Why do you think there is such a lack of Star Trek games?

rosetyler51 · October 2015

I might be making too many threads. If anyone agrees please call me out on it.

Now on topic! I'm guessing the simplest answer would be because there is no new shows, but what about the newish movies? Shouldn't those hopefully create that rush of Trek games we had during the late 80's - mid to late 90's?

Maybe you have your own ideas. Post them if you got them.

kitsunesnout · October 2015

Star Trek simply isn't as action based as other science fictions like Star Wars is my best guess. Cause usually the more so a fiction is about action/conflict, the easier it translates to a game and the easier for fans of said franchise to relate to those games since they don't differ from the original media so much. Therefore they get greater demand.

seriousdave · October 2015

kitsunesnout wrote: »

Star Trek simply isn't as action based as other science fictions like Star Wars is my best guess. Cause usually the more so a fiction is about action/conflict, the easier it translates to a game and the easier for fans of said franchise to relate to those games since they don't differ from the original media so much. Therefore they get greater demand.

Pretty much this.

The main focus of Trek was the important characters talking to each other. Pretty hard to make a interesting game out of it. Or anything successfully marketable for that matter.
While other franchises have some flashy actually marketable mcguffins all over the place Trek has technobabble, funny looking pajamas and like 2-4 ships the broad mass actually recognizes. Most of them being an Enterprise.

angrytarg · October 2015

There were very good Star Trek games which were also pretty well received by critics. But like Star Trek itself, the genres of these games died out. 25th Anniversary and a final Unity were point & click adventures with show-grade writing and full voice acting by the original cast. Today's video game market is quick and fast paced, action oriented. The point and click genre completely disappeared, the studios don't exist anymore and no studio in the world except for indy studios is willing to take "risks" of any kind, everybody wants to play it save. And indy studios don't have the money for licensing fees.

tachikai1 · October 2015

angrytarg wrote: »

There were very good Star Trek games which were also pretty well received by critics. But like Star Trek itself, the genres of these games died out. 25th Anniversary and a final Unity were point & click adventures with show-grade writing and full voice acting by the original cast. Today's video game market is quick and fast paced, action oriented. The point and click genre completely disappeared, the studios don't exist anymore and no studio in the world except for indy studios is willing to take "risks" of any kind, everybody wants to play it save. And indy studios don't have the money for licensing fees.

Dont post, but thought you should know that the Adventure game of point and click is making a resurgance in at least one company, Telltale. they have some clunkers like their Jurassic Park, but the other works include Back to the future, which is as close we'll get to a sequel trilogy for the films, as well as Walking Dead and Wolf Among us. Also one could make a case for virtual novel series like Zero Escape and Phoenix Wright.

Though if they ever did Star Trek it probably wind up being new Abrams one >_>

Though you are right bout everything else. Not to mention it generally required people working as a team to beat a scientific threat, which most gamers tend to drift away in favour of blowing off skulls with shotguns. Even when star trek did become action orientated it was usually short engagements due to budget and, well besides the entire point of the show.

dareau · October 2015

I don't think you can peg one "specific" and therefore "fixable" reason on the dearth of Star Trek games...

But if you needed me to really pick one, I'd say the fact that no Star Trek game has ever "succeeded" as a massive commercial success is the biggest one.

Yes, each and every game, whether it was the "interactive novel / Point & click adventure" games, the "simulators" and "quasi-simulators" like Bridge Commander and the Academy series, or the much-more-combat oriented Elite Forces, Starfleet Command, Armadas - all have their "cult of followers" who will defend their "favorites" to the end...

And even STO demonstrates the "issues" at hand - every game released to date essentially focuses on a "subset" of Trek gamers in general, and Trek gamers are ultimately only a subset of the gaming world, so the odds of selling Call of Duty / Assassin's Creed levels of anything with "Star Trek" in the title are slim.

Heck, I'm ready to call for plugging Star Trek into the "Lego Franchise System", you know, LST I = TOS TV, LST II = First three movies, LST III = Second three - LST:TNG I & II splitting the series, and LST:TNG III being the movies, etc. etc., and even with this, the odds of it being a "full on commercial success" is lesser than normal because all the "anti-Kirk" people will avoid the "plain" LST games, while those who prefer the more action-oriented series might pass on LST:TNG in favor of the "plain" LSTs and LST-DS9...

turbomagnus · October 2015

Another part is the same problem that STO sometimes faces...

"To seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldy go where no one has gone before..."

It's kind of hard to do that in a pre-programmed game and even with 'fill-in-the-blank' randomization like the old Exploration Clusters in STO, it didn't work out well - we got things like "Borg Burial Grounds" and such (still not perfect, even today - last night, I encountered a DQ patrol where the Hierarchy paid the Hierarchy to trick me...).

cmdrscarlet · October 2015

In short, I think it's because Star Trek is hard to "do" as a game. Especially if you need CBS approval for a lot of things.

starswordc · October 2015

Personally I think Star Trek is begging for a BioWare/Obsidian-style single-player RPG.

khan5000 · October 2015

I think the problem with Star Trek as a game is it has changed between series and movies. Even going by the TOS series..."Seeking out new life and new civilizations" was not the plot but the means for the plot. In most of the TOS episodes the Enterprise is exploring when the plot of the episode happens (Space Lincoln, Apollo, giant sphere, distress call). Even when we look at the TOS movies...there's really only one exploration movie: Star Trek The Motion Picture. The other movies feature Kirk and crew having to over come a foe (Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, Undiscovered Country) or the solving of a problem (Voyage Home, Final Frontier). Taking this even further all of TNG movies feature Picard and crew having to over come a foe (Soran, Borg Queen, Face Life aliens, Picard's evil clone). There's plenty of action in Star Trek but we seem to get stuck on the non action as if that was indicative of the series as a whole.

The one big reason why you'll never see more Star Trek games is because Star Trek is not main stream. Star Trek The Brand needs to grow. There needs to be new content. New series, new cartoons, new products...no one but Trekkies are buying Trek stuff.

Another reason is us. We hate new fans. Someone likes the new movies...they're not a true fan. We look down on anyone that doesn't like what we like.

So when a company sits down to make a video game they look at all these factors. Can they make their money back? If only Star Trek fans are buying Star Trek stuff and they don't like the game can it survive?

gulberat · October 2015

khan5000 wrote: »

Another reason is us. We hate new fans. Someone likes the new movies...they're not a true fan. We look down on anyone that doesn't like what we like.

So when a company sits down to make a video game they look at all these factors. Can they make their money back? If only Star Trek fans are buying Star Trek stuff and they don't like the game can it survive?

And this is unfortunate but true, about the way we fans eat our own.

Me, I am okay with the idea that people may like series I don't, and that I like stuff that some others may not.

But it does raise another point as well. I heard (though I can't remember where) that one of the reasons JJ Abrams has left the Star Trek franchise is that Paramount/CBS was not making what he considered to be intelligent marketing decisions, and not supporting him with anywhere near the kind of merchandising/licensing/novelwriting push that he wanted to see. And on that count I think JJ is RIGHT. He gave them an opportunity...whatever you think of his movies, he did provide a really big opportunity to at least seriously boost brand awareness, and it was squandered.

Now look at Star Wars in comparison. I don't like it as much as Star Trek, but in comparison, THAT is a brand being properly managed. Star Trek has been mismanaged and allowed to languish, and we shouldn't be surprised it's affected games as well.

ilithyn · October 2015

gulberat wrote: »

khan5000 wrote: »

Another reason is us. We hate new fans. Someone likes the new movies...they're not a true fan. We look down on anyone that doesn't like what we like.

So when a company sits down to make a video game they look at all these factors. Can they make their money back? If only Star Trek fans are buying Star Trek stuff and they don't like the game can it survive?

And this is unfortunate but true, about the way we fans eat our own. Me, I am okay with the idea that people may like series I don't, and that I like stuff that some others may not.

But it does raise another point as well. I heard (though I can't remember where) that one of the reasons JJ Abrams has left the Star Trek franchise is that Paramount/CBS was not making what he considered to be intelligent marketing decisions, and not supporting him with anywhere near the kind of merchandising/licensing/novelwriting push that he wanted to see. And on that count I think JJ is RIGHT. He gave them an opportunity...whatever you think of his movies, he did provide a really big opportunity to at least seriously boost brand awareness, and it was squandered.

Now look at Star Wars in comparison. I don't like it as much as Star Trek, but in comparison, THAT is a brand being properly managed. Star Trek has been mismanaged and allowed to languish, and we shouldn't be surprised it's affected games as well.

I'm too lazy to hunt down the article, but what Jar Jar wanted was for there to be produced nothing but merchandise for the new version of Star Trek and a complete stop for TOS merch. Three guesses what CBS said to that. And Paramount itself couldn't really be bothered with producing merch for nu!Trek on its own.

marcusdkane · October 2015

Well, although the latest release is garbage, there's also Star Trek Trexels, which is CBS-licensed... Some fun characters, both old and new (

Louise Solomon

) and some surprisingly engrossing and immersive missions... I'd highly recommend it (even if the latest release is more 'two steps back' than a step forward...)

markhawkman · October 2015

ilithyn wrote: »

gulberat wrote: »

khan5000 wrote: »

Another reason is us. We hate new fans. Someone likes the new movies...they're not a true fan. We look down on anyone that doesn't like what we like.

So when a company sits down to make a video game they look at all these factors. Can they make their money back? If only Star Trek fans are buying Star Trek stuff and they don't like the game can it survive?

And this is unfortunate but true, about the way we fans eat our own. Me, I am okay with the idea that people may like series I don't, and that I like stuff that some others may not.

But it does raise another point as well. I heard (though I can't remember where) that one of the reasons JJ Abrams has left the Star Trek franchise is that Paramount/CBS was not making what he considered to be intelligent marketing decisions, and not supporting him with anywhere near the kind of merchandising/licensing/novelwriting push that he wanted to see. And on that count I think JJ is RIGHT. He gave them an opportunity...whatever you think of his movies, he did provide a really big opportunity to at least seriously boost brand awareness, and it was squandered.

Now look at Star Wars in comparison. I don't like it as much as Star Trek, but in comparison, THAT is a brand being properly managed. Star Trek has been mismanaged and allowed to languish, and we shouldn't be surprised it's affected games as well.

I'm too lazy to hunt down the article, but what Jar Jar wanted was for there to be produced nothing but merchandise for the new version of Star Trek and a complete stop for TOS merch. Three guesses what CBS said to that. And Paramount itself couldn't really be bothered with producing merch for nu!Trek on its own.

I can guess what CBS said... "where's our cut?"

turbomagnus · October 2015

Probably something more along the lines of "Why should we give up our proven biggest money-maker for your untried, unproven one?"

gulberat · October 2015

Where JJ IS still right is that there was nowhere near the marketing or merchandising support that he should have received; instead that stayed almost all Prime universe, and a paltry amount at that compared to what we used to see in the TNG/DS9 days. Fully supporting BOTH would have been the only sensible way in my mind how to handle it, no matter how much it would make the purists howl to think of having to share even a much bigger spotlight with the new movies.

mustrumridcully0 · October 2015

gulberat wrote: »

Where JJ IS still right is that there was nowhere near the marketing or merchandising support that he should have received; instead that stayed almost all Prime universe, and a paltry amount at that compared to what we used to see in the TNG/DS9 days. Fully supporting BOTH would have been the only sensible way in my mind how to handle it, no matter how much it would make the purists howl to think of having to share even a much bigger spotlight with the new movies.

Quite possible aggressive merchandising with tie-in novels, and all the usual stuff would have also won more of the old guard over. Maybe the movies weren't perfect, but a good novel and a good game could achieve a lot -both in the old guard and for new fans. But if it remains an anomaly, then this is how people will treat it.

If CBS and Paramount didn't want to risk their Prime Timeline merchandise and licenses, they should have simply not greenlighted a reboot.

But hey, Star Trek is really bad in all of this. Come on, someone at Paramount shot down the idea of a life size Enterprise model in Las Vegas! What a unique opportunity. Creating a landmark representing your franchise. Even if it gets totally mismanaged and in the end stands empty and slowly crumbles apart, there would basically have been free marketing in countless of TV shows and movies. (Imagine CSI: Las Vegas showing the Enterprise in its city shots every episode. A show made by another company might have to show off your brand or be considered failing to deliver an authentic experience of its setting... Of course, I bet some bean counter at Paramount would have had the glorious idea to demand money for the use of its IP in such shots..)

khan5000 · October 2015

turbomagnus wrote: »

Probably something more along the lines of "Why should we give up our proven biggest money-maker for your untried, unproven one?"

This may have been true before the first film came out but Star Trek became the highest grossing Star Trek film of all time until Into Darkness which took that title.

I doubt they are making much off Star Trek before the reboot.

messahla · October 2015

though im not particularly fond of the "New Trek" i am glad it exists so that a new generation of trek fans can enjoy the IP ive enjoyed over my lifetime.

That said i might give JJTrek fans a hard time but not out of being mean its just a little poke fun to welcome them into the larger trek fan family

rattler2 · October 2015

They do have a game that takes place between the two reboot movies. It is also semi referenced in Into Darkness when McCoy makes a comment about a pregnant Gorn.

duncanidaho11 · October 2015

khan5000 wrote: »

I doubt they are making much off Star Trek before the reboot.

You think the merchandising, DVD sales, and licensed streaming on a property with relatively little upkeep wasn't profitable?

As for the games, well think of it this way. Star Trek has two things going for it: strong characters and a big scale. Video games can do something in between very well, or one or the other. Not both. Take mass effect. Sure, you can slap the ST brand on top of that but what you're dealing with there is a smaller, more focused narrative riding along a focused set piece. Once you're done, what you'd really have is just an action game. It might be called Star Trek, and it might even be made well. But it wouldn't really be capitalizing on the series' strengths well enough to be the definitive ST game that would, of its own momentum, spur something in the industry. For that you need a lasting, exploration driven, setting in addition to the other components. For that you need something more like a bethesda RPG in space, but there you lose some of the ability to write strong character arcs which is what ST is ultimately about.

Basically the tech needs to develop more (so that a story focused game can still easily deliver a large setting) before a Star Trek game can be achievable without some sort of hideous compromise to the format. At the moment, STO is pretty much the best we can possibly hope for.

iconians · October 2015

Because Star Trek was at its cultural peak in the late 90's. We had 2-3 shows going at once. We had games and all kinds of media revolving around that particular time period. Why? Because Star Trek was in vogue.

I love Star Trek as much as anyone else, but let's not kid ourselves. Star Trek just isn't relevant anymore. Or at least, as relevant as it used to be.

It's more like a nostalgia thing now. Star Trek had a good run. For many of us, we're still very passionate about it. But as the years pass us, we moved on. We moved on to new franchises. New games. New movies. New media. New stars. New ideas.

We moved on from Star Trek, but it didn't move with us. While we got new thrills and excitement elsewhere, Star Trek remained behind. Mired by franchise fatigue and the less-than-spectacular handling of Nemesis and Enterprise.

stofsk · October 2015

starswordc wrote: »

Personally I think Star Trek is begging for a BioWare/Obsidian-style single-player RPG.

^ This. Mass Effect already has a huge Trek feel to it in the setting and in the whole 'go anywhere, explore the galaxy' thing in all the games. And you get to play Shepard, who's a character that's up there with Kirk and Picard and Mal Reynolds and all those classic scifi heroes. And you get to play Shepard however you want, shape the story in ways that while aren't as meaningful as the developers promised, is still far more meaningful than anything we do here. Your actions have consequences and you feel like you're in command.

It's what I kind of wish this game was more like to be honest.

What Star Trek needs is an equivalent to KotOR and Mass Effect. Basically hours and hours of dialogue with a deep and engaging plot with great gameplay that's fun. STO could be that but it's not, because it's an MMO and hours of hours of gameplay in this game is basically repeat the same stuff for the same rewards repeat ad infinitum. This game is basically a Star Trek themed amusement park.

angrytarg · October 2015

stofsk wrote: »

(...)

What Star Trek needs is an equivalent to KotOR and Mass Effect. Basically hours and hours of dialogue with a deep and engaging plot with great gameplay that's fun. STO could be that but it's not, because it's an MMO and hours of hours of gameplay in this game is basically repeat the same stuff for the same rewards repeat ad infinitum. This game is basically a Star Trek themed amusement park.

While I agree that would make a good game you mustn't oversell mass effect and KOTOR here. Sure, they are good games, but the presumed epicness and deep engaging story is tacked on. You can engage yourself in it but essentially the whole space flight thing is just a map not unlike the STO bridge, you say where to go and you go to the exact same set map every time you do and on these maps nothing new happens unless the plot advances (To be fair, I only played the first parts of each series which are, basically, carbon copies of each other). The games have a lot of dialogue and are as I said very good but they are not the epitome of deep engaging gameplay they are sold for. It is like Bethesda TES games
which simulate a big dynamic world but the epic showdown of fates does wait for you. Days, weeks, even years until you push a button

On another note, I really don't understand a statement like "I'm glad the new movies allow young people to experience Star Trek". It' like saying "With Jurassic World, people can now have the exact same impression of Jurassic Park as I did back in the days", completely ignoring that the films have nothing in common from a cinematic point of view alone. "Nu-cinema" is quality wise not the same and that has nothing to do with just rambling for good old times sake. Remakes the market gets flooded with are not tributes or loving revitilizations, they just show how little incentive there is in cinema any more to take the slightst risks. They slap a name on it and make a generic movie. In Star Trek's case we even have the director's word on record that he never watched nor care for Star Trek and if you look at the movie the scenery, the soundeffect, the visuals it all is derived from Star Wars.

starswordc · October 2015

@angrytarg: You're expecting something different than the game is, I'm afraid. At heart Star Trek wasn't about spaceflight per se, it was character-driven drama in a space setting. The only reason it became space opera was because Roddenberry didn't think a present-day or Western setting lended itself well enough to the social criticism stories he wanted to write.

Mass Effect is much the same: the space travel wasn't the point, the point was to tell a story (while being a love-letter to classic space opera, Star Trek included). If you want a Star Trek game where the space travel is the point, I'm fairly sure there's a Star Trek mod for X3: Terran Conflict or similar space sims. (I know there's a playable alpha for Starfleet Adventures, a very good TOS/movie mod for EV Nova, but I don't think it was ever finished.)

alexraptorr · October 2015

Personally I'm forever fuming at Activision for burning their Bridges with the Star Trek IP. I for one would love to see an Elite Force III, Armada III, SFC4, Bridge Commander 2 etc.

Unfortunately companies are too wrapped up with "mainstream" and "casual" these days.

And that's another thing that's changed since the golden age of Star Trek gaming, its not really the IP's fault as much as gaming has changed.
Back in the late 90's and early 2000's gaming was still pretty much a niche market and not as widespread as it is today. But these days it seems everyone and their grandmother is "technically" a gamer, and that's who is being targeted.

angrytarg · October 2015

@starswordc : In my opinion they missed the mark. I think they have been excellent adventure games, maybe even hybrids like the original quest for glory games were. The actual gameplay however feels lacking in my opinion. This is especially true in Mass Effect (KOTOR rather features a Baldur's Gate style party RPG controls, but it doesn't actually matter what your characters learn and do, it's like STO away team mission - ultimately you simply succeed) as the linear levels almost (not quite) feel like railroad shooters between cutscenes. Like I said, I only played the first parts, maybe 2 and 3 are much better in that regard.

A Star Trek game that is not an adventure type game I do indeed expect a certain degree of open-ended freedom. There's essentially two types of games - those that tell a scripted but engaging story, like you'd watch a show. Those are adventure games with less action elements. And then there's a kind of Star Trek "simulation" in which you don't play a "hero" or have a scripted story but have much more freedom to actually explore an unknown universe on your terms. The altter is what I wished STO had become.

mustrumridcully0 · October 2015

I wonder if on the movie side of things, they have a bit self-limited themselves. JJ Abrams already tried to get out of it with not just restarting the franchise, but also with immediately shaking up the setting by destroying Vulcan.

Compare it to somethnig like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings - these are always immediately "Epic Tales". And that garners a lot of attention. It's the fate of the galaxy and afterwards something really big and serious is likely to happen. The Empire falls, the Republic falls, Sauron is defeated... All that stuff.

But in Star Trek, it's not really like there is a big bad in the background you can finally defeat. There is only a feeling of the "villain of the week" that is just turned in the "villain of the movie". They would have to make something like the Dominion War a movie feature to get something similar Epic.

But maybe that is the wrong direction for Star Trek. Make a story about a new exploration mission that really leads into the unknown, like a new galaxy to explore, where the audience doesn't know what will be out there.

grandnaguszek1 · October 2015

All of you are assuming that a new star trek game would either have to be based on the system of a previous game or another, not somewhere in between. For example, take the cinematic dialogue from SWTOR/KotOR and combine it with a fully explorable map similar to STO but with actual exploration, character drama and development, and a bit of action here and there.

angrytarg · October 2015

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

(...)

But maybe that is the wrong direction for Star Trek. Make a story about a new exploration mission that really leads into the unknown, like a new galaxy to explore, where the audience doesn't know what will be out there.

Exactly. The whole fairy tale theme of good and evil doesn't apply to Star Trek - the TNG era films tried that, which is why they crashed so badly. For instance, the whole thing with Q, the Borg and Picard was really not about evil cybermen who come and destroy everything because they are evil and a mastemind pulling strings sadistically amusing himself while the heroes save the universe. But that's EXACTLY what they have written for FC and beyond. Of course Kirk saved the universe a few times - or did he? Because in the wider sense maybe he saved the Federation or a World, but in a dynamic systems times would have changed and other things took place while when Frodo hadn't destroyed the ring there would only be doom and evil until eternity. Kirk on the other hand took a venture inside himself and the message we got was to reflect our own as the beings we are - that however doesn't translate all to well into big battle scenes and pew pew.

rosetyler51 · October 2015

I had a some big mess of words about why I would not want to see a Bioware Trek game but I wanted to avoid a wall of text. Lucky for me my friends was randomly talking about Bioware games and posted this.

I really don't Bioware would be the best pick for STO. Truth be told I can't think of any really big company that has shown they can do Trek. Maybe Telltale?

Why do you think there is such a lack of Star Trek games?

Comments