English
Gamereactor
previews
Star Trek: Bridge Crew

Star Trek: Bridge Crew

The final frontier has never been closer to your living room...

Subscribe to our newsletter here!

* Required field
HQ
HQ

On paper, Star Trek: Bridge Crew is a Trekkie's dream, as it requires teams of up to four players to assume the roles of officers aboard a starship, and therein navigate scenarios not dissimilar to those we've seen in the near-countless TV shows and movies that we've been watching for the last 50 years. We've sat aboard Federation ships before, sure, but never like this. Taking its cues from the likes of Artemis Spaceship Bridge Simulator, Bridge Crew takes things to the next level by moving the concept into the realm of virtual reality, which in turn proves more immersive than any Star Trek game that has ever come before it.

Whether it's actually that good is still up for debate, but the key thing we took away after two hours spent playing the four different roles across four different scenarios is that, played in co-op, it has the potential to be a hell of a lot of fun. As a game, especially one played solo with AI support, it may well be that Bridge Crew just doesn't have the chops to entertain for very long, however, played together with like-minded souls, with role-playing at the centre of the experience, this might be the definitive interactive Star Trek experience.

It's not perfect by any means, and much of the enjoyment comes from the context surrounding the experience, rather than the mechanics themselves. It's a general truism that nearly every game is better when played with friends, and even the most underwhelming experiences can be elevated by the company of comrades. This is the case here, but the key difference is that coop and role-play are at the heart of the game's design and it must be considered on those terms.

This is an ad:
Star Trek: Bridge CrewStar Trek: Bridge Crew

This role-playing element is felt most keenly by the person playing captain. Helm, tactical, and engineering positions all have meaningful roles to fulfil, whereas the captain's is more managerial. Armed with oversight of the ship's systems and, if the team works as it should, the power to issue orders to the crew, the captain acts as the link that connects the three other positions together. You could argue that in terms of interacting with the software, the role of captain is a little underwhelming, and that would be fair, however, it's also the uniqueness of this floating role that elevated the experience when we played it and made it more engrossing as a whole.

In terms of having actual control of what happens, those who play helm and tactical will hold the most pivotal positions, as there's more in the way of tangible feedback, with phasers and photon torpedoes firing this way and that while the ship lurches from left to right as the player in the helm role lines up targets and steers towards objectives. Just in terms of getting in the thick of the action, these are the most intense roles too. The person in engineering has a more behind-the-scenes role, acting as the glue that sticks the team together, repairing damaged systems and diverting power between engines, phasers, and shields to suit the moment. Essentially it's the healer role; not very glamorous but utterly essential for a well-oiled team.

We sampled each of the four crew positions, and indeed helm and tactical are where we had the most fun, but we were playing at a low level and with no prior experience, and we can see how important the engineer is going to be during more challenging missions, as teams scramble to balance their systems during battles with Bird-of-Prey and the like.

This is an ad:

Our first mission had us playing as captain, and we tackled the legendary Kobayashi Maru simulation. We had a jolly time issuing orders to our peers, and calling the plays as the scenario unfolded in front of our eyes. We certainly didn't feel like we weren't involved, even if we didn't actually have much to physically do. For many, the level of satisfaction to be enjoyed from playing this role will ultimately come down to your comrades and the way they respond to your commands. The mission itself was fairly indicative of the kinds of things you'll be doing in the game; fighting Klingons, rescuing ships in distress, scanning other vessels, and so on and so forth. The ending of the mission itself was a little disappointing, probably due to our pre-existing expectations relating to this famous training simulation, but overall we still had a good time.

Taking on the role of the engineer was a bit more hands-on, but ultimately lacked both the authority and overview enjoyed when playing captain, and the heightened interaction of playing helm and tactical. Unsurprisingly, shooting aliens and weaving between asteroids is a blast, and we got to grips with both sets of controls with relative ease (there are handy tooltips to help you if you need them). Learning the ropes was more challenging when playing on the bridge of the original Enterprise, though. Whereas the Aegis (where most of the action unfolds) has a more modern look and feel, the original feels suitably antiquated and in-keeping with the aesthetic of TOS. Helm, for example, is a console full of nameless buttons to press, and we quickly understood why the PR at the event warned us that the Enterprise was designed for more experienced players.

Star Trek: Bridge Crew

On top of a story-driven campaign, there's going to be procedurally generated content to add longevity, mixing up maps and objectives to give dedicated players something to return to. It's a welcome addition that, along with the character creation tool, gives players more freedom to explore the game how they see fit. The length and quality of the campaign remains to be seen, but overall the whole thing felt pretty polished (apart from some clipping, and the usual dance of recalibrating your position if you stray too far out of the camera's view).

We've been known from time to time to get a little motion sick from playing in virtual reality, but after nearly two hours of non-stop Star Trekking, we were completely fine. In fact, two hours is an unusually long VR session for us, and we appreciated it when we came out unscathed (the fact that you're static in the game and the ship's movement is relatively slow certainly helped). All in all, it looked good, didn't make us want to spew, and immersed us for an extended period of time. Having said that, we're still undecided as to whether the game itself is actually that good, and we're going to have to spend a lot more time playing before we come to any definitive conclusions.

Our uncertainty aside, the experience offered by Star Trek: Bridge Crew is a rare and immersive one. These are the kinds of games that VR was made for; where you're whisked away to another time, another place. Alongside Sony's Farpoint, this is an excellent advert for what virtual reality could and should be in 2017. We're keenly waiting on the final build to beam down next month, at which point we'll find out whether this is the captain of Star Trek games, or merely a red jersey-wearing ensign that might look good in the uniform, but who should have probably stayed at home.

HQ

Related texts

0
Star Trek: Bridge CrewScore

Star Trek: Bridge Crew

REVIEW. Written by Kalle Max Hofmann

"On the one hand, there's the feeling that this is a dream come true, on the other hand, the dream is short-lived and limited."



Loading next content