Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Star Trek: Legacy

37,600pages on
this wiki

Back to page

AdditionsEdit

Added Hero ships and altered some information since I played the game and completed the campaign. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.21.232.179 (talk).

Legacy Mods for the PC Edit

Does anybody know about any Mod projects going on with Star Trek: Legacy? 70.244.76.112 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article does not provide much real information... Edit

...about this fairly abyssmal and soon to be dead game. Wikipedia have a lot more accurate facts. Luckily there is at least a link. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord Aragorn (talk • contribs).

Please feel free to add useful information about the game to the article in an encyclopedic manner. That's what a wiki is good for. Please note that the article is not the place for personal opinion, reviews, or otherwise though.
Finally, it's best to sign your comments with ~~~~, so that people know who wrote it. -- Sulfur 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Some mention of the fan reaction might be apt, though. I know there's a section in the ENT: "These Are the Voyages..." article about the bad fan response to the episode. The response to this game seems very negative as well, though I'm not familiar with all the facts myself. This user could contribute their knowledge on the issue provided it wasn't unduly biased. Certainly seems noteworthy. --Pearse 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't to me, yet. The fact is that it is still a new game. New games are always buggy, and almost always have negative reaction initially because of that. The only exceptions are console games. Wait 6 months. I won't even buy most games until they have been out at least 6 months. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

First, it is an excaggeration to say that ALL new games are buggy. Second the fan reaction on this game is worse than most games I have seen. Third, much of the fan reactions are not just due to bugs but omissions and bad design decisions. Fourth, I think it is only apt for a Star Trek encyclopedia to be critical (in a fair manner) when the franchise is abused, which many fans believe is the case as far as Star Trek Legacy is concerned. It is a fact that this game have been very badly recieved for various reasons. I feel it should not be left to non-Star-Trek dedicated sites to point this out. --Lord Aragorn 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to add more opinion, but i think that many feel the Xbox 360 version has vindicated this game somewhat. 78.145.14.116 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus-class? Edit

Where is the Daedalus-class? The article says that it is a playable ship, but I can tell you that I've played through this game and I cannot find one instance where the Daedalus-class is even mentioned, let alone playable. Unless I'm missing something, I think this erroneous data should be removed. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.248.53.46 (talk).

The Daedalus class is not a playable ship in the game. It appears once for definite in the mission where Epsilon Theta system is poisoned by an unknown virus. You (the player) have to protect them as they strive to save the system from the virus...hope that clears one or two things up. XNERZHULx 17:10, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

T'Uerell and the Borg Queen Edit

T'Uerell and the borg queen seem to play very similar roles with regard to their part of the Borg colective. Both seek to control the collective - as the queen puts it "bring order to chaos". Could they be the same person? We've seen the queen manifest herself many different times throughout trek history despite apparently being destroyed. If not, then as they existed at roughly similar times wouldn't this cause a clash with regard to who controls the collective? Wheatleya 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not beleive so, in the extra content that came with Legacy(which is presumably the cutscenes that were not completed in time) It is explained that T'Uruell took control over the collective when the queen was destroyed in "Endgame" 81.234.215.26 12:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tasha YarEdit

Why on earth did you remove the part about Natasha Yar? --68.102.143.27 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it was plain vandalism, sexual vulgarity based vandalism at that. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Canon vs. Non-Canon Edit

Was this game canon? I believe it was produced by Paramount, which would make it canon. However, the "Regeneration" page's Background section lists this as a "non-canon" game. -Italianajt 17:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It was produced by "Bethesda Softworks," it was only licensed by Paramount. Besides, being made by Paramount doesn't make you canon. No games, novels, comics, trading cards, etc., are considered canon. Only what was on screen, in the shows and movies is. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It depends on your definition of canonicity. It's definitely canon within the Games canon, but it isn't canon within the show canon. 62.198.162.25

Mods Edit

I'm wondering if it is appropriate to have a section describing fan-made mods for this game. If we don't list fan games I'm not sure how this is different.--31dot 01:57, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say the difference here is that the mods are adding canon content to the official game, not adding some wacky fan made ship. - Archduk3:talk 01:59, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that it's appropriate to describe them. Maybe mention that there are some and leave it at that. -- sulfur 02:04, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
The picture should be removed at least, as it is uncited. - Archduk3:talk 02:07, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
I think that mods should be listed, because, they make a canon addition to the game. Non-canon ships shouldn't be mentioned, but, canon things should be allowed to, I think. STLegacy 22:51, November 21, 2009 (GMT+1)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki