View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 144
# 8
11-30-2012, 04:30 PM
Well, it's designed for looks, not practicality (like most stuff in Trek, or 99% of all TV/Movie sci-fi, really). Once you start getting annoyed at that stuff it's kinda hard to stop. Why no seat belts? What's with all the space wasting, tessellation-unfriendly interior shapes? Why put the ship's CIC where it's literally a target bulls-eye, just begging to be chipped off the hull by enemy fire? Why are the decks stacked ventral to dorsal instead of stern to bow? Why stack decks at all when you've got room-by-room artificial gravity?

At the end of the day, you just gotta accept/embrace the fact that underneath the more modern art style and flirty relationship with real science, Star Trek is ultimately rooted in the "Flash Gordon" category of realism.

The Vesta bridge pictured looks "meh" to me, but then these illustrator cutaways always look that way to me even with bridges that I love, so I'd prolly have to see actual walkaround/ on set views to actually know whether I'd like it or not.

*EDIT: Actually, looking closer, it appears to just be a "Blaze" Prometheus bridge with the middle stretched in Photoshop. I use that bridge in-game for my Excelsior. It's the best bridge for a movie-era ship, if a bit plain, but I dunno if I'd want the same just with an extra leaf in the middle for a post-TNG uber ship. Just seems really lazy, both as a potential game asset, and as fan art (sorry, I know that's harsh, but it is what it is).

Last edited by connectamabob; 11-30-2012 at 04:42 PM.