So very excited about this game, and so happy it's in the right hands now.
No need for interiors as a general feature at launch. They'll be there in episodes where they're relevant to the story. Player crews is just too silly a concept, and people should take heart that Cryptic actually was polite about the issue instead of laughing in their faces for being so silly as was probably their instinctive reaction.
Don't be fooled folks. Most of the negative "noise" is being generated by a small text based Star Trek simming community that thought they could pressure Cryptic into giving them an environment to simply transfer there simming over to. There's absolutely no thought about how unrealistic that is as a business model, and once it was made clear PC crews wouldn't be in they've been on a campain to get a negative spin going about the game to put pressure on Cryptic another way.
WOW! i don't know where to begin....i don't why any of you posted anything, if you have never read anything about STO except for this small review. I have been following this game since it was announced by perpetual and then by cryptic. PC crew v NPC crew: this has been discussed in length on the cryptic forums and ultimately lead to closing (not necessarily banning people or deleting threads) any thread about it. basically the system will work like this, since everyone is a captain they can go solo in the game if they choose to...you can form teams or not, its up to you...if you choose to go exploring a planet you bring your npc bridge crew with you or you can bring PC team members that replace your npc crew. its entirely up to you... yes i understand the arguement about entirely PC crewed or at least PC bridge crew ships. I was one of the proponents for it when it was under perpetuals control, but cryptic has made a good point its like creating 6 games in one...an engineering game, medical, tactical, science, etc. it would take a long time to create not to mention having to come up with new content for each "game" itself continuously... yes i know thats a cop out, but is a sensical cop out to say the least and i'm ok with it. There is only so much to do while pvping, exploring, and spending time between traveling. you can only upgrade a system so much before the upgrades become trivial. there is also the problem of people going l/d on a planet, what happens if the ship leaves where do they respawn at....are they stuck on the planet until another ship comes by or do they have to sit and wait until the ship warps all...the...way...back just to pick up that person. then there are the travel times, are they fast or are they realistic, if they are realistic then what does the captain do all this time while engineering, medical, tactical, etc. are doing their things. PvP: It seems as if most people who write about this game concentrates so much more on PvP rather than on PvE. PvP is delegated to PvP areas, so your not going to see PvP everywhere...PvE is very important part of the game, exploring is a major center piece. they have even gone to the trouble of creating self generating content as people continue to go farther out into space. there are goin to raids, dynamic events, PvE space and ground combat, etc. the game isn't centered only on combat Ship Interiors: Ok so they are not going to have major ship interiors at launch, with exception to major hubs like DS9...big deal...they said its on the to-do list post launch, besides what are you going to do in those ship interiors, stand around and look at the view....
QFE. The community at the offficial website is ten times better than the one here at MMORPG. This site seems to be the last refuge for disgruntled players that hate the fact they can't troll and flame over at a game's website.So they come here and cry about how they are being "censored." Anyone that has spent any time at the official website knows the facts and those that troll here know nothing. Hence why the trolls refuse to acknowledge this post that refutes every bit of garbage and lies they have been spewing.
It's funny how interested Cryptic and Jack seem to be in putting this game over to us "disgruntled players" on this site and forums. The official forums might seem ten times better for you fanboi's, because anyone who criticizes the development gets chased off those forums or has their threads locked no matter how constructive. If you read neutral sites like this one or Massively, you'll see what the average player market (who Cryptic care far more then the community they already have drinking their koolaid) think about this games direction.
Keep on enjoying those official forums and thinking everything there is fact, I remember the AoC offical forums telling everyone the "facts" on how great and bug free that game was. While these "disgruntled players" told everyone how the game was far from ready and needed more content. Wonder who had more facts?
All us "disgruntled players" talked about how WAR wasn't ready, wasn't well balanced, and needed more ORvR options. We talked about the game having short playability and predicted that people would cancel out of boredom 2-3 months later. 400 thousand cancelations later, I'll bet they wish they listened a little better.
I'll bet we were disgruntled when we knew Tabula Rasa and Vanguard were going to be massive disappointments, when so many of their fanboi's declared their games the next WoW killer.
You might think people are "disgruntled" because they post their opinions here and don't just say "yes yes yes" when they know the developers can make a better game and tell them what people are going to expect from a big named IP. We might seem disgruntled, but it's funny how much the people here are correct on predicting how well or bad a MMORPG will perform in the market. The people here have their finger on the pulse better then any of the more recent Dev teams, who just can't quite get that pulse anymore.
Oh please. There is no 'the people here" in the sense you're trying to use the phrase. There's people with varied opinions like there is everywhere else. There's no more accurate prognosticators here than there is anywhere else either.
People are going to like what they see about a game or not, and in the end after a game is released one side is going to look like they were right and one side isn't. There's been just as many occasions where the negativity ninnies were absolutely wrong about how a game would do once released.
There isn't any "consensus" about STO here either. Quit trying to come off like there is. There's many that like what they're seeing, some that don't like it. That's the same as every single game that's ever been in development and after it was released.
Then there's the old story of mmorpg.com with players going to "visit" who they see as possible competition for their favourite game to stir up negativity, and with STO there's some that couldn't get any traction with their negativity on the STO forums, and so started trying to spread it here.
This all isn't anything new . I'm sure some think they're being "tactitions", but it's all old, and pretty lame actually.
WOW! i don't know where to begin....i don't why any of you posted anything, if you have never read anything about STO except for this small review. I have been following this game since it was announced by perpetual and then by cryptic. PC crew v NPC crew: this has been discussed in length on the cryptic forums and ultimately lead to closing (not necessarily banning people or deleting threads) any thread about it. basically the system will work like this, since everyone is a captain they can go solo in the game if they choose to...you can form teams or not, its up to you...if you choose to go exploring a planet you bring your npc bridge crew with you or you can bring PC team members that replace your npc crew. its entirely up to you... yes i understand the arguement about entirely PC crewed or at least PC bridge crew ships. I was one of the proponents for it when it was under perpetuals control, but cryptic has made a good point its like creating 6 games in one...an engineering game, medical, tactical, science, etc. it would take a long time to create not to mention having to come up with new content for each "game" itself continuously... yes i know thats a cop out, but is a sensical cop out to say the least and i'm ok with it. There is only so much to do while pvping, exploring, and spending time between traveling. you can only upgrade a system so much before the upgrades become trivial. there is also the problem of people going l/d on a planet, what happens if the ship leaves where do they respawn at....are they stuck on the planet until another ship comes by or do they have to sit and wait until the ship warps all...the...way...back just to pick up that person. then there are the travel times, are they fast or are they realistic, if they are realistic then what does the captain do all this time while engineering, medical, tactical, etc. are doing their things. PvP: It seems as if most people who write about this game concentrates so much more on PvP rather than on PvE. PvP is delegated to PvP areas, so your not going to see PvP everywhere...PvE is very important part of the game, exploring is a major center piece. they have even gone to the trouble of creating self generating content as people continue to go farther out into space. there are goin to raids, dynamic events, PvE space and ground combat, etc. the game isn't centered only on combat Ship Interiors: Ok so they are not going to have major ship interiors at launch, with exception to major hubs like DS9...big deal...they said its on the to-do list post launch, besides what are you going to do in those ship interiors, stand around and look at the view....
QFE. The community at the offficial website is ten times better than the one here at MMORPG. This site seems to be the last refuge for disgruntled players that hate the fact they can't troll and flame over at a game's website.So they come here and cry about how they are being "censored." Anyone that has spent any time at the official website knows the facts and those that troll here know nothing. Hence why the trolls refuse to acknowledge this post that refutes every bit of garbage and lies they have been spewing.
It's funny how interested Cryptic and Jack seem to be in putting this game over to us "disgruntled players" on this site and forums. The official forums might seem ten times better for you fanboi's, because anyone who criticizes the development gets chased off those forums or has their threads locked no matter how constructive. If you read neutral sites like this one or Massively, you'll see what the average player market (who Cryptic care far more then the community they already have drinking their koolaid) think about this games direction.
Keep on enjoying those official forums and thinking everything there is fact, I remember the AoC offical forums telling everyone the "facts" on how great and bug free that game was. While these "disgruntled players" told everyone how the game was far from ready and needed more content. Wonder who had more facts?
All us "disgruntled players" talked about how WAR wasn't ready, wasn't well balanced, and needed more ORvR options. We talked about the game having short playability and predicted that people would cancel out of boredom 2-3 months later. 400 thousand cancelations later, I'll bet they wish they listened a little better.
I'll bet we were disgruntled when we knew Tabula Rasa and Vanguard were going to be massive disappointments, when so many of their fanboi's declared their games the next WoW killer.
You might think people are "disgruntled" because they post their opinions here and don't just say "yes yes yes" when they know the developers can make a better game and tell them what people are going to expect from a big named IP. We might seem disgruntled, but it's funny how much the people here are correct on predicting how well or bad a MMORPG will perform in the market. The people here have their finger on the pulse better then any of the more recent Dev teams, who just can't quite get that pulse anymore.
The difference between what your saying and what i'm saying is that my information is accurate based on everything the development team has put out. The "disgruntled" players don't even exist yet. The game isn't even in alpha or beta testing yet so your examples of AoC and WAR are mute.
As for the so called "disgruntled" community of people on the official forums go, they are the same people that get warned or banned for opening 50 threads on the same issue when only 1 would suffice. Everyone wants different things for this game, I've heard everything you could think of all of which are still on the forums. The only other reason those threads get closed is because some people keep making personal attacks thus ending a good discussion. By all means be "disgruntled", but don't call us fanbois simply because we expect a certain level of maturity and actual knowledge of what the devs have said is in or out.
Enough with this no bridge whining. You are a very small minority and they should completely redo the game for you? I think not.
Some clueless poster tried to make out like SWG has that functionality. Yeah one person flies the ship and everyone else stands around. Oh yes, some ships do have gun stations, but if you get in a pvp fight in one of the multiplayer ships you are dead meat. Little more than a gimmick. Once you do it a few times there is not much point to it. Safer for everyone to fly their own fighters.
You guys seem to think there is endless development dollars out there that they can provide infinite functionality to meet your whims. Well sorry to burst your bubble, but that scenario does not exist in the current genre.
Personally I think Cryptic has done a great job with the IP. Far better than that monstrousity that Perpetual was working on.
If not having player crews is a game breaker than this game is not for you. So don't play it. You won't find any developers attempting something like this either, just makes no sense from a gaming perspective.
Just one note on this discussion... Cryptic has been through this process before. There was a City of Heroes web site up and active during the development of that title, and it did accurately reflect the game that was eventually released.
Using other companies to somehow disprove other peoples' statements regarding the official site and discussions there is rather absurd. Cryptic is not Funcom, and has their own track record to use for comparison.
I dont know i thought the screenshots were rather nice for a MMO.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
WOW! i don't know where to begin....i don't why any of you posted anything, if you have never read anything about STO except for this small review. I have been following this game since it was announced by perpetual and then by cryptic. PC crew v NPC crew: this has been discussed in length on the cryptic forums and ultimately lead to closing (not necessarily banning people or deleting threads) any thread about it. basically the system will work like this, since everyone is a captain they can go solo in the game if they choose to...you can form teams or not, its up to you...if you choose to go exploring a planet you bring your npc bridge crew with you or you can bring PC team members that replace your npc crew. its entirely up to you... yes i understand the arguement about entirely PC crewed or at least PC bridge crew ships. I was one of the proponents for it when it was under perpetuals control, but cryptic has made a good point its like creating 6 games in one...an engineering game, medical, tactical, science, etc. it would take a long time to create not to mention having to come up with new content for each "game" itself continuously... yes i know thats a cop out, but is a sensical cop out to say the least and i'm ok with it. There is only so much to do while pvping, exploring, and spending time between traveling. you can only upgrade a system so much before the upgrades become trivial. there is also the problem of people going l/d on a planet, what happens if the ship leaves where do they respawn at....are they stuck on the planet until another ship comes by or do they have to sit and wait until the ship warps all...the...way...back just to pick up that person. then there are the travel times, are they fast or are they realistic, if they are realistic then what does the captain do all this time while engineering, medical, tactical, etc. are doing their things. PvP: It seems as if most people who write about this game concentrates so much more on PvP rather than on PvE. PvP is delegated to PvP areas, so your not going to see PvP everywhere...PvE is very important part of the game, exploring is a major center piece. they have even gone to the trouble of creating self generating content as people continue to go farther out into space. there are goin to raids, dynamic events, PvE space and ground combat, etc. the game isn't centered only on combat Ship Interiors: Ok so they are not going to have major ship interiors at launch, with exception to major hubs like DS9...big deal...they said its on the to-do list post launch, besides what are you going to do in those ship interiors, stand around and look at the view....
QFE. The community at the offficial website is ten times better than the one here at MMORPG. This site seems to be the last refuge for disgruntled players that hate the fact they can't troll and flame over at a game's website.So they come here and cry about how they are being "censored." Anyone that has spent any time at the official website knows the facts and those that troll here know nothing. Hence why the trolls refuse to acknowledge this post that refutes every bit of garbage and lies they have been spewing.
It's funny how interested Cryptic and Jack seem to be in putting this game over to us "disgruntled players" on this site and forums. The official forums might seem ten times better for you fanboi's, because anyone who criticizes the development gets chased off those forums or has their threads locked no matter how constructive. If you read neutral sites like this one or Massively, you'll see what the average player market (who Cryptic care far more then the community they already have drinking their koolaid) think about this games direction.
Keep on enjoying those official forums and thinking everything there is fact, I remember the AoC offical forums telling everyone the "facts" on how great and bug free that game was. While these "disgruntled players" told everyone how the game was far from ready and needed more content. Wonder who had more facts?
All us "disgruntled players" talked about how WAR wasn't ready, wasn't well balanced, and needed more ORvR options. We talked about the game having short playability and predicted that people would cancel out of boredom 2-3 months later. 400 thousand cancelations later, I'll bet they wish they listened a little better.
I'll bet we were disgruntled when we knew Tabula Rasa and Vanguard were going to be massive disappointments, when so many of their fanboi's declared their games the next WoW killer.
You might think people are "disgruntled" because they post their opinions here and don't just say "yes yes yes" when they know the developers can make a better game and tell them what people are going to expect from a big named IP. We might seem disgruntled, but it's funny how much the people here are correct on predicting how well or bad a MMORPG will perform in the market. The people here have their finger on the pulse better then any of the more recent Dev teams, who just can't quite get that pulse anymore.
The difference between what your saying and what i'm saying is that my information is accurate based on everything the development team has put out. The "disgruntled" players don't even exist yet. The game isn't even in alpha or beta testing yet so your examples of AoC and WAR are mute.
As for the so called "disgruntled" community of people on the official forums go, they are the same people that get warned or banned for opening 50 threads on the same issue when only 1 would suffice. Everyone wants different things for this game, I've heard everything you could think of all of which are still on the forums. The only other reason those threads get closed is because some people keep making personal attacks thus ending a good discussion. By all means be "disgruntled", but don't call us fanbois simply because we expect a certain level of maturity and actual knowledge of what the devs have said is in or out.
Spoken like a person who actually has visited the site and know what's going on over there. The developers are very open and listen to what's being said on the state of the game. The community is very varied, it isn't just a bunch of fanbois as the morons on this site suggest. I had many things in this game that I wanted to see that aren't happening and I did threads stating that fact. But I didn't go off on a tanent like some baby because I couldn't play a Borg or merchant. The decision was made and I accepted it because I realize that not everyone is going to get what they want. That's just life.
In fact, we're STILL having discussions on playing a Borg and the threads aren't being locked even though we know that playable borg won't be in the game. Might have something to do with the tone and the maturity of the people involved in the conversation. Hmmmmmm.........
I just want to say that I like what I am hearing about STO so far -- even the wrath of STO's critics is gratifying.
Whenever anyone posts a rant about STO and then "stomps off" stating that he or she will NOT be playing this game, I just smile and think "that's great!" Such posters would not be happy in STO and, what is more important to me, I would not be happy having them around while I play STO. So, I see this situation as a complete Win-Win for everybody.
Based on what I am hearing thus far, STO sounds in many ways similar to Guild Wars, an essentially single-player game with a healthy and substantial (but OPTIONAL) MMO component, all thanks to the use of NPC groupmates. Sadly (and stupidly, imo), AreneNet is abandoning this winning game mechanic in their design of Guild Wars 2, but, happily, it looks like STO is going to pick up the ball dropped by ArenaNet and carry it forward. Exit ArenaNet/Guild Wars 1 but -- hooray! -- here comes Cryptic/STO to fill the void.
This sounds absolutely perfect to me. Guild Wars was not a game for everyone, but it hit just the right note for me. It's good to see that another game is on the horizon for players like me.
I think STO is going to be great fun. I am so encouraged by the direction Cryptic is taking this game.
What is up with all the trekkies wanting a tv show game? On the tv show so and so interact, they do away missions,you wonder if people will hook up, blah blah blah. Talk about your recipe for disaster.
If the game centers around various classes simply operating a starship......umm.......boring.
What is up with all the trekkies wanting a tv show game? On the tv show so and so interact, they do away missions,you wonder if people will hook up, blah blah blah. Talk about your recipe for disaster. If the game centers around various classes simply operating a starship......umm.......boring.
IF you make a game about Star Trek, it sould be... surprising.. about Star Trek. You say is boring, but the TV Serie was like you describe, and worked long and long and long and long. What you describe could make a good RPG, and these people are making a RPG soo.. hum?.. maybe you don't like RPG's and all you want is hack and slash diablo. Then there are lots of games *ALREADY* like that on the market. Adding something is already on the market is not wisdow market decission, because you are competing with everybody, so your product has to add something new, or competece in price and quality. Since quality is alredy cornere by WoW and price by free to play games, you *MUST* give something good and decent quality + decent price to even start making a MMORPG.
What is up with all the trekkies wanting a tv show game? On the tv show so and so interact, they do away missions,you wonder if people will hook up, blah blah blah. Talk about your recipe for disaster. If the game centers around various classes simply operating a starship......umm.......boring.
IF you make a game about Star Trek, it sould be... surprising.. about Star Trek. You say is boring, but the TV Serie was like you describe, and worked long and long and long and long. What you describe could make a good RPG, and these people are making a RPG soo.. hum?.. maybe you don't like RPG's and all you want is hack and slash diablo. Then there are lots of games *ALREADY* like that on the market. Adding something is already on the market is not wisdow market decission, because you are competing with everybody, so your product has to add something new, or competece in price and quality. Since quality is alredy cornere by WoW and price by free to play games, you *MUST* give something good and decent quality + decent price to even start making a MMORPG.
The star trek franchise encompasses many things. Picking the most boring among them is a recipe for failure.
What is up with all the trekkies wanting a tv show game? On the tv show so and so interact, they do away missions,you wonder if people will hook up, blah blah blah. Talk about your recipe for disaster. If the game centers around various classes simply operating a starship......umm.......boring.
IF you make a game about Star Trek, it sould be... surprising.. about Star Trek. You say is boring, but the TV Serie was like you describe, and worked long and long and long and long. What you describe could make a good RPG, and these people are making a RPG soo.. hum?.. maybe you don't like RPG's and all you want is hack and slash diablo. Then there are lots of games *ALREADY* like that on the market. Adding something is already on the market is not wisdow market decission, because you are competing with everybody, so your product has to add something new, or competece in price and quality. Since quality is alredy cornere by WoW and price by free to play games, you *MUST* give something good and decent quality + decent price to even start making a MMORPG.
The star trek franchise encompasses many things. Picking the most boring among them is a recipe for failure.
Exactly. Standing around the engine room b.s ing and pressing a few buttons isn't many people's idea of having fun. The SIMS type MMOs have tried and faile. That's why developers are moving away from them.
Exactly. Standing around the engine room b.s ing and pressing a few buttons isn't many people's idea of having fun. The SIMS type MMOs have tried and faile. That's why developers are moving away from them.
Enjoyed the thread until it devolved a while back. Unfortunately I understand both sides of the argument and even some of the squabbles (that detract from the whole unfortunately), I'll try to ignore the general bad feeling...
Yes the game (as described by Tech (thanks)) sounds excellent, better if I'd not read the many earlier threads inviting me to take part in star trek the series. The truth is that this is the state of the market, we're playing (typically) singleplayer combat games that we can hang out with our buddies and hopefully have a damn good time, as many people are doing (much to the chagrin of some people). So we'll play STO and have a laugh and play with our customised ship, fly around and phazer each other, beam down to planets and (after consulting the wiki) complete some quest so I can finally get my new ship (or whatever). But like I said, I understand both sides... I dont mind 'these' games, hell even WOW is an excellent game when we consider what we were playing not so long ago (if your old like me . But its not what I expected from RPG. Sorry but I've said it, its not RPG, at least not yet.
I hear a lot of the disgruntled folk here on this site, and I think I see a common thread, they are often angry and demanding of crazy features that just dont fit in with the current thinking, and certainly couldn't design a game that could ever reasonably be built and compete with the current games for their current market. And yeah, threads do often polarise into fans and trolls, some of this is definitely due to people being people (hence some are just annoying and prideful of it). But you see I think I know what it is...
SO many people want an RPG
You see they're annoyed 'cos they, like me, want a roleplaying game, not an FPS nor a RTS nor a ###, but an RPG (yeah I play all of these, but I want an RPG as well). If nobody can make it, or if it'll be rubbish even if they did, then thats a drag.... its a terrible shame and we'll all just have to sit here complaining about it. But please, do me a favour, stop calling these other games RPGs, I know its a role your playing as the captain or the paladin or the whatever, but its a role your playing when you assume command of a fighter in a flight sim but at least that gets its own name... its a flight sim. I dont think having some character progression is enough to warrant the RPG designation. I dont mind a game with starship combat with some cool away missions, I'm just not sure that makes it an RPG. Lets give this current crop of MMOs their own name, and leave RPG for us sad folk sat here waiting.
Well playing STO I imagine, and you better believe that when my bird of war decloaks in front of your federation heavy cruiser I'm doing it with a heavy heart, that I wasn't the engineer on your ship
Actually just thought of a way of providing folk with their chief engineer (or whomever) without substantial modification of the basic game. No I'm not trying to demand anything, and I'm not undermining your right to play the game in its current guise, just chatting away with those who may be interested, and if you're not then simply move along to the next post...
Ok, have they gone? So as I read it everyone is a captain of their own ship, and you can choose to beam down as yourself plus NPC group or with PC friends... so already halfway there. What about permitting alt characters (from the usual bridge crew/medical etc personnel) however these guys are secondary to your captain. When you 'skill-up' your captain you gain 'skill-ups' to be spent on your alts, hence you can increase your engineer or your tactical guy etc. When you're playing the game you'll typically be assuming the role of captain as normal, however you'll have subtle bonuses due to your support team and will have names to beam down to the surface with rather than 'who the hell are you' NPCs (they're still NPCs but now with defined names and abilities). However the big advantage will be when you decide to group, you can either form an armada as I believe is currently the gameplay, or you can employ one of your alts to make a cameo appearance on your friends ship, thus providing advantages to their ship and of course joining them on away missions. No need to explain their ability to jump between ships around the galaxy, as its only a small game impact, I assume that they will be having a star map with various races struggling for supremacy (EVE) and so the instant relocation of captains could have considerable impact as they are effectively ships, the bridge crew however are just minor mods to an existing ship, and in order to employ them your 'race' has lost a ship elsewhere, so no 'unbalancing' problem. This cameo character can earn themselves some skill-ups and this will benefit their captain who gains a more experienced team. Its not that different from what is currently described but would give you the options some have previously highlighted. Of course this wont address any of the mission content issues previously raised as I agree this would be a major alteration to crypics game plan and certainly result in no star-trek MMO at all.
Exactly. Standing around the engine room b.s ing and pressing a few buttons isn't many people's idea of having fun. The SIMS type MMOs have tried and faile. That's why developers are moving away from them.
Enjoyed the thread until it devolved a while back. Unfortunately I understand both sides of the argument and even some of the squabbles (that detract from the whole unfortunately), I'll try to ignore the general bad feeling...
Yes the game (as described by Tech (thanks)) sounds excellent, better if I'd not read the many earlier threads inviting me to take part in star trek the series. The truth is that this is the state of the market, we're playing (typically) singleplayer combat games that we can hang out with our buddies and hopefully have a damn good time, as many people are doing (much to the chagrin of some people). So we'll play STO and have a laugh and play with our customised ship, fly around and phazer each other, beam down to planets and (after consulting the wiki) complete some quest so I can finally get my new ship (or whatever). But like I said, I understand both sides... I dont mind 'these' games, hell even WOW is an excellent game when we consider what we were playing not so long ago (if your old like me . But its not what I expected from RPG. Sorry but I've said it, its not RPG, at least not yet.
I hear a lot of the disgruntled folk here on this site, and I think I see a common thread, they are often angry and demanding of crazy features that just dont fit in with the current thinking, and certainly couldn't design a game that could ever reasonably be built and compete with the current games for their current market. And yeah, threads do often polarise into fans and trolls, some of this is definitely due to people being people (hence some are just annoying and prideful of it). But you see I think I know what it is...
SO many people want an RPG
You see they're annoyed 'cos they, like me, want a roleplaying game, not an FPS nor a RTS nor a ###, but an RPG (yeah I play all of these, but I want an RPG as well). If nobody can make it, or if it'll be rubbish even if they did, then thats a drag.... its a terrible shame and we'll all just have to sit here complaining about it. But please, do me a favour, stop calling these other games RPGs, I know its a role your playing as the captain or the paladin or the whatever, but its a role your playing when you assume command of a fighter in a flight sim but at least that gets its own name... its a flight sim. I dont think having some character progression is enough to warrant the RPG designation. I dont mind a game with starship combat with some cool away missions, I'm just not sure that makes it an RPG. Lets give this current crop of MMOs their own name, and leave RPG for us sad folk sat here waiting.
Well playing STO I imagine, and you better believe that when my bird of war decloaks in front of your federation heavy cruiser I'm doing it with a heavy heart, that I wasn't the engineer on your ship
This isn't going to be a FPS nor RTS so I don't get where you are going with that. If you had really been following the game's developmnent like so few of you seem to be doing, you would know that battles are going to be long affairs where you are diverting power to shields,weapons ,hulls etc. FPS don't do that. You just point and click on those and battles last for maybe 5-10 seconds.
And let's clear up this confusion with RPG stands for:
From Wikipedia
A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. [1] Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, [1] and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. [2] Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game. [2]
I don't see anything in that definition that says the world has to be made up completely of players that HAVE to group together in order to accomplish something. Further, nowhere in that definition does it say the world has to have a SIM type environment. Long as you are the one determining your character's actions within the rules set byt he game and they have some effect on the outcome of the game, then it is a RPG. In STO, players have the freedom to customize their characters and ships, they will have the free will to succeed or fail based on the rules of the game and their choices will have an effect on the Galaxy. That makes it a RPG. End of Story.
I wanted to say a few things but first please forgive me if I say something that has all ready been covered as I didn't read every single post. I more or less just skimmed through everything. Now when I first heard they were turning Star Trek in to an MMO I was not it's biggest supporter. The thing about Star Trek is that it is universe built on co-operation, people working together to accomplish goals and task. Getting players to work together in MMO is difficult at best. The only exception to that rule is when it comes to guilds and friends who work together. Asking random people to work together is like asking the devil to mend his evil ways, it just will never happen.
However my beliefs on the game have greatly changed after spending some time on Star Trek Online website and glancing over what they have planned. I won't go as far as saying that it will be great because I don't really know that till it is released. However the game shows great promise.
A few things I want to note. While yes it is true that you will be a captain, it doesn't mean that every captain is the same. In Star Trek universe Janeway is different then Picard. Janeway was a scientist through and through, were Picard was more of an archeologist. While he was still as scientist at heart he was not the same type of Scientist Janeway was.
We have also been shown a glimps of other captains from different fields such as Laforge, Beverly Crusher. So we know that Star Fleet Captains come from different fields. Which is just what Star Trek Online will be doing as well. While information still unknown, I believe that the field you choose, such as Medical, Engineering, Tactical, etc etc, will also have a great influnce on the types of missions you will recieve. Cryptic has this down pat through CoX, players get different quest depending on there Origin type. I expect that STO will do the same with a lot more dept to it.
Also about picking your crew, we know that you will have a crew and when you go on away missions you will have the ability to choose the crew members you wish to go on the away mission. What don't know is how exactly that will work or the depth of it. In Star Trek Universe Captains get to pick there Senior Officers, but I don't think they get to pick every single person that comes on board. So my guess is that when you get started you will have the ability to create your Senior officers if not I believe it will be added in later.
Also you will be able to group up with friends and guildmates to do aways missions and combat missions. Again we don't know how exactly that will work.
Some of you think there will be no interior to the Star Ships, again this is untrue. At launch you will be able to see the interior of your ship on missions in instances. Later on they plan on adding in interior completely to the game. I think right now they want to focus on other aspects of the game that are far more important.
Like I said, STO shows great promise however I can't say it will work or it won't work till I actually have a chance to try the game out. What I can say is that I am impressed thus far with what I have seen.
This isn't going to be a FPS nor RTS so I don't get where you are going with that. If you had really been following the game's developmnent like so few of you seem to be doing, you would know that battles are going to be long affairs where you are diverting power to shields,weapons ,hulls etc. FPS don't do that. You just point and click on those and battles last for maybe 5-10 seconds.
And let's clear up this confusion with RPG stands for: From Wikipedia A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. [1] Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, [1] and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. [2] Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game. [2]
I don't see anything in that definition that says the world has to be made up completely of players that HAVE to group together in order to accomplish something. Further, nowhere in that definition does it say the world has to have a SIM type environment. Long as you are the one determining your character's actions within the rules set byt he game and they have some effect on the outcome of the game, then it is a RPG. In STO, players have the freedom to customize their characters and ships, they will have the free will to succeed or fail based on the rules of the game and their choices will have an effect on the Galaxy. That makes it a RPG. End of Story.
I think you'll find that I was not stating that STO was an FPS or RTS or ### for that matter, I was highlighting that we have a great many definitions for games yet might not have enough given the often weak claim of RPG. Of course this need not apply to STO, I think you should read my post again but this time imagine that I'm not attacking your jewels and instead that I'm trying to explain why (imo) a number of people are unhappy with this or any other game with carries the RPG definition, this way perhaps you wont feel the need to fight back but instead simply accept the explaination for what it was.
I admit that I have not been following the development of STO, I didn't know I had to in order to form an opinion about its current state of development as disclosed by Tech and now yourself. It highlights a game similar to a number of star-ship combat sims (as desribed in your post) that have been produced over the years coupled with plenty of ST-lore and some planetary missions. This sounds fine to me, but I think you'll find that its not so fine with a number of other voices within this thread. I simply made the mistake of thinking that my views as to why some of them may have an issue with anything less than the perfect RPG, might actually be of some interest.
Also, I have already highlighted in my previous post that if we take the dictionary (or in this case Wikipedia) definition of an RPG then we can include a wide variety of games that we already have seperate definitions for. I think you'll find that RPG has such a wide definition simply because of the great many RPG games that have been written over the years, games that cover pretty much all aspects of life and imagination, however I should highlight that typically the most important aspect is the players freedom to improvise within the confines of the rules. The rules in paper based RPGs (almost 100% of all RPG games are currently 'paper based') usually permit considerable flexability for players to 'improvise', this is due to the common employment of a highly flexible human as the 'game engine'. Therefore while I do not disagree with the Wiki definition, I should like to point out that most people with experience of paper based RPGs, which I should further highlight were the inspiration for the MUDs and now MMOs, expect more from their RPGs. Thats not to say they're going to get it, or even that they should, only that it is their wish. I thought that was clear enough the first time I wrote, I guess it wasn't, I assume it is now... we'll see.
This isn't going to be a FPS nor RTS so I don't get where you are going with that. If you had really been following the game's developmnent like so few of you seem to be doing, you would know that battles are going to be long affairs where you are diverting power to shields,weapons ,hulls etc. FPS don't do that. You just point and click on those and battles last for maybe 5-10 seconds.
And let's clear up this confusion with RPG stands for: From Wikipedia A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. [1] Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, [1] and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. [2] Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game. [2]
I don't see anything in that definition that says the world has to be made up completely of players that HAVE to group together in order to accomplish something. Further, nowhere in that definition does it say the world has to have a SIM type environment. Long as you are the one determining your character's actions within the rules set byt he game and they have some effect on the outcome of the game, then it is a RPG. In STO, players have the freedom to customize their characters and ships, they will have the free will to succeed or fail based on the rules of the game and their choices will have an effect on the Galaxy. That makes it a RPG. End of Story.
I think you'll find that I was not stating that STO was an FPS or RTS or ### for that matter, I was highlighting that we have a great many definitions for games yet might not have enough given the often weak claim of RPG. Of course this need not apply to STO, I think you should read my post again but this time imagine that I'm not attacking your jewels and instead that I'm trying to explain why (imo) a number of people are unhappy with this or any other game with carries the RPG definition, this way perhaps you wont feel the need to fight back but instead simply accept the explaination for what it was.
Don't confuse me with one of these people whose life lives in a virtual world. i'm not one of those people whose whole world ends when something doesn't go his way so don't think for one second that anythhing you say has any effect on my me. I was only pointing out the fact that MMORPG has one meaning and that's it. There is no ambiguity, but there are many misconceptions to what these words mean. Saying that MMORPG means something else is like saying 2+2 could egual 5. It isn't true.
I admit that I have not been following the development of STO, I didn't know I had to in order to form an opinion about its current state of development as disclosed by Tech and now yourself. It highlights a game similar to a number of star-ship combat sims (as desribed in your post) that have been produced over the years coupled with plenty of ST-lore and some planetary missions. This sounds fine to me, but I think you'll find that its not so fine with a number of other voices within this thread. I simply made the mistake of thinking that my views as to why some of them may have an issue with anything less than the perfect RPG, might actually be of some interest.
No one's saying you can't form an opinion but it would be helpful if you at least formed an opinion based on facts and not what is spewed by the trolls on this website. Many of these people who aren't happy with this game are NEVER happy with any game and you will find them stating so on many of the gaming forums here. Many of them won't be happy until we wind the clock back to the MMOs where forced grouping was the norm. It won't ever happen because developers need to make money when creating a game that requires 24/7 online play and when most of that base doesn't like to stand around pleading a leader to help him finish a quest.
Also, I have already highlighted in my previous post that if we take the dictionary (or in this case Wikipedia) definition of an RPG then we can include a wide variety of games that we already have seperate definitions for. I think you'll find that RPG has such a wide definition simply because of the great many RPG games that have been written over the years, games that cover pretty much all aspects of life and imagination, however I should highlight that typically the most important aspect is the players freedom to improvise within the confines of the rules. The rules in paper based RPGs (almost 100% of all RPG games are currently 'paper based') usually permit considerable flexability for players to 'improvise', this is due to the common employment of a highly flexible human as the 'game engine'. Therefore while I do not disagree with the Wiki definition, I should like to point out that most people with experience of paper based RPGs, which I should further highlight were the inspiration for the MUDs and now MMOs, expect more from their RPGs. Thats not to say they're going to get it, or even that they should, only that it is their wish. I thought that was clear enough the first time I wrote, I guess it wasn't, I assume it is now... we'll see.
And once again I'm not understanding their problem because they already have more freedom to improvise now than they ever did. If they want to forget the missions that they say "lead them by the hand" that are available in the game they can. They can freely form their own groups or guilds and go off on whatever adventure their imagination takes them. The problem is that's not good enough for them. They want players like me to be forced to join them on MY missions and I resent that. There are times when I just don't feel like dealing with garbage that I come across online and would rather do it myself. If my level isn't high enough I go off and do something else until I'm a high enough level or just grind my way there. To me, that's freedom. Having to go around and deal with leaders on a power trip isn't fun and is the reason that MMO's really didn't take off until they took away the forced grouping aspect. I have no problem whatsoever with those that prefer the old style everquest or SWG games, but I do resent them saying that I should go play a FPS or RTS if I don't like grouping. I could only imagine what those people are like in game and i would never in a million years play a game where I am forced to group with them.
Originally posted by Ianonmorpg, highlights by Ktanner3, and more by Ianonmorpg
...I'm trying to explain why (imo) a number of people are unhappy with this or any other game with carries the RPG definition...
Don't confuse me with one of these people whose life lives in a virtual world. i'm not one of those people whose whole world ends when something doesn't go his way so don't think for one second that anythhing you say has any effect on my me. I was only pointing out the fact that MMORPG has one meaning and that's it. There is no ambiguity, but there are many misconceptions to what these words mean. Saying that MMORPG means something else is like saying 2+2 could egual 5. It isn't true.
I'm glad that nothing I say has any effect upon you, not convinced given you state it, but I get the point. There is often ambiguity, especially when we consider the names we assign to game styles and more still given that RPGs on PCs are very different from the RPGs they originated from, predominately due to the considerable constraints of technology. Constraints that every day reduce a little more, and so I see no reason why eventually PC based RPGs wont be very similar to the paper-based games they had originated from. Given that we have such a large gap between what was, is and will be, it seems very apparent to me that we can easily question the relative worth of a games claim to RP status. It may be a mute point given that its competition is in largely the same boat, but its certainly easier than stating 2+2=5. By the way, as we can form a proof that 1=2 I dont feel overly concerned about claiming 4=5 in this post.
...I simply made the mistake of thinking that my views as to why some of them may have an issue with anything less than the perfect RPG, might actually be of some interest.
No one's saying you can't form an opinion but it would be helpful if you at least formed an opinion based on facts and not what is spewed by the trolls on this website. Many of these people who aren't happy with this game are NEVER happy with any game and you will find them stating so on many of the gaming forums here. Many of them won't be happy until we wind the clock back to the MMOs where forced grouping was the norm. It won't ever happen because developers need to make money when creating a game that requires 24/7 online play and when most of that base doesn't like to stand around pleading a leader to help him finish a quest.
I'm also very glad that I can form an opinion, however I'm sorry if you believe that my opinion is based upon anything other than 'the facts', the fact is that some people want more RP in their RPG. Thats a fact, just because you're not one of them doesn't change that fact. While I agree that some other people wont be happy with any game regardless of its gameplay and ability to be fun (more important than any quibble regards RPing) for them, if they bothered to actually try it, I wont accept that everyone who wants something different than you is automatically a troll and a game hater. I want to play STO when completed, and if I dont like it at that point then fair enough, we all like something different, but I also want to see more RPing in a game... its need not be STO, but I want to see it in a game eventually. Today that appears to be an unlikely event as currently its more effective to produce a far less ambitious game (that may well fail in its goal of providing RP) and instead try to tap into the current market. Not sure why RPing requires 24/7 game play, or leaders, or even quests as established in todays games.
... I'd like to point out that most people with experience of paper based RPGs, which I should further highlight were the inspiration for the MUDs and now MMOs, expect more from their RPGs...
And once again I'm not understanding their problem because they already have more freedom to improvise now than they ever did. If they want to forget the missions that they say "lead them by the hand" that are available in the game they can. They can freely form their own groups or guilds and go off on whatever adventure their imagination takes them. The problem is that's not good enough for them. They want players like me to be forced to join them on MY missions and I resent that. There are times when I just don't feel like dealing with garbage that I come across online and would rather do it myself. If my level isn't high enough I go off and do something else until I'm a high enough level or just grind my way there. To me, that's freedom. Having to go around and deal with leaders on a power trip isn't fun and is the reason that MMO's really didn't take off until they took away the forced grouping aspect. I have no problem whatsoever with those that prefer the old style everquest or SWG games, but I do resent them saying that I should go play a FPS or RTS if I don't like grouping. I could only imagine what those people are like in game and i would never in a million years play a game where I am forced to group with them.
I agree that todays games are a massive improvement over yesterdays in so many ways, and I'd say that this means the future looks good. Not sure why so we must see today as being ok and then assume it cant hope to get any better, GTA2 was a massive advance on GTA, yet many of us will rush out and buy the latest installment... because they can add more. So just because todays games offer more freedom, does this mean that next week we cant have more freedom? I think we'll have a lot more freedom, so why not ask for it a little sooner, and perhaps even draw up a wish list? As for the bulk of your last paragraph I'm not sure who has been picking on you, but I'd not be best pleased about people forcing me to do what they want, not sure what conversations you've been involved in were a RPer thinks you must do what they say. I was under the impression that more freedom would mean you can do what you want, just as I can do what I want. Oh yeah, levels are a system that was in a number of famous paper RPGs and most MMMORPGs, but is not a requirement of RPing, but that's not so important.
I'm also very glad that I can form an opinion, however I'm sorry if you believe that my opinion is based upon anything other than 'the facts', the fact is that some people want more RP in their RPG. Thats a fact, just because you're not one of them doesn't change that fact. While I agree that some other people wont be happy with any game regardless of its gameplay and ability to be fun (more important than any quibble regards RPing) for them, if they bothered to actually try it, I wont accept that everyone who wants something different than you is automatically a troll and a game hater. I don't assume that everyone who disagrees with me is a troll. I assume they are a troll when they repeat the same point in every thread day in and day out even after the decision has already been made. That is the definition of a troll. I want to play STO when completed, and if I dont like it at that point then fair enough, we all like something different, but I also want to see more RPing in a game... its need not be STO, but I want to see it in a game eventually. Today that appears to be an unlikely event as currently its more effective to produce a far less ambitious game (that may well fail in its goal of providing RP) and instead try to tap into the current market. Not sure why RPing requires 24/7 game play, or leaders, or even quests as established in todays games. Personally I think having the ability to explore the galaxy and also planets is ambitous enough. Different strokes for different folks I guess. But that sounds pretty sweet to me. I agree that todays games are a massive improvement over yesterdays in so many ways, and I'd say that this means the future looks good. Not sure why so we must see today as being ok and then assume it cant hope to get any better, GTA2 was a massive advance on GTA, yet many of us will rush out and buy the latest installment... because they can add more. So just because todays games offer more freedom, does this mean that next week we cant have more freedom? I think we'll have a lot more freedom, so why not ask for it a little sooner, and perhaps even draw up a wish list? As for the bulk of your last paragraph I'm not sure who has been picking on you, but I'd not be best pleased about people forcing me to do what they want, not sure what conversations you've been involved in were a RPer thinks you must do what they say. I was under the impression that more freedom would mean you can do what you want, just as I can do what I want. Oh yeah, levels are a system that was in a number of famous paper RPGs and most MMMORPGs, but is not a requirement of RPing, but that's not so important. What isn't in games that you want to do? How are you being hindered from creating your own adventures with your friends? How is your freedom being hindered by today's MMOs that allow you to group together and accomplish whatever you want?
What isn't in games that you want to do? How are you being hindered from creating your own adventures with your friends? How is your freedom being hindered by today's MMOs that allow you to group together and accomplish whatever you want?
At last, we get to the point. I'm glad you feel at last that you can have a debate about aspirations of game features, something many of us have taken for granted but it seemed you needed help to see.The very point that numerous people were making at the begining of this thread and a great many others that you apparently dislike, they are stating things they like and dislike about various games (or current projects) and even proposing various features they would like to include in these or even future games. I'm not concerned with giving you a feature list of my 'dream game' because it will vary by genre and even the mood I'm in any given day, but lets assume that it would have greater capacity to alter the world and interact with other characters in ways other than 'thump'. Like I said, it would be longer, but if you're really interested you could run through a few other threads and find out.
As for this thread I was happy to see Star Trek is on its way, and agreed with a number of ideas thrown into the debate by various folk earlier in the thread, but accept that such features would not be included in the game (I'd sooner it got released than not), my issue was with the way certain posters treat any people looking for something more and happy to chat about what could of been. A point I believe I have made.
Comments
So very excited about this game, and so happy it's in the right hands now.
No need for interiors as a general feature at launch. They'll be there in episodes where they're relevant to the story. Player crews is just too silly a concept, and people should take heart that Cryptic actually was polite about the issue instead of laughing in their faces for being so silly as was probably their instinctive reaction.
Don't be fooled folks. Most of the negative "noise" is being generated by a small text based Star Trek simming community that thought they could pressure Cryptic into giving them an environment to simply transfer there simming over to. There's absolutely no thought about how unrealistic that is as a business model, and once it was made clear PC crews wouldn't be in they've been on a campain to get a negative spin going about the game to put pressure on Cryptic another way.
QFE. The community at the offficial website is ten times better than the one here at MMORPG. This site seems to be the last refuge for disgruntled players that hate the fact they can't troll and flame over at a game's website.So they come here and cry about how they are being "censored." Anyone that has spent any time at the official website knows the facts and those that troll here know nothing. Hence why the trolls refuse to acknowledge this post that refutes every bit of garbage and lies they have been spewing.
It's funny how interested Cryptic and Jack seem to be in putting this game over to us "disgruntled players" on this site and forums. The official forums might seem ten times better for you fanboi's, because anyone who criticizes the development gets chased off those forums or has their threads locked no matter how constructive. If you read neutral sites like this one or Massively, you'll see what the average player market (who Cryptic care far more then the community they already have drinking their koolaid) think about this games direction.
Keep on enjoying those official forums and thinking everything there is fact, I remember the AoC offical forums telling everyone the "facts" on how great and bug free that game was. While these "disgruntled players" told everyone how the game was far from ready and needed more content. Wonder who had more facts?
All us "disgruntled players" talked about how WAR wasn't ready, wasn't well balanced, and needed more ORvR options. We talked about the game having short playability and predicted that people would cancel out of boredom 2-3 months later. 400 thousand cancelations later, I'll bet they wish they listened a little better.
I'll bet we were disgruntled when we knew Tabula Rasa and Vanguard were going to be massive disappointments, when so many of their fanboi's declared their games the next WoW killer.
You might think people are "disgruntled" because they post their opinions here and don't just say "yes yes yes" when they know the developers can make a better game and tell them what people are going to expect from a big named IP. We might seem disgruntled, but it's funny how much the people here are correct on predicting how well or bad a MMORPG will perform in the market. The people here have their finger on the pulse better then any of the more recent Dev teams, who just can't quite get that pulse anymore.
Oh please. There is no 'the people here" in the sense you're trying to use the phrase. There's people with varied opinions like there is everywhere else. There's no more accurate prognosticators here than there is anywhere else either.
People are going to like what they see about a game or not, and in the end after a game is released one side is going to look like they were right and one side isn't. There's been just as many occasions where the negativity ninnies were absolutely wrong about how a game would do once released.
There isn't any "consensus" about STO here either. Quit trying to come off like there is. There's many that like what they're seeing, some that don't like it. That's the same as every single game that's ever been in development and after it was released.
Then there's the old story of mmorpg.com with players going to "visit" who they see as possible competition for their favourite game to stir up negativity, and with STO there's some that couldn't get any traction with their negativity on the STO forums, and so started trying to spread it here.
This all isn't anything new . I'm sure some think they're being "tactitions", but it's all old, and pretty lame actually.
QFE. The community at the offficial website is ten times better than the one here at MMORPG. This site seems to be the last refuge for disgruntled players that hate the fact they can't troll and flame over at a game's website.So they come here and cry about how they are being "censored." Anyone that has spent any time at the official website knows the facts and those that troll here know nothing. Hence why the trolls refuse to acknowledge this post that refutes every bit of garbage and lies they have been spewing.
It's funny how interested Cryptic and Jack seem to be in putting this game over to us "disgruntled players" on this site and forums. The official forums might seem ten times better for you fanboi's, because anyone who criticizes the development gets chased off those forums or has their threads locked no matter how constructive. If you read neutral sites like this one or Massively, you'll see what the average player market (who Cryptic care far more then the community they already have drinking their koolaid) think about this games direction.
Keep on enjoying those official forums and thinking everything there is fact, I remember the AoC offical forums telling everyone the "facts" on how great and bug free that game was. While these "disgruntled players" told everyone how the game was far from ready and needed more content. Wonder who had more facts?
All us "disgruntled players" talked about how WAR wasn't ready, wasn't well balanced, and needed more ORvR options. We talked about the game having short playability and predicted that people would cancel out of boredom 2-3 months later. 400 thousand cancelations later, I'll bet they wish they listened a little better.
I'll bet we were disgruntled when we knew Tabula Rasa and Vanguard were going to be massive disappointments, when so many of their fanboi's declared their games the next WoW killer.
You might think people are "disgruntled" because they post their opinions here and don't just say "yes yes yes" when they know the developers can make a better game and tell them what people are going to expect from a big named IP. We might seem disgruntled, but it's funny how much the people here are correct on predicting how well or bad a MMORPG will perform in the market. The people here have their finger on the pulse better then any of the more recent Dev teams, who just can't quite get that pulse anymore.
The difference between what your saying and what i'm saying is that my information is accurate based on everything the development team has put out. The "disgruntled" players don't even exist yet. The game isn't even in alpha or beta testing yet so your examples of AoC and WAR are mute.
As for the so called "disgruntled" community of people on the official forums go, they are the same people that get warned or banned for opening 50 threads on the same issue when only 1 would suffice. Everyone wants different things for this game, I've heard everything you could think of all of which are still on the forums. The only other reason those threads get closed is because some people keep making personal attacks thus ending a good discussion. By all means be "disgruntled", but don't call us fanbois simply because we expect a certain level of maturity and actual knowledge of what the devs have said is in or out.
I bet Batman would have some kind of awesome Bat-taunt that could let him hold aggro. - Atamasama
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Enough with this no bridge whining. You are a very small minority and they should completely redo the game for you? I think not.
Some clueless poster tried to make out like SWG has that functionality. Yeah one person flies the ship and everyone else stands around. Oh yes, some ships do have gun stations, but if you get in a pvp fight in one of the multiplayer ships you are dead meat. Little more than a gimmick. Once you do it a few times there is not much point to it. Safer for everyone to fly their own fighters.
You guys seem to think there is endless development dollars out there that they can provide infinite functionality to meet your whims. Well sorry to burst your bubble, but that scenario does not exist in the current genre.
Personally I think Cryptic has done a great job with the IP. Far better than that monstrousity that Perpetual was working on.
If not having player crews is a game breaker than this game is not for you. So don't play it. You won't find any developers attempting something like this either, just makes no sense from a gaming perspective.
In my opion the wow like screen shots do not inspire alot of rabid fanboiizim. We shall see.
MAGA
it doesn't look anything like WoW, not even close
I bet Batman would have some kind of awesome Bat-taunt that could let him hold aggro. - Atamasama
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Ok Techdog then cartoon like screen shots.
MAGA
Just one note on this discussion... Cryptic has been through this process before. There was a City of Heroes web site up and active during the development of that title, and it did accurately reflect the game that was eventually released.
Using other companies to somehow disprove other peoples' statements regarding the official site and discussions there is rather absurd. Cryptic is not Funcom, and has their own track record to use for comparison.
I dont know i thought the screenshots were rather nice for a MMO.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
QFE. The community at the offficial website is ten times better than the one here at MMORPG. This site seems to be the last refuge for disgruntled players that hate the fact they can't troll and flame over at a game's website.So they come here and cry about how they are being "censored." Anyone that has spent any time at the official website knows the facts and those that troll here know nothing. Hence why the trolls refuse to acknowledge this post that refutes every bit of garbage and lies they have been spewing.
It's funny how interested Cryptic and Jack seem to be in putting this game over to us "disgruntled players" on this site and forums. The official forums might seem ten times better for you fanboi's, because anyone who criticizes the development gets chased off those forums or has their threads locked no matter how constructive. If you read neutral sites like this one or Massively, you'll see what the average player market (who Cryptic care far more then the community they already have drinking their koolaid) think about this games direction.
Keep on enjoying those official forums and thinking everything there is fact, I remember the AoC offical forums telling everyone the "facts" on how great and bug free that game was. While these "disgruntled players" told everyone how the game was far from ready and needed more content. Wonder who had more facts?
All us "disgruntled players" talked about how WAR wasn't ready, wasn't well balanced, and needed more ORvR options. We talked about the game having short playability and predicted that people would cancel out of boredom 2-3 months later. 400 thousand cancelations later, I'll bet they wish they listened a little better.
I'll bet we were disgruntled when we knew Tabula Rasa and Vanguard were going to be massive disappointments, when so many of their fanboi's declared their games the next WoW killer.
You might think people are "disgruntled" because they post their opinions here and don't just say "yes yes yes" when they know the developers can make a better game and tell them what people are going to expect from a big named IP. We might seem disgruntled, but it's funny how much the people here are correct on predicting how well or bad a MMORPG will perform in the market. The people here have their finger on the pulse better then any of the more recent Dev teams, who just can't quite get that pulse anymore.
The difference between what your saying and what i'm saying is that my information is accurate based on everything the development team has put out. The "disgruntled" players don't even exist yet. The game isn't even in alpha or beta testing yet so your examples of AoC and WAR are mute.
As for the so called "disgruntled" community of people on the official forums go, they are the same people that get warned or banned for opening 50 threads on the same issue when only 1 would suffice. Everyone wants different things for this game, I've heard everything you could think of all of which are still on the forums. The only other reason those threads get closed is because some people keep making personal attacks thus ending a good discussion. By all means be "disgruntled", but don't call us fanbois simply because we expect a certain level of maturity and actual knowledge of what the devs have said is in or out.
Spoken like a person who actually has visited the site and know what's going on over there. The developers are very open and listen to what's being said on the state of the game. The community is very varied, it isn't just a bunch of fanbois as the morons on this site suggest. I had many things in this game that I wanted to see that aren't happening and I did threads stating that fact. But I didn't go off on a tanent like some baby because I couldn't play a Borg or merchant. The decision was made and I accepted it because I realize that not everyone is going to get what they want. That's just life.
In fact, we're STILL having discussions on playing a Borg and the threads aren't being locked even though we know that playable borg won't be in the game. Might have something to do with the tone and the maturity of the people involved in the conversation. Hmmmmmm.........
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
I just want to say that I like what I am hearing about STO so far -- even the wrath of STO's critics is gratifying.
Whenever anyone posts a rant about STO and then "stomps off" stating that he or she will NOT be playing this game, I just smile and think "that's great!" Such posters would not be happy in STO and, what is more important to me, I would not be happy having them around while I play STO. So, I see this situation as a complete Win-Win for everybody.
Based on what I am hearing thus far, STO sounds in many ways similar to Guild Wars, an essentially single-player game with a healthy and substantial (but OPTIONAL) MMO component, all thanks to the use of NPC groupmates. Sadly (and stupidly, imo), AreneNet is abandoning this winning game mechanic in their design of Guild Wars 2, but, happily, it looks like STO is going to pick up the ball dropped by ArenaNet and carry it forward. Exit ArenaNet/Guild Wars 1 but -- hooray! -- here comes Cryptic/STO to fill the void.
This sounds absolutely perfect to me. Guild Wars was not a game for everyone, but it hit just the right note for me. It's good to see that another game is on the horizon for players like me.
I think STO is going to be great fun. I am so encouraged by the direction Cryptic is taking this game.
What is up with all the trekkies wanting a tv show game? On the tv show so and so interact, they do away missions,you wonder if people will hook up, blah blah blah. Talk about your recipe for disaster.
If the game centers around various classes simply operating a starship......umm.......boring.
IF you make a game about Star Trek, it sould be... surprising.. about Star Trek. You say is boring, but the TV Serie was like you describe, and worked long and long and long and long. What you describe could make a good RPG, and these people are making a RPG soo.. hum?.. maybe you don't like RPG's and all you want is hack and slash diablo. Then there are lots of games *ALREADY* like that on the market. Adding something is already on the market is not wisdow market decission, because you are competing with everybody, so your product has to add something new, or competece in price and quality. Since quality is alredy cornere by WoW and price by free to play games, you *MUST* give something good and decent quality + decent price to even start making a MMORPG.
IF you make a game about Star Trek, it sould be... surprising.. about Star Trek. You say is boring, but the TV Serie was like you describe, and worked long and long and long and long. What you describe could make a good RPG, and these people are making a RPG soo.. hum?.. maybe you don't like RPG's and all you want is hack and slash diablo. Then there are lots of games *ALREADY* like that on the market. Adding something is already on the market is not wisdow market decission, because you are competing with everybody, so your product has to add something new, or competece in price and quality. Since quality is alredy cornere by WoW and price by free to play games, you *MUST* give something good and decent quality + decent price to even start making a MMORPG.
The star trek franchise encompasses many things. Picking the most boring among them is a recipe for failure.
IF you make a game about Star Trek, it sould be... surprising.. about Star Trek. You say is boring, but the TV Serie was like you describe, and worked long and long and long and long. What you describe could make a good RPG, and these people are making a RPG soo.. hum?.. maybe you don't like RPG's and all you want is hack and slash diablo. Then there are lots of games *ALREADY* like that on the market. Adding something is already on the market is not wisdow market decission, because you are competing with everybody, so your product has to add something new, or competece in price and quality. Since quality is alredy cornere by WoW and price by free to play games, you *MUST* give something good and decent quality + decent price to even start making a MMORPG.
The star trek franchise encompasses many things. Picking the most boring among them is a recipe for failure.
Exactly. Standing around the engine room b.s ing and pressing a few buttons isn't many people's idea of having fun. The SIMS type MMOs have tried and faile. That's why developers are moving away from them.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Exactly. Standing around the engine room b.s ing and pressing a few buttons isn't many people's idea of having fun. The SIMS type MMOs have tried and faile. That's why developers are moving away from them.
Enjoyed the thread until it devolved a while back. Unfortunately I understand both sides of the argument and even some of the squabbles (that detract from the whole unfortunately), I'll try to ignore the general bad feeling...
Yes the game (as described by Tech (thanks)) sounds excellent, better if I'd not read the many earlier threads inviting me to take part in star trek the series. The truth is that this is the state of the market, we're playing (typically) singleplayer combat games that we can hang out with our buddies and hopefully have a damn good time, as many people are doing (much to the chagrin of some people). So we'll play STO and have a laugh and play with our customised ship, fly around and phazer each other, beam down to planets and (after consulting the wiki) complete some quest so I can finally get my new ship (or whatever). But like I said, I understand both sides... I dont mind 'these' games, hell even WOW is an excellent game when we consider what we were playing not so long ago (if your old like me
. But its not what I expected from RPG. Sorry but I've said it, its not RPG, at least not yet.
I hear a lot of the disgruntled folk here on this site, and I think I see a common thread, they are often angry and demanding of crazy features that just dont fit in with the current thinking, and certainly couldn't design a game that could ever reasonably be built and compete with the current games for their current market. And yeah, threads do often polarise into fans and trolls, some of this is definitely due to people being people (hence some are just annoying and prideful of it). But you see I think I know what it is...
SO many people want an RPG
You see they're annoyed 'cos they, like me, want a roleplaying game, not an FPS nor a RTS nor a ###, but an RPG (yeah I play all of these, but I want an RPG as well). If nobody can make it, or if it'll be rubbish even if they did, then thats a drag.... its a terrible shame and we'll all just have to sit here complaining about it. But please, do me a favour, stop calling these other games RPGs, I know its a role your playing as the captain or the paladin or the whatever, but its a role your playing when you assume command of a fighter in a flight sim but at least that gets its own name... its a flight sim. I dont think having some character progression is enough to warrant the RPG designation. I dont mind a game with starship combat with some cool away missions, I'm just not sure that makes it an RPG. Lets give this current crop of MMOs their own name, and leave RPG for us sad folk sat here waiting.
Well playing STO I imagine, and you better believe that when my bird of war decloaks in front of your federation heavy cruiser I'm doing it with a heavy heart, that I wasn't the engineer on your ship
Actually just thought of a way of providing folk with their chief engineer (or whomever) without substantial modification of the basic game. No I'm not trying to demand anything, and I'm not undermining your right to play the game in its current guise, just chatting away with those who may be interested, and if you're not then simply move along to the next post...
Ok, have they gone? So as I read it everyone is a captain of their own ship, and you can choose to beam down as yourself plus NPC group or with PC friends... so already halfway there. What about permitting alt characters (from the usual bridge crew/medical etc personnel) however these guys are secondary to your captain. When you 'skill-up' your captain you gain 'skill-ups' to be spent on your alts, hence you can increase your engineer or your tactical guy etc. When you're playing the game you'll typically be assuming the role of captain as normal, however you'll have subtle bonuses due to your support team and will have names to beam down to the surface with rather than 'who the hell are you' NPCs (they're still NPCs but now with defined names and abilities). However the big advantage will be when you decide to group, you can either form an armada as I believe is currently the gameplay, or you can employ one of your alts to make a cameo appearance on your friends ship, thus providing advantages to their ship and of course joining them on away missions. No need to explain their ability to jump between ships around the galaxy, as its only a small game impact, I assume that they will be having a star map with various races struggling for supremacy (EVE) and so the instant relocation of captains could have considerable impact as they are effectively ships, the bridge crew however are just minor mods to an existing ship, and in order to employ them your 'race' has lost a ship elsewhere, so no 'unbalancing' problem. This cameo character can earn themselves some skill-ups and this will benefit their captain who gains a more experienced team. Its not that different from what is currently described but would give you the options some have previously highlighted. Of course this wont address any of the mission content issues previously raised as I agree this would be a major alteration to crypics game plan and certainly result in no star-trek MMO at all.
Exactly. Standing around the engine room b.s ing and pressing a few buttons isn't many people's idea of having fun. The SIMS type MMOs have tried and faile. That's why developers are moving away from them.
Enjoyed the thread until it devolved a while back. Unfortunately I understand both sides of the argument and even some of the squabbles (that detract from the whole unfortunately), I'll try to ignore the general bad feeling...
Yes the game (as described by Tech (thanks)) sounds excellent, better if I'd not read the many earlier threads inviting me to take part in star trek the series. The truth is that this is the state of the market, we're playing (typically) singleplayer combat games that we can hang out with our buddies and hopefully have a damn good time, as many people are doing (much to the chagrin of some people). So we'll play STO and have a laugh and play with our customised ship, fly around and phazer each other, beam down to planets and (after consulting the wiki) complete some quest so I can finally get my new ship (or whatever). But like I said, I understand both sides... I dont mind 'these' games, hell even WOW is an excellent game when we consider what we were playing not so long ago (if your old like me
. But its not what I expected from RPG. Sorry but I've said it, its not RPG, at least not yet.
I hear a lot of the disgruntled folk here on this site, and I think I see a common thread, they are often angry and demanding of crazy features that just dont fit in with the current thinking, and certainly couldn't design a game that could ever reasonably be built and compete with the current games for their current market. And yeah, threads do often polarise into fans and trolls, some of this is definitely due to people being people (hence some are just annoying and prideful of it). But you see I think I know what it is...
SO many people want an RPG
You see they're annoyed 'cos they, like me, want a roleplaying game, not an FPS nor a RTS nor a ###, but an RPG (yeah I play all of these, but I want an RPG as well). If nobody can make it, or if it'll be rubbish even if they did, then thats a drag.... its a terrible shame and we'll all just have to sit here complaining about it. But please, do me a favour, stop calling these other games RPGs, I know its a role your playing as the captain or the paladin or the whatever, but its a role your playing when you assume command of a fighter in a flight sim but at least that gets its own name... its a flight sim. I dont think having some character progression is enough to warrant the RPG designation. I dont mind a game with starship combat with some cool away missions, I'm just not sure that makes it an RPG. Lets give this current crop of MMOs their own name, and leave RPG for us sad folk sat here waiting.
Well playing STO I imagine, and you better believe that when my bird of war decloaks in front of your federation heavy cruiser I'm doing it with a heavy heart, that I wasn't the engineer on your ship
This isn't going to be a FPS nor RTS so I don't get where you are going with that. If you had really been following the game's developmnent like so few of you seem to be doing, you would know that battles are going to be long affairs where you are diverting power to shields,weapons ,hulls etc. FPS don't do that. You just point and click on those and battles last for maybe 5-10 seconds.
And let's clear up this confusion with RPG stands for:
From Wikipedia
A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. [1] Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, [1] and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. [2] Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game. [2]
I don't see anything in that definition that says the world has to be made up completely of players that HAVE to group together in order to accomplish something. Further, nowhere in that definition does it say the world has to have a SIM type environment. Long as you are the one determining your character's actions within the rules set byt he game and they have some effect on the outcome of the game, then it is a RPG. In STO, players have the freedom to customize their characters and ships, they will have the free will to succeed or fail based on the rules of the game and their choices will have an effect on the Galaxy. That makes it a RPG. End of Story.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
I wanted to say a few things but first please forgive me if I say something that has all ready been covered as I didn't read every single post. I more or less just skimmed through everything. Now when I first heard they were turning Star Trek in to an MMO I was not it's biggest supporter. The thing about Star Trek is that it is universe built on co-operation, people working together to accomplish goals and task. Getting players to work together in MMO is difficult at best. The only exception to that rule is when it comes to guilds and friends who work together. Asking random people to work together is like asking the devil to mend his evil ways, it just will never happen.
However my beliefs on the game have greatly changed after spending some time on Star Trek Online website and glancing over what they have planned. I won't go as far as saying that it will be great because I don't really know that till it is released. However the game shows great promise.
A few things I want to note. While yes it is true that you will be a captain, it doesn't mean that every captain is the same. In Star Trek universe Janeway is different then Picard. Janeway was a scientist through and through, were Picard was more of an archeologist. While he was still as scientist at heart he was not the same type of Scientist Janeway was.
We have also been shown a glimps of other captains from different fields such as Laforge, Beverly Crusher. So we know that Star Fleet Captains come from different fields. Which is just what Star Trek Online will be doing as well. While information still unknown, I believe that the field you choose, such as Medical, Engineering, Tactical, etc etc, will also have a great influnce on the types of missions you will recieve. Cryptic has this down pat through CoX, players get different quest depending on there Origin type. I expect that STO will do the same with a lot more dept to it.
Also about picking your crew, we know that you will have a crew and when you go on away missions you will have the ability to choose the crew members you wish to go on the away mission. What don't know is how exactly that will work or the depth of it. In Star Trek Universe Captains get to pick there Senior Officers, but I don't think they get to pick every single person that comes on board. So my guess is that when you get started you will have the ability to create your Senior officers if not I believe it will be added in later.
Also you will be able to group up with friends and guildmates to do aways missions and combat missions. Again we don't know how exactly that will work.
Some of you think there will be no interior to the Star Ships, again this is untrue. At launch you will be able to see the interior of your ship on missions in instances. Later on they plan on adding in interior completely to the game. I think right now they want to focus on other aspects of the game that are far more important.
Like I said, STO shows great promise however I can't say it will work or it won't work till I actually have a chance to try the game out. What I can say is that I am impressed thus far with what I have seen.
I can't wait for the game to be released.
I think you'll find that I was not stating that STO was an FPS or RTS or ### for that matter, I was highlighting that we have a great many definitions for games yet might not have enough given the often weak claim of RPG. Of course this need not apply to STO, I think you should read my post again but this time imagine that I'm not attacking your jewels and instead that I'm trying to explain why (imo) a number of people are unhappy with this or any other game with carries the RPG definition, this way perhaps you wont feel the need to fight back but instead simply accept the explaination for what it was.
I admit that I have not been following the development of STO, I didn't know I had to in order to form an opinion about its current state of development as disclosed by Tech and now yourself. It highlights a game similar to a number of star-ship combat sims (as desribed in your post) that have been produced over the years coupled with plenty of ST-lore and some planetary missions. This sounds fine to me, but I think you'll find that its not so fine with a number of other voices within this thread. I simply made the mistake of thinking that my views as to why some of them may have an issue with anything less than the perfect RPG, might actually be of some interest.
Also, I have already highlighted in my previous post that if we take the dictionary (or in this case Wikipedia) definition of an RPG then we can include a wide variety of games that we already have seperate definitions for. I think you'll find that RPG has such a wide definition simply because of the great many RPG games that have been written over the years, games that cover pretty much all aspects of life and imagination, however I should highlight that typically the most important aspect is the players freedom to improvise within the confines of the rules. The rules in paper based RPGs (almost 100% of all RPG games are currently 'paper based') usually permit considerable flexability for players to 'improvise', this is due to the common employment of a highly flexible human as the 'game engine'. Therefore while I do not disagree with the Wiki definition, I should like to point out that most people with experience of paper based RPGs, which I should further highlight were the inspiration for the MUDs and now MMOs, expect more from their RPGs. Thats not to say they're going to get it, or even that they should, only that it is their wish. I thought that was clear enough the first time I wrote, I guess it wasn't, I assume it is now... we'll see.
I think you'll find that I was not stating that STO was an FPS or RTS or ### for that matter, I was highlighting that we have a great many definitions for games yet might not have enough given the often weak claim of RPG. Of course this need not apply to STO, I think you should read my post again but this time imagine that I'm not attacking your jewels and instead that I'm trying to explain why (imo) a number of people are unhappy with this or any other game with carries the RPG definition, this way perhaps you wont feel the need to fight back but instead simply accept the explaination for what it was.
Don't confuse me with one of these people whose life lives in a virtual world. i'm not one of those people whose whole world ends when something doesn't go his way so don't think for one second that anythhing you say has any effect on my me. I was only pointing out the fact that MMORPG has one meaning and that's it. There is no ambiguity, but there are many misconceptions to what these words mean. Saying that MMORPG means something else is like saying 2+2 could egual 5. It isn't true.
I admit that I have not been following the development of STO, I didn't know I had to in order to form an opinion about its current state of development as disclosed by Tech and now yourself. It highlights a game similar to a number of star-ship combat sims (as desribed in your post) that have been produced over the years coupled with plenty of ST-lore and some planetary missions. This sounds fine to me, but I think you'll find that its not so fine with a number of other voices within this thread. I simply made the mistake of thinking that my views as to why some of them may have an issue with anything less than the perfect RPG, might actually be of some interest.
No one's saying you can't form an opinion but it would be helpful if you at least formed an opinion based on facts and not what is spewed by the trolls on this website. Many of these people who aren't happy with this game are NEVER happy with any game and you will find them stating so on many of the gaming forums here. Many of them won't be happy until we wind the clock back to the MMOs where forced grouping was the norm. It won't ever happen because developers need to make money when creating a game that requires 24/7 online play and when most of that base doesn't like to stand around pleading a leader to help him finish a quest.
Also, I have already highlighted in my previous post that if we take the dictionary (or in this case Wikipedia) definition of an RPG then we can include a wide variety of games that we already have seperate definitions for. I think you'll find that RPG has such a wide definition simply because of the great many RPG games that have been written over the years, games that cover pretty much all aspects of life and imagination, however I should highlight that typically the most important aspect is the players freedom to improvise within the confines of the rules. The rules in paper based RPGs (almost 100% of all RPG games are currently 'paper based') usually permit considerable flexability for players to 'improvise', this is due to the common employment of a highly flexible human as the 'game engine'. Therefore while I do not disagree with the Wiki definition, I should like to point out that most people with experience of paper based RPGs, which I should further highlight were the inspiration for the MUDs and now MMOs, expect more from their RPGs. Thats not to say they're going to get it, or even that they should, only that it is their wish. I thought that was clear enough the first time I wrote, I guess it wasn't, I assume it is now... we'll see.
And once again I'm not understanding their problem because they already have more freedom to improvise now than they ever did. If they want to forget the missions that they say "lead them by the hand" that are available in the game they can. They can freely form their own groups or guilds and go off on whatever adventure their imagination takes them. The problem is that's not good enough for them. They want players like me to be forced to join them on MY missions and I resent that. There are times when I just don't feel like dealing with garbage that I come across online and would rather do it myself. If my level isn't high enough I go off and do something else until I'm a high enough level or just grind my way there. To me, that's freedom. Having to go around and deal with leaders on a power trip isn't fun and is the reason that MMO's really didn't take off until they took away the forced grouping aspect. I have no problem whatsoever with those that prefer the old style everquest or SWG games, but I do resent them saying that I should go play a FPS or RTS if I don't like grouping. I could only imagine what those people are like in game and i would never in a million years play a game where I am forced to group with them.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Originally posted by Ianonmorpg, highlights by Ktanner3, and more by Ianonmorpg
...I'm trying to explain why (imo) a number of people are unhappy with this or any other game with carries the RPG definition...
Don't confuse me with one of these people whose life lives in a virtual world. i'm not one of those people whose whole world ends when something doesn't go his way so don't think for one second that anythhing you say has any effect on my me. I was only pointing out the fact that MMORPG has one meaning and that's it. There is no ambiguity, but there are many misconceptions to what these words mean. Saying that MMORPG means something else is like saying 2+2 could egual 5. It isn't true.
I'm glad that nothing I say has any effect upon you, not convinced given you state it, but I get the point. There is often ambiguity, especially when we consider the names we assign to game styles and more still given that RPGs on PCs are very different from the RPGs they originated from, predominately due to the considerable constraints of technology. Constraints that every day reduce a little more, and so I see no reason why eventually PC based RPGs wont be very similar to the paper-based games they had originated from. Given that we have such a large gap between what was, is and will be, it seems very apparent to me that we can easily question the relative worth of a games claim to RP status. It may be a mute point given that its competition is in largely the same boat, but its certainly easier than stating 2+2=5. By the way, as we can form a proof that 1=2 I dont feel overly concerned about claiming 4=5 in this post.
...I simply made the mistake of thinking that my views as to why some of them may have an issue with anything less than the perfect RPG, might actually be of some interest.
No one's saying you can't form an opinion but it would be helpful if you at least formed an opinion based on facts and not what is spewed by the trolls on this website. Many of these people who aren't happy with this game are NEVER happy with any game and you will find them stating so on many of the gaming forums here. Many of them won't be happy until we wind the clock back to the MMOs where forced grouping was the norm. It won't ever happen because developers need to make money when creating a game that requires 24/7 online play and when most of that base doesn't like to stand around pleading a leader to help him finish a quest.
I'm also very glad that I can form an opinion, however I'm sorry if you believe that my opinion is based upon anything other than 'the facts', the fact is that some people want more RP in their RPG. Thats a fact, just because you're not one of them doesn't change that fact. While I agree that some other people wont be happy with any game regardless of its gameplay and ability to be fun (more important than any quibble regards RPing) for them, if they bothered to actually try it, I wont accept that everyone who wants something different than you is automatically a troll and a game hater. I want to play STO when completed, and if I dont like it at that point then fair enough, we all like something different, but I also want to see more RPing in a game... its need not be STO, but I want to see it in a game eventually. Today that appears to be an unlikely event as currently its more effective to produce a far less ambitious game (that may well fail in its goal of providing RP) and instead try to tap into the current market. Not sure why RPing requires 24/7 game play, or leaders, or even quests as established in todays games.
... I'd like to point out that most people with experience of paper based RPGs, which I should further highlight were the inspiration for the MUDs and now MMOs, expect more from their RPGs...
And once again I'm not understanding their problem because they already have more freedom to improvise now than they ever did. If they want to forget the missions that they say "lead them by the hand" that are available in the game they can. They can freely form their own groups or guilds and go off on whatever adventure their imagination takes them. The problem is that's not good enough for them. They want players like me to be forced to join them on MY missions and I resent that. There are times when I just don't feel like dealing with garbage that I come across online and would rather do it myself. If my level isn't high enough I go off and do something else until I'm a high enough level or just grind my way there. To me, that's freedom. Having to go around and deal with leaders on a power trip isn't fun and is the reason that MMO's really didn't take off until they took away the forced grouping aspect. I have no problem whatsoever with those that prefer the old style everquest or SWG games, but I do resent them saying that I should go play a FPS or RTS if I don't like grouping. I could only imagine what those people are like in game and i would never in a million years play a game where I am forced to group with them.
I agree that todays games are a massive improvement over yesterdays in so many ways, and I'd say that this means the future looks good. Not sure why so we must see today as being ok and then assume it cant hope to get any better, GTA2 was a massive advance on GTA, yet many of us will rush out and buy the latest installment... because they can add more. So just because todays games offer more freedom, does this mean that next week we cant have more freedom? I think we'll have a lot more freedom, so why not ask for it a little sooner, and perhaps even draw up a wish list? As for the bulk of your last paragraph I'm not sure who has been picking on you, but I'd not be best pleased about people forcing me to do what they want, not sure what conversations you've been involved in were a RPer thinks you must do what they say. I was under the impression that more freedom would mean you can do what you want, just as I can do what I want. Oh yeah, levels are a system that was in a number of famous paper RPGs and most MMMORPGs, but is not a requirement of RPing, but that's not so important.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
What isn't in games that you want to do? How are you being hindered from creating your own adventures with your friends? How is your freedom being hindered by today's MMOs that allow you to group together and accomplish whatever you want?
At last, we get to the point. I'm glad you feel at last that you can have a debate about aspirations of game features, something many of us have taken for granted but it seemed you needed help to see.The very point that numerous people were making at the begining of this thread and a great many others that you apparently dislike, they are stating things they like and dislike about various games (or current projects) and even proposing various features they would like to include in these or even future games. I'm not concerned with giving you a feature list of my 'dream game' because it will vary by genre and even the mood I'm in any given day, but lets assume that it would have greater capacity to alter the world and interact with other characters in ways other than 'thump'. Like I said, it would be longer, but if you're really interested you could run through a few other threads and find out.
As for this thread I was happy to see Star Trek is on its way, and agreed with a number of ideas thrown into the debate by various folk earlier in the thread, but accept that such features would not be included in the game (I'd sooner it got released than not), my issue was with the way certain posters treat any people looking for something more and happy to chat about what could of been. A point I believe I have made.