Saw this over at Trekbbs. Intresting thing is that half way through it says that Activision was told that there was no current plans for films
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
The suits at Activision can kiss our fandom's @ss. "You must make more movies and series even if they'll be crappy so we can keep making equally crappy games!"??? God, what capitalistic idiots.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Activision's not saying "you have to keep making crappy movies", they're saying that Paramount is not meeting the terms and conditions of their contract, and thus they have terminated it and are seeking restitution.
I work in video game development, and I know what the contracts are like; there are usually perfomance gurantees. Activision probably paid a certain amount fore the rights to publish X games based upon Y amount of Star Trek product (say two movies in 5 years and a series or two) Paramount planned to make. Paramount was probably required to spend Z amount of advertising dollars on same. Ergo, if Paramount is not making more Trek films, and isn't putting sufficicent advertising muscle behind the properties it is making, then they're probablty in violation of it.
I worked on a Deep Space Nine video game some years ago, and I know how difficult it canm be to get needed materials at Paramount (I had to do an end run aroudn their legal and licensing department and call Rick Sternbach directly to get what we needed).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The interesting, or mildly interesting, thing, is that quantity is what's at stake, not quality. Enterprise isn't burning up the charts, but it does about as well as most of its peers. (Especially those on UPN and the WB.) Viacom allowed two Star Trek shows to go off the air? Well, I'm all for forcing more DS9 out of everyone involved, but I can't imagine that would be very healthy, creatively.
But! The real reason I wanted to post was to make the following snarky comment/prediction: Viacom buys Vivendi's holdings in the computer game industry. Hooray for vertical integration!
I suppose in retrospect that isn't so snarky. "OK Blizzard, you're working for us now. Is there some way we can get Klingons in StarCraft II?"
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Thanks Mr. Neutron for giving us your analysis of the situation between Activision and Paramount and also thanks for the link to your web site regarding your experiences with the development of "Deep Space Nine: Crossroads of Time." It's very interesting reading.
Pity about the falling out between Activision and Paramount, does that mean that we won't see a "Bridge Commander 2" or an "Elite Force 3"? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No Armada 3? Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
There shouldn't have been a 2.
Shuddering.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Armada 2 rocks! It's great to send dozens of starships to their doom without getting a court martial!
Fun to wipe out freinfs online too. Posted by Anduril (Member # 654) on :
That's almost too funny.
Activision pulling a lawsuit on someone for not maintaining the value of the name it bought the rights too.
Like they have been keeping the value up...
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
This is a very interesting issue, though. And will only increase in complexity and confusion as video games rise in prevailance and the line between media forms blurs. Like, in a situation like this, where now it's kind of a one-sided dependance by Activision on Viacom, in the future, it will be a synergystic relationship between the two, and each part will help the other.
But, crazy fantasy? Blizzard working for Vivendi working for Viacom? Though Blizzard is too classy for liscensing.
BUT: A CRAIG KILBORNE TURN BASED GAME?!?!!?!!?!?!!
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
What was the Nemesis tie-in game they speaketh of? SFC3?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Imagined scenerio, re: UM speculation: McG, fresh from his Oscar win for directing Charlie's Angels 3: Fast Fast Bright Good, signs on to direct Doom: The Motion Picture. (Starring Colin Farrel as The Doom Guy and Anthony Hopkins as the Cyberdemon.) But during the intensive nine month shoot, ID puts out Doom IV and no one buys it because gamers are fickle and maybe John Carmack has been replaced by Romero in some sort of freak accident. Does the movie studio have a case against them? It is interesting to ponder.
Extra-snarky sidenote: If anyone has a case for an abandonment of quality and/or quantity claim, it is DC Comics. "The '70s Show star is Warner Brothers' first choice, but not that of director Christopher Nolan, the site reported." Suspected understatement award.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Keep in mind while reading this that companies are more likely to file complaints/lawsits like this during times of recession because profits are so thin.
Until the facts are heard in court, we really don't know which party is being truthful here or if Activision's claims have merit. Perhaps Activision is really trying to renegotiate its contract with Paramount as Paramount claims.
Also keep in mind that it might be an attempt by members of Activision's legal department to keep their jobs during a time of position eliminations and layoffs.
Just take everything you hear at this point with a grain of salt and try not tp be too judgemental until all the facts are revealed. Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Wow whats with all the hate? Activision has published some of the best Trek games to date.
Armada Armada 2 Bridge Commander Starfleet Command 3 Elite Force Elite Force 2 Invasion
Hell, Hidden Evil wasnt TERRIBLE. Had a great story.
That only leaves Away Team as the Activision Trek-game "dud". The rest sold pretty well.
The real problem here is that most of you sound like you are Trek fans before gamers, so you let some of the little pointless things (omg the soverign turns to fast, omg the imod isnt canon) get in the way of the game.
Im definitely see myself as a gamer before a trek fan.
If activisions suit forces Paramount to make a good trek movie, then so be it. I wont complain
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
DUBAL POST!11
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Invasion was like watching "Mama's House." Forever. While sitting on a naked Carrot Top's lap.
All the while being shot in the face. With a bazooka.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Invasion was Colony Wars but set in the trek universe, whats there NOT to like?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Surely someone who was into the games first and the media tie-in aspect second wouldn't waste their time with most Star Trek games. Because has there ever been a game about a movie or TV show or Aerosmith album that was better than a similar game without such a tie-in? No.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Revolution X because music is the weapon. {pistolwink}
I finished Starfleet Academy on my Mac. Sometimes it was annoying, but mostly I had fun.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So many misspent quarters...
Anyway, some examples of what I was thinking:
Max Payne is in every way a superior game to Enter the Matrix.
StarCraft is better than New Worlds. Or the notorious Age of Empires clone that is Galactic Battlegrounds. Though for this I guess I should just say that Age of Empires II is superior, but I wanted to haul out the big gun, which for me is StarCraft, but let's quickly admit that there is room for many games and many opinions in this slot, so as to head off the perhaps inevitable Total Annihilation fan rant.
I'd say, in my personal experience, the only Star Trek games which have actually been really good games first have been the two original series adventures (Star Trek: 25th Anniversary and Judgment Rites) and Elite Force, though the latter's debt to Half-Life is of course clear and obvious to all.
Now I am getting sidetracked, because man were those Interplay adventures good. I had to call the tip line often, because I was a moron, and I never finished the first one due to that climactic battle between the Enterprise and that crazy guy's (stolen? reverse-engineered?) Constitution, equipped with ROMULAN PLASMA TORPEDOES that quickly reduced my shields to nothing, not to mention his two friends in their speedy little pirate ships. But they were still great, great games.
I'm sure someone will mention A Final Unity, which I bought but never got working for some reason, I think because I had a 486SX and it required a 486DX, and what could I do about but stare lovingly at the box and eventually move on with my life? And of course the less said about every Trek adventure game after it the better, but by this time the genre was already dying.
(Were I to render judgment on AFU, my complaint would be that, the few times I actually did manage to play it somewhere, the game always felt mildly schizophrenic, with a space combat system that felt way out of touch with the rest of the game, but what do I know, nothing, not even enough to read the miniumum requirements on the side of a box.)
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
TOTAL ANNIHILATION SI BETTAR TAHN STARCRAP!11!!`1~!!
And, uh, the only Trek games that have had the distinction of being installed on my harddrive, by me:
-Birth of the Federation (Master of Orion! With Defiant-class warships and QANTAUM TOPRDEOES! Though it was infested with more bugs than Klendathu and an interface eerily reminiscent of Microsoft's early Windows experiments)
-Elite Force (Guns! And a storyline! And aliens!)
-Elite Force: THE SEQUEL! (More guns! And a storyline! And more aliens!)
-Klingon Honor Guard (Disruptors! And Klingons! And Bath'leths!)
-Klingon Academy (BIGGER disruptors! And more Klingons! And cloaking devices!)
-Starfleet Command (PAHSARS! And even more Klingons! And a storyline)
-Armada (RTS! In space! With more Defiant-class warships and more QANTAUM TOPRDEOES! Though Homeworld got there first, and implemented the 3D aspect better)
-Bridge Commander (EVEN MORE QANTAUM TOPRDEOES!! And TEH BIGGETS DISPURTROS EVAR!! And a storyline)
Sooo... three from Interplay, one from Microprose, three from Activision, and one from The Company Founded By The Man Who Wrote X-Wing! But, but, but... if I had to pick ONE game to rule them all, my choice would be Elite Force I. Because it's, like, Half-Life in uniform!
Oh, and the adventures sucked. 8)
[ July 04, 2003, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
When I was a young, young child in the days that were 1996, for my third birthday, I received "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Harbinger."
Now, let me tell you, that was one enjoyable game, by virtue of me being three, and it being the first Star Trek game I'd played. The voices and the atmosphere of being on the Station, AN FARST PARSAN, were just altogether too much for school.
But then, something happened to it where I could not load the second CD! It was like God himself reached his fucking arm through, just to hold me down, just t-t-t-to hold me down.
I have not gone and tried to replay that ever, for I know some memories are best kept as they are, and not shattered by the disasterous hand of reality and disappointment.
I then went on the end up playing every other Star Trek game ever, excepting Pinball, and any of those Starship Creators. And they were all poopy. Generations? LIKE LICKING A CACTUS. But, I have not played "SFC3" as the kids say, or anything released from now until the end of infinity, but I am sure that they will never be as fun, as say, Mortyr.
I hope the Star Trek games are not one big Romero in the annals of history.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I once got Honor Guard on my birthday. But my dad kept the receipt, and said I could change it for another game. Knowing that Trek games are usually shit with a capital I, I got Discworld 2 instead. Which got me hooked on Terry Pratchet's work. Which was nice.
(You see.. an entire post without fanspeak in capital letters. I rock!)
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: When I was a young, young child in the days that were 1996, for my third birthday, I received "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Harbinger."
So what, that makes you like 10 now?
I, for some reason, hated Harbinger (at least for the old Sega Genesis). Then I got the TNG Genesis game which was alright...but for whatever reason I could never beat.
My big game for a while was the SF Command for the Super Nintendo (this was before I got into computer games). I loved that game and the one on one battles, to this day my lil sister is still not keen on Star Trek.
Then I got into computers, and got "Warcraft II" which I thought was God-sent. My first Trek game was "Birth of the Federation", which I never had a problem with. "Armada" was good too, a Trek variation of "Warcraft/Starcraft" only with ships!
Other games I have that come to mind are:
"Elite Force": Which I think sucks, especially after all the play I had prior to buying it with "Counterstrike" and "Metal of Honor".
"SFC: Orion Pirates": Which thinks I suck.
"ST: Borg": Which I just bought for $5 but haven't pursued yet.
ahh..and good ole "Dominion Wars" was a damn good game too, like a sooped up version of "SFC" or whathaveya....and I hated that "Starship Creator: Warp II" that came with it...blah!
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
A belated thought: I doubt there's anything in the contract that forbids Viacom from running the (THEIR) franchise into the ground, so this claim is laughable at best...
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I wonder if they will ever work at targetting the core fans and find out what we really want to spend money on. Not likely with B&B in charge.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Who cares about the core fans? The occasional viewer and kids are a much easier audience.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
B&B and the marketing folks at Paramount certainly don't. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That's for sure! I can't imagine anyone more responsible for the awfulness of Hidden Evil than Brannon Braga and Rick Berman. Who else could be? TV producers are the most important part of video game design.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Just throwing out an idea here...
At least in the short term, Paramount has been shown to be receptive to ideas presented in mass mailings (extending TOS one more season).
Why not send a mass letter (email) regarding the benefits of having advisors on the 'board' who are expert in the mythos/technos of Trek - thus keeping can from becoming cannon-fodder.
M*A*S*H had medical doctors as advisors. Other shows have done similr things - and I believe that early Trek movies had science advisors.
I'm talking about Trek-hostory and Treknology advisors.
Worth at least a few stamps/emails, don't you think?
I think I'd nominate Bernd & Mr. Neutron to start.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I remember we discussed this very idea about, ooh, five and a half years back on about the original incarnation of these Forums. I had a really good argument as to why it wouldn't work: damned if I can remember it now!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Every fan fiction story ever written suffices, I think.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: Just throwing out an idea here...
At least in the short term, Paramount has been shown to be receptive to ideas presented in mass mailings (extending TOS one more season).
That wasn't Paramount...that was NBC.
quote: Why not send a mass letter (email) regarding the benefits of having advisors on the 'board' who are expert in the mythos/technos of Trek - thus keeping can from becoming cannon-fodder.
To quote John Adams in 1776: "Benefits? What benefits?" Benefits for hardcore fans, maybe, but how would it benefit the average viewers or, more important to Paramount, ratings? What would be Paramount's incentive to do it? They would have to spend more time (=money) on the scripting, etc. without seeing any practical upside for them (it is a business after all). Don't get me wrong, I hate it when fictions violate their own continuity, but I don't see how to make a compelling case for this to Paramount.
I think a better case to Paramount is that they've got massive creative burnout on their Trek shows and that the ratings get weaker show after show, so the answer is not to "reinvent" the franchine one more time (they seem to lose more audience the further they get away from the source), but to get fresh blood in there and bring a fresh approach to the proven value of the franchise.
Hell, if they gave me the chance to make a Star Trek show I'd piss off everyone here because I'd start over and remake TOS with new actors and updated stories (and damn continuity with everything made before because I'd start it over at square one and make sure it established its own internal consistency and rules and stuck to them)! Just as they remake and recast Sherlock Holmes stories and even James Bond. The value in a franchise is in the known, the established, and that you don't have to educate the audience. That's in part why people still go see James Bond instead of other no-name spy flick, etc. Given this marketing reality, it's remarkable that Paramount even let's Berman, etc., throw out Kirk, Spock and company -- literally iconic and known the world over. Why not do like most other film franchises on Earth and recast and remake and build on what you know works instead of making up an endless stream of forgettable misfire characters like Sisko, Janeway, Kim, Neelix, et al (with apologies to any fans of them)?
Oh, I'm, gonna get it for that paragraph...
quote: M*A*S*H had medical doctors as advisors. Other shows have done similr things - and I believe that early Trek movies had science advisors.
The problem with "advisors" is no one listens to them anyway. Most people in fields like that take the "license" part of "creative license" a little too literally.
Heck, these are the same shows that can't even get the orientation of the Golden Gate Bridge right!
quote: I think I'd nominate Bernd & Mr. Neutron to start.
Thanks, but, oh, they'd hate me! I'd yell at them to use real science and stuff (horrors)! (In 1989 I wrote a TNG spec script featuring hulk of the ol Doomsday Machine, where I got the mathematical formula for neutronium density, figured out the volume of the device, and figured out it's gravity alone would destroy planets, deactivated or not (the story originated from that)! I should just toss that script on my website...)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
1986
Star Trek: The Promethean Prophecy, on 2 5.25 floppys
from even earlier, who can forget the rollicking good times of STARTREK.EXE and the 10 by 10 galaxy. it came on the same floppy as Return to Kroz * *
* KLINGONS HAVE ENTERED THE QUADRANT
you brats are spoiled
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
1978.
At the prompt, run BASIC.EXE
At THAT prompt...LOAD "STARTREK" RUN
I remember the may nights spent honing my BASIC skills majorly modifying that game to allow for thinks like promotion, sounds, & actual time dilation. Not to mention TNG speeds & lots of weaponry. LOTS,...of weaponry.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i believe that was a modification of the same game that later became the EXE file, cuz i had a few BASIC variants too.. if i recall correctly, its also the same game that, before monitors were commonplace, was played at a naval computer lab to the extent where all of the men were prohibited from using STARTREK because it would print a report for every move and was literally wasting reams of paper weekly. (this sordid story was told to me by the grizzly old man (of the type who sells software) who sold it to me at the flea market when i was 6 or so)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
*