Bethesda-Style Star Trek game (i wish)

[evilchumlee]

I don't think it should be factions. it should be a series of main characters - if players play with more than one main character - with their own arcs that converge into a major arc.

- Human (or other species such as Bolian, Bajoran, Betazoid, Trill, Orion, Andorian, or Soong android etc) – this character would bring the Elite Force experience, but with more scanning, more puzzles, more diplomacy, more reliance on dialogue, more exploration

- Klingons or Cardassian – they would bring the Klingon Honor Guard experience

- Vulcan or Romulan – they would bring the Bridge Commander/Bridge Crew based action onboard starships

[/QUOTE]

I could see something like that, although I think there is potential for that to be difficult to implement and I think people tend to gravitate towards having their created, customized character. Then again, GTA5 did a great job with three main characters.

If it’s anything like Mass Effect, and there’s going to be a ship and crew like the Normandy to explore with, then a La Sirena-type, Nova class, Defiant class, Saber-class, B’Rel class, or Romulan BoP would be among the best starships to model it after. Those ships are the appropriate size for a Normandy-size crew.

Yeah that was along the lines of what I was thinking. This wouldn't be a game where you're flying a Galaxy-Class.

The trick here is to create a narrative that allows a player to interact with and use hardware from various factions. The idea of having different characters could make sense, although I would lean more towards a single character that is somewhat of a independent and does work for different factions.

It would still be a stretch for like, Space Mercenary to be flying around in a Defiant... but i'm also sure there are creative ways to make that happen.

I kind of like the idea of this whole thing being set in a finite area, for the most part. Like there is a region of space where the story is taking place. That's not to say you can't go anywhere else, but the bulk of the story is going to take place in a special area.

I think how I might structure it, given kind of a "three act" structure, Act 1 is when you're a bit more free to roam around, you can go to Earth, Qo'nos, etc. When Act 2 starts up, you've embarked on a journey into this new area of space where travel in and out is problematic or downright impossible. That sets the stage to being able to use all kinds of stuff... there might be a Defiant there that you can find and use that suffered some sort accident. There might be some Klingons or random arms dealers there who are willing to sell you a B'Rel.

MAYBE we could factor in flying one of the bigger, hero ships... perhaps in Act 3, you do have to align with a faction, and you're essentially given a field commission. So when the climax happens, you have have to pick Federation, Klingons, Cardassians, whatever and you end up as the Captain (maybe temporarily) of one of the bigger hero ships.

OR... an idea I had was that once you get to this region, it's kind of a wasteland-type vibe and everything has gone to hell. Perhaps you and your crew come across a larger ship, and that actually becomes your base of operations, and part of the game is working on repairing it. By the end of the game, you are able to actually get the ship up and running and you can trade up from your smaller ship.

 

[FederationHistorian]

I could see something like that, although I think there is potential for that to be difficult to implement and I think people tend to gravitate towards having their created, customized character. Then again, GTA5 did a great job with three main characters.

I’m wouldn’t really stop that. I can see why it would be seen as limited re: choose between Klingon or Cardassian for one arc, and between Vulcan or Romulan for another arc.

But if there are 3 protagonists, I think it allows for a fair range of characters. For replayability.

It would still be a stretch for like, Space Mercenary to be flying around in a Defiant... but i'm also sure there are creative ways to make that happen.

Doesn’t necessarily have to be a Defiant. Could pilot a Bajoran fighter, or use a recovered Jem’Hadar fighter. Maybe purchase a SNW/TOS-era Orion scout ship.

I kind of like the idea of this whole thing being set in a finite area, for the most part. Like there is a region of space where the story is taking place. That's not to say you can't go anywhere else, but the bulk of the story is going to take place in a special area.

I think how I might structure it, given kind of a "three act" structure, Act 1 is when you're a bit more free to roam around, you can go to Earth, Qo'nos, etc. When Act 2 starts up, you've embarked on a journey into this new area of space where travel in and out is problematic or downright impossible. That sets the stage to being able to use all kinds of stuff... there might be a Defiant there that you can find and use that suffered some sort accident. There might be some Klingons or random arms dealers there who are willing to sell you a B'Rel.

MAYBE we could factor in flying one of the bigger, hero ships... perhaps in Act 3, you do have to align with a faction, and you're essentially given a field commission. So when the climax happens, you have have to pick Federation, Klingons, Cardassians, whatever and you end up as the Captain (maybe temporarily) of one of the bigger hero ships.

OR... an idea I had was that once you get to this region, it's kind of a wasteland-type vibe and everything has gone to hell. Perhaps you and your crew come across a larger ship, and that actually becomes your base of operations, and part of the game is working on repairing it. By the end of the game, you are able to actually get the ship up and running and you can trade up from your smaller ship.

All good and makes sense. Leaving the story in a particular region.

I was thinking that if the game had a Paragon/Renegade system similar to Mass Effect and how it could be adapted to a Star Trek game.

Have the reputation of a paragon makes it easier to converse with Starfleet or peaceful non-aligned factions & individuals. While having a reputation Being a renegade makes it easier to converse to Klingons and Orions. Maybe Romulans and Cardassians are in the middle. Impacts information to progress the story or upgrade the characters, and open up side missions to go on.

 

[evilchumlee]

Have the reputation of a paragon makes it easier to converse with Starfleet or peaceful non-aligned factions & individuals. While having a reputation Being a renegade makes it easier to converse to Klingons and Orions. Maybe Romulans and Cardassians are in the middle. Impacts information to progress the story or upgrade the characters, and open up side missions to go on.

I like a version of that. I think I was thinking generally similar, although it would be a bit more on the nose. Rather than being a direct "Good/Bad" type system, it's more faction-based. I would say pick three main factions, and then have it be more of a "reputation" system where certain acts will push you in favor of a faction or away from another.

Do a bunch of benevolent acts, help people, go for a more non-violent solution? Federation Rep.
Take on enemies head-on, stand up to challenges, and generally not getting caught in lies and such? Klingon rep.
Stealth, backstabbing, underhanded deals, etc. Cardassian/Romulan rep.

Maybe actually a fourth faction that are essentially space pirates. Orion syndicate, maybe?

I like the idea of like the first act or two, the player is basically a free agent but by the third act, they align with a faction.

I would want a character creator that gives you some different racial options, which would impact all of this in some way. Creating a Vulcan would be easier to earn Federation rep, but ALSO may make it easier to be accepted by Romulans as basically posing as one of them, but would likely make it more difficult to be accepted by Klingons. A Human would be good with the Federation, generally ok with the Klingons, but be at odds with the Romulans.

 

[Yistaan]

Bethesda HAD the Trek license almost 2 decades ago. They churned out Star Trek Legacy and a few other forgettable console tie-ins. Bethesda themselves had the chance to make a Bethesda-style Trek game and didn't take it. Why would Paramount trust them with the license again?

 

[evilchumlee]

Bethesda HAD the Trek license almost 2 decades ago. They churned out Star Trek Legacy and a few other forgettable console tie-ins. Bethesda themselves had the chance to make a Bethesda-style Trek game and didn't take it. Why would Paramount trust them with the license again?

They almost did, but they took on Fallout 3 instead.

 

[Yistaan]

They almost did, but they took on Fallout 3 instead.

There's a lot of people who apparently have fantasies about living in a nuclear wasteland and watching tv shows about it (thus the hit ratings for the Fallout tv show). I just couldn't get into Fallout. I play games and watch tv for worlds that have magic, technology, etc. that we don't have that, despite the conflicts in said works, do seem like a world worth fighting for and living in. Nuclear wasteland Fallout just isn't it, I never understood the appeal of playing or watching a world like that for entertainment.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Never got into the game, but I like the show with its quirky characters and retro-futuristic vibe. I like some of the actors in it, especially Prodigy's Ella Purnell (Gwyn). She's fantastic in both shows.

 

[evilchumlee]

There's a lot of people who apparently have fantasies about living in a nuclear wasteland and watching tv shows about it (thus the hit ratings for the Fallout tv show). I just couldn't get into Fallout. I play games and watch tv for worlds that have magic, technology, etc. that we don't have that, despite the conflicts in said works, do seem like a world worth fighting for and living in. Nuclear wasteland Fallout just isn't it, I never understood the appeal of playing or watching a world like that for entertainment.

I can understand that. I absolutely love Fallout, although I will say that it's by no means a fantasy for me to live like that... it's just an interesting setting.

Fallout isn't really about a world worth fighting for or living in... but it can be about building a world worth fighting for and living in. Fallout 3 is all about trying to begin to rebuild and make the world a better place. (You can like, also be terrible if you want, but that's besides the point.)

Fallout for me is fun because beyond the nuclear wasteland stuff, it's also a quirky take on general Americana and a somewhat satirical take on old sci-fi.

 

[Maj. Dick]

The perfect star trek game would essentially be a mass effect 1 repaint. Star Trek should be how to handle moral dilemmas (RPG) with exploration.

 

[Yistaan]

Different franchise but Star Wars Outlaws is in many ways a missed opportunity--a great open world game hobbled by endless stealth missions that only appeals to Metal Gear or Thief fans. The protagonist doesn't gain levels or firepower in the traditional way, so no amount of grinding missions is going to have her mowing down armies of stormtroopers. You'll always be skulking and hiding. It's basically the why Lord of the Rings: Gollum game that came out some time back was a flop.

The sad part is cruising through the open worlds when you're not on a mission is amazing. But then to progress through the game you have to hide from Pykes, Hutts, stormtroopers etc. instead of just slicing or blasting them down like in the greatest Star Wars games from Legends (Dark Forces or Knights of the Old Republic series). If they kept the maps and the dialogue, but changed every mission to straight up combat and allowed your character to gain powers and weapons like in the better SW games I mentioned, this would be an instant classic. As it is, it's just a very pretty and large LOTR: Gollum game.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Not heard many good things about "Outlaws" at all and, yeah, the whole perpetual Sneaky-Pete thing is #1 on the list of bad things. The fact that it doesn't seem to have a traditional leveling-up model also propels it further into the realm of lameness. Too bad... It looked really good.

 

[evilchumlee]

Different franchise but Star Wars Outlaws is in many ways a missed opportunity--a great open world game hobbled by endless stealth missions that only appeals to Metal Gear or Thief fans.

That was me. I'm those fans. I absolutely LOVED that Outlaws was stealth based. One of the best aspects of the game was not being a one-woman army mowing down armies of stormtroopers.
That would be what I want a Trek game to be... I don't want to be phasering down armies of Klingons or something. That's just so... not Star Trek.

Not heard many good things about "Outlaws" at all and, yeah, the whole perpetual Sneaky-Pete thing is #1 on the list of bad things. The fact that it doesn't seem to have a traditional leveling-up model also propels it further into the realm of lameness. Too bad... It looked really good.

I think the game is really good. It's not perfect, not a masterpiece. I give it a 7/10. Just a solid all around game.

But yeah if you don't like stealth, it's not your game.

I appreciated that it doesn't have a traditional level up system. There is a skill/equipment progression, but rather than just being the usual, kind of boring "get xp, level up" system, it's essentially a system to challenges that usually require a combination of performing certain feats and finding unique, rare materials to unlock, but you also need to gather members of your crew for them to become available.

I though the "leveling" system here was pretty inventive.

 

[Yistaan]

I don't want to be phasering down armies of Klingons or something. That's just so... not Star Trek.

The ideal Star Trek game is really A Final Unity or 25th Anniversary or Judgment Rites. None of which have stealth. So an ideal Trek game wouldn't necessarily be a stealth game. Unless you're playing a ship with a cloaking device I guess.

As for what is or isn't Star Trek, as many have stated (including Tim Russ at a convention once I think) that Trek is decided by a bunch of executives who produce something with the label on it. And also keep in mind that the best received Trek works, like Wrath of Khan and First Contact, was about mowing down armies of Borg or augments and not really about exploration. Same for the relatively successful (for a Trek game) Elite Force videogame.

 

[evilchumlee]

The ideal Star Trek game is really A Final Unity or 25th Anniversary or Judgment Rites. None of which have stealth. So an ideal Trek game wouldn't necessarily be a stealth game. Unless you're playing a ship with a cloaking device I guess.

Yeah I wasn't necessarily referring to stealth specifically, just less of a focus on combat.

As for what is or isn't Star Trek, as many have stated (including Tim Russ at a convention once I think) that Trek is decided by a bunch of executives who produce something with the label on it. And also keep in mind that the best received Trek works, like Wrath of Khan and First Contact, was about mowing down armies of Borg or augments and not really about exploration. Same for the relatively successful (for a Trek game) Elite Force videogame.

I would exactly call Wrath of Khan "mowing down armies"... there was a slow moving, suspenseful space battle.

First Contact with a bit more action-ey, sure.

On the flip, I would argue that the best received Trek works had little to no combat in them at all... TOS "City on the Edge of Forever", TNG "The Inner Light", DS9 "In the Pale Moonlight", The Voyage Home.

I'm not arguing that action-combat heavy things tend to be popular. It's... so much easier to just have a bunch of combat, especially in context of a video game, than crafting an experience out of other activities.

 

[AntonyF]

Take my money. Although I may not get to own a galaxy class, I at least want a mission on one please?

 

[evilchumlee]

Take my money. Although I may not get to own a galaxy class, I at least want a mission on one please?

Oh there is definitely a way to do it.

I'm still kind of up on the idea that the game would be set in some kind of wild space, you play the role of a rogue type, and based on your faction choice you basically establish a base in the wreck of a hero ship and build it up/repair it through the game.

If you choose the Federation, your home base would be a Galaxy-Class, and by the end of the game... you've fixed it, crewed it, and now you get to use it.

 

[Admiral Archer]

They almost did, but they took on Fallout 3 instead.

And look how that turned out. The Fallout fans hated it saying it didn't respect the lore (dumbing down Super Mutants and making the Brotherhood of Steel heroes, among other reasons) and Star Trek fans got screwed out of a perfect opportunity for an open world Space game.

Honestly, I am a bit sore that Bethesda COULD have done an open-world Star Trek game while letting someone else do Fallout, but DIDN'T.

 

[evilchumlee]

And look how that turned out.

Bethesda created an award wining and commercially successful franchise?

As much as I would have loved a Trek game, Fallout 3 was my introduction to Fallout and remains one of my favorite games of all time.

 

[Admiral Archer]

Bethesda created an award wining and commercially successful franchise?

As much as I would have loved a Trek game, Fallout 3 was my introduction to Fallout and remains one of my favorite games of all time.

Believe me when I say I get that Fallout 3 introduced countless gamers to the Fallout series. My dad and brother both got their start with Fallout 3. But I also know that Fallout as a gaming series existed well before Bethesda (Interplay were the initial developers if I'm not much mistaken) and had an established fan base, not all of whom were pleased with the direction Bethesda took Fallout. Like I said, I guess I'm just bitter it didn't work out between Bethesda and Star Trek.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I'm kind of glad Bethesda did Fallout 3 the way they did. I've honestly tried getting into the early Fallouts developed by Interplay and I never got very far into them because they have a combination of difficulty + clunky UI that I honestly find very difficult to get into these days. I think what Bethesda did do was make their Fallout games far more accessible, and had they made a game that was isometric, and followed Interplay's lead, I don't think it would have nearly as successful as it was and introduce new players to the series. I'm actually surprised there haven't been full-blown remakes of the first two games at this point.