SFB/F&E on the computer, with dice and hexmaps. Clearly I favour the latter, but more importantly people need to recognise that these two things cannot co-exist in the one game because they are clearly two separate games. It's hard enough to build and sell one good PC game, but to build two and put them in the same box? Surely this is madness in a commercial arena? So let the people in charge of TNG make their follow-on to all the other TNG games. And let the SFC series continue to add components and rules from the board game in an effort to come closer to the original concept.
Sorry to quote only a portion of your post Cleaven, but is is the above part that I wish respond to.
You state it is madness to combine two game types in one game. On the surface, even in an almost knee-jerk fashion I want to jump up and holler that you are correct. I would've done so up to about 4 weeks ago. Then I played Rise of Nation that combines RTS and TBS to create a very fine player campaign game.
After looking at this game from many different angles I conclude that it really isn't all that hard to combine genre and style (am I being redundant?) types as long as it's a fully synthesized(sp) seemless whole.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Cleaven on July 17, 2003, 07:26:13 am
Post by: Sethan on July 17, 2003, 08:35:53 am
Quote:
There couldn't have been a GAW due to licensing problems with Activision.
If there wasn't a TNG SFC, Taldren would have made some happy and went
the way of the dinosaur.
Saying there should have been GAW first is like saying "I wish I were a fish".
No argument from me. Taldren made the game someone would pay them to make. Nobody can fault them for that.
I'm just hoping someone will eventually pay Taldren to make GaW. That sales of SFC3 were not disappointing is good (and bad) news on that front - good because the people who bankroll such things may decide there is a future in another SFC - bad because they may decide it needs to happen in a SFC3 rather than a GaW style.
Hopefully once Activision weasels out from the Trek license, it will end up with someone who will allow / bankroll GaW. The cost of the Trek license should be lower at that point, which will help.
Whether there is a GaW or not, I'd love to see more (non-trek based) space games from Taldren. I don't know that the Honor Harrington universe idea ever went anywhere, but that would be high on my list.
Now i've just got to get a steady job so I can afford a copy of SFC3.
Post by: Reverend on July 17, 2003, 08:58:09 am
Post by: Sethan on July 17, 2003, 09:34:23 am
Quote:
I don't see how to resolve these two opinions, because they lead in oppposite directions. One gets you a cross between Armada 3 and Bridge Commander 2 (ughh) and the other gets you SFB/F&E on the computer, with dice and hexmaps. Clearly I favour the latter, but more importantly people need to recognise that these two things cannot co-exist in the one game because they are clearly two separate games. It's hard enough to build and sell one good PC game, but to build two and put them in the same box? Surely this is madness in a commercial arena? So let the people in charge of TNG make their follow-on to all the other TNG games. And let the SFC series continue to add components and rules from the board game in an effort to come closer to the original concept.
Got to agree with Toasty0, Cleaven. SFC and SFC2 did resolve the two opinions - and fairly well. Changes were made to make SFB's turn-based rules work in a real-time environment, and for the most part those changes work very well without hurting the game. For the most part, that is because (IMO), for the board game rules that would not translate into a real-time game, Taldren looked at the intent of what the SFB rules were trying to accomplish, and then designed a system that retained the intent of the SFB rule, even if the SFC system actually operated completely differently.
There are a number of rules in SFB that make sense from an 'in game universe' standpoint, that are clunky and difficult precisely because the game is turn based. Getting the same effect while changing the rule mechanics is something that Taldren did very well overall.
Even in an SFC2 based GaW, there is still room for Taldren to do more of that without hurting the flavor or balance of the game (and in fact, improving it). The trick is in knowing where it is OK to modify, and where things need to be left alone.
As others have said, from an SFC2 base, the area that has the most room for improvement is the Dynaverse. Scores of pages have been written about how the Dyna could be improved, and I won't repeat them here - but I am looking forward to seeing what Taldren does with the Dyna if we are able to get another SFC title.
Post by: TheSatyr on July 17, 2003, 11:24:13 am
I consider GAW to be a horse on life support. It's not quite a dead horse...but it's pretty close to being dead. Too many things have to happen for a GAW to be made.
As for the idea of an Expansion or patch to bring in andros and tholians...not real likely to ever happen. Who's going to pay Taldren to make either one? A patch would require new models,new artwork,new graphics...and they do have to pay people to create them.
An Expansion can only be done if they have a publisher willing to pay them to make one. Interplay might have been willing to to it,but they lost the licenses. Activision apparently doesn't even want an expansion to SFC3,so there is no way they'd pay for an expansion to a game by another publisher.
(And you know things are getting slow around here when the old Star Trek vs SFB arguements start up again.).
Post by: David Ferrell on July 17, 2003, 11:26:26 am
http://www.sfbonline.com/
or find someone to code what you want. A direct translation of SFB on
the computer with "no compromises" would be a horrendous failure,
considering the amount of money required to complete a modern
software project of this scope and the number of potential customers (IMO).
Thanks,
Dave
Listen... do you smell something?
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 17, 2003, 01:19:37 pm
Thanks, Dave.
You have access to more marketing data than I do, so I assume you've at least looked at the 'total conversion' idea, and rejected it due to lack of a potential market. You either trust that data or you don't. Do you know what the total estimated size of the SFB market is? Compared to, say total sales of EAW, are we talking a small fraction? Or a larger fraction? I'm curious what your numbers show...
If SFB online had a computer AI as an opponent, that would be great. That would be very close to the dream. I have no way to put a price tag on that sort of project, do you have a rough guess?
Chaos
Post by: Tulwar on July 17, 2003, 04:50:23 pm
Unfortunately, it was too successful, and someone had to stop or acquire it lest it be competion for their game system. Maybe Activision has come to see that SFC only has a niche audience and finds the license to TOS to be nothing more than a liablity. I doubt that's the case. If Activision thinks that any enterprise would draw a single customer away from their products, they will do everything on earth to stop it.Considdering the state of the license, I think Taldren should work on something Tadren can control the rights to. Taldren put an increadable amount of value into SFC. Whatever they work on, if left to their own devices, will definitely be worth having.
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 17, 2003, 05:43:05 pm
Quote:
Doomsday is an overgrown cancerous tumor, IMHO. And the necessity to continue publishing new rules is what lead to that condition... Doomsday was sold to us as IT. The END. The FINAL WORD. It wasn't of course, just a new, and fabulously more complex jumping-off point for even more expansion.
Doomsday (Captain's Edition) wasn't marketed as an end to expansion. It was marketed as the end to ADB's old practice of tinkering with the rules even when they weren't broken. As gamers lobbied for "neat" rules tweaks, commander's edition SFB got full of errata (which wasn't really errata, since it wasn't correcting errors) to the point that unless you were very active in the community you could never be sure the rules hadn't changed since your last game or (especially) convention.
Doomsday was sold in 1991 with a pledge that "This is IT. The game is now stable. From now on we will fill loopholes and fix errors, but no more tinkering for the sake of tinkering."
ADB has kept their word on this pledge and the game has remained remarkably stable ever since. Captain's Log magazine issues have often contained the phrase "Player X came up with a neat idea and in the old days we might have tried it out. But given the new policy, we can't."
New products still come out, but that's as it should be, IMHO. The SFB game covers from pre-Enterprise to well into TNG. Given that large a time frame, it still has lots of room to grow. Again, IMHO. Obviously your milage varies.
-S'Cipio
Post by: olbuzzard on July 17, 2003, 06:27:03 pm
Here is an example of somthing that I personally like very well.. ( but know it had to change) X-Ships !! Anyone who has been around me for very long knows of my fondness of the X-Class ships. But... if it helps matters continue to mover forward.. then they must be redesigned .... toned down before reinstituting..(yeah I know.. most of you think they are a joke any ways) But, to a degree that is my point. Many of us have differing opinions on ships, races to be utilized, game formats, map sizes, GSA or Dynaversa formats and a host of other things. Trying to find a common groud for all of is not going to be easy. I never said it would. BUT I do believe that it is a MUST !! If you want to find fault or pass judgement on me for that.. then so be it. Guilty as charged.
Consider this ... of all the copies of SFC-1, 2, OP and 3 that have been sold ... of those how many still are on line... and of those how many still hold to such a narrow, SFB only philisophy. In reality the numbers continue to grow smaller and smaller. That is not the sort of thing developers who will be willing to invest aprx 1/2 million or more want to see.
I will always maintain that what we are attempting to do is the best for everyone in a collective sense of the word. There's got to be a way... Please excuse me if we have been a bit rough around the edges in our discussion (olbuzzards have a tendency to be that way some times.) I guess that is why the name stuck as it did !!
AS ironic as this may sound... please continue this thread. But please try to let a crack of light in.
Thanks
Post by: Cleaven on July 17, 2003, 07:49:35 pm
Post by: Alidar Jarok on July 17, 2003, 08:55:06 pm
Using google, it didn't take me long to find Taldren's forums (I actually found Starfleet Universe first, and followed links to sfc3.net and taldren.com). Unfortunately, a few days after I had found Taldren's forums (before I had registered, though) the forums were taken down due to somebody posting porn (I'm sure most of you remember it, so there is no need for me to get into it). Anyway, for a liittle while, they wouldn't allow new members (which included me). Finally, they quietly lifted the ban, and I was allowed to join. Here I learned about SFB, and was convinced to try the Hydrans, Lyrans, Mirak, etc (which I never played because they weren't really Star Trek).
When SFC3 came out, it was a lot of fun. However, the game wasn't as fun as SFC2 (nestalgia I guess).
OK, I kind of whent away from the point I was trying to make. I had more fun playing in the SFB universe, but SFC3 did have some improvements I liked. I've always believed that GaW should have features from both SFC2 and 3 (obviously aimed more towards 2, since that is the time period). By features from SFC3, I don't mean "lack of features" (T-Bombs, Drones, etc), but actual features (I know reverse, and maybe officers, not sure, are part of SFB, so that's not what I'm talking about, but some features that were brand new and worked well)
Post by: TheSatyr on July 17, 2003, 09:27:57 pm
Post by: NannerSlug on July 17, 2003, 09:37:18 pm
i believe the core with that issue and a few others is detail, to put it simply. there are a few things i believe that could still be done in a patch for sfc3 that could add some detail and help out tremendously.. whether thats adding in a few more arcs or ships released by date (if they were to put in releasing ships by date then i would nearly have my dream trek game - cause you could do a tos-present mod)..
play wise, i think the weapons could be juiced a little more.. sure, heck, even add in a type of missile or so (might be interesting for tactical decisions - but note that none of the main races in star trek use missiles - i think the ferengi do - so i feel like they should be on the low end of the balance spectrum). i do miss t-bombs though.. i also think if the weapons were juiced just a bit more..
just a few thoughts.
Post by: olbuzzard on July 17, 2003, 09:46:57 pm
Can someone please check and make sure there is not an intruder using Nanners login eheheheheh hahaha hohohoho !!!
this is definately a Kodak moment !!!
Post by: TheSatyr on July 18, 2003, 02:31:46 am
The whole "you have to get the game out for Nemesis" thing hurt alot.
SFC3 is a good game,but I think Taldren's hands "may" have been tied by what Activision (and Viacom) wanted.
(Just guesses on my part...but that's how it looks from where I'm sitting).
Post by: Davey E on July 18, 2003, 09:26:25 am
Problem was it seemed far to complicated for someone like me who liked to shoot things up (1st person shooters anyone)
I,d never heard of SFB,
I was however eagerly awaiting KA (Klingon Academy) with baited breath, It looked tremendous, and it was for about 4 weeks, Nice shiny ships and brilliant explosions etc - But that was it - It was strategically and tactically crap
I then bought SFC2 EAW and sort of liked it,
I did,nt really understand the complexities that went behind such a simulation (not a game IMHO)
Then i saw my 1st SFB material and that was it - HOOKED, In my ignorance i cried "Oh if i could only play this on the PC)
When i realised i could - That was it - I fell in love with SFC, and everything to do with it (Yea, even the bugs
)This to me is what makes ST real, If the televsion series had used this material (SFB) as a perameter to work off, Then ST combat would of been brilliant, and not the at best above average fire and hope its ok material that it is
I bought SFC OP and the love story continued - This is amazing i told my friends, and many of them went on to purchase the game,
I looked for a clan/team that would enable me to takle part in a full scale scenario (eg: General War) We call ours the VG (Virtual Galaxy) and its great, I also thought the Dynaverse was very special as well
In my 2 years now in STOC (Starfleet Tactical Operation Command) or TOC for short,
I have realised now what a fantastic simulation the SFC series is and have spent many a late hour playing with my USA and european buddies etc
When SFC 3 came out, i like most people waited with baited breath,
When it was released and i played it for the 1st tiem, i was confused, There seemed nothing to base the movement, turn rates etc, It seemed like an unfinished product - More like a shoot em up with big spaceships, The more and more i played it, the more and more bored i became,
I found the combat sterile and uninspiring compared to SFC EAW and OP, and thus deleted it off my hard drive - What a dissapointment
IMHO,
SFC is SFB or it don,t work
You can call SFC TNG what you want, but its not a patch (and you ain,t even got one of those yet
) on 1 & 2Look at the numbers in the Gamespy lobby and se how many are on EAW compered to SFC3 now,
1 & 2 will be played a long time after SFC3 is dead,
I bought SFC3 because i wanted to help Taldren in the long run as they are the only chance we have of SFC GAW, However
I will NOT buy another SFC type of game that is not SFB based
Thats my Opinion - I take it i am entitled to it
Post by: RazalYllib on July 18, 2003, 07:37:20 pm
My take on the whole ST license thing was decided some time ago.
(btw 1984 was a good year for SFB)
When the first movies were made and the TNG series on the air,
I thought it was a shame that ADB material didnt make in.
(Imagine the replacement of the TNG background with the ADB material- Picard piloting CA at the beginning of
the General War before the Klingons invade, which happens at the end of Season #3
Season #4 ending the Romulan Invasion, Heck they could even be Present in Operation Calvery, or present
when the Macarthur crashes into to Remus...ah, what could have been)
The ADB Star Fleet Universe, is a unique version of the ST universe
and is a much more interesting place.
It should be kept pure and uncorrupted, and I hope this does not mean that
the movies and series would impact on indepedent ADB universe that
just happens to have the name Star Trek.
I belive that a legal point could be made, only by ADB btw, that all materials
produced by ADB under the name SFB,
is an original work eligiable for
award of a derivitive copyright.
SFB material is based soley on some not all material from TOS, and the work done by Franz Joseph
Designs. ADB bought the rights for that material-no doubt there, which they still have, and then developed
and invented original material from that point on. This occurred before the 1st ST movie was even contemplated.
You can look at as two independent time lines, the only simularities are a few names here and there; Taken
as a whole, there are more differences than simularitys. All ADB has to do is convince a Judge.
Then, the GAW folks will be in a much better position to get their hearts desire as far as licenseing issues are
concerned. Someone is bound to finance it.
I dont mind the "Official Star Trek Universe", it just seems a little bland for my tastes.
SFC3 is not all that bad, bit arcadey for my personal preferances, but overall a good job
especially the innate flexibilty in re: to player mods.
But I prefer OP.
I hope the legal wranglings do not impact on the potential for GAW should someone with the cash to pay for its developement and distribution costs comes forth out of the wilderness. They would probably have to grovel
and cough up unnessarry cash if they were not affiliated with Viacom and/or Activision. Which is quite a shame.
Majority of the ST fans I have encountered over the years have never heard of a Hydran or Lyran or Kzinti (cept for the Niven Fans) I related a couple storys, showed off a captains log with some good fiction in it. Like the one with the Klingon Vandel...been awhile. They were pleasantly surprised at how rich and detailed this little indepedent ST universe was.
If ADB had full rights to what I feel is their original material, despite was Viacom says, it would a good thing for all involved.
Post by: David Ferrell on July 18, 2003, 08:09:12 pm
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 18, 2003, 08:42:40 pm
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 18, 2003, 10:07:53 pm
Thanks for enlightening us on this a bit. I appreciate hearing from someone who has a better understanding on the two sides of the licensing argument between ADB and Paramount. Now if we could get the whole PC game licensing situation for Trek settled quickly that would be wonderful. I hope that when you used past tense to describe your love for SFB it wasn't intentional. I'm one of those still holding on to the thinnest of straws for a continuation of the SFB theme from Taldren.
BTW, the support that you at Taldren have continued to show us is commendable and appreciated beyond any words that I can find. Thanks again for the OP patch, and everything else you all have done.
Post by: olbuzzard on July 18, 2003, 11:25:27 pm
Over I agee with the idea of a class of ship that has access to some of the srtonger weapons between TOS and TNG. Once you get to TNG I think it is a good idea to be able to have a limited carry over from the past genereations as a type of refit that is still being used.
Heck we do that in RW in the Air Force and Naval aircraft. We just now retired the Battleship Missouri a few years ago. Soooo in my estimation it would not be unlikely to take some of the more popular ships and use them as a refit class ship (like the CLC for example) ... just another thought.. (BTW.. there are some Klingon, Rommie and other classics that would be available as well. That was just one example that I'm personally acquainted with)
As well ... returning to more that 4 races is a good idea. Klingon, Romulan, ISC, Gorn (just for example) with some from TNG woukld help move things in the right direction as well.
Post by: David Ferrell on July 19, 2003, 12:18:47 am
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 19, 2003, 03:08:36 am
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 19, 2003, 09:03:28 am
Quote:
Sorry about my previous post, my Tourette's syndrome was acting up again.
I saw nothing wrong with that post......it was totally on topic. Or perhaps your boss thought it was TOO on topic.
Post by: olbuzzard on July 19, 2003, 02:32:31 pm
funny thing.. this 40g had drive is almost full... found a great buy on a 120g by a major player in the industry for $125. Soooooo looks like we spend a little more cash in the next week or so.
Man i love this game !!! LOL !!!!!!
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 19, 2003, 03:39:02 pm
Post by: olbuzzard on July 19, 2003, 04:29:20 pm