OK, Bridge Commander is out, but I've got a 5 page essay and a 12 page paper due in two weeks, and ontop of that I'm not likely to get any work done this weekend.
So should I get the game tomorrow or what? Posted by Jack_Crusher (Member # 696) on :
I played the demo, the graphics are great, but the interface and other stuff is sh*t, so don't waste your money and don't buy this game.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er...David has played the demo too, as covered in the appropriate thread.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
David, i'm going to wait a couple of weeks. if a mod doesn't come out in a two week time span that fixes the problem with the photon torpedoes and the overly powerful BOP, then i will wait until the game hits it's first price cut before i buy it. if a mod DOES come out in the first couple of weeks, then i will forgo groceries for a week and go out and buy it at regular first run retail price. after playing the demo and then playing A Final Unity on a DOS emulating Linux box, and unaltered Bridge Commander doesn't seem worth full retail, IMHO.
--jacob
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Yeah, I've been trying to get the damn ship stats off the people at the BC forum, but no one wants to tell me.
I have very little intention of buying the game, if the ships are the way they were during the demo. If they weren't, well... God I hate school, interfering with my gaming and all.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
The game is awesome, the ships are pretty much exactly like the demo, which where pretty well done.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
the ship balance in the demo sucked. period.
--jacob
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by EdipisReks: the ship balance in the demo sucked. period.
--jacob
Always look on the bright side of life...
Well, someone with a brain will come up with a balancing mod, eventually.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
really? i thought they were pretty ballenced, not according to trek, but for the game (to make it fun).
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
A Final Unity was super accurate and it was fun as hell! accuracy and game balance are not mutually exclusive! the BOP is a weak ship. there is no need to make it really powerful to "enhance game play value". the galaxy class can fire 10 torpedoes. a warbird (which is way too weak in the game, by the way) is still a match for a galaxy class despite this because it has really powerful disruptors. do the janes military sim games make crappy vehicles stronger for "game balance"? a BMP would never be given the same frontal armor as an M1A2 tank! that is basically what happened to the BOP. would an apache helicoptor have the cannon's rate of fire dropped so that soviet bloc vehicles have a better chance of survival? HELL NO! that is bascially what happened to the galaxy class. no onw would think of screwing with the stats of real vehicles for "fun and game balance". star trek should be treated the same way the military games are.
--jacob
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh...I seem to remember a slight difference between your examples, but I can't imagine what it could be.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
David Templar,
If this is your "Profound Ethical Dilemma", then you have a very blessed life. Others might see a PED as wheter to pay for medicine or food if they are elderly and living on assisted living, to decide between being a good corporate employee or blowing the whistle on fraudelent behavrior, or killing helpless children and women or deciding to help those children and women to escape to safer havens.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
For crying out loud TE, must you *always* be so damned negative about everything? Lighten up for once, will ya? Or find yourself a sense of humor. Or the ability to relativate certain comments. Or the capacity to recognise a joke.
Take your pick, I don't care.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by targetemployee: David Templar,
If this is your "Profound Ethical Dilemma", then you have a very blessed life. Others might see a PED as wheter to pay for medicine or food if they are elderly and living on assisted living, to decide between being a good corporate employee or blowing the whistle on fraudelent behavrior, or killing helpless children and women or deciding to help those children and women to escape to safer havens.
Seriously, you must have no life whatsoever. It was obviously a joke.
Either that or your a fucking bible-beater.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by EdipisReks: A Final Unity was super accurate and it was fun as hell! accuracy and game balance are not mutually exclusive! the BOP is a weak ship. there is no need to make it really powerful to "enhance game play value". the galaxy class can fire 10 torpedoes. a warbird (which is way too weak in the game, by the way) is still a match for a galaxy class despite this because it has really powerful disruptors. do the janes military sim games make crappy vehicles stronger for "game balance"? a BMP would never be given the same frontal armor as an M1A2 tank! that is basically what happened to the BOP. would an apache helicoptor have the cannon's rate of fire dropped so that soviet bloc vehicles have a better chance of survival? HELL NO! that is bascially what happened to the galaxy class. no onw would think of screwing with the stats of real vehicles for "fun and game balance". star trek should be treated the same way the military games are.
--jacob
First off, Jane's is a simulation. This is not based off real life, so therefore theres nothing to be 'real' about it.
Its a fun game, if you want to fucking cry about how inaccurate shit is you can go over in that corner with all the other comicbook-guy clones. And complain about how something is the "Worst Episode Ever"
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i don't get it. everyone fucking beats off when anyone from the art department of star trek is contacted, and everyone treats star trek like a consistant system and complains if enterprise shows something that doesn't quite fit in with continuity. however, instead of being self consistant you fucking jump down anyone's throat when they make the same observations about a star trek product other than the show. how is bridge commander anything less of a simulation than US Navy Fighters, or Apache Longbow? if star trek isn't worth having a sim than you can't ever complain about continuity. i mean, come on, it's not even fucking real! besides, just from the context of general gaming, you should be concerned with the fact that the game is a regression. a much older game (A Final Unity) was much more accurate, and imho more fun, than a much newer games. other games get slammed when they aren't as good as older games (look at every fucking first person shooter since half-life), but just because it is a star trek game the developers get felated. how can you complain about continuity in star trek when you don't even have continuity within your own arguments? if you are happy with bridge commander, then fine, but don't be a prick and jump down the throat of anyone who isn't. otherwise, you are no better than a fanboy who goes berserk when their favorite show gets criticized in any way.
[edited for spelling]
--jacob
[ March 01, 2002, 06:45: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Ooh, profanity. Well, I'm convinced this is an adult conversation worthy of staying open now.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
yeah, like you never use profanity in your posts like most 21 year old college students, i use profanity in daily language. the old addage about those who use profanity lacking vocabulary/intelligence/maturity just shows a lack of sufficient argument on the side of the addage user. case in point: read the above posts.
--jacob
[ March 01, 2002, 14:41: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er...no, I don't.
And in case you didn't get my subtle hint, this is the silliest thread since a prior tread which was very silly indeed.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
When someone walked a very obscene distance to a silly place, would be what you are referring to, no?
[ March 02, 2002, 00:07: Message edited by: Ultra Magnus ]
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by EdipisReks: i don't get it. everyone fucking beats off when anyone from the art department of star trek is contacted, and everyone treats star trek like a consistant system and complains if enterprise shows something that doesn't quite fit in with continuity. however, instead of being self consistant you fucking jump (clip)
Wow.. you spent too much time on that post. Waayy too much time...
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
it might be a silly thread, but i would appreciate it if people didn't jump other people for expecting quality in a game, especially one that claims to be an accurate representation of a fairly consistant universe. and why is it that profanity is not called out in other threads? are you just prejudiced against misspelled greek tragic heroes?
--jacob
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Wow, even I didn't expect the topic to stray this far when I started the thread. Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
Hmm... how strange...
As for continuity, if a fictitious world has no continuity, it loses the elements which tie it to reality, and soon the fans lose interest. (it'll happen eventually, Star Trek is just too good in other areas for it to happen immediately)
My sister hates the new Star Trek because they went backwards instead of forwards.
Now, as for the game, if it can't be true to the show, and the tech manuals, it doesn't deserve to be entitled Star Trek. In any event, I don't like that universe enough to buy any new games based on it. Final Unity was IT for me. (after the misuse of the Prime Directive at the end of that game, I decided never again to buy another trek game)
Ahh well, somehow Star Wars has managed to keep more continuity than Star Trek! (at least until Episode I came around, but they have a chance to fix that one... Bail Antilles instead of Bail Organa, and N-1 fighters with shields, when the later TIE Fighters are not equipped with those... The non-use of battle droids in the later movies can be accounted for by droid distrust.)
Oh well, I'll just stick with the original space simms. Next time I have some decent cash in my pocket, I'll go get Homeworld.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
bah... i didnt care that much for its accuracy to the Trek universe, i would rather they balance the game out and make it fun.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Incidently, grandstanding aside, has anyone gotten the game yet?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
There are currently a little over eight-and-a-half hours of Star Wars to stay consistent. I'm not even going to try to figure out how much Trek there has been...
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
TSN: that doesn't matter. After all, you don't need to rewatch all 600 hours of Star Trek to get the BoP's specs right. You just gotta be smart; come to these forums and ask, or check some of the better websites. And credit the people involved.
The Star Wars publications are NOWHERE near where they should be in terms of accuracy. The West End Games messed up a lot of the specs and ship proportions during the years they held the license. Nowadays, things have improved a bit, but you have yet to find an official publication that correctly scales an Executor-class star destroyer (they went from five miles to a compromise of eight miles, although the actual figure is 11 miles).
[ March 22, 2002, 20:27: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
I... acquired... the game, its fun, but theres a mission I cant beat. They put you in a single galaxy-class vs 3 galor-class ships.
and you have to protect a station picard is on...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Boris: But, when you only have eight hours to deal with, there's a good chance you won't have to refer to anything to stay consistent. When you're dealing w/ nine movies, a three-season TV show, and three seven-season TV shows, it's a lot easier to forget a particular detail and screw it up.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
a final unity got all of the tech stuff right. why can't a game with a much bigger budget do the same?
--jacob
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
TSN: the Star Wars consistency standard has been set very high with the analyses of Robert Brown, Curtis Saxton, Brian Young, Mike Wong and others. Saxton has a PhD in astrophysics and uses that knowledge to observe and describe the properties of planets in the Star Wars universe, set physical limits to Death Stars etc. Mike Wong also has a degree in Applied Sciences, IIRC. Robert Brown uses his experience as a Kendo swordsman to analyse Jedi fighting styles.
They are strict canonists, in the sense that official material is acceptable only after it has satisfied onscreen evidence and real physics/biology/astrophysics/deck-plan design. This is definitely more than is done with Star Trek -- while we do microanalyze things like kitbash ships, we still rely on the official sources to provide the basic chronology, for instance.
We also assume that the official ways of explaining warp drive and tractor beams with technobabble is the way to fill in the blanks, as opposed to researching real physics and finding far-fetched theories that could do the job. Of course, few of us are scientists that are able to do that -- but it still is possible for anyone to at least fix the chronology in a way that's more consistent with the canon.
Sure, we also have a lot more footage to analyse, and it takes longer to bring everything in line with canon. But more realism may help -- although we do research real warships and navies from time to time, we really need more of that. After all, how long do you think the producers would hold on to their official theories if a real physicst came to them, analyzed canon evidence in detail, and derived some kind of an explanation? I'm not sure that Andre Bormanis does this very well -- he needs to be a lot more observant and analytical about the show.
[ March 23, 2002, 20:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Um...does he? Do we? I'm pretty sure what you've just described is to fun as drowning in the Arctic is to a refreshing cold drink.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I had a more detailed explanation here, but I think it's enough if I say that fun doesn't always equal excellence, and that excellence should be at least required from the people who are paid to do their jobs on Star Trek (starting with the executive producers who set the tone for the whole thing, and then the writers).
I also suppose that Michael Jordan or Gary Kasparov got far in their respective games (after all, what we're doing here is just a game) by simply relaxing and having fun.
[ March 24, 2002, 08:37: Message edited by: Boris ]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)