|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
 Poll
|
| Question: |
What game is better, Star Control II or StarFlight I/II (take the one you consider better)?
| Star Control II is the best! |
| StarFlight I/II is the best! |
| Quite the same, I think. |
| It doesn't matter. We're all going to die anyway. |
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Poll: Clash of the Titans: Star Control versus StarFlight (Read 10662 times)
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1387
|
It is actually just "Starflight", it is not written like "StarCraft". Because of this I used to call "Star Control", "Starcontrol". 
Star Control 2 has nice dialogue with a nice quantity of really humorous moments like its predecessor Starflight, which are further enhanced by its nicely animated and detailed portrait artwork and in some cases, voice acting. The ship combat, though maybe a little too arcade like for some, is really a strong point as it offers enough to be a game in itself. The theme music is quite cheesy as opposed to the SF starting themes which are fairly good and memorable (if in some versions hindered by the limited technology of the time) but in game, SC2's music is very well done and enhances many parts of the game that just would not nearly be as interesting and immersive in silence.
Sadly, there are a few areas that really limited SC2's potential and moves SF into the lead by a sizeable margin in my opinion. While planetary exploration was as big and diverse of a part of SF as space exploration, in SC2 it has very little put into it. Planets are extremely small on the surface and lack any kind of complexity in terrain or lifeforms or weather. Really not much more here than Pacman, you try to run over the glowy dots and avoid the things that are chasing after you or exploding. This is a very noticeable shortcoming, because mining planets is still about as important to your survival and success as it was in SF, so you must spend alot of time doing it. Another major issue with the planet system, is that minerals and lifeforms are completely and quickly expended, creating barren celestial wastelands around the starbase and forcing you to fly farther and farther away to continue your strip mining.
This compounds the next problem, the fuel system. Unlike in SF, you cannot find fuel on any planets, you cannot pay for it from other races using your RU and you cannot get more of it at a centrally located starbase (like the syreen one, huge missed opportunity here gameplay wise). This is a big problem because your supposedly advanced mothership burns more juice then all the american made suvs and las vegas combined. And you are in a far corner of the map, with much of the action taking place all the way across to the other corner, making fuel consumption a hugely costly expense.
But while SF had fluxes, you have quasispace portals to help you cut through space without burning fuel. Sadly there is a catch to this as well. While fluxes occur in Hyperspace directly and become fully charted on your starmap after you haved passed through one the first time, portals require an artifact acquired through a few sub plot missions that are a great distance away and a bitch to use. First you have to enter Quasispace using the device which costs you fuel, then you have to choose a portal that will take you to someplace in Hyperspace and you don't know where until you have gone through it. So you basically have to do alot of load/save trial and error and write everything down on paper, which is not very fun at all, basically a price the game makes you pay to waste some of your time with no gameplay value whatsoever.
The last problem is the game terminates whether you lose or win. In Starflight there was a time limit to complete the main campain, but if you were successful before that then you could keep playing forever. In Starflight 2, completing the main campaign meant you finished the game and it ended there, but if you did not complete it or went back to a save before you completed it, you could keep playing forever as well. Since Star Control 2 ends in either event, it is essentially rushing you to stop playing it. By doing it this way, replay value is also seriously hindered, leaving you to mostly hold super melee matches or wait for a sequel that would have mirrored Starflight 2, but instead ends up being made by an entirely different company that really wants to make an entirely different game with a popular IP's name stamped on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
I think we can safely conclude that Deus Siddis is a Starflight fan.  I also don't see Starflight as a "titan". If I recall correctly ,it wasn't a huge success on the market ,although, the title did earn a cult like, minority following.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
I think we can safely conclude that Deus Siddis is a Starflight fan. I also don't see Starflight as a "titan". If I recall correctly ,it wasn't a huge success on the market ,although, the title did earn a cult like, minority following.
He makes a good case, although I haven't played Starflight. The reviews Valaggar has linked are interesting as well. I'm tempted to try and track that down on Home of the Underdogs now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defender
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 817
|
Starflight
Sega Genesis
Mt. Dew
Them were the days...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arne
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 520
Yak!
|
I have to give Starflight my vote, but it's pretty much an even race and these two horses have left the rest of the pack far behind in this particular contest... well, there's also MoO but I have not played that (afaik). It's one of my faviourite genres, yet I have missed so many gems and can never quite find the time correct that mistake.
Starflight gets the vote because I prefer a deeper detail level, even if it means that the game is harder to play. But, I think it's possible to have scalability in the complexity of a game, i.e. to have a superficial layer of 'pick up and play' / Arcade style gameplay, then emerging layers of complexity beneath that for players like me.
If I have to choose just one thing about SF which won my heart, it' was being able to set up your crew and having them command the ship. This is one of those features which has HUGE collateral benefits on immersion. It doesn't matter if they're just bytes which are poorly displayed, because the magic happens in the player's mind.
When it comes to universe / alien design, I think I prefer SC though. Spathi, Syreen, ZFP... too many favourites to list. I know the SC aliens are highly derived from SF, but I think there was some notable refinenement and improved homigenity done... at least in the direction of my preferences.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 11:53:31 pm by Arne »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
well, there's also MoO but I have not played that (afaik). It's one of my faviourite genres, yet I have missed so many gems and can never quite find the time correct that mistake.
Same thing here, especially with MoO, which is high up on my to-play list.
Starflight gets the vote because I prefer a deeper detail level, even if it means that the game is harder to play. But, I think it's possible to have scalability in the complexity of a game, i.e. to have a superficial layer of 'pick up and play' / Arcade style gameplay, then emerging layers of complexity beneath that for players like me.
I agree, all I would like to have seen, or see in a future SC game would be for that arcade style to be slowed down just a tad, have some more maneuvering options added (Supox were a step in the right direction on this front, imo) and for there to be more than two ships fighting at once. Hardpoints for all ships might also be a good addition and it would also be nice for the larger ships to have a slightly 'heavier' maneuvering and firepower, but neither of these are really essential.
If I have to choose just one thing about SF which won my heart, it' was being able to set up your crew and having them command the ship. This is one of those features which has HUGE collateral benefits on immersion. It doesn't matter if they're just bytes which are poorly displayed, because the magic happens in the player's mind.
Heh, I had forgotten about that. As a kid playing SF back in the day, that was a big part of what made it fun. Especially because they didn't look at all like lame 'humanoids'.
When it comes to universe / alien design, I think I prefer SC though. Spathi, Syreen, ZFP... too many favourites to list. I know the SC aliens are highly derived from SF, but I think there was some notable refinenement and improved homigenity done... at least in the direction of my preferences.
Well I still prefer my Thrynn without honesty or wings, but I have to say SC2's aliens were done very well in all respects. This is without doubt, SC2's greatest strength.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I haven't played starflight, so I'm not qualified to say; however, I would point out that the first reviewer is incompetent at mining. Obviously didn't listen to Hayes' advice.
But, so many players are in the same boat, that that's a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
I agree, all I would like to have seen, or see in a future SC game would be for that arcade style to be slowed down just a tad, have some more maneuvering options added (Supox were a step in the right direction on this front, imo) and for there to be more than two ships fighting at once. Hardpoints for all ships might also be a good addition and it would also be nice for the larger ships to have a slightly 'heavier' maneuvering and firepower, but neither of these are really essential.
I agree the suppox were a step in the right direction. Imagine if all SC ships had varying degrees of simple side to side strafing. Just that one thing alone would have made the melee a substantially different experience imo. That coupled with corvette through dreadnought sizing and matching handling characteristics based on weight as you suggest, would have made Super Melee spectacular imo.
im not too keen on multiple ship combat becuase this really slows down gameplay. I'd like a faster, mortal kombat style perhaps even with varying degrees of damage expressed through damage models (a dread with a gaping hole in the side) rather than the crew count on a side panel.
Also, Deus_Siddis , I can barely make out that your avatar is a ship, let alone identify it. It's a bit dark on my monitor. But i'n all honesty, I have played starflight too few times for that pic to become instantly identifiable. Is it from the box cover? If not where can I find it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arne
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 520
Yak!
|
Tryp06 > Atari ST cover? http://www.mobygames.com/game/atari-st/starflight
Deus> Yeah, Especially because [the crew] didn't look at all like lame 'humanoids'. It wouldn't have worked nearly as well with races derived from StarTrek in the same way the crew concept was. I was really excited about having... shrubberies, androids and whatever crew my ship. The same thing wouldn't have happened with 'funny foreheads', and it helped SF get its own character.
The unique stats (training), and posssibly a diary/log really brought depth. This could be taken much further of course...
Negative points go to SF for having aged badly. I'm not too keen about general GUI, the tiny viewport, anonymous enemy crafts, tile/step based combat, etc.... but, just like Exile for the BBC, it really had balls trying to do all it did, and I admire that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
|
|
