Talk:Star Trek: Legacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Star Trek Portal

Contents 1 False information 2 Not sure about the accuracy of this sentence 3 MUSH 4 Like Star Trek Armada? 5 Box art removed? 6 The First game to cover all television series? 7 POV 7.1 Modding salvation? 8 How do shields work in Legacy? 9 First for a computer game 10 Accessibility Issues 11 Quick Revamp 12 POV 13 Sources Cleanup 14 Article Improvements

[edit] False information

the game is 3d, and is not a 2d pizza box, this statment is highly oppinionated b/c it takes at least 45 secs w/ fastest ship w/ full power to enginges/ with full impulse to go from top to bottum!!!

---

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.85.161 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

This information if quite accurate and not at all false. As a matter of fact this game is not really 3D (you can not make a full 3D roll for instance). This game is a rather sloppy implementation altogether and I find this articcle to be very "to the point". This game should never have been released on PC. It's a sloppily implemented port of a poor console shooter.--Pjonsson 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you fail at argumentation. 213.112.137.177 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure about the accuracy of this sentence

"Based on the known elements of the game, Star Trek: Legacy closely follows Star Trek Deep Space Nine Dominion Wars to such a degree, that they are nearly identical. (Examples: Prestige used to buy ships, etc.)"

Prestige is also used in Starfleet Command 3 - completion of missions gain the player prestige and allow them to upgrade their crew, ship components and the ships themselves.

Also, although I haven't played Legacy, from what I've seen of the videos of the gameplay on the internet, Legacy seems to be mostly similar to Bridge Commander, in that combat is 3D, not 2D like in Starfleet Command 3 and Dominion Wars.

Actually, thinking about it, Bridge Commander used full 3D combat, Starfleet Command 3 used 2D combat, and Dominion Wars (I think) used 2D with some depth variation (ships could be seen to be above or below others, but could not be perpendicular to each other). --80.43.120.127 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Isnt it time to get rid of the sentence that says the games name is the working title.the games release isnt far away and it seems that they are going to stick with the name Star Trek:Legacy

[edit] MUSH

Star Trek: Legacy is also a MUD or MUSH. :) 82.169.165.249 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Like Star Trek Armada?

Is this game going to be similar to Star Trek: Armada?

Don't know. Does Star Trek: Armada allow you to play events from the shows?
Also, sign your posts, please. Madd the sane 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

in a funny way it is, it is a heavily modified STA engine, but it is a space combat game 75.14.223.20 06:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is actually by the same developer as Star Trek: Armada II. - Fearless Son 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box art removed?

why was the box art removed.its been shown on the official website and has a varitable source.

[edit] The First game to cover all television series?

No, I think this statement is wrong. It is not Legacy, but Star Trek Encounters in PS2 which is the first game to cover all canonical Star Trek series (TOS-TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.152.10.69 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Aggreed. Encounters came out a few months before this, and contained ships from all the series'. I think I'll remove that statement. Patch86 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did remove it, but didn't replace it with anything else. I'm not sure how many of the voice actors appeared in Encounters, so I removed that part of the paragraph too in case it was inaccurate. Should probably be replaced wholly with something more relevant. I'll include the paragraph I snipped below: Patch86 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"This is the first Star Trek game to cover all television series in the franchise, including the original series, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise. It will also be the first video game to feature the voice talents of the five starring captains from all five series: William Shatner (James T. Kirk), Patrick Stewart (Jean-Luc Picard), Avery Brooks (Benjamin Sisko), Kate Mulgrew (Kathryn Janeway), and Scott Bakula (Jonathan Archer).^[1]"

[edit] POV

I'd suggest a review of this article and especially Response section, and I suggest it's done by someone who actually played the game. For example stating how "Many gamers found the control problems especially galling," and then pointing to IGN review is not good enough or decent enough. Controls in ST:L have basic (and to any gamer more than well known) FPS layout which makes them as easy as they come. This is also (by the words of editor) a real time strategy game, not a strategy/action game… If there are indeed some: "major problems with game compatibility encountered with the PC version."; then it would certainly be nice to see some citation that supports such claim (keep in mind that hardware requirements are not compatibility issues)… Pictures of pet goats and similes are usually referred to as Easter egg (media), not Sloppy Coding. Finally, IGN review (review=POV) is referenced eight times? We are not here to reflect on personal experience of ING reviewer are we? Well, hope you'll find these suggestions worth while, I'm warping out. Lovelight 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have played the game. Almost every thread referenced on the various bulletin boards, plus the numerous additional reviews I've just added from Gamespot, Yahoo Games, Voodo Extreme, Action Trip, and the Bethesda website cite the controls as a major problem. Although you say the controls as being "as easy as they come", every single review thus far has stated just the opposite, as I cited. I got rid of many of the IGN references and/or replaced them with the other reviews (but they all basically say the same thing). Easter eggs are are parts of games that are intended to be discovered as in-jokes or rewards to the player. Leaving in code that says "delete this before release", copying and pasting pictures from a movie as your background, and using files that are word-for-word identical with a previous games, are not examples of Easter Eggs by any reasonable standards. Captain Koloth 23:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see... have you noticed how one can press F to lock onto the ship and when you do that crew (AI if you prefer) is doing all those delta, alpha & omega maneuvers; all that’s left for player is discharging of phasors and/or torpedoes… It could be that I find it ordinary to play with WSAD layout, while others don’t, but don't mind me;)… cause I haven’t looked into the game too deeply, tried it though… anyway those IGN references were a bit eye poking, I'm fine with article now, especially with new perspectives and reviews provided… take care. Lovelight 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, but I did use tractor beam you know? As a matter of fact there are certain missions which you cannot end without tractor beam… One can also transport people of board (into oblivion) but there is little or no use of such actions. All of this can be done if you press F while locked on designated target (such as shipyard). I've also noticed that control issues are now addressed twice? Perhaps another review would be in order? Lovelight 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also don't like how I can't hold a steady photon torpedo lock. The762x51 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Response" section in this article is inappropriate. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a negative review of a game. I read a reasonably positive review of this game in Game Informer magazine, and I've enjoyed playing it myself, so the negative response being represented here is not unanimous. See Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Rray 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Which many of us have pointed out that if you have the game for the XBOX 360 it is much better, that is where the majority of the higher rated reviews are from. The PC version is plagued with bugs and control issues. I'll admit that I am playing pretty much at the lower spectrum of the requirments but I meet them and yet the control is terrible and I can barely move. I talked to some of my friends who has the game for the PC and a few likes the game but even when I wrote my contribution to the wiki even they agreed on my comments. IF the player has the game for the XBOX 360 great, they will get a much better performance and better gameplay but for us PC players it's really bad. I have played many games where I just meet the requirments and for the most part I do not have much problems playing them. This should be no different. They should not have rushed this game! It was not ready for release!23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree that this article lacks a NPOV perspective. It seems unreasonably biased on the faults of the game and states other people's opinions (reviewers) as factual evidence. It also sites the official forums as a source of strong crtisism, yet fails to acknowledge that there is an equal amount of people in support of the game. Also, "Sloppy Coding" is entirely inaccurate. Citing the fact that there are Armada files within Legacy and claiming it sloppy has no basis as Legacy and Armada have similiar back-ends. That's like saying a shooter that is based on the Quake engine is "sloppy and poorly coded". Citing the Conti goats picture as additional evidence also lacks any basis as it is, quite simply, a picture. Lastly, there is a lot of talk in this article (and on the main forums) about "promised features being cut". In software development, there is no such thing as promised features. There is a development PLAN, and plans CAN CHANGE. Part of the software company's job is talk about what is PLANNED about the game to generate interest in it. Inherent in any plan for any task (like software development, cooking dinner, going to a movie, etc) is the ability for plans to adapt when circumstances change. However, some of the critisism is warranted here as the game does suffer from tough controls and appears to exhibit compatibility issues on the PC. Also, the article appears 90% focused on the PC version. The "Response" article needs to be completely rewritten and "Sloppy Coding" needs to be removed entirely.--67.151.118.186 14:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article could use some retooling, however every complaint is 100% true. This is a real piece of trash, hugely disappointing game. PhotonWTF 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Source code" subsection is POV. Suggest deletion of "bizarre" and "errors" passages. Developer group photos, baby pictures, pictures of pets embedded in game assets is a common industry practice. Presence of variables for profiling options, E3 demo, attract demo, debugging in a plain text configuration file, that are disabled for final release; common practice. Most games are built on pre-existing code; common practice. Removing all traces of non-functional original code is arbitrary, the lack of doing so simply does not substantiate the characterization of "rushed."

"...were actually cut and pasted directly from the movie Star Trek: Insurrection [13]" The forum post states "...looks like a shot taken from Insurrection." There is no comparison image supplied from the movie to even subjectively support this claim.

Fan forum posts are inappropriate as Wikipedia references. Find authoritative sources. Dwcarr 06:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modding salvation?

Can you fix it? .) Was Bethesda going bankrupt as the rest of Star Trek developers before it, and that's why wanted to publish an unfinished game, to pay the bills in time? ;) Teemu Ruskeepää 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You are aware that Bethesda created Oblivion and because of that they are rolling in cash, right? They are not anywhere near to going bankrupt and did not push this game out the do to "pay the bills" CharlieFandango

Bethesda published Star Trek: Legacy; they didn't develop it. They did, however, create and publish Oblivion. There's a major difference between the two, namely the cost involved.

Now this is an unfounded opinion based on past games, but I believe it's more likely that Paramount pushed for Bethesda to publish the game unfinished to try and cash in on Christmas sales, regardless of whether or not MadDoc Software had fully finished it.

That's always been a problem with taking on projects that use a licensed theme, and Paramount have been known as one of those producers that do push to get things released to meet a sales quota.

[edit] How do shields work in Legacy?

In Bridge Commander and in the movie Star Trek: Nemesis, shields were subdivided into forward, left, right, dorsal (top), ventral (bottom) and rear shields. In Starfleet Command 3 and Tactical Assault, since the games were 2D, you didn't get top or bottom shields. The point was that if you were good, you could concentrate your fire on one shield area, thus allowing you to damage the hull and subsystems faster. If you were being shot at, you could keep your strongest shield facing the enemy to minimise the damage.

Does Legacy have this shield subdivision? In the gameplay videos I have seen, there is just one bar showing shield strength, instead of multiple overlays showing the condition of each shield. There doesn't appear to be any way of concentrating fire on a specific shield, only on a specific ship. --80.43.60.43 15:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no such depth within the Legacy; it is arcadishly simple yet visually compelling (mainstreamed) experience. Lovelight 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it is just one solid shield that goes all the way around the ship; but I haven't been able to look at the coding. There sure isn't any shield rotation like in Bridge Commander, though. The762x51 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is one shield. You just have an indicator of how much energy your shield has before it goes down. It doenst matter where you get hit, any part of the sheild that gets hit and the indicator goes down. I can't remember any Star Trek game that was so simplistic. Even the 25th Anniversary game (15 years ago!) had separate shield arcs.--David Foster 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to "have more shields", but i think "one shield" is more logical; you have certain point of shield energy measured in Joules, the weapon does damage measured in Joules, so no matter where you are hit, you will lose the same amount of energy, what is the point of redirecting it?... Shield generator is "recharging" shields with power in Watts (Joules per second) Weapon systems are recharging weapons with power in Watts. In terms of "realistic", ship with better recharging capabilities (bigger warp core) will allways win... unless you have something to penetrate the shields and disable the big bad ship, or if you have more small ships and allways retreat the "wounded ones" so they recharge, and attack with the fresh ones!:)

[edit] First for a computer game

This must be the first time that someone had to mod a game so you could save at good intervals! http://startrek.bethsoft.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3803

I mean, games do sometimes restrict saving, but there is normally a reason. For example, the harder difficulty levels of Max Payne restricted the number of saves you were allowed (although not the number of quick saves, for some reason). Also, Bridge Commander didn't allow you to save anytime you wanted, BUT did automatically save at checkpoints, so that you didn't have to replay entire missions because you got the last bit wrong.

Yes, that is extremely annoying; good criticism, should be pointed in the article. Feel free to contribute if you wish. Lovelight 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not a registered user. --80.43.60.43 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Climb aboard. It's quick and painless. ;) -- Lovelight 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there have been games before this that have been modded to allow anywhere saving. The idea of limited saving (either through number of saves, single-pass checkpoints, or only specific save spots) has been around for a long time and is used as a means to balance gameplay difficulty. This remains a very contraversial design decision to this day, with some regarding it as a fair challange and others regarding it as an annoyance. Most of the time, people (developers included) consider it to be both states. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of room for compromise. This game in particular limited saves to between missions so that players would have to make hard choices if they lost ships during the mission. Do you restart the mission to try and perserve your ship, or do you accept the loss and continue to the next mission? If you could save anywhere then the player would not be nearly as invested in trying to keep their ships alive, since they could just revert to an earlier save. Yes, as a perfectionist I think that this can be annoying, but what I am trying to say is that I understand why it was done. - Fearless Son 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me, is this game Vista-compatible? Can't find the info. anywhere on the web, Thanx. 74.204.40.46 06:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accessibility Issues

Submitting for addition: Due to the inability to remap controls for the PC - left-handed users who use a left-hand mouse and disabled users who have difficulty using both hands are unable to play this game.

Also would like to verify that I have played both PC and 360 versions of this game. Both have received horrible reviews - and horrible response on the official forums. There is Star Trek Armada 2 code copied direct, Multiplayer is bugged (I was only able to successfully join about 30% of the games last night on 360 and so far 0% on PC with the 1.1 patch).

This isn't POV issues... these are all verifiable.--65.216.70.62 21:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on the POV point. The term "horrible" is subjective when you look at reviews. While the reviews are certainly not glowing, the major sites have not totally trashed it either. "Modest" would be the word that I use to refer to how this game was reviewed. However, I do not consider forum posts verifiable at all, they almost never are. As for Star Trek: Armada 2 code copied direct, I see no reason at all why that should be a negative factor. Reusing code is an accepted practice across all the industry. You would not speak ill of the original Half-Life because it had code directly copied from Quake would you? Developers are not keen to re-invent the wheel, especially when the wheel has shown to be reliable and trying to build it annew would only lead to more bugs in the long run. - Fearless Son 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Revamp

I took a few minutes to update the release date for the 360 version as well as to create some subsections for the various game issues. The page still is far from being "right." I'd like to propose that that subpages be created for all of the numerous PC problems. They seem to overwhelm the article as it stands, but really do deserve a substantial entry of their own. I'm sure more and more problems are going to be discovered with the PC coding.Jodyw1 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't really claim that the code is "sloppy". First of all, that is a subjective term which implies a variation of original research. Secondly, pointing to a random picture and a few comments and claiming it is "sloppy" is likely the claim of a person that is not programitcally inclined. Comments are comments, they have no impact on the game. The ENTIRE sloppy coding section(s) need to go in a bad bad way. It is the furthest thing from encyclopedic. However, the article is much better structured, but it is, essentially, a negitive review. At this point, if I find myself bored at work for a day, I'll register and clean it up (or essentially rewrite the entire thing from scratch).--67.151.118.186 14:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you'll get no complaint from me here. There are tons of non-NPOVs comments in the article. But I didn't put them in there. Reformatting the article makes those even more pronounced. There's tons of NPOV changes that need to be made. Jodyw1 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I added a POV tag to the top of the article. Jodyw1 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources Cleanup

Could someone clean up the sources. It looks like there are a lot of repeats. That or show me a link to show me how. Madd the sane 09:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvements

Okay, skimming over the article, I noticed that a few grammar corrections were needed, and I even removed an opinion found in the article.. I will see what time I have, but the article, I think needs to be thoroughly read, and checked for grammar errors, opinions, etc... What do you think? --Illyria05-- 04:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I'm not registered and newly registered accounts are incapable of editing this article, I'll contribute here:

The ENTIRE article is an opinion. For starters, critisism for the game is mixed. If a "good" score is somewhere around 7 or 8 out of 10, and the game is getting 5's, what does a game have to score in order to pass from the realm of "good" to "ok"? Wouldn't a poor game be scoring 3's? Even on the Legacy forums, it is easy to tell the mixed reactions. Thus, fan response to the game hasn't been strongly negitive. There have been some people who are strongly negitive about the game. There are also other people who are strongly positive about the game. And there's a third group that's pretty much indifferent and accept the game for what it truely is - an "ok" title. Not good, but not bad.

I've already said it once, but there cannot be any reference to "sloppy source code". The word sloppy is highly subjective. To boot, only an expert in source code (ie: developers) would be capable of commenting on it. While the source code could be neater, there is ALWAYS the possibility of improvement for everything. The source code that is available for modification has a clear outline and purpose. It is easily modifiable by users who did not program the game themselves and that is the true measuring stick of "sloppy" or "neat". Delete this section. Move the references to the "goat picture" down to a trivia section.

And to top it all off, the main "sources" of this thread are forum articles. While they might be acceptable for fan response, they are DEFINITELY not credible sources for things that are being presented in this article as facts. And if someone comes waltzing in here and saying "but the game DOES suck and there's nothing good," then you are obviously not qualified enough to contribute heavily to this article.

If the protection on the article is removed, I will register and help make changes to improve the quality of the article. If I were still in college doing a research paper about video games and cited this "encyclopedic article" as a source (assuming (s)he found wiki articles acceptable of course), I would likely fail the assignment for using such a poor resource. And yes, papers on video games are often done in classes involving mainstream media. At this point, starting completely over might be the best approach as there is very little worth saving in this article.--67.151.118.186 15:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted that entire section. I agree with you completely. Those forum posts are not good places for reference to a Wikipedia article, and that section read like an attack. Besides, those things have very little to do with the end-user experience. This game was not built as a moddable game, and thus I do not think that we can consider the modding community as part of the intended end-user experience. - Fearless Son 01:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up. But I must insist on keeping the NPOV tag on the article. It is still a large negitive review and only focuses on what is "wrong" with the game. The game is, indeed, less than optimal, but this article attempts to portray the game as the worst game ever released which is far from the truth. In fact, some of the claims that are made in the reviews are contrary to what I read in professional reviews myself. Many thanks in nuking the sloppy-code section, but the article still needs work before it is encyclopedic. --67.151.118.186 15:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, most of the information sourced on the page is actually from negative reviews or analyses of the game itself, from IGN, Gamespot and other groups. While i don't agree with the NPOV tag, especially since the Xbox 360 section offers significant positive results regarding the game. - Count23 11:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)