Star Trek Legacy (PC) Review

[Apache]

Voodoo Extreme has posted what looks to be the first online review of Bethesda & Mad Doc Software's Star Trek Legacy.
I think we're all familiar with the long and storied history of bad Star Trek games. There have been a few diamonds in the rough, but most have just been roughage. Mad Doc Software and Bethesda hope to remove that bad taste from our mouths with Star Trek Legacy, a visibly appealing space shooter/simulation that stars all five TV captains, from the original series' Kirk to Enterprise's Archer. While Mad Doc did manage to dish out an exceptionally narrated experience that is bound to entertain fans of the series, folks who don't worship at the house that Roddenberry built aren't going to have such a rosy experience.
Enjoy. (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/750/750360p1.html)

[Sandman]

Star Trek Legacy felt like it was rushed out the door and a lot of the promised features got brushed to the cutting-room floor. (Oh, did I mention that you can't save games in the middle of a mission? Well, there's that too.) The bottom line is that this is just another one of those "okay" Star Trek games, not the one we've all been waiting for our whole life. Well, mine at least!

Booooooo. No saves in the middle of a mission makes me a sad panda.

[Hemalin]

No mid-game saves? What is this, the 80s?

The controls were designed around the 360 gamepad

FUCK!!!!

[Returner]

:p I will be getting the 360 version anyways.

[Kem0sabe]

You move your ship like a first-person-shooter with the WASD keys. Each ship has a designated number (1-4) and you can give them simple orders or control each of them yourself. About now is when you realize how lazy the developers were with the interface. No, you can't remap the keys without going into the Input.map file and I couldn't even find an in-game menu to use. The controls were designed around the 360 gamepad, and even some of the hints tell you to press console

How do these idiotic developers and publishers expect to sell copies of their games if we keep getting these sloppy conversions of console games... hints that refer to the 360 controller? thats just insulting.

[Serapth]

Im kinda shocked this is front page material. Do enough people still actually care about startrek games these days?

*I ask as an honest question*

[Grey]

its totaly designed for the xbox. the whole controls are slow and you know with every hit on the key that the command was designed for a gamepad :(

besides that remindes me the technical level more at times where freelancer was around. Both X3 Reunion and DarkStar One have more impressive graphics, and X3 is more then a year old ... i guess the 360 version will offer better gfx ... again -.-

hooray for multiplattform games.

Im kinda shocked this is front page material. Do enough people still actually care about startrek games these days?

*I ask as an honest question*

well at least we can hope for something good, like only elite force 1/2 brought so far ...

[IrishWhiskey]

Eh. Reading the whole review makes it sound not that bad. Most of the complaints seem to be PC oriented. I doubt it will greatly improve on the 360, but controls should hopefully be better.

To put it simply a 7.6 is a good score for a Star Trek game. If other reviews give the 360 version around an 8.0, I might pick it up. Either way, its probably worth a rental. Again, only if you have an interests in Star Trek.

Besides, anyone expecting a Star Trek console game to get 9.0s must be smokin something good.

.

[Apache]

It's really not a bad game at all. I liked it quite a bit just from the Star Trek / story point of view. It just suffers from a bad case of port-itis.

[Zeal]

I just wanna play as the Borg and blow shit up.

[Hemalin]

We probably should have expected this coming from Bethesda. Do developers not even want to sell games on the PC anymore?

[SPBTooL]

I just found out today that there are no directional shields in the game. All shields on all ships are just simulated as a single sphere.

I can understand not having all the different type of shields and hull plating that is in the universe in the game. But not even having directional shields? That just turns the game into a battle of attrition and not skill/tactics.

The game fell from "maybe I'll buy" to "I'll rent when there's nothing better"

EDIT: Oh and they dropped the split screen support for the 360 version.

[Serapth]

We probably should have expected this coming from Bethesda. Do developers not even want to sell games on the PC anymore?


Ok, roleplaying time.

You are a high level bean counter at a game developer.

Your SKU targets both PC and Consoles.

A hit on the PC results in about 300K sales.
A hit on a console results in about 3Mil sales.

You have a budgeting/timing/whatever crysis and have to take focus away from either the PC port, or the Console port.

Which do you choose?

[kabutor]

Why did they even bother to release this POS in the PC?

Is it good in 360? Fine, but dont try to make us,PC gamers , buy it.

[Lutheran]

Im kinda shocked this is front page material. Do enough people still actually care about startrek games these days?

*I ask as an honest question*


Why would you be shocked that one of the biggest pc game releases of the holidays is on the front page of a gaming news website? Star Trek is still kinda big news especially with the MMO coming and a new movie coming down the pike not to mention this game has all the captains from all the series in it supplying the voiceovers. Too bad the PC version seems to be a horrible console port. I remember a time when it used to be the other way around.

[Serapth]

Why would you be shocked that one of the biggest pc game releases of the holidays is on the front page of a gaming news website? Star Trek is still kinda big news especially with the MMO coming and a new movie coming down the pike not to mention this game has all the captains from all the series in it supplying the voiceovers. Too bad the PC version seems to be a horrible console port. I remember a time when it used to be the other way around.


Guess my surpise is that its considered one of "the biggest pc game releases". I always pegged the StarTrek franchise as a used and spit out cheap and dirty whore. I mean, it was a running joke how craptastic Star Trek games are going to be, minus Elite Force.

[Sandman]

Guess my surpise is that its considered one of "the biggest pc game releases". I always pegged the StarTrek franchise as a used and spit out cheap and dirty whore. I mean, it was a running joke how craptastic Star Trek games are going to be, minus Elite Force.

It's one of the biggest pc game releases because there isn't much for pc gamers to be excited about. And I think we all hoped for Bethesda to put some of it's Elder Scrolls magic into a Star Trek game.

[Hemalin]

Which do you choose?
I would can whichever port is the shittiest. Do you know why the hit would only gain 300k sales? It's because developers release shit and expect it to sell as well as the product that they actually put effort into.

[Dag-Sabot]

Thought the review was well... written.

[Intruder]

According to one of the story writers over at Bethesda's forums, a lot of the story was cut out and some plot holes are present in the story.

[SPBTooL]

A look at the official forum shows the fans of the game range from "I hate it" to "It has potential" (meaning when modders make it better")

That's real sad.

[Jack Random]

I felt some anger towards this game when iI picked up the PC version, and felt the need to put it in writing...

http://randomoffenses.blogspot.com/2006/12/star-trek-legacy-dissapointment-total.html

Then I found out why the game looked like ass on my PC...

http://randomoffenses.blogspot.com/2006/12/legacy-of-pain.html

[Frogleg Special]

I know the dev is Mad Doc which has created mediocre strategy games like Armada 2 and Empire Earth 2. But Mad Doc is no stranger to PC interface. But on this one it's Bethesda Softworks philosophy on "focus on X360, and if we still have time, do the PC" reeks a hard stench.

Fallout 3, very beware.


A hit on the PC results in about 300K sales.
A hit on a console results in about 3Mil sales.


Way to exaggerate the sales figures. 3 Mil is the figure for Dead Rising. Star Trek games have their roots in the PC (where all the good ST games are) and the franchise will not attract 3 Millions gamers.


I just found out today that there are no directional shields in the game. All shields on all ships are just simulated as a single sphere


Heh. Dumbed down for the win.

Starfleet Command, Starfleet Academy, Klingon Academy, Bridge Commander -Where are you?

[Lutheran]

True a lot of Star Trek games have been pretty much crap but this was Bethesda and people had some hope they wouldn't screw it up.

[Grey]

Ok, roleplaying time.

You are a high level bean counter at a game developer.

Your SKU targets both PC and Consoles.

A hit on the PC results in about 300K sales.
A hit on a console results in about 3Mil sales.

You have a budgeting/timing/whatever crysis and have to take focus away from either the PC port, or the Console port.

Which do you choose?


or you have skilled programmers who _can_ make a good PC game which also sells good ... they are few, but they still exist!
but if you just got a random film license then it propably happens this way ...

I felt some anger towards this game when iI picked up the PC version, and felt the need to put it in writing...

http://randomoffenses.blogspot.com/2006/12/star-trek-legacy-dissapointment-total.html

Then I found out why the game looked like ass on my PC...

http://randomoffenses.blogspot.com/2006/12/legacy-of-pain.html


could you post the exact link of the bethesda forum thread? would be nice if it would at least dont look like crap ...

[Jack Random]

could you post the exact link of the bethesda forum thread? would be nice if it would at least dont look like crap ...

here you go Grey, enjoy:
http://startrek.bethsoft.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3631

[Herald42]

A hit on the PC results in about 300K sales.
A hit on a console results in about 3Mil sales.

300K is not a hit on PC. 300K is a drop in the bucket. World of Warcraft has 6 million current, active subscribers, and many more than that in terms of units sold. Blizzard has banned over 200,000. So, before counting anyone who's ever quit WoW, they've sold at least 6,200,000 boxes. To put it in perspective, Halo 2 has sold 7 million units. A good, well-done PC game will sell on par with a good console game.

The problem is, publishers treat PC gamers like we're a secondary market. They don't put forth the same effort they'd put into a console game, because they know they can rush the game for a major selling date and patch it later. Or they do a half-ass port in the name of releasing on multiple systems. It's sad when major publishers put more effort into their Gamecube ports than the PC counterpart, simply because they can't patch it later.

In reality, it's fairly simple to release a cross-platform PC game and even hit the Mac and Linux, provided you use non-DirectX technology like Open GL. And if it's well done, people will buy it. Unfortunately, major publishers don't see that, and just give us direct ports of their console versions, or buggy incomplete versions.

[Knightsaber]

You can compare nothing to World of Warcraft. Find me what sold the second most of all time. (Probably EQ). I'll bet it's less than half that.

If you have a hit like Half-Life 2 that's a hit, plain and simple.

[Herald42]

I compared the largest-selling PC game in recent history to what I believe is the largest-selling console game in recent history to show that the PC can put up the numbers other consoles can. I didn't say it was par for the course -- because I feel that publishers of PC titles are alright with not selling as much because they're not trying.

My point is that publishers can match console sales, if they try. And publishers, frankly, aren't really trying, or even allowing developers to finish what they start. Name a PC game that hasn't been full of bugs, compatibility errors, and disappointments at launch in the past few years; or a PC game where the publisher hasn't forced the developer to skip much of the later development cycle to meet a deadline. I'm willing to bet that even if you could name one, you could name dozens of games that were all of that. I know I can.

If they just put the same effort into the PC that they do into the console versions, they will sell. Hell, if a PC game can sell nearly as well as Halo 2, I'm not seeing why publishers aren't lining up -- oh, wait. Because they're looking at average sales from the same model they're doing now -- release games before they've even been finished, much less tested, patching later, not even fixing critical bugs before selling to the public. The Burning Crusade is going to be one of the biggest selling titles of the year, including console games. Why? Because Blizzard took its time with it and made the content the best it could be, extensively tested it, and made sure it was both playable and fun. No wonder they're making loads of money.

[Hemalin]

My point is that publishers can match console sales, if they try.
You know, it could be something as simple as advertising. When was the last time you saw a commercial for a PC game that wasn't also coming out on a console?

[Rakael]

Lets just hope Fallout 3 doesn't also become a mediocre game.

Damnit, I actually wanted this one, but there are too many good games to play to waste time on one that is "ok".

[Watership]

From some media outlets and review sites comes this news. The PC version is clunky and horribly optimized.

The 360 version, is not.

[Watership]

I compared the largest-selling PC game in recent history to what I believe is the largest-selling console game in recent history to show that the PC can put up the numbers other consoles can. I didn't say it was par for the course -- because I feel that publishers of PC titles are alright with not selling as much because they're not trying.

The top PC games can go toe to toe with the top selling Console games, Absolutely. Unfortunately, the divide between a top selling PC game and a poorly selling one is gigantic. The sales spread for PC games is very large, with games like the Sims and Half Life selling huge, and then everything else is near the bottom. Console sales are more widely spread across the sales spectrum giving publishers some guarantee of return.


My point is that publishers can match console sales, if they try. And publishers, frankly, aren't really trying, or even allowing developers to finish what they start. Name a PC game that hasn't been full of bugs, compatibility errors, and disappointments at launch in the past few years; or a PC game where the publisher hasn't forced the developer to skip much of the later development cycle to meet a deadline. I'm willing to bet that even if you could name one, you could name dozens of games that were all of that. I know I can.


Publisher try. Don't blame the nature of PC gaming on publishers. Producing complex high performance multimedia code on the thousands of hardware combinations and permutations is just as easy as ONE piece of hardware.. aka, a console platform. Some PC games can stable, but I do not remember ONE in the past 12 years that didn't require some sort of sacrifice of either time and money to make it run better.


If they just put the same effort into the PC that they do into the console versions, they will sell. Hell, if a PC game can sell nearly as well as Halo 2, I'm not seeing why publishers aren't lining up -- oh, wait. Because they're looking at average sales from the same model they're doing now -- release games before they've even been finished, much less tested, patching later, not even fixing critical bugs before selling to the public. The Burning Crusade is going to be one of the biggest selling titles of the year, including console games. Why? Because Blizzard took its time with it and made the content the best it could be, extensively tested it, and made sure it was both playable and fun. No wonder they're making loads of money.

All this is very logical and looks good on paper, but your forgetting a variable. Piracy. PC gaming is ravaged by piracy, It's easy, widespread and does impact sales of games. No matter how much you want to make a PC only game, as a publisher, you sometimes have to worry about your companies bottom line and make a game that will;

A) WORK
B) MAKE MONEY

PC games don't do that as well as consoles. Sad, hard facts of the Twenty First Century.

[Zanzibar]

You can compare nothing to World of Warcraft. Find me what sold the second most of all time. (Probably EQ). I'll bet it's less than half that.

If you have a hit like Half-Life 2 that's a hit, plain and simple.

'The Sims' called to laugh at you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims)

[Frogleg Special]

The fact is Star Trek Legacy is a dumbed down game.

Sadly most of the gamers who'll play it in the Xbox 360 never know it's a dumbed down game because they've never played a good Star Trek game before.

[Knightsaber]

'The Sims' called to laugh at you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims)

Forgot about The Sims, that's my bad.

[Watership]

The fact is Star Trek Legacy is a dumbed down game.

Sadly most of the gamers who'll play it in the Xbox 360 never know it's a dumbed down game because they've never played a good Star Trek game before.

So your saying that most Xbox 360 gamers have never played a good star trek game? Whats the basis for your sweeping generalization? I used to play EGATREK on my PC back before it was colour, and so did most of my friends, some of which own Xbox 360s. We know Trek games.

I think you wanted this game to be something it never intended to be. That doesn't mean the game is dumbed down, It means you were misinformed.

[Morratut]

The game was designed for the 360. It's a lazy PC port. If you wanna play the game as it was intended get the 360 version.

If the 360 version gets a 7.5/8.0 i'm gonna buy this puppy. I've been looking forward to this game.

Oh and Seraph yes a lot of people like Star Trek so they would like a good Star Trek game.

[Jack Random]

The fact is Star Trek Legacy is a dumbed down game.

Sadly most of the gamers who'll play it in the Xbox 360 never know it's a dumbed down game because they've never played a good Star Trek game before.

QFMFT
You sir, have nailed it

[Frogleg Special]

So your saying that most Xbox 360 gamers have never played a good star trek game? Whats the basis for your sweeping generalization? I used to play EGATREK on my PC back before it was colour, and so did most of my friends, some of which own Xbox 360s. We know Trek games.

I think you wanted this game to be something it never intended to be. That doesn't mean the game is dumbed down, It means you were misinformed.

I said "most X360 gamers" by the way. But very well...

Ega Trek?

Can it be compared to:
- Star Trek 25th Anniversary
- Starfleet Academy
- Starfleet Command (non-canon, yet captures the feel of command ST ship)
- Klingon Academy
- Bridge Commander

Other notables like:
- Birth of the Federation (Strategy)
- Elite Force (FPS)

?

NO! EGA TREK is not even Star Trek.

Install one of the above games in your PC and then come back again and then say "We know Trek games" :mad:

[Frogleg Special]

Oh, BTW me likey if Bethsoft makes Romulan Academy in the future.

Cross platform release for the better funding, but PC-led design for depth and authenticity. Console-led design most likely would lead to dumbing down. Fact.

[Zanzibar]

Forgot about The Sims, that's my bad.
No biggie. :D

Hey, sorry if I sounded insulting. I say things for comic effect sometimes and I almost ALWAYS forget to put a smiley in afterwards.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Forgot about The Sims, that's my bad.


You forgot many other games as well. WoW is hardly the only PC title to post big sales.


The fact is that the publishers fucked over the PC game market, and now the state of that market is just plain sad. I'm a PC gamer at heart, and it still bugs me to see all that former PC support going to the Xbox instead. I'm not even going to bother buying a new PC - I'm getting a Mac instead. The incentive just isn't there anymore.

[fiercey]

Name a PC game that hasn't been full of bugs, compatibility errors, and disappointments at launch in the past few years; or a PC game where the publisher hasn't forced the developer to skip much of the later development cycle to meet a deadline.


Guild Wars was about the best release I recall for a long time.

-f

[Zeal]

Wow, I can't believe how lame this game is. The graphics are terrible and the control is clunky and non-responsive.

The battles are nothing more than arcade style shoot'em ups and require no strategy whatsoever.

Shit...the previews made it look so awesome.

F

[Dag-Sabot]

-You're kidding right?