The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

Since the Urquan Masters was released on the Internet, why not release the game that was Star Control 1? I am actually more of a fan of Star Control 1 than Star Control 2. Star control 1 turned my computer into an arcade machine, Star Control 2 basically was a preview of all future science fiction such as Babylon 5 (is it not also funny how current Battlestar Galactica resembles Wing Commander that was released at the same time?).

ZOT: "Silly Pik, when you finally speak, what do you do? You ask to play Star Control 1 on modern computers!"

FOT: "Didn't you know man, that the Star Control 1 PC source code was lost? Now that you are speaking, let us play Frungy!"

OK, so it was lost. But most of the game was combat which we can use the Star Control 2 melee code for. How hard would it be to program the 'strategy mode' for Star Control 1? You could even have fun and put in the more recent ships.

Reverse remake Star Control 1 (or should I say Famous Ur-Quan Battles Volume IV). Or better yet, add in your own personal touch and call it "Frungy", as how much more ironic could Frungy be if it were not a video game like Star Control 1?

Oh, I am a silly Pik! I have been silent holding my old Star Control 1 disks which are the BIG floppy discs. *cries with his big large eye* Remake Star Control 1 for modern systems or Pik will go silent again!!!

FOT: "See? Told you it was about Frungy."

ZOT: "Why can't you be the one who is silent?"

Check this thread.

http://uqm.stack.nl/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Gendiscuss;action=display;num=1114548964

I did not say Tactical Campaign. I said Star Control 1. If it was just the Tactical Campaign, then bleh.

Star Control 1 played a bit differently then Star Control 2 did. Star Control 1 felt my computer had turned into an arcade game. Star Control 2 felt like a never ending mystery of a game.

Sorry, just tacking on the tactical campaign IS NOT Star Control 1. It would like playing Star Control 2 without any of the alien portraits or music. The plot and gameplay may still be there, but the soul is gone.

I'm thinking that the tactical campaign and your 'strategy mode' are the same thing.  If not, please explain this strategy mode.  Please note that the thread that GeomanNL referred to does stray from the original topic for a bit which is probably why you're thinking that they're different.

I think he misses the Alliance vs. Hierarchy battles more than something else.

edit: perhaps try playing timewarp?

You know, it's not that hard to play SC1 on a modern computer using an emulator like DOSBox. I've been doing it for a couple weeks now, and it is indeed as fun as I remember it being. If you don't have the original disks, there are abandonware sites out there that have SC1, and I'm sure none of us will censure you too terribly for using them.

I have the original discs. They are not your smaller floppy discs but the bigger ones, ones that will not fit into any computer older than fifteen years.

If Star Control 2 can be ported to modern operating systems, why not Star Control 1? Yes, the big obstacle is the source code being lost. However, it can be reverse made using Star Control 2's basic code.

Star Control 1 > Star Control 2

Star Control 1 = More multiplayer oriented

Star Control 2 = More single player oriented

Remember guys, most of the backstory, the star control atmosphere, and the combat system were all pioneered with Star Control 1. Star Control 2 just added a few more ships and a single player adventure game mode on top of that. I appreciate Star Control 2's adventure game but as a sequel to Star Control 1, well the game sucked. It was like waiting for the sequel to a game like Warcraft only for it to end up like Monkey Island. A great game but not a loyal sequel.

Dude. This is EXACTLY what we are attempting to get going in the other active thread on this subject. The strategic campaign (some people called it the tactical campaign).

he means without any sc2 ships, also SC1 is still copywrighted so it's would be ilegal.

I can't imagine that it would be hard to restrict SC2 ships from such a design.  And Death_999 is right, this _is_ being discussed in another thread.  Quibbles about accurate definitions of "tactical" and "strategic" don't change this.

errrg what I'm saying is that the other one wants to turn sc2 into a tactical game while this one wants an exact port of sc1.

Does anyone else feel compelled to try and punch this guy through their computer like I do? Star Control 1 was a cute spin-off of Archon. THAT'S IT. It was not all that significant on its own, and I think we may have found the only person on the planet who feels otherwise.

And you need to change your name. The Zoq-Fot-Pik weren't even in Star Control 1! Taking your inept Warcraft analogy, it would be like naming yourself "Night Elf" or "Illidan" and then posting how Warcraft 3 was a crappy disappointment.

[q] Does anyone else feel compelled to try and punch this guy through their computer like I do? Star Control 1 was a cute spin-off of Archon. THAT'S IT. It was not all that significant on its own, and I think we may have found the only person on the planet who feels otherwise. [/q]

*raises hand*

However, SC1 was still pretty great... It's AI wasn't top-notch, but playing against another human player was pretty decent..

I really, really don't see why you can't just download SC1 from an abandonware site and play it on an emulator. It's not that hard. You can even use a Genesis emulator to play the Genesis version, which has extra features. A quick Google search will net you a site with the files, or I'll even e-mail you the name of the site I got mine from if you really want.

perhaps he doesn't want to break the law.

I am old enough to have bought and played Star Control 1 and 2 when they came out. I'm also old enough to have played Archon 1 and 2 and even Mail Order Monsters when they were new (I imagine many people here weren't even born when Archon 1 first appeared).

You guys ought to show SC 1 more respect. I probably put more hours on that game then I did SC 2 (because SC 1 focused more on multiplayer). The graphics and even changing the controls were aggrevating to me at first, but SC 1 literally turned your machine into an arcade machine, it had such sweet arcade like gameplay.

Even if SC 2 never came out, SC 1 would still be on the top list of 'greatest games ever made' (and it is!) just because of how playable the game was. It's obvious that without SC1 that Urquan Masters would never be made. What was SC 2 but SC 1 with an adventure game slapped on (which is like starflight)? I love SC 2 but I'm trying to point out that SC 1 did all the hard work. It created the core mechanics of Star Control Gameplay.

I prefer SC 1's battles over SC 2's hyper melee because SC 1 forced you to be Hierarchy or Alliance. You had to be good on the ships on that side. It forced you to use weak ships well. SC 2 is a free-for-all buffet where people have teams with urquan, chmmr, mmfrmm, all on one side with rarely using the shofixti, umgah, or even the earthling cruiser.  SC 1 forced you to take sides. In SC 2 there are no sides in melee, just open season.

SC 2 is far superior melee mode I agree, but SC 1 was more tactical (and I'm NOT just talking about the starmap mode). Having players use only alliance ships or only hierarchy ships takes more thought and skill than 'all teams can get any ship'. SC 1 at its heart is a multiplayer game (while SC 2 at its heart is a single player game).

Anyone comparing Star Control 1 to Archon obviously has no clear idea what Archon is. The action (combat) mode in Archon was a joke and a bit messed up. It worked best on the C 64 version where it was fast. The thrill of Archon was in the board game part, the strategies you could use. I fondly remember Archon tournaments and they exceed FPS and RTS tournaments, because Archon was harder.

Star Control 1 had great arcade combat (starmap mode gave it some scope). But Archon was about the strategy (not about the combat. Only noob players focused on the combat). Archon has been explained like combat chess (which of course it is more). But Archon 2 resembles nothing like chess and is one of those games that can only be done on a computer, it was that *different*.



I like SC 2. But I also like SC 1 as well. Where does it say that we all must like SC 2 more than SC 1? And no, I am not alone. Remember, SC 1 sold as many copies as SC 2 did if not more.

SC 2 is a GREAT game. But it is not a loyal sequel. To use the Warcraft analogy, it is like WoW is a fine game but it is a poor sequel to Warcraft as it isn't a RTS.

I have tried the Genesis version and it is too slow and looks funny. Many people look at SC 1 and see only the 'tactical campaign'. Those who played it A LOT see it as turning our pcs into arcade machines. Slow versions of SC 1 or 'odd speeds' of SC 1 (like you get on dos emulators) is like playing SC 2 without the music. Just as SC 2 is all about the adventure, SC 1 is all about the arcade.

It'd be a joy to play the original again on modern machines with correct speed.

God, I just spent a day getting my ass kicked because I didn't like the TWL plot, and here you all are, challenging each other to fist fights!

Apparently, Zanthius is not alone on this forum.


I do think it is strange that an rpg sequeled a strategy game, but I don't see what SC1 has over SC2 from an action stand point. If people just want to be on one side or the other, then they can just pick hierarchy or alliance ships, exclusively.

As far as strategy goes, I'm not sure how fun that part was in SC1. I think it's real power came from it's action.

P.S. Who doesn't use Cruisers? They kick ass, especially against most SC2 ships (nothing does well against the avatar, remember).

errrmmm...you don't have to mix ships just don't if you don't want to.

Correct. The action part was what sold SC 1, not the starmap mode. But the Starmap mode was necessary to give the game depth.

Let us say you guys make a Star Control 2 'starmap mode'. I doubt you would be content with dividing the ships into two different sides. Imagine an RTS and having all the sides the same. Now imagine an RTS where the sides have very different units. Which ones is harder to create? Which ones requires more strategy? It's the game that forces you to use different sides.

We often see the technical properties but not the overall arc. Die-hard is not about explosions, its about a guy getting his wife back. Red Alert is not about strategies, it is about Alliance fighting the Soviets.

If someone told you that Star Control 2 was just about some plot and many planets to mine, you would protest. Of *course* it feels more than that. Star Control 1 was not about the 'tactical mode', it was about the war. This was why Star Control 2 had such a punch even during the very first few minutes of the game. We SC 1 vets wanted to know what happened with the war! When SC 2 came out, we would talk to each other about it. "How is SC 2?" "Dude, we LOST the war. Earth is in a slave shield!" I suppose for most people, SC 2 had a nice setup. But for SC 1 fans, it was the biggest punch in the game.

Immediately beginning SC 2, I wanted to know what happened to my friends, Earth's allies. If you look at SC 2's star map, it reads as it does for a reason to SC 1 eyes. You are given the locations for the old races in SC 1 and a few 'rumors' of where races might be (like the Pkunk). I raced to where my old allies (hoping to regain them and find out what happened) only to get surprises (Chenjusu and Mrrmmffhmm slave shielded and fusing, Yehat joining the Hierarchy, Shofixti wiping themselves out!!!).

I've read many SC 2 reviews. Many treat the beginning game as 'boring' and only later did the plot 'get good'. To SC 1 veterans, many 'emotional punches' came at the beginning when finding out the fate of original SC 1 races.

Just because SC 1 didn't have an adventure game, doesn't mean it didn't have a well fleshed out universe. I'm holding the original SC 1 manual in my hands now. (go find the online version and look at it with me).

In the SC 1 manual, you will find (glancing through)...

-Story Introduction
-The signed full treaty of Earth's obligations to the Alliance of Free Stars
-Race descriptions
-Ship descriptions along with how they were made
-Scenario story descriptions

For an arcade like game, SC 1 certainly had a lot of story in it. It was reflected even more with the ship designs, the ditties, and the sound effects.

There were several *things* in SC 1 that for some reason I really liked. One were the AI options. Yes, you could have the computer fly your ships in the strategy mode. But what was odd was that you could have the computer do the strategy mode while you pilot the ships! Also, there was a scenario editor. You could make your own scenarios to play with friends or whatever else. I loved that thing.

SC 1 not only gave SC 2 its combat mode, it also gave SC 2 its story. All the major races were fleshed out in SC 1, the game universe was fleshed out. SC 2 put all that into 'hyperdrive' as if it were a plant growing from the fertile soil that SC 1 put out.

Let's bring back SC 1 in its former glory to modern game systems. It deserves it.

Given that many of us are fans of SC1/SC2, I'd wager that we (at least most of the lurkers) are a little older than you think.

I played both StarControl and Archon on my 8088 with CGA graphics, and beeping SFX (no little "ding" when the weapons hit in SC).  SC1 and Archon are the same concept applied to different genres: they were the only two games for quite some time to have a strategic mode which changed to an arcade battle for territory when two opposing pieces met in the same space.  Regarding the combat in Archon:  it would be the deciding factor when your oppenent loses almost their entire army (including the summoned monsters) to that little warrior or goblin you put in the center power point.  With m4d sk!llz, you can almost ignore the board strategy. Without the noobish focus, you'd lose a game real quick.

Ultima Underworld's timeline was fully integrated between U7 and U7.5:Serpent Isle.  UU was a FPS, while U7 and U7.5 were both non-linear RPGs (similar to SC2).  SC2 continued the SC1 history in this same vein (I too was surprised to learn all my successful combats against the Ur-Quan resulted in overall failure).

Heh.  All of the emulators run too fast for me.  Our computer was so slow that a well-reversed umgah could do a little damage to an arilou before the keyboard registered a teleport for the arilou.  ;)  

As many people (including yourself in the beginning post) have already said, the original source is lost, as are most of the machines we remember playing on (the game was dependant on the clock speed anyway).  Remaking a game which would match _exactly_ the gameplay you remember would require use of these emulators to test the new version against the original.  Unfortunately, because their algorithms had random factors (and we don't even know what random functions they used), even testing won't reveal exactly what steps your code should take.  The best you can do is make something pretty darn close to it (and some figure that if you're starting from scratch, why not add the features that hindsight gives you: network play, more than 2 players, additional ships from SC2 so that the Chmmr vs Ur-Quan battles can be simulated).
Too many changes can kill it as an SC1 clone of course.  The strategy was grand because the rules were simple.

Okay, but that's kind of petty. I mean, no one but no one is actually making money from the game, and I'm pretty sure the people who put their blood, sweat and tears into making it, Paul and Fred, would have released it freeware a while ago (given that they've released a free version of its bigger and more popular successor) if not for the sticky issue of the "STAR CONTROL" trademark not being theirs, and them not having source code that they could use to make a "STAR CONTROL"-trademark-stripped version.

For nostalgia value an SC1 clone bundled with UQM would be great. But I don't think TFB has any SC1 source to release -- they even lost the original PC source for SC2 which is why SC2 had to be reconstructed from the 3DO source, if I recall correctly (which I'm not sure I do). You'd have to rebuild it from scratch, and think of something to call it besides "Star Control" since that trademark is claimed. (You could go the subtitle route, but "Famous Battles of the Ur-Quan Conflict" doesn't ring like "The Ur-Quan Masters". Maybe just "The Ur-Quan Conflict", or "The Ur-Quan War"?)

Hrm.

Star Control 1 was -indeed- a great game. It combined action with strategy... It was great. Even though I'm only 16 years old, I still remember the days when I used to fight for hours on end for a victory against my brother. We've played it so much, that in the end we lost the whole game... Even though SC1 was a great game, it didn't manage to "grip" me the way SC2 did.. SC1 was basically a nice game, but one you'd sooner or later forget about. Sort of the way some of you might know an FPS-buzz, playing the same FPS over and over again (think UT and Q3), but in the end just simply forgetting about it...

Star Control 2, however, wasn't like this. From the beginning, it grabbed me like a hippo on steroids. If you look where to look, you can really see that the creators really spent a lot of fun AND time on this game... Just converse with the Yehat a bit.. Or the Spathi.. The humour in it... Brilliant.

Now you might come up with numbers saying that SC1 sold as much as SC2 (which I don't believe)... Look at the communities.. Any SC1-only fansite? No. Either they are a combo, or SC2 only.. Maybe one or two SC1-only fansites... Looks to me as if SC2 is more popular than SC1 for sure... Not that that says much..

Pik, you seem to have forgotten SC1's main feature:

SCENARIOS

Scenarios restricted the possible purchases, set balance issues, preset colonies, etc.

Basically, this strategic sim would allow scenarios, so that the game play would be EXACTLY the same as in SC1. The scenario restricts side A to alliance ships, and side B to hierarchy ships, for example. Wham. There you go, Total War, the classic SC1 scenario.

Next scenario: side A has a dreadnought. Side b has a couple colonies, a starbase, and a few Scouts. They can only build scouts. OOh! Extermination!

THE PROPOSAL IS TO USE THE UQM ENGINE TO MAKE A GAME WHICH HAS MULTIPLE SCENARIOS, A SUBSET OF WHICH IS THE SET OF SCENARIOS POSSIBLE IN SC1.

he said he liked the melee beter in sc1 better than in UQM but never said why.

I think SC 1 was more than an archon spinoff. Its 3d star map, nice turn system, simple production system, and far more complex combat make it a serious evolution of Archon. Like Tekken 2 vs Tekken 3. T3 broke so much new ground. But Tekken Tag... well, that was only small step.

SC 1 was ambitious, and accomplished its goals well. I played SC 2 first, and experienced reverse disappointment that SC 2 wasn't more like 1. The adventure mode was excellent, true. But I want the 3D rotating strategy starmap game back.

And for reference, Blizzard has never ever pretended that WoW is a "sequel" to W3. It is merely another game in the same universe.

I agree. I simply can't see where you're coming from here. Does it truly matter so much if you play a game where you can choose to either

a)
Recreate the Original SC1 scenarios (of which there were only like 9 or so anyway if I recall correctly) Using only SC1 ships and being limitided in EXACTLY the same ways as in SC1

or

b)
Play new scenarios that include newer ships, different versions of the Alliance and the Hierarchy or even neutrals.

Surely it would be better to have both options, rather than just restricting ourselves to one. This way you could play SC1 whereas the rest of us could play other scenarios (or even campaigns) or larger maps.

It has already been explained that it is probably impossible to emulate SC1 melee, the best we can do is use SC2 HyperMelee.

Regarding the story, as I believe I stated in another thread, SC1 was a space combat game. Sure, the manual includes a small backstory the equals out to "bad guys vs. good guys", and there were cute little race descriptions, but the larger story wasn't made in SC2. The races and story were "fleshed out" as you put it in SC2, rather than the other way around.

In closing, your best option seems to be DOSBOX or original. If I missed something, please feel free to explain why an exact replica of SC1 would be so vastly superior to a remake of the kind D_999 and others have proposed.



It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Sometimes it's an advantage to be dull and sound pseudointellectual, even if it does mean that one rarely gets to use words like "gross" and "disgusting" ;)

Sadly, the "how you say it" part is what's so elusive.

Simple solution: Don't riff on people or roast them or poke fun at them or whatever the hell it is you want to do if you don't know them. Especially on the Internet, where you ought to be aware that there is no body language and facial expression to give off your true intent. (And no, putting in a smiley does not count, any more than "Ha ha only kidding" counts. People can tell you're kidding about an insult and that you actually respect them by *unconscious* things like tone of voice and face, which you can't get across in one online communication.) Err on the side of being too serious. At worst, things will be a little awkward until you actually get to know people and learn their limits -- at best, you'll avoid giving a whole lot of unnecessary and unintentional offense.

Actually, there are some simple changes we can make that will bring SC2's melee closer to SC1's.

1) un-truncate the Umgah cone, make it wider and longer.

2) make the arena a touch smaller

There may be some other subtle modifications needed.

SC2's multiplayer owns SC1's. The supermelee has far more variety and replay value. If you really want to, you can easily set up an old hierarchy vs. old Alliance battle, which destroys your main complaint about supermelee. And I use the lower-tier ships all the time. SC2's melee is pretty well-balanced.  I'd argue it's more strategic than SC1's melee, because you have to build a balanced team (you cannot bring in a fleet of chmmrs and beat a competent player), and there's still the tactical questions of "What ship should I use to fight this ship?" that were present in SC1. The only things about SC1 I miss are strategy mode and the cool technical readouts.

Anyway, I agree that DOSBox is the best option for you, because no offense, but you're the only one here who seems to care this much about SC1.

i do :(

sc 1 melee own, 1 thing that i really miss in sc1 is the androsynth guardian option to toggle the blazer mode on and off whenever i wanted to.
it is so annoying to waste all my energy cause i wanted 2 blaze only for 1 sec.

I downloaded SC1 after reading this and while it's fun, it seems too short and the map screen messes the game up a lot.  The 3D star map is more realistic than SC2's hyperspace, but it just doesn't work in game.  Most of the challenge of the game is in figuring out what paths you're allowed to take.  The strategy system is good otherwise, though, and I'd like to see somebody make that SC2 strategy game.  I actually prefer it to SC2's system in some ways, and a combination of SC2's hyperspace and RPG with SC1's strategy could be an excellent game.

The biggest difference in melee is the Yehat ship, which in SC1 is actually very fast.  It would probably be easy to add approximations of the SC1 versions of some ships to the SC2 fan games.

What is the Earthling Cruiser like in SC1?

The Androsynth is good enough as is. It doesn't need a boost.

i wouldnt call adding an "on\off" toggle for the androsynth blaze mode a boost, this option is to basic to be called as a boost.
annoying that i have to waste all my energy on a single blaze without any option to stop the waste of energy or atlist  a good explanation about y cant the androsynth stop the blaze mode -
its not like they cant shut their power supplies to the blaze mode battary to simulate a situation of an empty battary.

Let us know when you have the patch done so that we may playtest it, then.  Or were you proposing that others do your work for you, for free?  If that's the case, then We'll Get Right On That™.  "Idea men" are about as useful to this project as tits on a bull, and in grand forum tradition, you are cordially invited to either put up or shut up.


Um, it's EXACTLY like that, at least as the game is currently coded.  And it's fairly obviously done as a game-balance issue: your slow-moving, slow-turning ship has the ability to turn into a fast-moving, fast turning ship.  The only way to keep the ship from being too powerful would be to put constraints on the ability, like "when you come out of fast mode, your batteries are empty and your inertia is zeroed"  Which is exactly what happens.

if u`ll learn 2 read better - u`dd notice that i didnt ask anyone to add this thing into the game,
i just mentioned one of the things that i miss in sc1 and expressed my opinion about it.
i c nothing wrong about that.

I sincerely hope you're being ironic.  If you wrote your posts in anything resembling an actual language, other folks wouldn't have so much...difficulty reading them.


That's super -- except for the fact that the feature you mention does not exist in SC1.  And I'm fairly certain of this, being as I just checked 30 seconds ago.  So what exactly are we talking about again?

Now, now. This board is a good place for anyone to share their ideas about how they think the game should be (even though us developers are not likely act on them). People are welcome to do so.
This is not a board for the UQM developers, it is a board for everyone who's got something to say about UQM.

"This board is a good place for anyone to share their ideas about how they think the game should be."

Alrighty then, here's what you should do. Replace the cruiser art with a toothbrush and the dreadnaught with a green apple. Replace the current starmap with a monopoly board. Make it so combat happens 20 times slower. Instead of the player having the vindicator for a flagship, give him a scout. He can add extra energy dart modules as he gains resources. Oh, one last thing, replace all the names in the credits with the brand names of leading laxatives.

Alright, so how 'bout it?

"Make it so combat happens 10 times faster"
you can do that in sc2(the real one).

When you pass Sol, you get 200 resources?   ::)

"Stay on Topic.."  -Gold Five
"We're too close!" -Gold Leader
"Stay on Topic."  -Gold Five
"Loosen up!"  -Gold Leader

When you pass into your next turn you get 200 starbucks?  That better Gold Five?  You hear me Gold Five?

*Enormous explosion as Gold Squadron is vaporized and the topic is flung away spiralling into deep space.

So... when do you think FUQ Battles Vol 1 will be remade?

If Famous Ur-Quan Battles Volume IV is SC1, what would Famous Ur-Quan Battles Volume I be?

A space battle adventure, but with Gungans and the backstory of how the Ur-Quan turned to the dark side.

That will be how the Ur-Quan defeated the Yuptar, Yuli, and Draal, under the command of the Dnyarri.

Oh, wait. The Dnyarri took them all over, but liked the Ur-Quan best. Then, while they were controlled, had the exterminated.

OK, Volume 1 is the first doctrinal war

Volume 2 is the advance of the Kohr-Ah

Volume 3 is the advance of the Ur-Quan up to the point of the alliance.

Volume 4 is the battle with the AFS

Another possibilty:
Volume I:  Ur-Quan battles with their own nature (mostly other Ur-Quan's natures), ending with their exploration & their discovery by the Taalo
Volume II:  Ur-Quan battles with the Dnyarri Empire, ending with the genetic lobotomizing of the Dnyarri
Volume III: First Doctrinal War, ending with the discovery of the Sa-Matra
Volume III.5: A series of some not-very famous battles around the galaxy where the Ur-Quan dominate (not famous because the Ur-Quan are not sufficiently challenged)
Volume IV: another battle like above, only notable because it leads to below
Volume V: The NAFS (or Empire of [font="courier new"]FOO[/font]) destroys the Sa-Matra, and defeat the Ur-Quan

Vol 1: The Dnyarri Menace
Vol 2: Attack Of The Slaves
Vol 3: Revenge Of The Ur-Quan
Vol 4: A New Hope (SC1)
Vol 5: The Kohr-Ah Strikes Back
Vol 6: Return Of The Precursor (SC2)

I think George Lucas stole the plot and made some movies with it though..

If SC1 is really "Volume 4", then is SC2 Volume 5 or Volume 4, part 2?

With the material we have to work with I think the most natural progression for prequels would be Volume 1 as the initial Dnyarri conquest (spun out here to be a bit more of an event than it seemed to be in SC2), Volume 2 as the Slave Revolt and Volume 3 as the first Doctrinal War. It would, of course, be very dark in tone. (The bad guys win, the good guys beat them, but then turn into bad guys.)

Oh yeah, and this guy:

http://www20.brinkster.com/pariahpress/starcon/main.htm

does some pretty good writeups trying to convince us that the Amstrad CPC and Commodore 64 versions of Star Control should be considered Volumes I and III, respectively. Not sure what he's got to put into Volume II. It might make more sense to let the PC version be III and the Genesis be IV, since the Genesis version does have scenarios that the PC version doesn't.

(Never mind, I think he intends the Spectrum version to be Volume III.)

I did mention the scenario mode. But Star Control 1's charm went beyond the scenario mode. Unlike Hyper-Melee, it wasn't just a bunch of 'ships', it was two sides.

The scenario mode worked because there was a war with two sides. If you try to just plop the scenario mode into UQM, you don't get a war, you just get a bunch of ships to assign whatever role you want. This does not mean a scenario mode to uqm would be wonderful (it would), I am simply pointing out that it does not equal Star Control 1.

Imagine when playing Star Control 1's scenario mode you could say, "Hey! I don't like this shofixti ship! I want to replace it with... the Ur-Quan ship!" Star Control 1's scenario mode was locked into two sides for a specific reason. You couldn't play Alliance vs. Alliance, Hierarchy vs. Hierarchy in the scenario mode (that I remember). You couldn't exchange ship designs for your faction. Toys for Bob intentionally designed it that way because Star Control is not about the scenarios, it is about the war! "Isn't that the same?" No. Star Control was about two sides battling it out. Star Control 2 was not about this. This is the fundamental attitude difference between the two games. Scenario mode in UQM would be great fun, but it would not be Star Control 1. Star Control 1 would require two locked sides.

Since Star Control 1's source code is lost, the best way to restore the game would be to use UQM.

My dream would be to one day load up UQM and the menu would read:

-The Ur-Quan War- (SC 1's title sceen and then menu options come up with the practice mode, melee mode, and scenario mode)
-The Ur-Quan Masters- (SC 2's full game. Leads to another menu asking for 'start game' or 'load game')
-Hyper Melee Mode- (SC 2's melee we all know)
-Hyper Scenario Mode- (New and improved scenario mode including SC 2 units)

I think it would be really cool to have Star Control 1, which features the war, as part of the package. Fans could add in new scenarios to 'expand' on the war and all. An ambitious fan could even attempt to put an adventure game within Star Control 1's war.

The Hyper Scenario Mode would include scenarios before, during, and after SC 2. Imagine a scenario of just Thraddash versus Ilwrath! Or Utwig and Supox versus the Black and Green Urquans (but they must avoid destroying the green urquans if possible). Imagine Chmmr and New Alliance ships battling the two Urquans and the remaining thralls (Mycon, Vux, Thraddash?, Ilwrath? Umgah). This mode could be a lot of fun but should let the Star control 1 scenarios remain in the Star Control mode. This way, the games end up being a bit more immersive and feel more like games rather than combat engines to 'pretend-your-own-game'.

You mean "Famous battles of the Ur-Quan Conflict"???

Oh, and yes, sides ARE important with SC1..

..yet I feel custom scenarios, like Yehat vs Yehat, or maybe even Earthling vs Earthling (one of em being pirates or something) should be "allowed"..

Hmmm.. Imagine a ZFP battling a Thradd or Umgah for a planet... :)

Hmm...  So your dream is to have a Star Control game with less options and more restrictions.  That type of game is perfect for people who like to be disappointed in their own fantasies.

Unfortunately, there are people that do not share your passion for restrictions as you do.  There are those that like Alliance versus Alliance.  Ur-Quan vs Ur-Quan.  Yehat vs Chenjesu.  If and when the strategy/tactical campaign is put in place (probably not for a long while), the story will still be Alliance vs Heirarchy, but there will be options for Alliance vs Alliance and Heirarchy vs Heirarchy.  If this still bothers you, you do have the source code, you can edit it however you want.

Alternatively, one could move to a communist dictatorship, join a cult, and never worry about having to make these horrible "choices" ever again. Or you could have a friend duct tape you to the wall, and then you won't accidentally choose a ship from the other side of the war. Sadly, you won't be able to choose any ships or play the game at all, for that matter. But, I guess you've gotta make sacrifices in the name of SC1's restrictiveness.

Couldn't you just have an option to lock the scenarios, or just have them locked permanently? Most new scenarios would probably be restricted somehow as well (Ilwrath wouldn't be able to buy Pkunk ships in their Ilwrath-Thraddash campaign/scenario). There is no need to remake SC1 just for that. Alternatively, you could always choose not to utilize the new ships.

Sc2 super-melee can function very closely to sc1 melee. First, enable 3-step melee zooming by launching UQM with this parameter (either from the command line, or by adding it to your uqm shortcut for windows):
Then, simply load up the teams "Old Heirarchy Ships" and "Old Alliance Ships". Once you press "Battle!", the game will function very closely to the classic sc1 melee.

Of course, It's not sc1... but it's close enough for my tastes. Personally, I like sc2 style better anyway.

Yeah - just load up the old Hierarchy and old Alliance teams, and make a restriction with the person you're playing against that you can't change teams. I think super melee is a lot more fun anyway, because of the customization. SC1's melee didn't really give the feeling of fighting in a war, its scenarios did.

Anyway, I honestly don't think this is going to happen.

Wow, you guys are not listening.

With the 'hyper-scenario' mode you could make anything you wanted. Yehat vs Yehat or Druuge vs Androsynth. Just as in the 'hyper-melee' mode you can put in any ship vs ship battle or combination you want.

In a Star Control 1 addition, it would be locked. You should have no issue with this since you can make your own side vs. side scenarios in the hyper-scenario mode (just as why protest a locked melee side in a SC 1 mode? We already have hyper-melee mode where we can do whatever).

What I am suspecting is that many SC 2 fans do not understand SC 1. To them, SC 1 is just a poor excuse of a game, whose only saving grace is the tactical campaign and ship descriptions. Forget that Star Control 1 was about the immensity of the Heirarchy War. Forget that all the ships were balanced, not ship to ship (as we see in SC 2), but rather tactics to tactis, that the ships were supposed to operate on the tactics board.  Forget the different game dynamics such as the the stronger planet and forcing the player to operate by side vs. side rather than ship vs. ship. Forget that Star Control 1 evolved and brought into modern age the very first video game made, Space Wars. Let us forget all of this and just say Star Control 1 is an 'awful game' and possessed nothing other than a tactics mode (and ship descriptions). And let us forget that Star Control 1 did make Computer Games best 'video games made' list seperately from Star Control 2.

So much could be brought to life by bringing Star Control 1 to modern game consoles. But I suppose it will never happen because you all see the game only through the lens of SC 2. You look at the game and think, "OMG, IMBALANCE OF SHIPS." Well, duh, because the gameplay isn't ship to ship but side to side. The Umgah and Shofixti sucked, as they were supposed to being 'scouts', and the Ur-Quan Ship was 'too strong', because it was supposed to be, being the flagship invading race.You look at the game and go, "OMG, LOCKED SIDES!" because SC 1 was not about ship vs. ship battles focused as SC 2 was. SC 1 was about side vs. side, as it did feature a full fledged tactical mode. You look at SC 1 and go, "OMG, NO STORY MODE!" Use your imagination with the tactical campaigns. You had scenarios and could imagine the war around you as you made more. I got more gameplay out of SC 1 than SC 2. In SC 2, it was an adventure game and it had an ending. You either replayed the same game or played with the melee. Well, with SC 1, the game always stayed fresh as all the possibilities with the tactical campaign. "OMG, SPINNING STARS!" Most sci-games used spinning maps, such as Overlord. In fact, Star Control felt like a combination of asteroids and overlord. Most old-school gamers prefer the older stars. I was glad that they were brought back in Star Control 3 at least.

Facts be told, the saving grace of Star Control 2 was the super melee part. It was the only multiplayer component. The game, mostly, was single player based. Star Control 1, however, was multiplayer based. But Fred Ford put in a very nice AI so one could practice on it well (good job with the AI in both SC 1 and 2, Fred!). I spent most of my time in SC 1 fighting or conquering star systems. I spent most of my time in SC 2 watching passively as my ship move through hyperspace or collecting resources again and again.

The point is that SC 2 is not an evolution of SC 1, it is a different beast entirely. The adventure mode of SC 2 was well done and recieved well (mostly) to SC 1 fans. But if you look at the sells, SC 1 and SC 2 sold around the same number of copies. "But where are the SC 1 fansites?" Most were absorbed into SC 2. But SC 1 doesn't have content that fits fansites in the same way Archon doesn't. But Archon still has a cult of gamers running around out there as well as SC 1. I should hope that if Paul and Fred make a sequel to their Star Controls, they combine the space arcade combat with the gameplay of Xcom or even Master of Orion 1. What! Such a sequel scares you? Think of how us SC 1 fans felt when we got an adventure game with no tactical mode! But SC 2 is good just as SC 1 is good for their unique ways. Rather than have a SC 3 'evolve' on SC 2, I'd prefer more playability and less single player linearity.

Bring SC 1 back to modern systems, not from the perspective of SC 2, but from the perspective of SC 1. Star Control 1 is NOT a less evolved form of SC 2, it is its own unique game. But I fear that will never happen, since you all have concluded that SC 2 is what Star control *really is*, and Star Control 1 is just some deformed game (with a tactical mode and nice ship descriptions!). In that case, even an 'evolutionary sequel' using SC 2's design will disapoint your high ideals. The unique Star Control genre is starving, and with this refusal to even look at the prequel from any other prism than from SC 2, then I say the series ought to die.

Oh, for God's *sake*, dude.

The only thing you're basically protesting is that the new scenario system would not be "locked" the way SC1 was locked so that players wouldn't be forced to play with SC1's original game balance, and therefore we wouldn't have a "pure" SC1 port. Cry me a friggin' river.

I would ordinarily try to be more polite but you keep harping on this. There's no *reason* to lock the game into SC1 configurations when you can easily make it customizable. The game is *for fun*. Players want to play it the way they want. You can create a set of *default* scenarios that represent SC1's original balance, and put a note in the manual saying, "These default scenarios represent the original Star Control experience" very easily. You don't need to annoy the player by keeping him from trying out new combinations he wants to play with.

Just like in SC2 you *can* exclusively play with Old Hierarchy vs. Old Alliance as a matter of honor, and I'm sure there are diehard SC1 fans who do this, without Toys for Bob annoying everyone by putting in a special "Star Control 1 Mode" where it's impossible to choose different sides.

There's a difference between making a good game and excessively throwing a sop to nostalgia. When you can actually play the original SC1 on an emulator, and when you can *replicate* SC1 through a new, powerful game engine, you *don't need* to recreate a game with all the same limitations and lock-ins of the original game. People who want the particular game balance TFB came up with in SC1 can play it; people who want a different one can customize it.

Sure, there will be dorks who will have fun making fleets of Dreadnoughts and Avatars smash each other, but that gets old quickly for serious gamers, and for non-serious gamers -- hey, let 'em knock themselves out. It's not like the original SC1 scenario editor *didn't* let you create ridiculous 15 Dreadnought vs. 1 Scout missions. (And, yeah, I get that SC1 holds a lot of good memories for you, but the game's balance was in no way perfect -- in fact, TFB's strength has always been the ineffable cool-factor and replayability-factor of their games while they've more or less played delicate issues like game balance by ear. I've always felt that, objectively speaking, SC1 is pretty weighted toward the Alliance side.)

In any case... MY GOD, dude. What the hell is the point of trying to start an SC1 vs. SC2 jihad? I liked both games just fine. If I thought SC2 was the be-all and end-all I wouldn't support the idea of a strategic SC game at all -- I'd insist that any sequel be a story-driven adventure. But that doesn't mean worshiping at SC1's feet so much that I demand a "real" port that has zero new or modern features so that it can be exactly like the original. I fail to comprehend the mindset that says the game is less fun if it takes *away* the ability to customize it because the original game wasn't customizable.

I still don't really comprehend what you're bitching about. THE STRATEGIC ADD-ON *IS* BRINGING SC1 TO MODERN SYSTEMS. It's bringing a more flexible, more interesting version of SC1 to modern systems, but the original SC1 is still *in* there, and if you want to play it -- and if you want to encourage others to play it -- by all means, do so. But it's madness to say that you have to create a special locked version that refuses to allow the player to do anything that the original game couldn't do. That's just being obsessive and silly. (Are you going to demand that we put back in the Professor Zorg copy-protection, too?)

And another note: You really seem to be missing the wave of the future. Moddability is the in thing. Very story-driven, idiosyncratic games can maintain customizability without losing their identity. Games like Half-Life leave themselves wide open to people designing their own levels and mods for the game, while the core levels of the game *itself* are still very carefully balanced and story-driven.

You lose nothing by having a UQM Scenario mode that contains an (editable) Default Story Mode that has the scenarios laid out by TFB for the Alliance and Hierarchy sides in a certain order (which, by the way, they themselves tweaked a lot -- just look at the differences between the Genesis and PC versions) -- *but* that also has a bunch of new, interesting scenarios, also story-driven and balanced (the Pkunk fighting off the Ilwrath, the New Alliance mopping up the Ur-Quan), *and* the possibility to create new scenarios. People with the inclination to will play the story mode and critique its balance, I assure you. But they'll also have fun tweaking the balance and fiddling around -- some will make wild and insane new scenarios, some will try to improve the balance of existing ones, some will make whole new campaigns that fit into the story and may be better than the original designers'.

Every serious RTS out there works like this, and they *benefit* from it, rather than suffering. Starcraft's main campaign didn't suffer because of the huge capacity for mod levels -- everyone learned to play through the main campaigns and discussed them to death, then *kept on* playing through tons of new and interesting scenarios and gave the game years and years and years of life. Games that lack that moddability eventually have players move on to other things -- after all, you can only play the same ten scenarios so long before you know them by heart.

It seems to me you're the one pointlessly creating conflict here by failing to see the big picture -- this isn't an SC2 thing vs. SC1 thing, this is the way gaming now works -- thanks to widespread computer literacy and plentiful hardware resources -- vs. the way it used to work when a game had to fit on a tiny disk and most people still saw computers as toys. *Any* good game should be moddable, and paternalistically *locking* a game *against* customization when it would be easy to make it customizable, because you're such an insecure game designer you don't want the player touching your precious game balance (or you so blindly worship the original game you don't want to let the player sully it with her own ideas) is assholish in the extreme.

I fully agree with Art. I would also rather not see you taking the high and mighty seat of "OMG SC2 extremists you hate SC1 and only I can see its glory!!!"

I like SC1 just fine. I loved playing the scenarios. I enjoyed playin melee. I loved making new campaigns. I respect SC1 as a game, as do most people here. But the fact reaminas that it would be plain stupid to make a remake of SC1, without including the possiblity to vreate new scenarios that include New Alliance and neutral ships. The reason those aren't in SC1 is beacuase they were not yet invented when the game was created. Now they are. So those who want to try them can do so.

I repeat: In a remake, you'd still be able to replay the original scenarios exactly as they were. But you wouldn't have to. Why is that not enough? As Art says, even in SC1 you could match up insane amounts of Dreadnoughts against a single Shoxiti without a Starbase. Balance wasn't an issue, there, and it won't be here.

I agree with both of Art and Pik.

Unfortunately for Pik, the "war" is over in sc2, and there are no clear sides anymore, that's why I agree with Art.

I don't agree with Art that allowing *anything* is a good thing. It's the (artificial) constraints that make a game unique and gives the player a *special feeling*.

And Star Craft is a particularly bad example to pick, since that's a prime example of fixed armies. Uhmm... well, except in those weird defense matrix games of course, which are lots of fun but well... you don't take those seriously.

Actually, all strategy games I know of use fixed armies.

Allow the scenario designer to do anything, including restrict the player. That is what he meant. We've been over this.

Even in starcraft a wily scenario maker could script up custom teams, where siege tanks were switched with reavers.

Incidentally, I think SC1 is a great game on its own, without SC2. This is why we are here, talking about it. But I think the flexibility that is now possible, due to subsequent work (i.e. SC2), should be included in any remake.

That is all.

You're right, we're not listening.  We're all reading.   ;)

I understand your need for this meaningful balanced war story between the good guys and the Alliance, but the rest of us have different ideas of what great gameplay is.  Lots of ships, backstabbing allies, and sleeping with Talana are a few of those ideas.  If you really are passionate about the greatness of SC1, perhaps you should try to make a version of it with the SC2 source code.  I'm trying to do that too, but I'm hitting a few bumps in the road.  Maybe you'll have better luck than me...

harth1026, I have a feeling you won't agree to this idea, but I'll suggest it anyway.

Maybe instead of working with UQM you should work in TWL's code. This means that the game will have better network support, more ships instead of just the SC1&2 ships, and better graphics.

This will allow more scenario games and more teams to be created.

Cool...  I haven't really thought of looking at anything else other than the UQM code.  Thanks for the idea.  Actually, because of some of the difficulties I have encountered, I decided to try this from scratch.  Basically, I'm taking chunks of UQM code and content, with chucks of some Asteroid code, and some free source code I got off of NeHe and forming Voltron with it.  Speaking of Voltron, I should post that as my favorite Scifi robot.  Really, what I'm doing is remaking the entire SC1 game from the ground up.  It'll probably take a little longer this way, but at least I'll know where everything is so I can easily expand it.  This is all mainly for the learning experience, but hopefully I'll end up with something that fun too.  Maybe the TWL code will give me ideas that I haven't thought of yet.  Thanks again.

TWL already have working melee, so you won't have to program that part at all.
You just make the program that run the tactical game, and then call up the melee battles when you need them.

If you need help with the code I'm sure Yurand or youBastard (our programmers) will be happy to give you some pointers (although they're busy programming other things so they won't actually work on this game).

Take a look at the site (http://tw-light.berlios.de/) or check the forums (http://timewarp.sourceforge.net/forum/index.php).

The main reason I'd like to see it happening in TWL is because of all the new ships you'll be able to add to the game, instead of just playing the SC1&2 ships.
Especially when we'll have the adventure game ready and people will be able to play with races from the new game.

you mean, it's become a separate project ? I thought you wanted to make something that's integrated in UQM.

Have faith.  :)  All I'm doing now is just a learning experience.  Adding on a new game mode to UQM or TWL would be the biggest game project I would have ever done so far.  If I jump straight into it, I wouldn't know what to do and I'd never finish.  First I just want to improve my Jedi programming skills.  After I get a better understanding of how game programming goes, I'd be better off taking on the UQM code.

Clarification: It would be silly if, at any time during the game, the person *playing the game* could click on a menu to make a Dreadnought vanish and replace it with a Scout. It's totally okay to take that out of the game. I don't think anyone was proposing otherwise.

However, the game should, out of the box, include a scenario editor, and if the player chooses to take the trouble to open it up and browse scenario files with it the game should let the player change whatever variables she wants changed.

:)