Star Trek Into Darkness ::: May 17, 2013

Yeah I shudder at the idea of a Trek game that is a Gears of War clone -- that is, a cover-based co-op action shooter.

Because Trek is all about Kirk and Spock running through corridors shooting guys.

YEAA!! PEW PEW!!!!!!!

Ugh.

So this is how ambler feels about most of the Bond series...

Dread to think what he really thinks about the Trek series

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Yeah I shudder at the idea of a Trek game that is a Gears of War clone -- that is, a cover-based co-op action shooter.

It's not like this is anything new, though. Games like Voyager: Elite Force ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7SkQNJrdvw ), Elite Force II ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bed4ckda_xc ) and Deep Space Nine: The Fallen ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_R4TyVLAbc ) seemed to interpret Star Trek as some kind of epic saga about shooting bugs and robots. That didn't change the fact that they were well-made games, and each of them (in my opinion) threw in enough little fan-friendly details to make them worthy additions to the Trek franchise, albeit in a dumb-fun sort of way. Frankly, the days where a Trek game not focused on combat (such as 25th Anniversary or Judgement Rites) would be commercially viable to most publishers are long gone.

As for the game itself, I'm both interested and skeptical. The E3 2011 trailer looked a little rough ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbh4g3qJ3vk ), but that's pre-alpha footage, meaning they still have plenty of time to improve it. There hasn't been a genuinely good Trek game since 2003 (and the only other game based on the Abrams continuity was the abysmal DAC), so even if this falls flat, they have nowhere to go but up.

It's not the game I have a problem with, it's that it basically sums up what everyone things Trek is supposed to be. Kirk and Spock shooting up shit.

UndiscoveredCountry wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Yeah I shudder at the idea of a Trek game that is a Gears of War clone -- that is, a cover-based co-op action shooter.

It's not like this is anything new, though. Games like Voyager: Elite Force ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7SkQNJrdvw ), Elite Force II ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bed4ckda_xc ) and Deep Space Nine: The Fallen ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_R4TyVLAbc ) seemed to interpret Star Trek as some kind of epic saga about shooting bugs and robots. That didn't change the fact that they were well-made games, and each of them (in my opinion) threw in enough little fan-friendly details to make them worthy additions to the Trek franchise, albeit in a dumb-fun sort of way. Frankly, the days where a Trek game not focused on combat (such as 25th Anniversary or Judgement Rites) would be commercially viable to most publishers are long gone.

I have no problem with a combat based game -- I actually liked Elite Force -- but the style of gameplay in question, the Gears of War combat-based shoot 'em up -- is a gameplay style that is NOTHING BUT SHOOTING THINGS. I have no problem with a game where the main gameplay is phaser fights, but something closer to the Mass Effect games would be good -- dialogue systems, negotiation, space exploration, moral choices and dilemmas, character interaction -- along with fun phaser fights.

What I'm hearing about this game is nothing but run and gun -- which just gets boring after a while. The trick to doing a licensed game isn't to put a new skin on a popular game, but to do something that gets to the heart of the license, like BATMAN: ARKHAM ASYLUM.

I don't play video games, and I don't give a shit about Bond or Trek games. Though I did play the Academy or whatever game for SNES that had the WOK music in a constant loop nearly 20 years ago.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I have no problem with a combat based game -- I actually liked Elite Force -- but the style of gameplay in question, the Gears of War combat-based shoot 'em up -- is a gameplay style that is NOTHING BUT SHOOTING THINGS.

Actually, reports on the E3 demo have indicated that this game might have more gameplay variety than Elite Force (which was also nothing but shooting things outside of its ship-based interludes between missions, not counting the rather lame Virtual Voyager expansion), featuring XI-style space-diving, some stealth attacks on Spock's part, tricorder scanning (much like The Fallen and Elite Force II), a medical operation mini-game and some shuttle piloting. Again, I'm not claiming this will be good (if Paramount's previous history with video games is anything to go by, the odds are set against it), but they do seem to be making an effort to keep the gameplay fresh.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I have no problem with a game where the main gameplay is phaser fights, but something closer to the Mass Effect games would be good -- dialogue systems, negotiation, space exploration, moral choices and dilemmas, character interaction -- along with fun phaser fights.

On that note, we agree. That said (unlike Star Wars with KOTOR and TOR), I don't think Star Trek has reached the point where Paramount would fund a project of that magnitude. The Mass Effect games represented a significant investment for BioWare, EA and Microsoft, which was appropriate given how ambitious those titles were. Try to do something on that scale more cheaply (as CBS attempted with Atari and Cryptic's Star Trek Online) and the results can be messy.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

What I'm hearing about this game is nothing but run and gun -- which just gets boring after a while. The trick to doing a licensed game isn't to put a new skin on a popular game, but to do something that gets to the heart of the license, like BATMAN: ARKHAM ASYLUM.

I disagree that run-and-gun gameplay by itself "just gets boring after a while." If the mechanics are deep and polished enough, then an all-out shooter can be just as engaging as the best dialogue-driven RPGs. And while I also thought that Arkham Asylum was a great game, that had more to do with the quality of its design than its respect for the license. As a counter-example, the original GoldenEye on the N64 recast James Bond as a nearly charmless one-man army who kills off half the Russian military with a variety of assault weapons, and the game ended up becoming a massive critical and commercial success that is now seen as a modern classic. To my mind, the trick to doing a licensed game is to make it a good game on its own merits; all other concerns are secondary.

I agree on the making a good game bit, but what I meant about ARKHAM ASYLUM was it incorporated true elements of Batman's character into the gameplay -- stealth, fear, intimidaiton, detective work, etc. etc. -- whereas past Batman games had, no joke, featured the character killing people with guns. So a STAR TREK game for me has to be more than just run-and-gun, by the same token.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I agree on the making a good game bit, but what I meant about ARKHAM ASYLUM was it incorporated true elements of Batman's character into the gameplay -- stealth, fear, intimidaiton, detective work, etc. etc. -- whereas past Batman games had, no joke, featured the character killing people with guns. So a STAR TREK game for me has to be more than just run-and-gun, by the same token.

I can appreciate that line of thought, but it certainly doesn't hold true for me. If Star Trek: The Game is a good run-and-gun experience (much like the better Trek games I mentioned on the previous page), then it has accomplished everything I could reasonably hope for from it. As long as it's skillfully programed, I wouldn't care if the game co-starred Master Chief and Jar-Jar Binks.

You are a forgiving man.

A man of strong feelings [and convictions].





or whatever Spock said once.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

You are a forgiving man.

In some ways. If the gameplay is deficient on its own merits, I'll be as quick to slam it as the professional critics would, but I'm rarely bothered by whether or not a product is "true to the series." I see franchises like Star Trek, Star Wars and James Bond as little more than loose creative frameworks that facilitate brand awareness, so devotion to the "true elements" of a series seems a bit pointless to me. That's not to say that I don't appreciate the efforts of a lot of people who put a tremendous amount of work into creating films, TV episodes and games that have artistic merit, but I doubt many of the executives and accountants at companies like CBS and Paramount see their franchises as much more than cash cows, and since it's the money they allocate that makes the whole thing possible, who am I to argue with them? In other words, if a product entertains me (whether it's in a brainy way like many of the best episodes of Trek or in dumb-fun way like most of the Trek video games), I'm satisfied. If it respects what came before it, that's icing on the cake, but it's certainly not a deal-breaker for me if the powers that be decide to use the license to launch something that seems nearly unrelated (assuming, again, that it's still entertaining).

UndiscoveredCountry wrote:

I see franchises like Star Trek, Star Wars and James Bond as little more than loose creative frameworks that facilitate brand awareness [...] companies like CBS and Paramount see their franchises as much more than cash cows, and since it's the money they allocate that makes the whole thing possible, who am I to argue with them?

You need to work for Corporate. Preferrably in Marketing.

I think there's an opening at OCP.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I think there's an opening at OCP.

I wouldn't be surprised if my views were heavily influenced by being a recovering Transformers fan. Debating the intricacies of a franchise exclusively based on merchandising can corrupt your soul like that.

On the subject of the upcoming video game, IGN recently posted their impressions from E3. It's glowingly positive (as most previews at this stage are, regardless of how the final product ends up), but it's got some interesting details in it. Looks like virtual Quinto-Spock has gotten over any of his predecessor's issues about abusing his mind-meld ability:

IGN wrote:

There's more. Spock was described as the "ninja of Star Trek" as our demonstration continued, and the blue-suited first officer then made his way behind a foe and triggered an on-the-spot Vulcan mind meld. A very quick mini-game played out on the Spock player's screen and the enemy then fell under Spock's mental control. He lost his aggression toward our heroes, had a total change of heart, and instantly became an A.I.-controlled ally who then turned around and began firing on his former friends. Totally freaking sweet.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/117/1175617p1.html

The ninja of Star Trek?

strewth

This can only work if you can make it through the level just with Vulcan neck pinches.

Just came across an old link on trekbbs that discusses the unmade PLANET OF THE TITANS - the one that had Ken Adam as production designer, Derek Meddings doing miniatures and Jordan Belson doing optical effects, with Phil Kauman directing. This thread is nearly 10 pages long, with lots of redundancy, but is surprisingly free of the ModernTrekRulz! bullshit that spreads like diaperrash across those boards.

There is still no link to or hint of a script or treatment ... just the various summaries that are referenced in several posts.

Anyway, for the three or four of you who will find this of some interest ... enjoy!

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=67493&highlight=planet+titans+revisited

JJ is onboard directing Trek XII, meant to have a script out by winter.

Early 2013 release date.

It's aliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/jj-abrams-confirmed-for-star-trek-2/245233

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/09/star_trek_2_jj_abrams.html

http://kalkion.com/news/new-star-trek-film-go-will-shatner-be-it/1365/2011

Quote :

Maybe in this new film, we discover that Kirk didn't really die and continued to live on in the Nexus to be rescued/discovered by his younger self. Then they can go off and save a world and defeat some evil alien's dastardly plan, before parting ways which involves the older Kirk returning to his own time period through some gobbly-gook SciFi method.

Why are people concerned of Shatner turning up for XII? Shatner shouldn't consider it. Just move on with this reboot of yours and don't drag anyone else along with it.

Maybe only if Shatner's Kirk at the end does a Charlton Heston-Beneath the Planet of the Apes and blow the whole thing to kingdom come.

Otherwise, no.

"PURE ENERGY."