Author
|
Topic: Famous Ur-Quan Battles Volume IV (Read 18256 times)
|
Pik
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 23
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
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.
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*.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1387
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michael
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 200
|
errrmmm...you don't have to mix ships just don't if you don't want to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pik
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 23
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
(I imagine many people here weren't even born when Archon 1 first appeared). 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.
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 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.
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. 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).
Slow versions of SC 1 or 'odd speeds' of SC 1 (like you get on dos emulators) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Art
Guest
|
perhaps he doesn't want to break the law.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Art
Guest
|
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"?)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Megagun
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 580
Moo
|
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..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michael
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 200
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
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.
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.
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!
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"
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 11, 2005, 02:29:24 am by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Sadly, the "how you say it" part is what's so elusive.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Art
Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
