as cool as it sounds i would NOT like Nasa or DARPA or the DoD to create STO

look at all of the other games that are made by companys, corps, TV channels etc they all turn out to be pretty rubbish and not fun at all and generally tend to only sell about 30 copies out of 6+ billion people in the world

and Captain Crowl, Infinity: Quest for Earth has Newtonian physics and astrophysics implemented in its gameplay if your into that sort of thing and they have released a combat prototype if you want to try it out, tis pretty good

I wrote my last post in the wrong thread, sorry ;), so I quote myself here to add it here:

About the freaky remarks about alien contact(s) in a few decades by named scientists: Have they found a way yet to simulate subspace communications at "warp speed"? To my knowledge, the speed of light is still limiting every information transmission. Unless I see scientific papers about circumventing that problem in theory (talking about practical application is then another thing), I don't really believe that. Okay, scientific advancement could have been made in the dark with the public not knowing about but well, I don't count on it for now ;).

Anyway, on the actual STO impact, well, I'd say the cons outweigh since as Zach said, the game will most likely suffer and become more of a simulation than a fun experience simply due to implementing rather "logical" things. Star Trek is full of strange things like the extremely cool inertia dampeners that never fail when slowing down from full impulse to full halt in about no-time :).

Only if those new guys need the funds, they should call them. Otherwise, they should remain independent from any government agency. Don't want too many outside people have a foot in the door of the program at later decisions for example when the game's out and running. Also don't know if the regular Star Trek fan is someone liking the military that much (and see Starfleet as a military organization which it is, but mostly generiously forgotten in the minds of most fans I think).

And that's the exact word on it: funding, not creation! NASA and Star Trek have always been close partners (hey, anyone remember the first design for the real, returning-to-earth spaceshuttle? Geez, that was called Enterprise! I wonder why...) and I think it would be beneficial for both parties.

And that's the exact word on it: funding, not creation! NASA and Star Trek have always been close partners (hey, anyone remember the first design for the real, returning-to-earth spaceshuttle? Geez, that was called Enterprise! I wonder why...) and I think it would be beneficial for both parties.

Well the folks at the Department of Defense seem to indicate they can do both. Fund and help 'create' whatever they needed to be included.   

the question isn't what they can make for STO. the question is:


what will it cost? What is the DoD and etc gaining from helping out Cryptic? just money? that's doubtful, its the government. theyve got money (for the most part).

i really dont want to see DoD stuff plastered all over the walls and etc, ya know?

Ummm. No the DoD is not in it to make money...but to give money as well as access to folks at CERN, FERMI, DoE, NASA who may want technical information to appear a certain way.   What they get out of it is the ability to put out the most acurate information about future tech. In making sure the tech is presented accurately they teach a generation they will need in 20 years.   It has been discussed as a training tool and for recruitment purposes.

So no. No DoD adds on walls in-game. Maybe on boxes and initial splash screen, etc.

So what we get is a game that is as believable as any technical manual whose credits include: McDonnel Douglas, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc. etc.

Experts in science and aerospace have always been involved with the BIGGEST trek productions...WHY should this be any different given budget and profit expectations?   To say "Its a game." seems a weak argument.