Talk:Star Control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Precursors?

can you ever interact with the precursors?

You can talk with one in Star Control III. - Sepper 05:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You can *sort of* talk with one in SC II IIRC, but I'm not 100% sure and I won't spoil it.  :) -- Solberg 13:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg
The precursors did not make an appearance until Star Control III. You cannot speak to or interact with them in Star Control II in any way, shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.212.38 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Error?

dynamic events depending little on the actions on the player

I guess in the above sentence is at least 1 error. Especially since the following sentece suggests the opposite, but maybe I don't understand. --Schandi 20:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earthling page

Why is there no page for Humans? All references to the humans in SC point to the Human article. There should be a page giving information about humans and thier history regarding the game. Bertus 10:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Only if there is enough difference between the two to justify an entire article. It should probably be named something like Human (Star Control). — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
There is enough difference between the two: the Star Control universe diverges from reality after the 90s, and game's background includes more than a century of alternative history. I'm going to create the article soon, in the last days I changed some link to Human in a few pages. I'm going to use Human (Star Control). GhePeU 14:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading from an explanation of human history in the Star Control-saga (this was text that was either copied from a manual or a strategy guide) that the Ur-Quan and Chenjesu were apparently paying attention to Humans from the 1940s or since the invention of the radio (this is, of course, scientifically impossible but its only a game). The Arilou though admit that they have had constant interaction with humans throughout their evolution (though they were constantly unaware of it).

Yes, both the Ur-Quan and the Chenjesu spied the humans. Due to the Ur-Quan threat the Chenjesu revelead themselves in 2115 and invited Earth to join the Alliance of Free Stars. Then the Arilou appeared and joined the alliance, but the day after the surrender of the Earth and the truce with Ur-Quan they disappeared again. I bought Star Control 3 and the package included a CD with Star Control, Star Control II and PDF edition of their manual and hint books. I've got the files in my homedir. I was thinking that we could create also a new article Star Control II, with details on the gameplay, the background (the mission to Vela II, the discovery of the Precursor factory, the construction of Captain's ship) and something on the game plot. GhePeU 20:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ender's Game Influence

It's important to note Star Control Originale was largely based on the battle simulation system described in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. 153.104.16.114 06:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

uh, no it wasn't. Enders Game was written in 1994. Star control came out in 1990. If you even did a tiny bit of research you would have found that. 71.65.37.169 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that it was more based on Archon (also designed by Paul Reiche) and Spacewar!. I've read interviews with Paul Reiche and Fred Ford where they refer to their original idea for Star Control as "Archon in space". -Fadookie 09:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] is it just me, or does this sentence (taken from the SC4 section) just not make any sense?

"It was to be played largely from the third-person point of view, much like first-person shooters" ... so, is it third-person or first-person? Make up your mind!

[edit] Spoiler

The gloss "(Talking Pet)" for "Dnyarri", in the list of races, might be considered a spoiler, as the name "Dnyarri" is not mentioned until well into the StarCon2 game plot --- and at this time a number of plot points are clarified considerably.

[edit] Screenshots

I find it hard to believe that this page doesn't have any screenshots on it all.

I know that Wikipedia tries to use pictures liberally, but c'mon, it's a videogame people need screenshots to realize what the game is. Sure, imagination is good for novels, but when you're describing something factual, it creates nothing more than a vague description.

Hey, "A picture is worth a thousand words", right? --Mofomojo 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this article could definitely use some screenshots. Here are some resources (fair use):
Rumor has it that Toys For Bob will be releasing the SC2 game content under some sort of Creative Commons license. If and when that occurs, I'd be more than happy to take additional screenshots of SC1 or UQM and release them under the same license, or make them public domain.
-Fadookie Talk | contrib 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toys for Bob "announcement"

I removed the text that "Toys for Bob has just announced that they will be doing a Star Control sequel." pending a source. Their webpage only has a request for you to sign a petition that would get Activition to allow them to start a sequel. If there's another announcement - I'd love to see it. Kuru talk 03:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For the curious, the petition and related discussion can be found here: http://sc2.sourceforge.net/petition/petition.php The YouBastrd! 2006.04.23

Someone added it again. --Tenric 13:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is just asking for pictures!

Does anyone have any? --P-Chan 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One uploaded. It may not be exactly what you were expecting :-) Cheers --Pak21 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jak and Daxter

It's not immediately obvious to me why Jak and Daxter is a similar game to Star Control. Can anyone enlighten me? Cheers --Pak21 15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I had read the section on Precursors (Star Control) and it sounded almost the same as the Precursors in the Jak and Daxter series. I've never played Star Control, so I'm not sure if the Precursors are as central in Star Control as they are in Jak and Daxter. You can remove it if you'd like; I just added it because of what I had just said.Albert109 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for non-canon claim?

"A select number of fans of the two earlier games have even decided to consider SC3 non-canonical."

If it's a "select" number of fans, we ought to be able to find a source for this claim. Can anyone provide a link to prove that some fans consider SC3 non-canonical? If not, I suggest this sentence be deleted.

---Ask anyone on the Ur-Quan Masters forum. They'll be quick to tell you that many of them consider SC3 to be outside of canon. To my understanding, even the original creators don't consider it canon. ~CeeVee 00:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

From someone that's played the heck out of all three games. SC3 is just a remake of SC2. It has an almost identical overall plot. Plus the game play and structure is almost exactly the same. Although that DOES mean that I enjoyed playing 3 almost as much as I enjoyed 2. I really don't understand why people would hate the 3rd but like the 2nd when they two are SO incredibly close as far as content. Disliking it just because it wasn't coded by the same people doesn't seem fair to me. This is one Starcon fan that certanly considers SC3 to be part of the series.....although it fits in with the overall Starcon plot about as well as Highlander 2 fits in with the overall Highlander plot. --RaggTopp 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music made with Amiga or not?

There has been some debate going on whether the music for Star Control II has been made with an Amiga, or not.

[edit] Facts

  • The game music files are in MOD format
  • MOD format originates from an Amiga software (Soundtracker)
  • Around the time the game was made (1992), tools existed on PC too for composing MODs (such as Scream Tracker 2).

[edit] Arguments

  • 2006-07-07, Anonymous user 128.214.205.4 contributed a claim saying "protracker mods in 1992 are made with amiga, though the program with same name has _later_ made for PC too"
    • 2006-07-07, User Bisqwit countered the claim by pointing out that tools for creating MODs existed also on PC in 1992, thus there is no proof of Amiga origin.
  • 2006-07-18, Anonymous user 80.221.29.88 pointed out that there exists a website [1] which lists the SC2 music files, and labels them as Amiga MODs.
    • 2006-07-18, User Bisqwit countered the claim by pointing out that the site labels all MODs as "SOUND/NOISE/PRO TRACKERS [AMIGA-MOD]", and it is therefore not to be taken as proof of what platform the files were made with.
      • 2006-07-18, Anonymous user 128.214.205.4 ignored the counterclaim, saying "if one source claims that they're amiga mods then you have to give at least source giving counter evidence, if you want to challenge the claim".

That argument is valid, but does not apply here. The source cited above does not claim anything on the origin of the particular MODs. It merely labels MODs as "AMIGA-MOD"s, and even goes as far as telling that it doesn't really know which tracker the file was actually made with. Soundtracker for example, exists for Unix/X. I do not therefore accept the validity of Anonymous user 128.214.205.4's edit, but I won't make a third revert either. Therefore, I'm declaring a discussion on this page for the subject. The claim would best be answered by getting real answers from the composers of the music. Some of them are active on the Internet even today, having contributed to The Urquan Masters, for example. --Bisqwit 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Nandesuka: it's pretty much irrelevant which computer the music was made on. The current version of the article is more than acceptable. Cheers --Pak21 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Nandesuka's change. --Bisqwit 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed a recent addition stating that "At least some MOD-files used in the game are made with Amiga though the game itself never become available for that computer." from the page as I don't see how this is relevant for this page. However, this has been reverted by the same anon IP with no explanation or reasoning. I will remove it again; if anyone wishes to present views on why it should be here, please do so. Cheers --Pak21 10:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert added words "used in the game" so it was not mere a revert. At least Nuottarjärvi's mods are amiga noise-tracker mods (according to nectarine net radio). The purpose of nectarine is of course to tell the original format of mod file, so they are claiming that the mods were made with amiga noise tracker. --128.214.200.164 11:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
For reference, the Wikipedia defintion of a revert is an edit which undoes another users action, in whole, or in part, irrelevant of whether that edit also makes other changes. I don't quite see why you're wikilawyering this anyway... More relevantly, Nectarine claims all MOD files to be Amiga-produced, so I agree with Bisqwit that this isn't actually evidence in any way. Cheers --Pak21 11:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Nectarine certainly does not claim all MOD-files are amiga produced (for example, Dan Nicholson's mods lack any definition) so your counter argument is a false one. If I have added some relevant information to wikipedia, it should not be removed unless there is some good reason to do that. Sure if we talk about some game's music using several lines, it is relevant to mention with which machine the music is made with (if not the same machine for which the game itself is made for) --128.214.200.164 11:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, it doesn't list Nicholson's MODs as Amiga produced. But then it lists them as "Format: Not filled" so that's not really evidence either. It's obvious to me that Nectarine's description of MOD files includes the Amiga comment. As for your information, it is Wikipedia policy that it is the responsibility of the person adding the information to show the information is verifiable, not the person removing the information. --Pak21 11:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, we have more reasons to suppose that Nuottajärvi's mods are made with amiga's noise tracker, than to suppose that they are not. I don't see what do you mean by that "it's obvious to me" comment. Only thing that is obvious is that Nectarine claims that some Star Control 2 MODs are made with (amiga's) noise tracker. Discussion may go on, if some further evidence is presented. --128.214.205.4 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I've e-mailed one of the Nectarine admins to ask what "AMIGA-MOD" signifies. That should settle this nicely :-) Cheers --Pak21 13:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
From the long time that has elapsed, I assume you haven't received an answer? --Bisqwit 11:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You are correct... Cheers --Pak21 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the arguments here, wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research. Unless it's documented somewhere that it came from an amiga, it's not appropriate to speculate here, regardless of how sure you might feel. --Improv 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio-- all Star Control fans read this

This is an important announcement. Well, not as important as the Toys for Bob one, but bear with me. I've noticed that many Star Control pages, particularly the race ones, have copy violations. I'll be removing all these sections. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chenjesu for details. Do not revert the deletions, or we may be forced to AfD the pages. Note that per WP:COPY it is NOT sufficient to simply modify the copied text. You must start from scratch. -- Solberg 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

[edit] POV

This article is packed with POV issues. As an encyclopedia, it is not our job to take a position on what games in the series are good, to spit on the companies involved in making them, etc. --Improv 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

---Yes, I have also noticed quite a bit of venom behind the Star Control 3 section of the article. While it does give you a feel for how SC3 is viewed by many fans, (And it is my opinion that such fanbase negativity towards it should at least be mentioned) a more neutral tone would be welcome. What changes would you suggest? ~CeeVee 01:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I would probably read through the whole thing and remove/pacify any sentence that seemed POV, reformatting surrounding sentences as appropriate. I'll start work on that soon if noone gets to it first. --Improv 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Utterly POV, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is not the place to fuel a fan's anger. Malamockq 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok I just did a quick rewrite of the whole thing. It still needs work, and some fleshing out, but I got rid of the POV statements. Malamockq 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean No Point of View. The current article is nearly useless: it does not explain that a lot of fans really did not like the third game, nor does it explain why. Explaining this is not against the NPOV policy, and is in fact very important to the article. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to state that, for the record, neither of the above positions are "correct" in the sense that they make a good encyclopedia. What makes a good encyclopedia is citing sources. Find some reviews representative of the whole, quote 'em, cite 'em, hug them and squeeze them and call them George. That is how an encyclopedia determines whether a game sucks or not. Frankly, I find it hard to argue with Gamespot giving it a 9 and an 83% average on Gamerankings. Doesn't mean you can't say bad things about the game (again, so long as you cite them), but the key phrases would be something like "generally positive" or "well-received" (Hint: The fandom doesn't matter; they cannot be cited with good sources). Nifboy 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Control 3 got very good reviews. I for one, actually enjoyed SC3 in fact. It's just the die hard fans of SC2 that hate it. But you can't cite die hard fans opinions because that counts as Original Research. Malamockq 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Star Control Mod Project

I am head of a small project for developing mods based on Star Control, is a completed star control mod worthy of this page? or is that to specific? you can get some info on our first project here: [2] and we should have a website should this mod ever be finished.Miked54321 12:58, 31 January 2007

Most mods are not notable. If this ever gets completed and widely use, then maybe. Otherwise I'd leave it out for now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible spam. Allegence

Hi. The user Your Persona has been spamming the following link around, adding it to the top of the sililar games section or even creating that section just to get the link in. I have removed it from this artical but I am unfamiliar with either game so I will leave it to you guys to decide if it should be added back. If it is added, proberbly best to remove the second link to the website. Free Allegiance Online *Free Allegiance Cheers Xenon_Slayer 14:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I chased his trail after I saw your changes. In one of them, someone removed the entire "Similar games" section, since the Category:Space trading and combat simulation games is chock full of them. Anyone feel strongly about keeping the section? --GargoyleMT 17:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Allegiance is a 3d multiplayer space sim game, star control is a 2d singleplayer (except for the recent UQM release) space adventure game. I'd say that the only similarities are the fact that they are both "liberated" commercial games and set in space. Feel free to delete the link, doesn't seem very relevant to me. -Fadookie Talk 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ur-Quan Masters and Star Control 3

Wouldn't it be correct to split The Ur-Quan Masters section into Star Control II? Since it is an remake of Star Control II? (albeit unlicensed)

I also think Star Control 3 deserve its own article, since there is already quite a bit of information in that section.

If both of those splits are carried out, i think it's proper to merge all the sequels into 1 section, as this article should focus on Star Control 1. --Voidvector 00:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

These sound like good suggestions to me. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
4 days have passed since my suggestion, no opposition was received. I carried out what I suggested, hopefully the result was acceptable to editors. --Voidvector 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New split

Now half the article is devoted to Star Control 1, and the other half is a list of the other games in the trilogy with a small description and a long narration of the efforts for the creation of a new sequel. I propose to keep in the article only the contents relevant to Star Control 1 and move the rest to a new Star Control Trilogy, which will be linked by the other related articles as well and could be cited in some disambiguation templates. What do you think? GhePeU 10:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is probably should have a name common to other video game franchise articles. It won't be "trilogy" if another game gets released. There might be a guideline somewhere for the naming, but I don't know where to look. Based on my observation, the common methods are splitting SC1 to Star Control (video game) or splitting series to Star Control (series)/Star Control series.
A note on the "Possibility of a new Star Control game" section, it is mostly about petition and speculation of a future game. I don't think that's encyclopedic. --Voidvector 09:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)