Star Trek: Allegiance Part 3
View Single Post
Join Date: Jun 2012
I reviewed the first part in the three part series...
03-01-2013, 02:06 PM
I reviewed the first part of the three part series.
I thought the overall production was good for your first Foundry story, but I did not like the plot or dialog in the story.
Feeling that I may have been harsh in the first review of the show, I played the episode again with a fleet mate. And, we reached the same conclusion.
[Spoil Alert] - if you have not played the show, please do not read any further.
For me the story breaks down at the holodeck.
You start the show going through 3 contacts that basically tell you that you are about to go on a super secret mission. The mission is so secret that this unknown person to the character hands you an illegal device to commit a felony and possible war crime in Starfleet.
There is no discussion with the bridge officers about the mission.
Also, I think the writer makes to many assumptions that have not been established in the story. I think the story spends to much time focusing on descriptive statements. Descriptive statements are good for a book or a poem, but in a format like this which is a screenplay, the audience can see what is going on. There is no reason for a descriptive statement.
For example, in the story, we go into the first scene to meet the Admiral in the holodeck. He is staged there looking out of the window. We can see him looking out of the window. There is no reason to tell the audience or reader that "...there is a man looking out of a window..."
The writer of the stories makes an assumption about Section 31.
In the same scene in the holodeck, the contact (whom we have never met) ask us if we know what Section 31 is, and we have 2 choices to make for dialog. But, many players in the game back-story are such that they are part of section 31.
Why would a player who has just met you, who was working for section 31 take the word of a unknown contact who has just confessed to establishing a secret organization with in Star Fleet Academy.
For that matter, why would a Star Fleet officer that is not part of Section 31 cooperate with the contact in this scene?
I do not think a Star Fleet officer would ever cooperate with this mission the way it is presented.
The opening scene is a pure violation of security protocols.
In security, especially military security, there is a thing called "two point integrity."
This means at all levels of security, there is always two people responsible for any highly sensitive material. Section 31 has already been established in the games lore as a intelligence agency. They gather data and information for military intelligence. A person handing you a single device and asking you to attach it to a Section 31 computer terminal would send warning signals to any Starfleet officer. The person handing you the device in this scene would be violating the two point integrity policy.
Also, a military commander would have had to verify the unknown contacts credibility here. In a game where every player is a Vice Admiral, that would be an important step.
In my case, my character is a Vice Admiral who is in command of a Fleet that is spread across 4 theaters of War. If it was up to me, I would have arrested all the cadets in the holodeck and anyone who came into contact with the Admiral there until I understood to my satisfaction that this guy was legitimate.
My first red flag occurred when they sent me to Starfleet Academy to discuss a secret mission.
Then further on, after the first several space battles. My group we kick the crap out of the enemy without any damage. The story dialog is written where the characters are always behind or in a losing situation.
The dialog seems out of place with what occurs in the story.
I think the stages are very well thought out in the story. The story has good balance in terms of combat and non-combat scenes, but the story itself is not the way a Star Trek story would progress.
I think the story makes to many assumptions for the player. To me it seemed that we could have skipped all the dialog because the character had no real impact on that. It seem to me that the writer was pushing the character into a bad situation. And, this was obvious from the opening scene in the holodeck room.
Now, after I reconsidered my first pass of the story as "...perhaps I was being hyper critical..." I came back several days later and reviewed the mission again with a friend. My friend came away with the same feeling.
For me, the story really rubs me the wrong way especially at the end. If it was me I would have arrested everyone in the final scene. I certainly would not have surrendered my ship. A captain of a Starfleet vessels first responsibility is to the ship and crew.
And, a Vice Admiral is responsible for a fleet. In the story, we have no idea who these new people are other than they claim to be Section 31. Section 31 would not have announced who they are over a subspace transmission.
Also, the dialog is not that of a professional military officer. Military officers do not communicate like that. Maybe in a cheap B rated movie where the writer does not really have experience dealing with military protocol. The one guy in black did not out rank me in the story. Even if he did, no commander has the authority to board another ship and seize people, that is considered piracy.
I do not like that the dialog uses profanity and forces the player to use profanity. My Vice Admiral is a Vulcan. She would not behave that way. I do not like how the script or story assumes all the players in the game are men.
The story has very big holes in the plot that can be corrected by reviewing Memory Alpha and Star Trek Online Wiki, and various sources of military protocol.
Many players in the game are military people. Myself, I was in the Navy and am very familiar with the way shipboard and fleet protocol is.
I think the behavior of all the people in this play are unprofessional. An officer would not display the dialog and behavior that would violate the UCMJ or Uniform Code of Military Justice.
I did give the story 1 star. I wanted to give it 2 stars because I felt you did a really good job in the production in the methods I described earlier. But, the story itself is not good. By story, I mean in the context that the dialog and the way the story plot progressed is not accurate for Star Trek.
Feel fee to contact me on the Foundry chat channel or send me a email if you want better clarification on what I described here. My goal is to help you be a better writer for Star Trek.