StarControl Forums
Using no more than 5 descriptors, what do you think is the most appealing thing about Star Control?
I'll start:
1. Non-Linear story
2. Great writing
3. Exploration
4. Great music
5. Memorable characters
What about you guys?
Sure i made no point of knowing MoO2 at all, i insisted i don't. But there is a reason why i don't.
Everything is pretty much stationary, the only thing that put a mild smile on my face were those churning like black holes on the map, and the technology, Nothing else moved. no real interaction with the ships/aliens and universe. poor graphics.
When i fired up Star Control vs firing up MoO2, i stopped playing a few hours within MoO2 when it was released. With Star Control i kept coming back, playing it for years and years, and still do.
If the devs are bringing the topic to light, like mentioned Star Control should not be changed into something different, or it will not be that great anymore, they can make a MoO on it's own if there's a fan base for that, but i cannot possibly see how it can better whatsoever an already Brilliant working Star Control game which i already mentioned is a Master genre that others can only try and follow.
Things like open world games such as No Mans Sky, and some of my favourites, Osiris and Star Citizen comes closest, though we would not entirely compare apples with apples then, they are FPV, but the feeling of exploration and discovery is one aspect that they shared.
No man's is a very good concept, but a never ending grind with no goal, or history in the universe. Osiris was more evolved, still not perfect and all the crafting takes much of the enjoyment, just a little crafting will be good not too much.
But FB nailed it when he said they are making Star Control's universe alive and with deep rooted history and culture.If they can make the words match up with the gameplay and the experience as a player, it will be brilliant. So let's hope they get it right.
...which says nothing at all about the game; this argument is 100% superficial.
And I still play the living crap out of both.
But adding a few elements from MoO2--like having a more living star map, one that can have evolving politics, being able to take possession of and fortify planets and stars, rather than the almost completely static map from the original--wouldn't be making it all that different...but you wouldn't know that because you apparently gave up on Master of Orion when it didn't look the way you wanted.
Hell, even SC2 had elements of this; remember when the Spathi decided to pack up shop and go seal themselves away under a bubble? The galactic map changed, and there is no reason why the player shouldn't have some direct control--Star Control--over that aspect of the game's plot.
Besides...maybe you don't remember, but the original Star Control had all of this; it actually played remarkably similarly to Master of Orion, with a foritifiable star map and all of that...or have you not played every game in the series...? *raised eyebrow*
Well, your inability to see it doesn't mean it's not there.
...which says nothing at all about the game; this argument is 100% superficial.
No it says everything, Animation, Exciting graphics is absolutely Essential to the creation of an immersive experience, which is part of what make Star Control great, disregarding this fact is like saying you enjoy the game because of the music and don't need the graphics.
Not quite sure how it will play out, changing the focus of the game might take down the perfectly balanced fun aspect.
I would need to know exactly how it will influence the game overall, the playability, and the reward factor, Star Control have all these elements balanced extremely well already.
That's why Star Control evolved into Star Control 2, which was a total different and revolutionary experience than SC1.
Sure small elements of the game as you mentioned i can't see it hurting the game, as long as the focus and the balance of the game is not shifted.
Well, your inability to see it doesn't mean it's not there.
[/quote]
... I love Star Control, i've tried other genre's and types of variation's of top down platformers, the only one's that totally grabs my attention are RTS games specifically the Dune franchise and the Command and Conquer franchise, and of course Star Control being invented long before RTS games evolved into what they did after Star Control. But don't misunderstand, i'm not saying RTS games like Dune CNC etc are superior, they have just evolved into their own unique Genre.
Star Control's own unique Genre is Just as good as the ones i mentioned, if not better than many existing RTS titles
First of all, that's not everything.
Second, that's completely wrong...I don't know how old you are, but I was around for the age of text adventure games like Zork and Planetfall, which had no graphics at all, and they were perfectly lovely gaming experiences. It's the game that matters most; the prettiest graphics in the world cannot save a game that's no fun to play.
I enjoy the game because of the gameplay; the great graphics are a bonus. A wonderful bonus. But I could play the game even if it was in the age of monochrome graphics and no sound cards.
Y'ever see the old DOS game called "Spacewar"...? Same premise as fleet battles, still lots of fun to play...but, as I said, B&W graphics:
Are you saying you wouldn't play this game just because it's not pretty enough for you?
This is part of the problem, though: it wouldn't be changing anything. It would just be adding another layer of complexity.
And maybe if you'd played a bit more MoO2, you'd understand the premise I'm putting forward; you're not arguing from an informed position.
And I never said they would or should be.
And, again, the problem there is yours.
I don't think you've even taken the time to consider what added elements resembling Master of Orion would do to Star Control. I think you cannot hear what I'm saying over the sound of your knee jerking.
Graphics is essential to a game such as Star Control, however, where i agree with you is that the core derived from games prior to it's existence that did not have good graphics. Yes the core is vital.
So there i agree that not all good games require good graphics, however Star Control consists of both elements, Star Control won't be as great if any single of these elements was missing including it's masterful music and sound effects, it's everything combined that makes it stand out.
Then the problem with extra complexity is that it could change the balance of what makes the game enjoyable.It doesn not need to be influenced. It's the old "if it ain't broke fix it saying." No need to fix it, it's already perfect.
It's a fine balance to let a good game be a really really good game vs one that is just good, that balance was perfected with Star Control 2, no need to tamper with that, complexity might tamper with that, the game is already perfect.
i have taken it into consideration, and what i see is a situation similar to games where too much crafting creates more of a frustration to the point where the excitement of exploration does not make it worth it anymore. I don't want to be stuck doing chores, there's a universe out there i need to explore, the usual tech trees and upgrades RTS style is just the right amount of complexity.
Star Control 2 is perfect as is. A little change or fine tuning here or there is welcome if it complements the experience, but the game has everything in it already and practically works perfectly well that's why so many enjoys the game.
But that only illustrates the point that graphics aren't necessary for a game to be good.
Think of it like this: can you enjoy a sci-fi movie from decades ago, when we didn't have ILM making CGI? When the FX were all stop-motion or models? Cuz...I can. I do.
Look at the original "War of the Worlds" or "Fantastic Voyage"...looking at them now, the FX are crap by comparison to today's standards...but they're still good stories and fun to watch.
And Star Control is the same: if the game has a good plot, good controls, good gameplay, it wouldn't matter if it was old-school DOS monochrome.
...or shouldn't. Insisting that, without graphics, the game wouldn't be worth playing is, frankly, quite shallow.
Are you saying you wouldn't play Star Control if its graphics weren't up to your standards?
And yet, I still think that adding a political/conquest system to the game would add a layer of complexity that could make the game a lot of fun on top of the entertainment it already provides.
Frankly, I don't think it was perfected.
It was done quite well, but that doesn't mean it was perfect. There was definitely room to grow.
If that's what you think will happen with what I'm proposing, then you clearly don't understand it.
And, again, that only shows you don't understand. You're picturing changes that simply are not being proposed.
No, actually...it's not.
I always wanted more control over the story; I felt it would have been more fun to be able to shape alliances between one alien species and another. It'd be like playing Babylon 5.
I could still explore, and when I'd meet aliens, I'd have to find a way to ally with them, to show them the way that aligning themselves with my side of the conflict is in their interest...and, if I did it right, they'd join me...and the plot would change as a result.
THAT would be an amazing game.
Obviously, I don't agree. It doesn't have everything.
And, if what I'm hearing from the developers of SCO is accurate, it sounds as if they're adding some of what I always felt was missing.
Again i did not say graphics is what makes a game, it is not, there is thousands of old school arcade games i think is absolutely brilliant with bad graphics, moon patrol, most fun, kung fu master, and my favorites kid nicky, ghosts and goblins, ghosts and ghouls 2, Golden AXE, legend of kage (the music and freedom in this games is legendary), double dragon, i can go on, all these were brilliant games with low res graphics, if SCO was like Star Control 2 graphics, it would be awesome.
The graphics at the time of SC2 was good, the visual effects combined with the sound was great, so yes indeed i will play it, the core, gameplay was great without the graphics, adding the graphics as they did, added the cream on top of the ice cream, so yes not needed to be there for the game to be good, i have agreed on this fact all along and am not disputing it, but it takes the visual experience to the next level, enhancing the experience even further, that's why it's nice to have good graphics on top of an already good game, good graphics without a good base/core is useless. i'd take a well built game with bad graphics anytime as one over only the graphics that is good.
Talking about movies, do you remember this one and Only classic. Krull, what a brilliant movie, you would laugh at the special effects back then, i don't the movie is my favourite classic ! a true gem that not many know of.
Look i see you are passionate about adding more complexity, perhaps it could be demonstrated then i might or might not consider it personally (or implement it in a way so it can be used if wanted but not required) most everyone was happy with SC2 as is when they played it.
Sure sounded like it, but okay.
Funny, I just watched it a few days ago.
Thing is, I actually don't think it's brilliant at all. The characters are okay, and the basic plot is pretty cool, but the specifics of the writing... it watches like they stole a bunch of scenes from other movies--maybe scripts that had been written but never produced--and then very loosely stitched them together. There is no real cohesion; you could lift almost any scene right out of it and the movie wouldn't change at all.
Now, if you want to talk about a good movie in a similar vein that still good despite crap FX, watch "Erik the Viking".
And I loved it, too...but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for that extra complexity without making the game worse.
Like mentioned it would have to be tested, it might or might not work.
Sure sounded like it, but okay.
Sorry you misinterpret then, it is essential to have all elements including graphics, well balanced to take a game to the next level, but the core gameplay always takes priority. That's why i Said it's part of what makes a game great.
Funny, I just watched it a few days ago.
Thing is, I actually don't think it's brilliant at all. The characters are okay, and the basic plot is pretty cool, but the specifics of the writing... it watches like they stole a bunch of scenes from other movies--maybe scripts that had been written but never produced--and then very loosely stitched them together. There is no real cohesion; you could lift almost any scene right out of it and the movie wouldn't change at all.
Krull was a broad, brilliantly entertaining fantasy, and among the most visually creative and downright fun movies of the enchanted 80s.
Krull was epic at it's day and age. A planet-wide adventure with galactic consequences in the vein of Dune.
It left you wanting more, but for some reason, no one ever made a sequel. It was also an epic production itself.
Many would claim that Krull is, was in fact, the greatest sci-fi movie ever.
And speaking of Dune, Freddie Jones, who played Ynyr and Francis Annis, who was the Widow of the Web, played Thufr Hawat and Lady Jessica, respectively in the classic 1984 David Lynch movie.
Now, if you want to talk about a good movie in a similar vein that still good despite crap FX, watch "Erik the Viking"
Erik the viking was okay, far from brilliant though, it did not measure up to the best of the Python films.
The sets and effects are a mixed bag. Sometimes I was impressed, sometimes not. The story was loosely based on a children's book Jones wrote called The Saga of Erik the Viking.
If you get the chance you should read the book as it's much better than the film.
In the film, there are constant bursts of rapid fire dialogue to be found, but honestly, lacked any real inspiration or inventiveness to be genuinely humorous, even if there may be the odd chuckle, one just sort of take it in loose strides.
And after the death of Graham Chapman, the remaining Pythons. Gilliam, Palin and Idle, did not appear.
Well, given that you said this: Sure i made no point of knowing MoO2 at all, i insisted i don't. But there is a reason why i don't.
Everything is pretty much stationary, the only thing that put a mild smile on my face were those churning like black holes on the map, and the technology, Nothing else moved.
...and it was like yanking teeth to get you to discuss the actual gameplay of Master of Orion II, can you understand where I might have gotten that impression...? *raised eyebrow*
Of course you do.
The 80s were awesome, but Krull was still disjointed and disconnected. Like I said, you could yank just about any scene from the movie and the plot wouldn't be affected at all. It was just going from one fight scene to the next, really; it was like watching someone's Dungeons & Dragons campaign in movie form.
It's similar to Time Bandits in that way, actually.
Now, Dragonslayer was a better movie. The Dark Crystal was a better movie. Heck, The Princess Bride was a better movie (though maybe not a fair comparison, being a comedy). And I could name tons more movies from the 80s that were better...and probably quite a few that were much worse (Legend comes immediately to mind); not all of them would be in the Fantasy genre, but still...
The 80s was my favorite decade--you should see my movie shelves--and, yeah, Krull is on it...but it's not a very well-written movie.
And, as I said, I can name a lot of epic movies from its day and age that are better quality, writing-wise.
Well, I don't much care for Dune.
That one's weird, though...because it seems like the sort of thing I would love. I want to like it. I don't know why I don't. And I've tried; I've read the book, watched the movie, watched the miniseries, and it just doesn't connect.
No, it didn't.
Oh, bulldrek.
First of all, it's Fantasy, not Sci-Fi. Second, I doubt you'll find many who would claim that. They'll tell you that it's good, but "the greatest"...? Bah!
And despite having members of Python in it, it's not actually a Python film.
There's you going on about visuals again. Mentioning them first, as if it's the main thing that matters.
I can--and have--liked movies with horrid FX but amazing writing and acting. I'd mention the visuals second, and probably in passing.
...and this is coming from someone with a background in CGI; wanna see my IMDb page...?
Well, given that you said this: Sure i made no point of knowing MoO2 at all, i insisted i don't. But there is a reason why i don't.
Everything is pretty much stationary, the only thing that put a mild smile on my face were those churning like black holes on the map, and the technology, Nothing else moved.
...and it was like yanking teeth to get you to discuss the actual gameplay of Master of Orion II, can you understand where I might have gotten that impression...? *raised eyebrow*
Yes , and that is so and what you quoted from myself stands true still, the game felt lifeless, i did explain more than once that Graphics without a good core is not good. That it seems you missed twice.
Oh, bulldrek.
First of all, it's Fantasy, not Sci-Fi. Second, I doubt you'll find many who would claim that. They'll tell you that it's good, but "the greatest"...? Bah!
Nope, Krull is a full-blown sci-fi movie, with a few fantasy elements thrown in.
1. It’s on another planet.
That’s actually talked about quite a bit. And in such a way that you are led to believe they know about other planets with other people on them. In fact, the opening and closing narration, it says: “A girl of ancient name shall become queen. And she shall choose a king. Together they will rule the world. And their son will rule the galaxy.” That not only gives away the fact that both Colwin and Lyssa live through the movie, but it also says there is a known galaxy to be ruled.
2. The Black Fortress is a space ship.
In the opening scenes, you see it come into orbit around the planet and land. It might look like a mountain, but it’s a space ship – a spaceship that has to descend through the atmosphere and land, but then apparently can teleport anywhere it wants to on the planet. And one that the inside looks kind of like what you might get if Salvador Dali designed the inside of the Tardis while dropping acid.
3. The Slayers are slugs in robot bodies.
Simple enough. When you see a Slayer die, you often see a slug crawl out of its head and burrow into the ground. The robot bodies are apparently supposed to be armor as well as a device which make it easier for the slugs to both get around and to be a bit more imposing that, say, a slug, but, judging from just how easy it is to kill a space slug wearing robot armor, the suits must be made by the same people who make the armor for the storm troopers in Star Wars.
4. The Slayers use lasers.
Did you hear the one about the guy who brought a sword to a laser gun fight? Yup. It’s swords and magic against lasers and space armor. Guess which one wins.
Except that it's not just the visuals, however it's all you quoted to make it want to seem so.
Good for you.
And yet you still haven't said what it was about MoO2 that you didn't like in terms of gameplay. You can claim it ain't all graphics as much as you like, but I don't really believe it, and won't until you actually engage.
Not at all. It's just that your position is meaningless without saying what a "good core" is, and when all you've discussed it graphics.
Big deal. Most Fantasy stories don't take place on Earth.
And how exactly will that happen? Do you see any spaceships? Technology of any kind?
No. You don't. If anything, they'll probably do it via magic gates or something.
Purely superficial; it could be said that it's just magical and it would change nothing.
"Robot"...? Really?
Again, this is superficial; they could easily be magical.
Magical firebolts.
Your arguments are all superficial...which shouldn't surprise me, given your focus on graphics in video games.
If a movie is so easily changed from one genre to another--and I do mean easily; many other movies could be completely re-worked to be another genre, but you'd have to change far more than you would with Krull, more than just saying that one thing is something else--then going with the more obvious genre classification is the logical choice.
Krull is a Fantasy movie with some superficially Sci-Fi-esque elements.
Oh, please. That's the last refuge of someone who has been disputed, the you-didn't-understand defense.
I understood...and found your position wanting.
A point which you made using the visual design of the map, citing the black holes as the only part you liked.
...yet you wonder why I tell you that the impression you gave was that graphics were your only criterion for enjoying a game.
MoO2 has tons of that. It's like you weren't even playing the same game I was.
...which you admit you didn't play for very long. Perhaps you missed it.
Ah. So it wasn't a completely different game, which was the standard you used to judge.
Gotcha.
I have no idea why it keeps screwing up the quotes like that. The code/formatting is correct...it just doesn't seem to like it.
Oh, please. That's the last refuge of someone who has been disputed, the you-didn't-understand defense.
I understood...and found your position wanting.
Disputed by going with your own ignorance... ? sure ;)
it felt completely different. Most all means most all. The core of a game can cause it to feel entirely different, moO2 physics mechanics was nowhere the same as SC2. merely a few similarities does not merit it to be similar by a long shot.And yet, when I ask you for details, you ignore the request. How about you explain more about what you didn't like in the gameplay, instead of giving superficial answers?
As i have no idea how it might work should you add your extra element to the game, like mentioned it will have to be demonstrated, your idea might be bad, or it might be great
Well, that's your problem right there: your expectations were ludicrous.
And if you'd played it longer, you'd realize that MoO2 has that as well.
Not in the same exactly style, but it has it.
And there is no reason that adding some political machinations to the game should do that.
And, again, MoO2 has all of the above as well; the difference is that you're commanding fleets and solar systems instead of just one mothership and a few fighters.
I think it could add some really amazing depth to the game.
Well, maybe you should give MoO2 another try.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Stardock Forums