by Richard Mitchell 
{ Oct 17th 2009 at 12:00AM } 
Editor-in-Chief
Managing Editor
Senior Editor
East Coast Editor
West Coast Editor
Reviews Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
Contributing Editor
All contents copyright © 2003-2010, Weblogs, Inc. All rights reserved
Joystiq is a member of the Weblogs, Inc. Network. Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, Notify AOL
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
R (Planeteers | Power of Penile Pulse) @ Oct 17th 2009 12:11AM
Theyve been trying to make a good Star Trek game forever. I remember as a kid watching my dad play some Star Trek FPS.
Ive seen a lot of Star Trek throughout my days, and I can say nothing has as much staying power as seven of nines breasts.
Well, that and Picards booming manly voice.
Avatar @ Oct 17th 2009 1:40AM
It's really unfortunate that they had to resort to inflating Jeri Ryan's boobs with several lbs of padding to attract guys to the show, considering the whole thing was a vagina based cryfest with little plot and was nothing like anything Gene Roddenberry would ever have made. Majel ruined Voyager like she ruined TNG when she took over.
elprogramer @ Oct 17th 2009 3:27AM
Uh, Majel Roddenberry didn't "take over" anything, Paramount put Gene in a broom closet when they realized he was out of his gourd and gave greater control to Michael Pillar and Rick Berman.
The problem with Voyager was that very good writers were promoted beyond their abilites; Jeri Taylor created Janeway to be her Mary Sue, and Brannon Braga had gone insane. That Braga later dated Jeri Ryan only fueled the insanity.
chrisredfield31 @ Oct 17th 2009 6:20PM
@Avatar, uh Majel didn't ruin anything. I'd say Rick Berman and Brannon Braga ran the show into the ground. It wasn't until Season 3 of Enterprise that things were going good and they had an amazing Season 4 planned but it was too little too late.
Chris @ Oct 17th 2009 1:09AM
Well Klingons, why don't you piss some more people off?
Adv2k1 @ Oct 17th 2009 3:58AM
a few things.
1) I guess the new timeline that Star Trek (2009) movie puts up does not matter for this. I actually think that would be really interesting because it rewrites EVERYTHING so they can do whatever they want
2) They don't use our year system, they use star dates which are really complicated but I guess they wanted to keep it simple
3) Many Trek fans were not in love with the Nemesis movie so making a game that uses those events doesn't seem to be the best use of the mythos
All that being said this game does sound interesting
Extinction @ Oct 17th 2009 5:02AM
1) Yes, the new movie takes place in an alternate timeline. With Spock removed from the original time line, and Romulous destroyed.
2) Star Trek still uses our year system. It's actually encoded in the star date. It's just less common.
3) Nemesis is canon, and thus un-ignorable. And it was a good movie. For the first time who ever wrote the battle scenes actually played Star Trek Armada.
Van Faulk @ Oct 17th 2009 9:29AM
1) Yes. The new movie doesn't matter and didn't happen. As it should always be.
2) Stardates were invented by Roddenberry to keep form having to specify when the show was set. Like a lot of what he did for the series, the later stuff fonly keeps it out of ceremony. They still use the regular dating system. Just not often.
3) Nemesis, while poorly done, didn't do anything objectionable enough to have it removed from Canon. The events that transpired were fine, it's how they were shown that was the problem.
@ Extinction. Nemesis was not a good movie. IT WAS A MESS. There were car chases thrown in for no reason, a bald romulan villain with the most bland mission ever, and most of the longtime cast were completely sidelined to focus on two characters who were already heavily overexposed anyway.
Think of it as the prototype for Abrams' movie.
How sad is it that a video game studio has a better grasp on what makes star trek good than the people making it now?
Though seriously, Gorn and Naussicans? Those guys are middle powers at best. It's like Russia having trouble with Canada and Spain.
Hallucinogen52 @ Oct 17th 2009 10:44AM
@Van Faulk
"Nemesis was not a good movie. IT WAS A MESS. There were car chases thrown in for no reason, a bald romulan villain with the most bland mission ever, and most of the longtime cast were completely sidelined to focus on two characters who were already heavily overexposed anyway."
You're reasoning for Nemesis not being a good movie are the exact ones that work for Star Trek 2009.
Car chases... check. Kirk vs. Robocop didn't have anything to do with the story.
Bald Romulan villain with no real story... check. Nero was the least interesting villain in Star Trek movie history. At least God wanted to get off a planet. Nero waited around in a wet ship for 25 years for Spock. (And why was the ship wet anyway?)
Support cast sidelined... check. Sulu was begging for something to do. They somehow turned Chekov into Wesley Crusher. Uhura can't act so lets take her shirt off and show it in every trailer for 6 months.
That being said, I liked the new movie. I just thought you're reasoning about Nemesis being a bad movie also worked for the new movie. Just my 2¢.
Kris @ Oct 17th 2009 4:04AM
boner
Kenofthedead @ Oct 17th 2009 4:39AM
Uh... I got a whole lot of "huh" from that.
Only watched Next Generation and Deep Space Nine though. Spaceship battles look good though, so I might still check it out.
Jimmijam @ Oct 17th 2009 9:29AM
Gaaa.... after all those years of peace (albeit a fragile one) and exploration, everything is war torn.
I can understand the urge to put "action" into gaming, but for me, the appeal for Trek has never been violence, more on exploration.
Van Faulk @ Oct 17th 2009 9:32AM
There's always been major conflict in Trek. they just largely lacked the budget to show it. The UFP and the Klingons were openly at war in the original series, DS9 was nothing BUT a war story, and Enterprise (the good season) was all about the build up to the romulan war. The only one that avoids overt warfare was TNG and that's only because they were between the cardassian wars and the second klingon war. And they still found room for a couple or Borg invasions and a Klingon Civil war.
Trek may be about war, but it is a factor and has always been.
Jimmijam @ Oct 17th 2009 9:57AM
Well there you go, I stand corrected.
But still, my personal appeal has been more on the theme of exploration and "discovering new worlds"...
Ignatius @ Oct 17th 2009 1:28PM
I'm surprised that they reintroduced the Gorn. There hasn't been any mention of it since TOS (being the latest encounter, ENT having them in the mirror universe as servants/slaves).
I wonder what they'll have to say that a species that has been unnoticed (in TNG/VOY/DS9) for all of a century and a half.
Vii @ Oct 17th 2009 1:30PM
To be honest I was kinda hoping the devs would allow for exploration of space using the new JJ Abrams Star Trek lore created by the new movie.
Hardcore @ Oct 17th 2009 6:26PM
All I heard was pew pew pew.
pika2000 @ Oct 17th 2009 10:31PM
On one side, I'm glad somebody is continuing the original timeline. I was pretty sure that with the new movie that the original timeline is dead.
On the other side, Star Trek is not about war. It's supposed to be about adventure in discovering "new life and new civilizations, and to boldly go where no one has gone before." I mean come on, that's the tag line for God's sake. The wars should not be the focus.
Joe @ Oct 19th 2009 9:59PM
Agreed. Why the need for another war? How about something new and original, guys?
Also, Abrams' Trek was partially canon - in the main timeline, Romulus was destroyed - Nero entered a black hole in the main Trek timeline, then emerged in Abrams' alternate timeline.
Why isn't that being incorporated?