Talk:Star Trek: Legacy

message: the game is 3d, and is not a 2d pizza box, this statment is highly oppinionated b/c it takes at least 45 secs w/ fastest ship w/ full power to enginges/ with full impulse to go from top to bottum!!!
----
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.85.161 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This information if quite accurate and not at all false. As a matter of fact this game is not really 3D (you can not make a full 3D roll for instance). This game is a rather sloppy implementation altogether and I find this articcle to be very "to the point". This game should never have been released on PC. It's a sloppily implemented port of a poor console shooter.--Pjonsson 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Haha, you fail at argumentation. 213.112.137.177 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your personal feelings on release aside, the sources for the argument that "no one likes it" are faulty at best - one of the cites is a link to the forums, with no article whatsoever.  Am I to assume the presence of the forums indicates no one likes the game? OldDaedalus 06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information 

message: "Based on the known elements of the game, Star Trek: Legacy closely follows Star Trek Deep Space Nine Dominion Wars to such a degree, that they are nearly identical. (Examples: Prestige used to buy ships, etc.)"
Prestige is also used in Starfleet Command 3 - completion of missions gain the player prestige and allow them to upgrade their crew, ship components and the ships themselves.
Also, although I haven't played Legacy, from what I've seen of the videos of the gameplay on the internet, Legacy seems  to be mostly similar to Bridge Commander, in that combat is 3D, not 2D like in Starfleet Command 3 and Dominion Wars. 
Actually, thinking about it, Bridge Commander used full 3D combat, Starfleet Command 3 used 2D combat, and Dominion Wars (I think) used 2D with some depth variation (ships could be seen to be above or below others, but could not be perpendicular to each other). --80.43.120.127 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure about the accuracy of this sentence 

message: Star Trek: Legacy is also a MUD or MUSH. :) 
82.169.165.249 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MUSH 

message: Is this game going to be similar to Star Trek: Armada?
Don't know.  Does Star Trek: Armada allow you to play events from the shows?
Also, sign your posts, please. Madd the sane 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like Star Trek Armada? 

message: No, I think this statement is wrong. It is not Legacy, but Star Trek Encounters in PS2 which is the first game to cover all canonical Star Trek series (TOS-TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.152.10.69 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aggreed. Encounters came out a few months before this, and contained ships from all the series'. I think I'll remove that statement. Patch86 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I did remove it, but didn't replace it with anything else. I'm not sure how many of the voice actors appeared in Encounters, so I removed that part of the paragraph too in case it was inaccurate. Should probably be replaced wholly with something more relevant. I'll include the paragraph I snipped below: Patch86 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The First game to cover all television series? 

message: I'd suggest a review of this article and especially Response section, and I suggest it's done by someone who actually played the game. For example stating how "Many gamers found the control problems especially galling," and then pointing to IGN review is not good enough or decent enough. Controls in ST:L have basic (and to any gamer more than well known) FPS layout which makes them as easy as they come. This is also (by the words of editor) a real time strategy game, not a strategy/action game… If there are indeed some: "major problems with game compatibility encountered with the PC version."; then it would certainly be nice to see some citation that supports such claim (keep in mind that hardware requirements are not compatibility issues)… Pictures of pet goats and similes are usually referred to as Easter egg (media), not Sloppy Coding. Finally, IGN review (review=POV) is referenced eight times? We are not here to reflect on personal experience of ING reviewer are we? Well, hope you'll find these suggestions worth while, I'm warping out. Lovelight 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, but I did use tractor beam you know? As a matter of fact there are certain missions which you cannot end without tractor beam… One can also transport people of board (into oblivion) but there is little or no use of such actions. All of this can be done if you press F while locked on designated target (such as shipyard). I've also noticed that control issues are now addressed twice? Perhaps another review would be in order? Lovelight 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Response" section in this article is inappropriate. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a negative review of a game. I read a reasonably positive review of this game in Game Informer magazine, and I've enjoyed playing it myself, so the negative response being represented here is not unanimous. See Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Rray 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Which many of us have pointed out that if you have the game for the XBOX 360 it is much better, that is where the majority of the higher rated reviews are from. The PC version is plagued with bugs and control issues. I'll admit that I am playing pretty much at the lower spectrum of the requirments but I meet them and yet the control is terrible and I can barely move. I talked to some of my friends who has the game for the PC and a few likes the game but even when I wrote my contribution to the wiki even they agreed on my comments. IF the player has the game for the XBOX 360 great, they will get a much better performance and better gameplay but for us PC players it's really bad. I have played many games where I just meet the requirments and for the most part I do not have much problems playing them. This should be no different. They should not have rushed this game! It was not ready for release!23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree that this article lacks a NPOV perspective. It seems unreasonably biased on the faults of the game and states other people's opinions (reviewers) as factual evidence. It also sites the official forums as a source of strong crtisism, yet fails to acknowledge that there is an equal amount of people in support of the game. Also, "Sloppy Coding" is entirely inaccurate. Citing the fact that there are Armada files within Legacy and claiming it sloppy has no basis as Legacy and Armada have similiar back-ends. That's like saying a shooter that is based on the Quake engine is "sloppy and poorly coded". Citing the Conti goats picture as additional evidence also lacks any basis as it is, quite simply, a picture. Lastly, there is a lot of talk in this article (and on the main forums) about "promised features being cut". In software development, there is no such thing as promised features. There is a development PLAN, and plans CAN CHANGE. Part of the software company's job is talk about what is PLANNED about the game to generate interest in it. Inherent in any plan for any task (like software development, cooking dinner, going to a movie, etc) is the ability for plans to adapt when circumstances change. However, some of the critisism is warranted here as the game does suffer from tough controls and appears to exhibit compatibility issues on the PC. Also, the article appears 90% focused on the PC version. The "Response" article needs to be completely rewritten and "Sloppy Coding" needs to be removed entirely.--67.151.118.186 14:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Can you fix it? .) Was Bethesda going bankrupt as the rest of Star Trek developers before it, and that's why wanted to publish an unfinished game, to pay the bills in time? ;) Teemu Ruskeepää 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modding salvation?

message: In Bridge Commander and in the movie Star Trek: Nemesis, shields were subdivided into forward, left, right, dorsal (top), ventral (bottom) and rear shields. In Starfleet Command 3 and Tactical Assault, since the games were 2D, you didn't get top or bottom shields. The point was that if you were good, you could concentrate your fire on one shield area, thus allowing you to damage the hull and subsystems faster. If you were being shot at, you could keep your strongest shield facing the enemy to minimise the damage.
Does Legacy have this shield subdivision? In the gameplay videos I have seen, there is just one bar showing shield strength, instead of multiple overlays showing the condition of each shield. There doesn't appear to be any way of concentrating fire on a specific shield, only on a specific ship. --80.43.60.43 15:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such depth within the Legacy; it is arcadishly simple yet visually compelling (mainstreamed) experience. Lovelight 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is one shield.  You just have an indicator of how much energy your shield has before it goes down.  It doenst matter where you get hit, any part of the sheild that gets hit and the indicator goes down.  I can't remember any Star Trek game that was so simplistic.  Even the 25th Anniversary game (15 years ago!) had separate shield arcs.--David Foster 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do shields work in Legacy? 

message: Submitting for addition:
Due to the inability to remap controls for the PC - left-handed users who use a left-hand mouse and disabled users who have difficulty using both hands are unable to play this game.
: I don't have the game, but there are instructions on various sites for how to edit a text file to re-map controls in the game.  It isn't as nice as having a menu pop up with default and new controls, but it also isn't like controls are hard-coded and unchangeable like this page and some review sites state.  This info should probably be added to the page.Tiger-Heli (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on the POV point.  The term "horrible" is subjective when you look at reviews.  While the reviews are certainly not glowing, the major sites have not totally trashed it either.  "Modest" would be the word that I use to refer to how this game was reviewed.  However, I do not consider forum posts verifiable at all, they almost never are.  As for Star Trek: Armada 2 code copied direct, I see no reason at all why that should be a negative factor.  Reusing code is an accepted practice across all the industry.  You would not speak ill of the original Half-Life because it had code directly copied from Quake would you?  Developers are not keen to re-invent the wheel, especially when the wheel has shown to be reliable and trying to build it annew would only lead to more bugs in the long run.  - Fearless Son 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility Issues 

message: I took a few minutes to update the release date for the 360 version as well as to create some subsections for the various game issues. The page still is far from being "right." I'd like to propose that that subpages be created for all of the numerous PC problems. They seem to overwhelm the article as it stands, but really do deserve a substantial entry of their own. I'm sure more and more problems are going to be discovered with the PC coding.Jodyw1 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you can't really claim that the code is "sloppy". First of all, that is a subjective term which implies a variation of original research. Secondly, pointing to a random picture and a few comments and claiming it is "sloppy" is likely the claim of a person that is not programitcally inclined. Comments are comments, they have no impact on the game. The ENTIRE sloppy coding section(s) need to go in a bad bad way. It is the furthest thing from encyclopedic. However, the article is much better structured, but it is, essentially, a negitive review. At this point, if I find myself bored at work for a day, I'll register and clean it up (or essentially rewrite the entire thing from scratch).--67.151.118.186 14:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you'll get no complaint from me here. There are tons of non-NPOVs comments in the article. But I didn't put them in there. Reformatting the article makes those even more pronounced. There's tons of NPOV changes that need to be made. Jodyw1 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Revamp

message: I added a POV tag to the top of the article. 
Jodyw1 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Could someone clean up the sources.  It looks like there are a lot of repeats.  That or show me a link to show me how. Madd the sane 09:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources Cleanup 

message: About four-fifths of this article is devoted to various complaints about the game.  There's a brief section listing the missions.  There's one sentence, written before the game came out, which says that it's about the "Sundering" of the Vulcan/Romulan races.
I came here to read what the game is actually about, what the story is, and I still really don't understand where Picard, Kirk, Janeway, and Sisko come into it.  Maybe Archer, if the split occurred back then, but I didn't think the Romulans were around yet on 'Enterprise', given that nobody had seen them in "Balance of Terror".
Just so you known the game doesn't really follow the Star Trek cannon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.143.76 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs information

message: The modding part of this article contains several opinions and "I"-sentences. Like this one: "The Legendary Generations Mod A mod that again is hoped to be aimed at redesigning legacy, I do not know what they have been working on so I could not tell you."
Could someone remove these parts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.202.175.171 (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions 

message: this must be the first game article in Wikipedia where the central idea of the game is not stated at all until about two-thirds into the article. has it occurred to you folks that nowhere does this entry state that the main focus of the game is that the player operates a starship? take a look and you'll see. 
i was going to fix this, but right now I'd rather just point it out in order to draw a little attention to this. I'm not saying this article is bad or anything, but it does need to be a bit more specific. thanks. --Sm8900 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gameplay article

message: Please don't change the categorization of this article as it is currently being discussed here.  Summary of dispute:</br>
Argument 1:  This page belongs in the category :Category:Xbox 360-only games because it is exclusive to the XBox 360, despite also having a PC version because the PC is not a console.</br>
</br>
Argument 2: This page dosen't belong in the category because the PC is a game platform, a fancy way of saying console.</br>
You may participate in this discussion by clicking here (edit).</br>
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 01:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice regarding categorization of this article 

message: Under the heading "Response" and its subheading "Xbox 360 version" It states that Star Trek Legacy was ported from the Xbox 360 version to the PC. This is wrong, according to one of the developers it was developed completely on the PC.
http://startrek-games.com/startrekforum/showthread.php?t=9836
81.234.215.26 00:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That developer would be lying.  The game is a straight port as no changes were made.  The PC version still has the X-Box tool tips. Alyeska (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy ported from XBOX 360 to PC - inaccurate 

message: The storyline section still contains information from before the game was released. It should be updated to reflect the actual storyline now that the game is released and has been played. croll (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storyline needs to be updated 

message: I have been testing with some friends and it seems that if you do not install to the default drive letter (C:) then for some unknown reason the patches will not correctly apply. Our computers show that they are installed and if you try to reinstall them it does show the modify/uninstall options, but when playing the game it only states we are at version 1.035.
Anyone else?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.28.206 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patching issues 

message: I think that this contraversy is rellevant enough to be included, possibly in under a new header of contraversies, seeing as Star Trek Gamers is the largest Star Trek gaming fansite.  All the information about this issue is from the site that has been blacklisted as Bethesda has issued no official statement saying why the site was blacklisted to my knowledge.  I stumbled upon this contraversy fairly recently so I don't know more than I've read but if someone knows more that might be helpful.  Anyway, I was just curious if this would fit best here, on the Bethesda page, on the Star Trek Gamers page, on all of the above, or on none of the above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncannyGarlic (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek Gamers website blacklisting by Bethesda 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star Trek: Legacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110125346/http://www.actiontrip.com/reviews/startreklegacy.phtml to http://www.actiontrip.com/reviews/startreklegacy.phtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star Trek: Legacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130330192950/http://uk.gamespot.com/star-trek-legacy/reviews/star-trek-legacy-review-6163442/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/star-trek-legacy/reviews/star-trek-legacy-review-6163442/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)