StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/startrek ... k%20legacy

Looks like all us reviewers and saying this game bites.

In my opinion when the game is heavily modified in the near future with star wars ships integrated accurately in the game it should be really fun.

3 tie fighters taking down a galaxcy class star ship should be fun.

I'll wait for some real reviews to come out, rather than a bunch of player reviews. Doesn't look promising though.

The game's interface is an excelent mix between that of Bridge Commander and Starfleet Command III. Unfortunately, it's very choppy.

The official forums (indeed) are full of complaints, ranging from multiplayer that does not work at all even following an immediate patch to bug upon bug be it in gameplay or graphics. So far, it isnt looking so good. Can't speak from experience though, I'm waiting for the 360 version.

God damn, what is it with Star Trek games? Why is it so hard for anyone to release a complete, working Star Trek game?

That said, I'm glad I put this on my Christmas list so that I won't have to spend any money on it.

Uraniun235 wrote:God damn, what is it with Star Trek games? Why is it so hard for anyone to release a complete, working Star Trek game?

That said, I'm glad I put this on my Christmas list so that I won't have to spend any money on it.

The laws of gaming says that anything Star Trek or Star Wars sucks buy default with one or two great games now and then.

Just wait a while before buying anything based on a TV/Movie license

Uraniun235 wrote:God damn, what is it with Star Trek games? Why is it so hard for anyone to release a complete, working Star Trek game?

From what I recall, they used to, but most of them date back to before the Pentium revolution...

They were also all point and click adventures, and we know what happened to them.

There's a DS/PSP Star Trek game that's merely average, rather than bad, if you really must though.

No, they had a number of space combat games and exploration.

Mind you the main thing though was that they were memorable and good.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:God damn, what is it with Star Trek games? Why is it so hard for anyone to release a complete, working Star Trek game?

From what I recall, they used to, but most of them date back to before the Pentium revolution...

Ah, 25th Anniversary and Judgment Rites. Awesome games.

But yes, the 21st century appears to not be a good time for good, decently not-buggy Star Trek games.

need4spd wrote:In my opinion when the game is heavily modified in the near future with star wars ships integrated accurately in the game it should be really fun.

3 tie fighters taking down a galaxcy class star ship should be fun.

Dear god. N00bs detected, cover your asses.

Frankly, anyone who didn't see this coming was fooling themselves. ST games fail as much as SW games, with one notable difference: crap SW games are sometimes fun. They might not be very 'SW-y', they might shit on the source or have deeply lame 'the evil sith x' plots, but they're fun. ST games... aren't.

Remember when they made SFC3, and basically took everything out that made SFC good? Who needs accurate fire arcs, just use generalised ones! Who'll know?

Stark wrote:Remember when they made SFC3, and basically took everything out that made SFC good? Who needs accurate fire arcs, just use generalised ones! Who'll know?

What.

Oh yes. They're even all SMALL, so no 'cover the whole front and a little to either side' arcs. Certainly no 'fire back between the nacelles' bits. And they're all preset, not set-down arcs, so it's really hard to mod it in.

Think 'dumbed down' and you're there.

Stark wrote:Oh yes. They're even all SMALL, so no 'cover the whole front and a little to either side' arcs. Certainly no 'fire back between the nacelles' bits. And they're all preset, not set-down arcs, so it's really hard to mod it in.

Think 'dumbed down' and you're there.

Which isn't too far from TNG anyway.



I'm trying to say TNG was dumb.

At least they took missiles out? LOL!

But you know the 'drive through each other' thing? That's stupid enough by default, but imagine a First Contact battle with a Borg cube... where due to laughably short weapon ranges half your fleet is INSIDE the cube. WHERE IT COUNTS.

Uraniun235 wrote:God damn, what is it with Star Trek games? Why is it so hard for anyone to release a complete, working Star Trek game?

I'm guessing that it's because a ST/SW/movie/tv-show/sequel/etc game has a large, built-in fan base who will get the game even if it sucks.

Uraniun235 wrote:That said, I'm glad I put this on my Christmas list so that I won't have to spend any money on it.

Case in point.


Making the game fun/stable/etc will cost a lot more, but probably won't bring in that many more buyers. Hence, it's in the company's logical best interest to make cheap games, even if they suck. Likewise, it's in the companies best interest to make it easy for non-fans to get into (even if it's not true to the source material) because they think it will bring in more non-fans.

It's bad in the long term because over time fewer and fewer "fans" will actually buy the games in the series, but TPTB behind each particular game will to make the choices that net them the most money right now.

I think that that also happened to the ST shows over time. When faced with a choice of something that made the hard-core fans happy vs. something that was either cheaper or brought in new viewers, they tended to choose the latter because they knew that the hard-core fans would watch anyway. And over time a lot of the hard-core fans started dropping out.


That's all just my own opinion--I don't have any hard data to back any of those claims up.

But that thinking is wrong. People play good games regardless of brand: it's 'brandthink' that has led them into the terrible place they are today. If they made a game that DIDN'T SUCK, people would play it. Pandering to your base with substandard games is just stupid.

CelesKnight wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:God damn, what is it with Star Trek games? Why is it so hard for anyone to release a complete, working Star Trek game?

I'm guessing that it's because a ST/SW/movie/tv-show/sequel/etc game has a large, built-in fan base who will get the game even if it sucks.

Uraniun235 wrote:That said, I'm glad I put this on my Christmas list so that I won't have to spend any money on it.

Case in point.

I put it on my list after I'd seen the gameplay videos and before I'd heard about these bugs, and I distributed the list before this thread got posted.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:God damn, what is it with Star Trek games? Why is it so hard for anyone to release a complete, working Star Trek game?

From what I recall, they used to, but most of them date back to before the Pentium revolution...

Ah, 25th Anniversary and Judgment Rites. Awesome games.

But yes, the 21st century appears to not be a good time for good, decently not-buggy Star Trek games.

I don't think a trek game in the past 10 years has managed to come close to the greatness of those two games. Though... the TNG adventure game was pretty cool; I don't think the adventure part was as good, but I think the ship-to-ship combat was pretty sweet; maybe better than bridge commander. Wonder if I still have any of those disks... hrm

Best ones I've played were Armada I and Klingon Academy.

I keep forgetting, was Klingon Academy the all FMV game? I played that, and it wasn't that good from what I recall.

No, I think you're thinking of "Klingon". Klingon Academy was the starship sim "sequel" to Starfleet Academy.

It wasn't all FMV, but it had lots of FMV. It was neat, but rushed, and it's bugged, unbalanced and ugly these days. They dumbed it down and made Bridge Commander.

Oh? I loved Starfleet Academy, hrm...

It's not THAT ugly. It's a slut to get working without lag on modern hardware, though.