Yes, ship Interiors will be in the game at launch. But they are NOT the type and kind of Ship Interiors that some of us RolePlayers would have wished for. We would have rather seen Ships as a Multi-Player vehicle (potentially even shuttlecraft). That means that Players would make up the Bridge Crew and the Department Heads of Engineering, Science, Astrometrics, Armory/Security, etc., with NPC "Redshirts" making up the rest of the crew. This is not what is being planned however, so the Developers stating that "Ship Interiors will indeed be in at Launch" misses the point. STO is fundenmentally being designed wrong from a Roleplay perspective when taking into account the Star Trek Canon. Nowhere in the TV series or the Movies did Star Trek ever give the impression that only the Captain mattered. Other than this very important game-breaking point (for myself anyway), STO will indeed have a number of really good features that should provide many Players thousands of hours of enjoyment. For a roleplayer such as myself, and as a Star Trek fan of 40 years, STO's present design philosophy falls far too short of what it could have been, and what it should have been. As for some features coming out in future updates/expansions...I say HOGWASH. This is 2009. MMORPG's as a genre are now over 15 years old. It is time for Developers and Game Publishers to produce a MMORPG product that are complete at Launch. I am sick of paying for the priveledge to beta test a game that should have already been complete and far too many MMOs are released incomplete presently.
The only way ANY game can be designed, and survive in the market, with having "roleplay" specific features is if said features also can provide decent game play for the non-roleplayers as well., don't conflict with game play for non-Rpers, or don't take developer time and resources away from making sure all the game play elements planned for are in the game. The reason being is that "roleplayers" are a very small proportion of the players in any game.
This was evident before WoW came out. The first big failure because of a game catering too much to roleplayers was SWG, where @700 to 800K people that were anticipating a fun Star Wars game to play bought the box, logged into the game, and were hit over the head with a very boring and grindfilled game, awful mechanics, convoluted and useless classes, and everyone that was bothering to stay playing seemingly only wanting to stand around and yap instead of play the game. So those 700 to 800K didn't even stick around long enough to pay for their first paid month, and the game was bleeding @10K subscriptions a month after that.
The reason for interiors and player crews not being in STO at launch have been made clear, and they correspond with what I said above, if one is paying attention to what's being said that is.
They have to make sure that they have the game play elements in the game that will satisfy the non-RPer, and they have to remain within their budget. That's the reality of business, and in the end that's what these companies are, businesses. These companies don't make these games on air, and they don't make them as some kind of altruistic exercise. They have a budget and a time frame to work with. They can't get everything and the kitchen sink in before release. They have to prioritize and make sure they get in what they feel is most important to get in. That some feel they're wrong in their priorities is evident, but clearly the company has data which supports their decisions. They're dealing with tens of millions of dollars to get one of these games out, you can be sure they don't just make these decisions by putting on a blindfold and throwing darts at a list.
Gamers won't care all that much that every ship won't have open world explorable ship interiors. To them it'll just be a feature they rarely, if ever more than once, would experience. Add to that to implement them properly is going to take a great deal of developer time and resources. Therefor, it's a feature that can be left out at release, and once the game is chugging along and the revenue is coming in they can allocate those resources and allot that time to do them right. The sad part of all this is people aren't giving Cryptic the credit they deserve due to them saying that they do want to get them in the game after launch, and want to do them very well. They could just as easily close the door on them completely.
Player crews not being in the game at launch ties into the same things I talked about as well. They haven't been able to come up with a way to have player crews that provide engaging game play for non-RPers. That means player crews would be a feature enjoyed mainly by RPers only, and in fact would be a negative game play element for non-RPers. So again, game play wins out, and also again, Cryptic doesn't get the credit for not closing the door on player crews completely and stating that they're in fact leaving the door open for them being a possibility as they design.
Ok, I respect you as a Gamer and as a Person, but I disagree.
I play MMORPGs. Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. Any Game that calls itself a "MMORPG" by default should be designed as a Role Playing Game that is Online and with the ability to have massive amounts of Players ingame at once working either together toward a goal or solo (multiplayer). Note the Adjectives Massively, Multiplayer, and Online...they are used to describe the term "Role Playing Game".
By Definition then, any online game that either claims or even pretends to be a MMORPG should be designed first and foremost as a Role Playing Game, and then they can add a great combat system, lots of action, crafting, and the rest of the bells and whistles. It does NOT matter that the Dev Teams of the games pretending to be MMORPGs released in the last few years have forgotten this simple and basic fact about MMORPGs. It does NOT matter that some players do not like or enjoy Roleplay activities in a MMORPG. If Dev Teams and Players don't want RolePlay to be the priority in MMORPG development, then they should get out of the MMORPG Genre. They will be happy they did.
If someone decides to leave the genre then I will be glad they left. I am tired of explaining to people why Roleplay in a MMORPG is the number reason for the existance of MMORPG's in the first place. I am also tired of defending a concept so basic to MMORPGs that it should never have to be defended as it should have never been forgotten in the first place.
Players.......Don't like Roleplay in MMORPGs? Then go play some other type of game.
Developers........Don't like to design and develop your MMO with RolePlay as the primary feature? Then go develop another type of game.
And this website is named "MMORPG.Com" and I come here to discuss MMORPG's and how they should be improved within the original genre....if you are here to destroy MMORPGs or morph them into something they were not intended to be, then go to another website.
Concerning the marketing of MMORPGs.....Never was the marketing of a true MMORPG ever an issue until WoW and the clones that followed. If a true MMORPG is ever developed and released again, it will survive due to it's quality and it's Roleplay priority in develpoment of it's features, not due to any bean counter's wild ideas of what Players of MMORPGs want in their games.
Seeing as how you presented this in a thoughtful manner I will respond in kind with my own friendly disagreement.
..a MMORPG is a genre of computer role-playing games (CRPGs) in which a large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world. As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a fictional character (often in a fantasy world),[3] and take control over many of that character's actions.[4] MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player CRPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game.....
Nothing more and nothing less. Now there are many ways one can implement that concept. Obviously you are more in favor of a more simulated experience and there is nothing wrong with that. SWG had that before they did a complete 180 with the NGE and turned it into a FPS.(which pissed me off to know end.) I don't like FPS in MMORPGs and I have stated as much. But I don't see anything in this game that says this will just be another pew pew game as others have stated. So far the game seems to be very deep for fans of Star Trek and games in general. You will have missions that take place on ship,stations and planets. They recently annnounced trading hubs on stations like DS9 for those that like to socialize. You will get to see the interior of the stations and all that good stuff if that is your fancy. You will be able to group up in space or on land in away teams if you like. There will be contested areas that change the dynamics of which faction controls important rresources and planets. Far as I'm concerned that more than satisfies the MMORPG requirement.
What MMORPGs are "supposed to be about" is what I have tried my best to explain to you. You have been told, or taught, that the meaning of Role Playing Game is not literal... However, I know for a fact that the original Dreamers and Developers of the first MMORPGs meant them to be literally "Role Play" games, with some exceptions amongst the developers of the first games back then. They discussed their intentions for the games at length back then so I know what MMORPGs were originally meant to be. I don't need to adjust my beliefs. The modern Developers and some Players that desire MMORPGs to be something other than what they were originally designed to be need to adjust their beliefs however. If that includes yourself, then so be it. Can I change how you, or others that either Play or Develop MMORPGs view what MMORPGs are supposed to be about? No I can't. But neither do I wish to see MMORPGs be changed into a shadow of what they once were either. If anyone wonders why the last few years of new MMORPG releases have seemed "short on substance" compared to older MMORPGs it is at least for the reasons I have alluded to here. Modern Developers and Players have forgotten just what a MMORPG is, and Cryptic's STO is no exception. Cryptic has placed Action and Combat features as a higher priority over Roleplay and it too will fall far short of what Players want from a Star Trek MMORPG. With Cryptic's present design emphasis it would be better if STO was released only as a Console game in my opinion and when compared and examined in light of what a MMORPG is "supposed to be". Now, we can argue back and forth on this all day and night long for the next month, but I see no end of it. I know what a MMORPG is supposed to be, and you believe you know what they are supposed to be as well. I do not beleive we will ever agree, but at least our discussion here has given me the opportunity to remind other Players that there is a purpose for RolePlay in a MMO. Most Players that believe as I do gave up long ago attempting to remind the Players of MMOs this, and maybe they were right to stop posting thier opinions. It is obvious to me that my opinion as a Roleplaying MMORPG gamer is something that some of you would just as soon ignore. I am finished contributing to this thread. Nothing I say here seems to matter anyway.
How you have come to have such extreme misconceptions would be amazing had it not become kind of a common misunderstanding. Especially amongst those that want to believe it so adamantly.
Without the long drawn out explanation, so the history of the genre 101 in other words, the acronym came from these games having evolved from old style RPGs. Those old style RPGs we played way back when weren't about people "playing pretend". To us they were just games like any other, albeit with more in depth stories and more complicated mechanics.
Those mechanics , and more correctly how they were applied to the various "roles" one could fill within a game (i.e. warrior, assassin, barbarian,cleric, etc etc) are what the term RPG comes from. It was a quick way of labelling a game with the turn based style of play, as well as the way that one's character progressed (i.e. gaining more power, skills, speed, stealth, etc etc) as one ascended to certain levels.
The term "mmorpg" was used to relate these games to RPGs because most, if not all, the early mmorpgs were turn based and used a similar style of skill or character progression. It was a quick way for people to get a picture in their minds about how these computer based variations of those earlier RPGs worked. That hearkening back to those earlier games is still used in labelling games of this genre today, and if you look, you'll see some games in development right now that will look almost exactly like a mmorpg, and where anyone could join and play pretend to their hearts content, they're not being called mmorpgs because they won't be using turn based mechanics.They're calling themselves massive multiplayer online adventure games, or other variants.
What MMORPGs are "supposed to be about" is what I have tried my best to explain to you. You have been told, or taught, that the meaning of Role Playing Game is not literal... However, I know for a fact that the original Dreamers and Developers of the first MMORPGs meant them to be literally "Role Play" games, with some exceptions amongst the developers of the first games back then. They discussed their intentions for the games at length back then so I know what MMORPGs were originally meant to be. I don't need to adjust my beliefs. The modern Developers and some Players that desire MMORPGs to be something other than what they were originally designed to be need to adjust their beliefs however. If that includes yourself, then so be it. Can I change how you, or others that either Play or Develop MMORPGs view what MMORPGs are supposed to be about? No I can't. But neither do I wish to see MMORPGs be changed into a shadow of what they once were either. If anyone wonders why the last few years of new MMORPG releases have seemed "short on substance" compared to older MMORPGs it is at least for the reasons I have alluded to here. Modern Developers and Players have forgotten just what a MMORPG is, and Cryptic's STO is no exception. Cryptic has placed Action and Combat features as a higher priority over Roleplay and it too will fall far short of what Players want from a Star Trek MMORPG. With Cryptic's present design emphasis it would be better if STO was released only as a Console game in my opinion and when compared and examined in light of what a MMORPG is "supposed to be". Now, we can argue back and forth on this all day and night long for the next month, but I see no end of it. I know what a MMORPG is supposed to be, and you believe you know what they are supposed to be as well. I do not beleive we will ever agree, but at least our discussion here has given me the opportunity to remind other Players that there is a purpose for RolePlay in a MMO. Most Players that believe as I do gave up long ago attempting to remind the Players of MMOs this, and maybe they were right to stop posting thier opinions. It is obvious to me that my opinion as a Roleplaying MMORPG gamer is something that some of you would just as soon ignore. I am finished contributing to this thread. Nothing I say here seems to matter anyway.
Gardavil,
I just wanted to say that I support you 100 percent. You are absolutely correct about what the origins of RPG's were and what they were intended to be. They have morphed into something which often doesn't closely resemble their origin.
I remember purchasing the original Wizardry. It was fun because it was the closest you could get at the time to playing something that resembled pencil & paper role-playing on a computer you could actualy own. I also remember discovering online services and games like Gemstone on GEnie. Despite all their technical limitations , they were fantastic because they focused on what those pencil & paper games were really all about....sharing YOUR imagination and creativity with others.
It's a shame.... because somewhere along the way, game-makers forgot what made games TRUELY fun. It's not the flashy special effects.... or graphics of spaceships blowing to neon bits.... it's about the PLAYERS imagination and creativity....and sharing that with OTHER PLAYERS. A grown-up version of cowboys and indians..... that harkens us back to a simple and special time in our lives when we WERE kids ourselves..... and that clothes-pin in your hands was a phaser.... and your buddy Jim wasn't the kid from next door, he was a Scientist from planet Vulcan.
I actualy feel very sorry for gamers today.....because with all the neon lights, and flashy explosions they still miss the very essence of what makes games FUN.
The only thing that is truely heartening is that you can STILL occasionaly find that experience in games today. However, it's not because of the games but rather IN SPITE of them. You still find the occasional group of players who work around the limitations of the environment to recapture the essence of what gaming was about. It's just kinda sad that with all the technological advances that it's actualy tougher to do that in todays games then it was in the ones of 15-20 years ago.
The thing that's always most hilarious about this kind of whining we're seeing here is that you will never see real "role players" (as you've come to label them) lamenting about the stuff you guys are. Since a real "role player" can be put in a totally empty blank white room with a rock and a stick and they'll make up an entire universe in their minds and be happy campers. They don't need their hand held like one teaches a child.
What MMORPGs are "supposed to be about" is what I have tried my best to explain to you. You have been told, or taught, that the meaning of Role Playing Game is not literal... However, I know for a fact that the original Dreamers and Developers of the first MMORPGs meant them to be literally "Role Play" games, with some exceptions amongst the developers of the first games back then. They discussed their intentions for the games at length back then so I know what MMORPGs were originally meant to be. I don't need to adjust my beliefs. The modern Developers and some Players that desire MMORPGs to be something other than what they were originally designed to be need to adjust their beliefs however. If that includes yourself, then so be it. Can I change how you, or others that either Play or Develop MMORPGs view what MMORPGs are supposed to be about? No I can't. But neither do I wish to see MMORPGs be changed into a shadow of what they once were either. If anyone wonders why the last few years of new MMORPG releases have seemed "short on substance" compared to older MMORPGs it is at least for the reasons I have alluded to here. Modern Developers and Players have forgotten just what a MMORPG is, and Cryptic's STO is no exception. Cryptic has placed Action and Combat features as a higher priority over Roleplay and it too will fall far short of what Players want from a Star Trek MMORPG. With Cryptic's present design emphasis it would be better if STO was released only as a Console game in my opinion and when compared and examined in light of what a MMORPG is "supposed to be". Now, we can argue back and forth on this all day and night long for the next month, but I see no end of it. I know what a MMORPG is supposed to be, and you believe you know what they are supposed to be as well. I do not beleive we will ever agree, but at least our discussion here has given me the opportunity to remind other Players that there is a purpose for RolePlay in a MMO. Most Players that believe as I do gave up long ago attempting to remind the Players of MMOs this, and maybe they were right to stop posting thier opinions. It is obvious to me that my opinion as a Roleplaying MMORPG gamer is something that some of you would just as soon ignore. I am finished contributing to this thread. Nothing I say here seems to matter anyway.
How you have come to have such extreme misconceptions would be amazing had it not become kind of a common misunderstanding. Especially amongst those that want to believe it so adamantly.
Without the long drawn out explanation, so the history of the genre 101 in other words, the acronym came from these games having evolved from old style RPGs. Those old style RPGs we played way back when weren't about people "playing pretend". To us they were just games like any other, albeit with more in depth stories and more complicated mechanics.
Those mechanics , and more correctly how they were applied to the various "roles" one could fill within a game (i.e. warrior, assassin, barbarian,cleric, etc etc) are what the term RPG comes from. It was a quick way of labelling a game with the turn based style of play, as well as the way that one's character progressed (i.e. gaining more power, skills, speed, stealth, etc etc) as one ascended to certain levels.
The term "mmorpg" was used to relate these games to RPGs because most, if not all, the early mmorpgs were turn based and used a similar style of skill or character progression. It was a quick way for people to get a picture in their minds about how these computer based variations of those earlier RPGs worked. That hearkening back to those earlier games is still used in labelling games of this genre today, and if you look, you'll see some games in development right now that will look almost exactly like a mmorpg, and where anyone could join and play pretend to their hearts content, they're not being called mmorpgs because they won't be using turn based mechanics.They're calling themselves massive multiplayer online adventure games, or other variants.
Hagonbok,
You couldn't be more wrong. The old style RPG's were taken from desire to take the experience of pen & paper D&D (or the interactive adventure books that were based on them) and translate them as much as possible onto the new entertainment medium....personal computers. Thus you had things like the origional Kings Quest which was almost a literal translation of a D&D style adventure book..... or games like Wizardry or Bards Tale or Ultima which were very much based upon the D&D experience.... and trying to provide the player with a sense of "adventure". They were very much NOT just dressed up versions of Chess, or Battle-Tanks or Asteroids, etc.
Of course, the medium was quite limited in how it could translate that experience to the PC ....mostly from a strictly techincal nature. These games were generaly designed around "single player" experiences simply because PC's were rarely networked in those days....and connection to the internet was generaly unheard of outside of major Universities or the millitary. However, even in most of these games you controled a party of characters.... and it wasn't at all uncommon to "hot-seat" the game (I know my freinds and I certainly did)..... so the degree of RP-ing that could occur was neccesarly somewhat limited by the medium.... but it certainly was the case that such games tried to capture the flavor of RP-ing as much as they could.
Now, there was a short but rather interesting period that occured before the internet truely became a mass culture medium but after modems (and BBS systems) started to become more common on PC's. This was the age of the online services.... services like Prodigy, Compuserve, Genie, AOL. These services brought with them access to another entertainment offering.... thier entertainment sections had games that had evolved from internet MUDS, MUSH's..... things that had previously been limited to very small audiences in Educational facilities etc....and made them available to a much wider audience.... and actualy game them commercial viability. Thus you had games like Gemstone, etc...that brought the multi-player capability to computer gaming. These offerings were VERY MUCH focused on RP-ing..... almost exclusively so in many of them.
From here....as both the graphics and communication capabilities of PC's progressed....and as internet connectivity became more wide-spread..... it was a natural progression to try to take what the online services were ALREADY doing with text and ascii based games and to add graphics to them. THAT is where the first fore-runners of things that resemble todays MMORPGS come from..... games like Meridian59 and Ultima Online..... and they VERY MUCH were billed and advertised as "Graphical MUDS".
Wow, someone has been filling your head full of a whole whack of garbage eh? That's all really amusing mate. hehehe. Completely inaccurae, and almost word for word the "propoganda" (since it's all totally made up but meant to put a different spin on reality) that amatuer RPers have been trying to spread for quite awhile , but amusing.
Wow, someone has been filling your head full of a whole whack of garbage eh? That's all really amusing mate. hehehe. Completely inaccurae, and almost word for word the "propoganda" (since it's all totally made up but meant to put a different spin on reality) that amatuer RPers have been trying to spread for quite awhile , but amusing.
Ok, I get it now.....your trolling. Silly me, I actually took you seriously for a moment.
Nice style though.... no substasnce in your rebuttal. Just empty rhetoric.
Wow, someone has been filling your head full of a whole whack of garbage eh? That's all really amusing mate. hehehe. Completely inaccurae, and almost word for word the "propoganda" (since it's all totally made up but meant to put a different spin on reality) that amatuer RPers have been trying to spread for quite awhile , but amusing.
Ok, I get it now.....your trolling. Silly me, I actually took you seriously for a moment.
Nice style though.... no substasnce in your rebuttal. Just empty rhetoric.
Why do you think that I'm required to rebut total fantasy? It has no basis in reality other than using some factual names of different genre.
It's just gobilty gook formulated by sad sad people desperately trying to validate themselves and their very very false sense of entitlement. It's something more to be pitied than anything else really.
The fact that people are arguing back and forth on whether there should be actual role playing, in the sense of speaking the language of the game (old english for old time games, techno crap for star trek times) and acting like you are the guy you're playing, is amusing.
It has been proven that the best business model for making money is to NOT try and get players to role play while playing, the vast majority does not and will never want to do that.
If you are a person who desires this, stick to pen and paper games where you choose the group who plays and can all choose to roleplay. There will never be a major/successfull mmo made around forced role playing, it is not a way to make profits.
I read thru most of the posts here but it feels like to me that the jist is that there are no interior ship bridges to role play on and that is what is having ppl frustrated. I can understand that an dplease forgive my ignorance as I am not a Rper on computer games and I save that for my pencil and paper games. How long can a person roleplay before it gets boring? hanging around talking about the borg mish you are gonna take and what not. I think about the time and money that would have to be invested to generate that environment that could be spent elsewhere in game. Roleplayers have a right to play the gaem the way they want to and I have no problems with that but if you can dock your ship at a station and walk around and meet and gater there is that not good enough?
The fact that people are arguing back and forth on whether there should be actual role playing, in the sense of speaking the language of the game (old english for old time games, techno crap for star trek times) and acting like you are the guy you're playing, is amusing.
It has been proven that the best business model for making money is to NOT try and get players to role play while playing, the vast majority does not and will never want to do that.
If you are a person who desires this, stick to pen and paper games where you choose the group who plays and can all choose to roleplay. There will never be a major/successfull mmo made around forced role playing, it is not a way to make profits.
The issue is more with HOW some people like to roleplay. I myself have had no problem roleplaying in any MMO I have played because they all have a lore that I can sink my imagination into.I don't need other people to have fun in the game. If I want to group with others and I have the time I will. If I don't want to deal with all the garbage that comes with someone's ego, I simply ignore them and have my own fun. I like having that option which didn't exist not so long ago.
For others, that isn't enough. They want a game that is a complete simulator where grouping is not only encouraged but in fact a neccessity for getting ahead. They feel that it isn't a roleplaying game when stories are written for you and grouping isn't a major part of getting ahead.However, the option to ignore the quests and group with their buddies still remain an option in every MMO I have played. So I don't understand those that say give us the option because as far as I'm concerned, that option has existed already.
Exactly ktanner3. A good role player does it just fine in any mmo out there because all the tools are simply always there in these games, and they can adapt their role play to any game.. More than they need is intrinsic in having persistant and expansive worlds having been created for them to inhabit. They also know that grouping, or in other words getting people to do it with, isn't something you shove down people's throats. It has to be something that people want to do.
Wow, someone has been filling your head full of a whole whack of garbage eh? That's all really amusing mate. hehehe. Completely inaccurae, and almost word for word the "propoganda" (since it's all totally made up but meant to put a different spin on reality) that amatuer RPers have been trying to spread for quite awhile , but amusing.
Ok, I get it now.....your trolling. Silly me, I actually took you seriously for a moment.
Nice style though.... no substasnce in your rebuttal. Just empty rhetoric.
Why do you think that I'm required to rebut total fantasy? It has no basis in reality other than using some factual names of different genre.
It's just gobilty gook formulated by sad sad people desperately trying to validate themselves and their very very false sense of entitlement. It's something more to be pitied than anything else really.
Oh right, I forgot I had to translate things into the alternate reality in which you live where you are correct.
No sense of entitlement here. I'm not trying to tell Cryptic what to do with thier game. That would be pointless. I'm just representing the factual history of what went down. I know because I was there.
Wow, someone has been filling your head full of a whole whack of garbage eh? That's all really amusing mate. hehehe. Completely inaccurae, and almost word for word the "propoganda" (since it's all totally made up but meant to put a different spin on reality) that amatuer RPers have been trying to spread for quite awhile , but amusing.
Ok, I get it now.....your trolling. Silly me, I actually took you seriously for a moment.
Nice style though.... no substasnce in your rebuttal. Just empty rhetoric.
Why do you think that I'm required to rebut total fantasy? It has no basis in reality other than using some factual names of different genre.
It's just gobilty gook formulated by sad sad people desperately trying to validate themselves and their very very false sense of entitlement. It's something more to be pitied than anything else really.
Oh right, I forgot I had to translate things into the alternate reality in which you live where you are correct.
No sense of entitlement here. I'm not trying to tell Cryptic what to do with thier game. That would be pointless. I'm just representing the factual history of what went down. I know because I was there.
Wow, someone has been filling your head full of a whole whack of garbage eh? That's all really amusing mate. hehehe. Completely inaccurae, and almost word for word the "propoganda" (since it's all totally made up but meant to put a different spin on reality) that amatuer RPers have been trying to spread for quite awhile , but amusing.
Ok, I get it now.....your trolling. Silly me, I actually took you seriously for a moment.
Nice style though.... no substasnce in your rebuttal. Just empty rhetoric.
EDIT: I removed what I wrote, to sum it up grumpymel, don't bother with him.
From the official site words of Craig Zinkavech: There will be plenty of interiors in the game at launch - there are plenty in the game right now and I don't see them going anywhere. : ) You will be taken to interiors during instanced missions. You'll go to them in persistent ways as well - mostly social, but also in other cases that I'm going to be vague about right now on purpose : ) - There are starbases, satellites, ship interiors (yes, ships), buildings on the ground, caverns under the earth or deep in asteroids - all sorts of places you'll adventure within interiors. Sadly, what we won't have at launch is the ability for you to customize your own ship, invite other players over and walkaround, seeing hundreds of NPC crew members and investigate every nook, cranny and Jefferies tube on it. We want to make sure that when we a feature like this in, it is a robust system that people will love, not just a marketing bullet point on the back of the box.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? DOES IT SAY ANYTHING NEW?
SOE & SWG ring any bells? SOE made the same type of statements about SWG . Were they ever fullfilled? No we are still waiting for capital ships, gardening, and more. The fact is until they fulfill what they say it is a lie.The only real experiance Cryptic has with MMO's is CoH/CoV but they will need to change their development style completely or the game will most likely end up a bust.
SOE & SWG ring any bells? SOE made the same type of statements about SWG . Were they ever fullfilled? No we are still waiting for capital ships, gardening, and more. The fact is until they fulfill what they say it is a lie.The only real experiance Cryptic has with MMO's is CoH/CoV but they will need to change their development style completely or the game will most likely end up a bust.
Comparing Cryptic promises to SOE(totally unrelated company) promises in that way is unfair for obvious reasons. It's also unfair to call them lies. From what I hear, CoH/CoV had great content updates. I see no reason to think otherwise. If you do think otherwise, just don't buy the game until the content you want gets added, that simple. I don't see how going around slandering companies, for lies they haven't committed, does any good.
The fact that people are arguing back and forth on whether there should be actual role playing, in the sense of speaking the language of the game (old english for old time games, techno crap for star trek times) and acting like you are the guy you're playing, is amusing.
It has been proven that the best business model for making money is to NOT try and get players to role play while playing, the vast majority does not and will never want to do that.
If you are a person who desires this, stick to pen and paper games where you choose the group who plays and can all choose to roleplay. There will never be a major/successfull mmo made around forced role playing, it is not a way to make profits.
The issue is more with HOW some people like to roleplay. I myself have had no problem roleplaying in any MMO I have played because they all have a lore that I can sink my imagination into.I don't need other people to have fun in the game. If I want to group with others and I have the time I will. If I don't want to deal with all the garbage that comes with someone's ego, I simply ignore them and have my own fun. I like having that option which didn't exist not so long ago.
For others, that isn't enough. They want a game that is a complete simulator where grouping is not only encouraged but in fact a neccessity for getting ahead. They feel that it isn't a roleplaying game when stories are written for you and grouping isn't a major part of getting ahead.However, the option to ignore the quests and group with their buddies still remain an option in every MMO I have played. So I don't understand those that say give us the option because as far as I'm concerned, that option has existed already.
I'm on board with this. Terms evolve and such, and I'm too young to know the true beginnings, but I'll say that present usage seems to be more in line with Hagonbok's definition. When I buy a MMORPG I know I'm buying a game with progression, skill based combat that at it's core uses turn based mechanics (like table top games) with dice rolls, and I'll be playing with other people around.
It is understood that in an MMORPG I can Role Play in the sense that you guys are talking, but isn't that true of many games/genres? I could RP in a FPS if i wanted, no problem. I could even RP in many RTSs (especially one like Supreme Commander where you have a leader). RP isn't realy limited to a genre, just the imagination IMO.
If you guys are saying that no ship interior customization/PC crew emphasis is totally against your view on Star Trek and would take you out of the ST experience, then fine. Don't buy the game until the features you enjoy are in the game. I don't understand this beating of a dead horse. STO has gone in the direction of one user star ship control emphasis. IMO that's great, that was the vision I had when I thought first heard ST was going to be in an MMO.
The fact that people are arguing back and forth on whether there should be actual role playing, in the sense of speaking the language of the game (old english for old time games, techno crap for star trek times) and acting like you are the guy you're playing, is amusing.
It has been proven that the best business model for making money is to NOT try and get players to role play while playing, the vast majority does not and will never want to do that.
If you are a person who desires this, stick to pen and paper games where you choose the group who plays and can all choose to roleplay. There will never be a major/successfull mmo made around forced role playing, it is not a way to make profits.
The issue is more with HOW some people like to roleplay. I myself have had no problem roleplaying in any MMO I have played because they all have a lore that I can sink my imagination into.I don't need other people to have fun in the game. If I want to group with others and I have the time I will. If I don't want to deal with all the garbage that comes with someone's ego, I simply ignore them and have my own fun. I like having that option which didn't exist not so long ago.
For others, that isn't enough. They want a game that is a complete simulator where grouping is not only encouraged but in fact a neccessity for getting ahead. They feel that it isn't a roleplaying game when stories are written for you and grouping isn't a major part of getting ahead.However, the option to ignore the quests and group with their buddies still remain an option in every MMO I have played. So I don't understand those that say give us the option because as far as I'm concerned, that option has existed already.
I'm on board with this. Terms evolve and such, and I'm too young to know the true beginnings, but I'll say that present usage seems to be more in line with Hagonbok's definition. When I buy a MMORPG I know I'm buying a game with progression, skill based combat that at it's core uses turn based mechanics (like table top games) with dice roles, and I'll be playing with other people around.
It is understood that in an MMORPG I can Role Play in the sense that you guys are talking, but isn't that true of many games/genres? I could RP in a FPS if i wanted, no problem. I could even RP in many RTSs (especially one like Supreme Commander where you have a leader). RP isn't realy limited to a genre, just the imagination IMO.
If you guys are saying that no ship interior customization/PC crew emphasis is totally against your view on Star Trek and would take you out of the ST experience, then fine. Don't buy the game until the features you enjoy are in the game. I don't understand this beating of a dead horse. STO has gone in the direction of one user star ship control emphasis. IMO that's great, that was the vision I had when I thought first heard ST was going to be in an MMO.
I understand your point of view and respect it. At least your hopes are being fulfilled and that's good. Mine and other's POV is just different. We had so hoped that it would be multi-Player ships, players within a command structure very similar or identical to Star Trek the series and movies.
As for myself and others waiting for our style of gameplay to be added to the game in an expansion....
It will not happen. If the Game is not designed from "day one" to be Multi-Player Crews aboard Ships, then the only way to put that feature in a game later on is to rewrite the game code from the ground up. No Development Company is going to do that. No Investment Group will sign off on it. No Stockholders will vote yes for it. And most importantly, in the competitive market of MMOs no amount of subscriptions one or two years post launch will pay for it. If someone tells you multi-Player Crew Gameplay will be added later they are mistaken. Even if the Devs of STO said they would consider adding this feature later they are deluding themselves and us by thinking it will be possible.
At least you and others that share your POV will get what you wanted from STO....Cool.
The fact that people are arguing back and forth on whether there should be actual role playing, in the sense of speaking the language of the game (old english for old time games, techno crap for star trek times) and acting like you are the guy you're playing, is amusing.
It has been proven that the best business model for making money is to NOT try and get players to role play while playing, the vast majority does not and will never want to do that.
If you are a person who desires this, stick to pen and paper games where you choose the group who plays and can all choose to roleplay. There will never be a major/successfull mmo made around forced role playing, it is not a way to make profits.
The issue is more with HOW some people like to roleplay. I myself have had no problem roleplaying in any MMO I have played because they all have a lore that I can sink my imagination into.I don't need other people to have fun in the game. If I want to group with others and I have the time I will. If I don't want to deal with all the garbage that comes with someone's ego, I simply ignore them and have my own fun. I like having that option which didn't exist not so long ago.
For others, that isn't enough. They want a game that is a complete simulator where grouping is not only encouraged but in fact a neccessity for getting ahead. They feel that it isn't a roleplaying game when stories are written for you and grouping isn't a major part of getting ahead.However, the option to ignore the quests and group with their buddies still remain an option in every MMO I have played. So I don't understand those that say give us the option because as far as I'm concerned, that option has existed already.
I'm on board with this. Terms evolve and such, and I'm too young to know the true beginnings, but I'll say that present usage seems to be more in line with Hagonbok's definition. When I buy a MMORPG I know I'm buying a game with progression, skill based combat that at it's core uses turn based mechanics (like table top games) with dice roles, and I'll be playing with other people around.
It is understood that in an MMORPG I can Role Play in the sense that you guys are talking, but isn't that true of many games/genres? I could RP in a FPS if i wanted, no problem. I could even RP in many RTSs (especially one like Supreme Commander where you have a leader). RP isn't realy limited to a genre, just the imagination IMO.
If you guys are saying that no ship interior customization/PC crew emphasis is totally against your view on Star Trek and would take you out of the ST experience, then fine. Don't buy the game until the features you enjoy are in the game. I don't understand this beating of a dead horse. STO has gone in the direction of one user star ship control emphasis. IMO that's great, that was the vision I had when I thought first heard ST was going to be in an MMO.
I understand your point of view and respect it. At least your hopes are being fulfilled and that's good. Mine and other's POV is just different. We had so hoped that it would be multi-Player ships, players within a command structure very similar or identical to Star Trek the series and movies.
As for myself and others waiting for our style of gameplay to be added to the game in an expansion....
It will not happen. If the Game is not designed from "day one" to be Multi-Player Crews aboard Ships, then the only way to put that feature in a game later on is to rewrite the game code from the ground up. No Development Company is going to do that. No Investment Group will sign off on it. No Stockholders will vote yes for it. And most importantly, in the competitive market of MMOs no amount of subscriptions one or two years post launch will pay for it. If someone tells you multi-Player Crew Gameplay will be added later they are mistaken. Even if the Devs of STO said they would consider adding this feature later they are deluding themselves and us by thinking it will be possible.
At least you and others that share your POV will get what you wanted from STO....Cool.
I'm a bit of a programmer myself (and my brother is actually getting his phd in comp sci) and we've talked about this a bit.
There are some things they can do. Adding mini games to different functions isn't hard (and you'd think they would plan for that). On my solo ship I hope to eventually be able to step in and perform different functions such as analyzing sensor sweeps, stabalizing pattern buffers, realign the warp core, using the dermal regenorator, etc. etc. These mini games could be put into the episodic mission system quite easily. Perhaps eventually they can add enough mini games that it makes sense for multiple PCs to perform the functions.
Another posibility is that they can splice their code to split up what was formally controlled by one person, to multiple people. The problem with this is that the system was designed for 1 person, so things are proably going to be simplified to the point where one person performing only one of the tasks wouldn't feel important. They'd have to make targeting different targets more complex than pressing tab, give helm control more options than WASD, z axis movement, and mouse look (maybe add barrell rolls! haha, seriously though, maybe doing something about having to deal with spacial waves, different fields and such as we've seen in the shows), etc. You're right that this may be impossible without a complete revamp, but maybe not. Part of it depends on how complex they were planning on making the game in teh first place (IMO hopefully really comples). Cryptic's engine is supposed to be a very strong technology. I just wonder if "strong' also means flexible, I'd think so...
I love reading the posts of some of you people. Alot of people say I wont buy it unless it has this and this and this... Yet there going to waste there money on some other game with pretty much the same feature as STO with out all the extra stuff.
And there are the trekies who say i wont buy it unless it as this and this and this, because it just wont be trek with out it. Okay that makes cence i guess, but i still think your puting to much thought on the tittle instead of the actual game. In your opinion it might not be star trek but it could still be a kick ass game, but you shun it not because its a bad game but because its not as trekish as you think it should be...
If they're planning to launch a game w/o any Star Trek philosophy, dont use that name to claim players, just call it "Space Online" or "Space killers online", but dont use the Star Trek name cause isnt a Trek game...This is shameful.
We Are Blind .. To The Worlds Within Us .. Waiting To Be Born
I love reading the posts of some of you people. Alot of people say I wont buy it unless it has this and this and this... Yet there going to waste there money on some other game with pretty much the same feature as STO with out all the extra stuff. And there are the trekies who say i wont buy it unless it as this and this and this, because it just wont be trek with out it. Okay that makes cence i guess, but i still think your puting to much thought on the tittle instead of the actual game. In your opinion it might not be star trek but it could still be a kick ass game, but you shun it not because its a bad game but because its not as trekish as you think it should be...
I won't be wasting my money on any other game....because I no longer wish to support MMOs that cater to the Killer and Achiever Gamers and ignore/minimize the Explorer and Socializer Gamers (reference the Bartle Gamers Profile). I am burnt out attempting to adapt to MMOs that are not designed with Players like myself in mind. Take a good look at my signature on this post......perhaps then you can understand why I place far more emphasis on the social aspects of MMOs than on Combat.
Would I myself make a good Captain of a Federation Starship? NO WAY if you look at my Bartle Gamers Profile...but I would be well suited to Science division or Medical...so for STO to be designed in such a way to automatically make every Player a Captain also automatically excludes myself from ever fully enjoying the game. Think about it...would you want a Captain in your Fleet that has a Bartle's Killer score of ZERO?
I had hoped that STO being based upon Star Trek that perhaps this MMO would finally be designed to appeal more to the Explorers and the Socializers...I was wrong. STO will be just like all other MMOs...Designed first and foremost for the Killers and Achievers.
I am a Trekkie...and I really have no desire to play a Star Trek game of any type or genre unless it allows Players the ability to work together as a Crew to man a Star Ship.
Will STO be an Awesome Game? I believe it will. Most Players are going to have a blast in STO. Enjoy.
The Bartle data is antiquated crappola designed for text based MUDs and has very little relevance to mmorpgs. It's people that have a screwed up concept of what mmorpgs are that keep referencing it as something to be paid attention to in regards to mmorpgs. It's people that think mmorpgs are evolved from MUDs.
They're not.
mmorpgs are evolved from TT (table top) RPGs, and the "RPG" isn't about playing make believe and all this other drek they want to hang on it. RPG is about the mechanics (turn based dice rolls and character progression via learnt skills, advancing skills, gaining experience, acquiring new items, etc etc)
If you're lamenting that mmorpgs aren't more like MUDs and don't specifically cater to people that just want to inhabit some virtual world, make believe some intricately thought out character, and yammer away all day long to others then you're barking up the wrong tree. You are, and have been, following the completely wrong genre. Unfortunately there's just enough other mutton heads out there that have it all screwed up in their minds too to give this bunch this very very false sense of entitlement.
These people want to change what mmorpgs are. They want to turn them into sims rather than games. A place inhabited by people that do nothing but chin wag all day long. In short, they want to suck all the fun out of them and make sure they're only populated by pompous pinheads like themselves.
If they're planning to launch a game w/o any Star Trek philosophy, dont use that name to claim players, just call it "Space Online" or "Space killers online", but dont use the Star Trek name cause isnt a Trek game...This is shameful.
You lost me, what is shameful about this? Not having customizable ship interiors/PC crews? Or the fact that the universe is a little more volitile?
Cryptic has stated that many of the missions and story arcs aren't combat centric. They also have a whole procedurally generation mechanic (ie guided random content) for exploration! ST, IMO, is about a finding human ideal and analyzing this ideal. There are a lot of facets around this, exploration, diplomacy, science/discovery, etc.
To me, the way they used the crews in the shows/movies is a television tool. It's what that genre uses. The game/MMO genre uses individual avatars to represent the whole ship's experience. That way you can experience the whole story (just as you did as a viewer) and not just the engineer's view of the story. What's the problem?
Comments
The only way ANY game can be designed, and survive in the market, with having "roleplay" specific features is if said features also can provide decent game play for the non-roleplayers as well., don't conflict with game play for non-Rpers, or don't take developer time and resources away from making sure all the game play elements planned for are in the game. The reason being is that "roleplayers" are a very small proportion of the players in any game.
This was evident before WoW came out. The first big failure because of a game catering too much to roleplayers was SWG, where @700 to 800K people that were anticipating a fun Star Wars game to play bought the box, logged into the game, and were hit over the head with a very boring and grindfilled game, awful mechanics, convoluted and useless classes, and everyone that was bothering to stay playing seemingly only wanting to stand around and yap instead of play the game. So those 700 to 800K didn't even stick around long enough to pay for their first paid month, and the game was bleeding @10K subscriptions a month after that.
The reason for interiors and player crews not being in STO at launch have been made clear, and they correspond with what I said above, if one is paying attention to what's being said that is.
They have to make sure that they have the game play elements in the game that will satisfy the non-RPer, and they have to remain within their budget. That's the reality of business, and in the end that's what these companies are, businesses. These companies don't make these games on air, and they don't make them as some kind of altruistic exercise. They have a budget and a time frame to work with. They can't get everything and the kitchen sink in before release. They have to prioritize and make sure they get in what they feel is most important to get in. That some feel they're wrong in their priorities is evident, but clearly the company has data which supports their decisions. They're dealing with tens of millions of dollars to get one of these games out, you can be sure they don't just make these decisions by putting on a blindfold and throwing darts at a list.
Gamers won't care all that much that every ship won't have open world explorable ship interiors. To them it'll just be a feature they rarely, if ever more than once, would experience. Add to that to implement them properly is going to take a great deal of developer time and resources. Therefor, it's a feature that can be left out at release, and once the game is chugging along and the revenue is coming in they can allocate those resources and allot that time to do them right. The sad part of all this is people aren't giving Cryptic the credit they deserve due to them saying that they do want to get them in the game after launch, and want to do them very well. They could just as easily close the door on them completely.
Player crews not being in the game at launch ties into the same things I talked about as well. They haven't been able to come up with a way to have player crews that provide engaging game play for non-RPers. That means player crews would be a feature enjoyed mainly by RPers only, and in fact would be a negative game play element for non-RPers. So again, game play wins out, and also again, Cryptic doesn't get the credit for not closing the door on player crews completely and stating that they're in fact leaving the door open for them being a possibility as they design.
Ok, I respect you as a Gamer and as a Person, but I disagree.
I play MMORPGs. Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. Any Game that calls itself a "MMORPG" by default should be designed as a Role Playing Game that is Online and with the ability to have massive amounts of Players ingame at once working either together toward a goal or solo (multiplayer). Note the Adjectives Massively, Multiplayer, and Online...they are used to describe the term "Role Playing Game".
By Definition then, any online game that either claims or even pretends to be a MMORPG should be designed first and foremost as a Role Playing Game, and then they can add a great combat system, lots of action, crafting, and the rest of the bells and whistles. It does NOT matter that the Dev Teams of the games pretending to be MMORPGs released in the last few years have forgotten this simple and basic fact about MMORPGs. It does NOT matter that some players do not like or enjoy Roleplay activities in a MMORPG. If Dev Teams and Players don't want RolePlay to be the priority in MMORPG development, then they should get out of the MMORPG Genre. They will be happy they did.
If someone decides to leave the genre then I will be glad they left. I am tired of explaining to people why Roleplay in a MMORPG is the number reason for the existance of MMORPG's in the first place. I am also tired of defending a concept so basic to MMORPGs that it should never have to be defended as it should have never been forgotten in the first place.
Players.......Don't like Roleplay in MMORPGs? Then go play some other type of game.
Developers........Don't like to design and develop your MMO with RolePlay as the primary feature? Then go develop another type of game.
And this website is named "MMORPG.Com" and I come here to discuss MMORPG's and how they should be improved within the original genre....if you are here to destroy MMORPGs or morph them into something they were not intended to be, then go to another website.
Concerning the marketing of MMORPGs.....Never was the marketing of a true MMORPG ever an issue until WoW and the clones that followed. If a true MMORPG is ever developed and released again, it will survive due to it's quality and it's Roleplay priority in develpoment of it's features, not due to any bean counter's wild ideas of what Players of MMORPGs want in their games.
Seeing as how you presented this in a thoughtful manner I will respond in kind with my own friendly disagreement.
According to here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmorpg
..a MMORPG is a genre of computer role-playing games (CRPGs) in which a large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world. As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a fictional character (often in a fantasy world),[3] and take control over many of that character's actions.[4] MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player CRPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game.....
Nothing more and nothing less. Now there are many ways one can implement that concept. Obviously you are more in favor of a more simulated experience and there is nothing wrong with that. SWG had that before they did a complete 180 with the NGE and turned it into a FPS.(which pissed me off to know end.) I don't like FPS in MMORPGs and I have stated as much. But I don't see anything in this game that says this will just be another pew pew game as others have stated. So far the game seems to be very deep for fans of Star Trek and games in general. You will have missions that take place on ship,stations and planets. They recently annnounced trading hubs on stations like DS9 for those that like to socialize. You will get to see the interior of the stations and all that good stuff if that is your fancy. You will be able to group up in space or on land in away teams if you like. There will be contested areas that change the dynamics of which faction controls important rresources and planets. Far as I'm concerned that more than satisfies the MMORPG requirement.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
How you have come to have such extreme misconceptions would be amazing had it not become kind of a common misunderstanding. Especially amongst those that want to believe it so adamantly.
Without the long drawn out explanation, so the history of the genre 101 in other words, the acronym came from these games having evolved from old style RPGs. Those old style RPGs we played way back when weren't about people "playing pretend". To us they were just games like any other, albeit with more in depth stories and more complicated mechanics.
Those mechanics , and more correctly how they were applied to the various "roles" one could fill within a game (i.e. warrior, assassin, barbarian,cleric, etc etc) are what the term RPG comes from. It was a quick way of labelling a game with the turn based style of play, as well as the way that one's character progressed (i.e. gaining more power, skills, speed, stealth, etc etc) as one ascended to certain levels.
The term "mmorpg" was used to relate these games to RPGs because most, if not all, the early mmorpgs were turn based and used a similar style of skill or character progression. It was a quick way for people to get a picture in their minds about how these computer based variations of those earlier RPGs worked. That hearkening back to those earlier games is still used in labelling games of this genre today, and if you look, you'll see some games in development right now that will look almost exactly like a mmorpg, and where anyone could join and play pretend to their hearts content, they're not being called mmorpgs because they won't be using turn based mechanics.They're calling themselves massive multiplayer online adventure games, or other variants.
Gardavil,
I just wanted to say that I support you 100 percent. You are absolutely correct about what the origins of RPG's were and what they were intended to be. They have morphed into something which often doesn't closely resemble their origin.
I remember purchasing the original Wizardry. It was fun because it was the closest you could get at the time to playing something that resembled pencil & paper role-playing on a computer you could actualy own. I also remember discovering online services and games like Gemstone on GEnie. Despite all their technical limitations , they were fantastic because they focused on what those pencil & paper games were really all about....sharing YOUR imagination and creativity with others.
It's a shame.... because somewhere along the way, game-makers forgot what made games TRUELY fun. It's not the flashy special effects.... or graphics of spaceships blowing to neon bits.... it's about the PLAYERS imagination and creativity....and sharing that with OTHER PLAYERS. A grown-up version of cowboys and indians..... that harkens us back to a simple and special time in our lives when we WERE kids ourselves..... and that clothes-pin in your hands was a phaser.... and your buddy Jim wasn't the kid from next door, he was a Scientist from planet Vulcan.
I actualy feel very sorry for gamers today.....because with all the neon lights, and flashy explosions they still miss the very essence of what makes games FUN.
The only thing that is truely heartening is that you can STILL occasionaly find that experience in games today. However, it's not because of the games but rather IN SPITE of them. You still find the occasional group of players who work around the limitations of the environment to recapture the essence of what gaming was about. It's just kinda sad that with all the technological advances that it's actualy tougher to do that in todays games then it was in the ones of 15-20 years ago.
The thing that's always most hilarious about this kind of whining we're seeing here is that you will never see real "role players" (as you've come to label them) lamenting about the stuff you guys are. Since a real "role player" can be put in a totally empty blank white room with a rock and a stick and they'll make up an entire universe in their minds and be happy campers. They don't need their hand held like one teaches a child.
How you have come to have such extreme misconceptions would be amazing had it not become kind of a common misunderstanding. Especially amongst those that want to believe it so adamantly.
Without the long drawn out explanation, so the history of the genre 101 in other words, the acronym came from these games having evolved from old style RPGs. Those old style RPGs we played way back when weren't about people "playing pretend". To us they were just games like any other, albeit with more in depth stories and more complicated mechanics.
Those mechanics , and more correctly how they were applied to the various "roles" one could fill within a game (i.e. warrior, assassin, barbarian,cleric, etc etc) are what the term RPG comes from. It was a quick way of labelling a game with the turn based style of play, as well as the way that one's character progressed (i.e. gaining more power, skills, speed, stealth, etc etc) as one ascended to certain levels.
The term "mmorpg" was used to relate these games to RPGs because most, if not all, the early mmorpgs were turn based and used a similar style of skill or character progression. It was a quick way for people to get a picture in their minds about how these computer based variations of those earlier RPGs worked. That hearkening back to those earlier games is still used in labelling games of this genre today, and if you look, you'll see some games in development right now that will look almost exactly like a mmorpg, and where anyone could join and play pretend to their hearts content, they're not being called mmorpgs because they won't be using turn based mechanics.They're calling themselves massive multiplayer online adventure games, or other variants.
Hagonbok,
You couldn't be more wrong. The old style RPG's were taken from desire to take the experience of pen & paper D&D (or the interactive adventure books that were based on them) and translate them as much as possible onto the new entertainment medium....personal computers. Thus you had things like the origional Kings Quest which was almost a literal translation of a D&D style adventure book..... or games like Wizardry or Bards Tale or Ultima which were very much based upon the D&D experience.... and trying to provide the player with a sense of "adventure". They were very much NOT just dressed up versions of Chess, or Battle-Tanks or Asteroids, etc.
Of course, the medium was quite limited in how it could translate that experience to the PC ....mostly from a strictly techincal nature. These games were generaly designed around "single player" experiences simply because PC's were rarely networked in those days....and connection to the internet was generaly unheard of outside of major Universities or the millitary. However, even in most of these games you controled a party of characters.... and it wasn't at all uncommon to "hot-seat" the game (I know my freinds and I certainly did)..... so the degree of RP-ing that could occur was neccesarly somewhat limited by the medium.... but it certainly was the case that such games tried to capture the flavor of RP-ing as much as they could.
Now, there was a short but rather interesting period that occured before the internet truely became a mass culture medium but after modems (and BBS systems) started to become more common on PC's. This was the age of the online services.... services like Prodigy, Compuserve, Genie, AOL. These services brought with them access to another entertainment offering.... thier entertainment sections had games that had evolved from internet MUDS, MUSH's..... things that had previously been limited to very small audiences in Educational facilities etc....and made them available to a much wider audience.... and actualy game them commercial viability. Thus you had games like Gemstone, etc...that brought the multi-player capability to computer gaming. These offerings were VERY MUCH focused on RP-ing..... almost exclusively so in many of them.
From here....as both the graphics and communication capabilities of PC's progressed....and as internet connectivity became more wide-spread..... it was a natural progression to try to take what the online services were ALREADY doing with text and ascii based games and to add graphics to them. THAT is where the first fore-runners of things that resemble todays MMORPGS come from..... games like Meridian59 and Ultima Online..... and they VERY MUCH were billed and advertised as "Graphical MUDS".
Wow, someone has been filling your head full of a whole whack of garbage eh? That's all really amusing mate. hehehe. Completely inaccurae, and almost word for word the "propoganda" (since it's all totally made up but meant to put a different spin on reality) that amatuer RPers have been trying to spread for quite awhile , but amusing.
Ok, I get it now.....your trolling. Silly me, I actually took you seriously for a moment.
Nice style though.... no substasnce in your rebuttal. Just empty rhetoric.
Ok, I get it now.....your trolling. Silly me, I actually took you seriously for a moment.
Nice style though.... no substasnce in your rebuttal. Just empty rhetoric.
Why do you think that I'm required to rebut total fantasy? It has no basis in reality other than using some factual names of different genre.
It's just gobilty gook formulated by sad sad people desperately trying to validate themselves and their very very false sense of entitlement. It's something more to be pitied than anything else really.
The fact that people are arguing back and forth on whether there should be actual role playing, in the sense of speaking the language of the game (old english for old time games, techno crap for star trek times) and acting like you are the guy you're playing, is amusing.
It has been proven that the best business model for making money is to NOT try and get players to role play while playing, the vast majority does not and will never want to do that.
If you are a person who desires this, stick to pen and paper games where you choose the group who plays and can all choose to roleplay. There will never be a major/successfull mmo made around forced role playing, it is not a way to make profits.
I read thru most of the posts here but it feels like to me that the jist is that there are no interior ship bridges to role play on and that is what is having ppl frustrated. I can understand that an dplease forgive my ignorance as I am not a Rper on computer games and I save that for my pencil and paper games. How long can a person roleplay before it gets boring? hanging around talking about the borg mish you are gonna take and what not. I think about the time and money that would have to be invested to generate that environment that could be spent elsewhere in game. Roleplayers have a right to play the gaem the way they want to and I have no problems with that but if you can dock your ship at a station and walk around and meet and gater there is that not good enough?
Again this is not to flame but to understand
The issue is more with HOW some people like to roleplay. I myself have had no problem roleplaying in any MMO I have played because they all have a lore that I can sink my imagination into.I don't need other people to have fun in the game. If I want to group with others and I have the time I will. If I don't want to deal with all the garbage that comes with someone's ego, I simply ignore them and have my own fun. I like having that option which didn't exist not so long ago.
For others, that isn't enough. They want a game that is a complete simulator where grouping is not only encouraged but in fact a neccessity for getting ahead. They feel that it isn't a roleplaying game when stories are written for you and grouping isn't a major part of getting ahead.However, the option to ignore the quests and group with their buddies still remain an option in every MMO I have played. So I don't understand those that say give us the option because as far as I'm concerned, that option has existed already.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Exactly ktanner3. A good role player does it just fine in any mmo out there because all the tools are simply always there in these games, and they can adapt their role play to any game.. More than they need is intrinsic in having persistant and expansive worlds having been created for them to inhabit. They also know that grouping, or in other words getting people to do it with, isn't something you shove down people's throats. It has to be something that people want to do.
Ok, I get it now.....your trolling. Silly me, I actually took you seriously for a moment.
Nice style though.... no substasnce in your rebuttal. Just empty rhetoric.
Why do you think that I'm required to rebut total fantasy? It has no basis in reality other than using some factual names of different genre.
It's just gobilty gook formulated by sad sad people desperately trying to validate themselves and their very very false sense of entitlement. It's something more to be pitied than anything else really.
Oh right, I forgot I had to translate things into the alternate reality in which you live where you are correct.
No sense of entitlement here. I'm not trying to tell Cryptic what to do with thier game. That would be pointless. I'm just representing the factual history of what went down. I know because I was there.
Ok, I get it now.....your trolling. Silly me, I actually took you seriously for a moment.
Nice style though.... no substasnce in your rebuttal. Just empty rhetoric.
Why do you think that I'm required to rebut total fantasy? It has no basis in reality other than using some factual names of different genre.
It's just gobilty gook formulated by sad sad people desperately trying to validate themselves and their very very false sense of entitlement. It's something more to be pitied than anything else really.
Oh right, I forgot I had to translate things into the alternate reality in which you live where you are correct.
No sense of entitlement here. I'm not trying to tell Cryptic what to do with thier game. That would be pointless. I'm just representing the factual history of what went down. I know because I was there.
Ya.... sure you were. hehehehe
Ok, I get it now.....your trolling. Silly me, I actually took you seriously for a moment.
Nice style though.... no substasnce in your rebuttal. Just empty rhetoric.
EDIT: I removed what I wrote, to sum it up grumpymel, don't bother with him.
SOE & SWG ring any bells? SOE made the same type of statements about SWG . Were they ever fullfilled? No we are still waiting for capital ships, gardening, and more. The fact is until they fulfill what they say it is a lie.The only real experiance Cryptic has with MMO's is CoH/CoV but they will need to change their development style completely or the game will most likely end up a bust.
Comparing Cryptic promises to SOE(totally unrelated company) promises in that way is unfair for obvious reasons. It's also unfair to call them lies. From what I hear, CoH/CoV had great content updates. I see no reason to think otherwise. If you do think otherwise, just don't buy the game until the content you want gets added, that simple. I don't see how going around slandering companies, for lies they haven't committed, does any good.
The issue is more with HOW some people like to roleplay. I myself have had no problem roleplaying in any MMO I have played because they all have a lore that I can sink my imagination into.I don't need other people to have fun in the game. If I want to group with others and I have the time I will. If I don't want to deal with all the garbage that comes with someone's ego, I simply ignore them and have my own fun. I like having that option which didn't exist not so long ago.
For others, that isn't enough. They want a game that is a complete simulator where grouping is not only encouraged but in fact a neccessity for getting ahead. They feel that it isn't a roleplaying game when stories are written for you and grouping isn't a major part of getting ahead.However, the option to ignore the quests and group with their buddies still remain an option in every MMO I have played. So I don't understand those that say give us the option because as far as I'm concerned, that option has existed already.
I'm on board with this. Terms evolve and such, and I'm too young to know the true beginnings, but I'll say that present usage seems to be more in line with Hagonbok's definition. When I buy a MMORPG I know I'm buying a game with progression, skill based combat that at it's core uses turn based mechanics (like table top games) with dice rolls, and I'll be playing with other people around.
It is understood that in an MMORPG I can Role Play in the sense that you guys are talking, but isn't that true of many games/genres? I could RP in a FPS if i wanted, no problem. I could even RP in many RTSs (especially one like Supreme Commander where you have a leader). RP isn't realy limited to a genre, just the imagination IMO.
If you guys are saying that no ship interior customization/PC crew emphasis is totally against your view on Star Trek and would take you out of the ST experience, then fine. Don't buy the game until the features you enjoy are in the game. I don't understand this beating of a dead horse. STO has gone in the direction of one user star ship control emphasis. IMO that's great, that was the vision I had when I thought first heard ST was going to be in an MMO.
The issue is more with HOW some people like to roleplay. I myself have had no problem roleplaying in any MMO I have played because they all have a lore that I can sink my imagination into.I don't need other people to have fun in the game. If I want to group with others and I have the time I will. If I don't want to deal with all the garbage that comes with someone's ego, I simply ignore them and have my own fun. I like having that option which didn't exist not so long ago.
For others, that isn't enough. They want a game that is a complete simulator where grouping is not only encouraged but in fact a neccessity for getting ahead. They feel that it isn't a roleplaying game when stories are written for you and grouping isn't a major part of getting ahead.However, the option to ignore the quests and group with their buddies still remain an option in every MMO I have played. So I don't understand those that say give us the option because as far as I'm concerned, that option has existed already.
I'm on board with this. Terms evolve and such, and I'm too young to know the true beginnings, but I'll say that present usage seems to be more in line with Hagonbok's definition. When I buy a MMORPG I know I'm buying a game with progression, skill based combat that at it's core uses turn based mechanics (like table top games) with dice roles, and I'll be playing with other people around.
It is understood that in an MMORPG I can Role Play in the sense that you guys are talking, but isn't that true of many games/genres? I could RP in a FPS if i wanted, no problem. I could even RP in many RTSs (especially one like Supreme Commander where you have a leader). RP isn't realy limited to a genre, just the imagination IMO.
If you guys are saying that no ship interior customization/PC crew emphasis is totally against your view on Star Trek and would take you out of the ST experience, then fine. Don't buy the game until the features you enjoy are in the game. I don't understand this beating of a dead horse. STO has gone in the direction of one user star ship control emphasis. IMO that's great, that was the vision I had when I thought first heard ST was going to be in an MMO.
I understand your point of view and respect it. At least your hopes are being fulfilled and that's good. Mine and other's POV is just different. We had so hoped that it would be multi-Player ships, players within a command structure very similar or identical to Star Trek the series and movies.
As for myself and others waiting for our style of gameplay to be added to the game in an expansion....
It will not happen. If the Game is not designed from "day one" to be Multi-Player Crews aboard Ships, then the only way to put that feature in a game later on is to rewrite the game code from the ground up. No Development Company is going to do that. No Investment Group will sign off on it. No Stockholders will vote yes for it. And most importantly, in the competitive market of MMOs no amount of subscriptions one or two years post launch will pay for it. If someone tells you multi-Player Crew Gameplay will be added later they are mistaken. Even if the Devs of STO said they would consider adding this feature later they are deluding themselves and us by thinking it will be possible.
At least you and others that share your POV will get what you wanted from STO....Cool.
The issue is more with HOW some people like to roleplay. I myself have had no problem roleplaying in any MMO I have played because they all have a lore that I can sink my imagination into.I don't need other people to have fun in the game. If I want to group with others and I have the time I will. If I don't want to deal with all the garbage that comes with someone's ego, I simply ignore them and have my own fun. I like having that option which didn't exist not so long ago.
For others, that isn't enough. They want a game that is a complete simulator where grouping is not only encouraged but in fact a neccessity for getting ahead. They feel that it isn't a roleplaying game when stories are written for you and grouping isn't a major part of getting ahead.However, the option to ignore the quests and group with their buddies still remain an option in every MMO I have played. So I don't understand those that say give us the option because as far as I'm concerned, that option has existed already.
I'm on board with this. Terms evolve and such, and I'm too young to know the true beginnings, but I'll say that present usage seems to be more in line with Hagonbok's definition. When I buy a MMORPG I know I'm buying a game with progression, skill based combat that at it's core uses turn based mechanics (like table top games) with dice roles, and I'll be playing with other people around.
It is understood that in an MMORPG I can Role Play in the sense that you guys are talking, but isn't that true of many games/genres? I could RP in a FPS if i wanted, no problem. I could even RP in many RTSs (especially one like Supreme Commander where you have a leader). RP isn't realy limited to a genre, just the imagination IMO.
If you guys are saying that no ship interior customization/PC crew emphasis is totally against your view on Star Trek and would take you out of the ST experience, then fine. Don't buy the game until the features you enjoy are in the game. I don't understand this beating of a dead horse. STO has gone in the direction of one user star ship control emphasis. IMO that's great, that was the vision I had when I thought first heard ST was going to be in an MMO.
I understand your point of view and respect it. At least your hopes are being fulfilled and that's good. Mine and other's POV is just different. We had so hoped that it would be multi-Player ships, players within a command structure very similar or identical to Star Trek the series and movies.
As for myself and others waiting for our style of gameplay to be added to the game in an expansion....
It will not happen. If the Game is not designed from "day one" to be Multi-Player Crews aboard Ships, then the only way to put that feature in a game later on is to rewrite the game code from the ground up. No Development Company is going to do that. No Investment Group will sign off on it. No Stockholders will vote yes for it. And most importantly, in the competitive market of MMOs no amount of subscriptions one or two years post launch will pay for it. If someone tells you multi-Player Crew Gameplay will be added later they are mistaken. Even if the Devs of STO said they would consider adding this feature later they are deluding themselves and us by thinking it will be possible.
At least you and others that share your POV will get what you wanted from STO....Cool.
I'm a bit of a programmer myself (and my brother is actually getting his phd in comp sci) and we've talked about this a bit.
There are some things they can do. Adding mini games to different functions isn't hard (and you'd think they would plan for that). On my solo ship I hope to eventually be able to step in and perform different functions such as analyzing sensor sweeps, stabalizing pattern buffers, realign the warp core, using the dermal regenorator, etc. etc. These mini games could be put into the episodic mission system quite easily. Perhaps eventually they can add enough mini games that it makes sense for multiple PCs to perform the functions.
Another posibility is that they can splice their code to split up what was formally controlled by one person, to multiple people. The problem with this is that the system was designed for 1 person, so things are proably going to be simplified to the point where one person performing only one of the tasks wouldn't feel important. They'd have to make targeting different targets more complex than pressing tab, give helm control more options than WASD, z axis movement, and mouse look (maybe add barrell rolls! haha, seriously though, maybe doing something about having to deal with spacial waves, different fields and such as we've seen in the shows), etc. You're right that this may be impossible without a complete revamp, but maybe not. Part of it depends on how complex they were planning on making the game in teh first place (IMO hopefully really comples). Cryptic's engine is supposed to be a very strong technology. I just wonder if "strong' also means flexible, I'd think so...
I love reading the posts of some of you people. Alot of people say I wont buy it unless it has this and this and this... Yet there going to waste there money on some other game with pretty much the same feature as STO with out all the extra stuff.
And there are the trekies who say i wont buy it unless it as this and this and this, because it just wont be trek with out it. Okay that makes cence i guess, but i still think your puting to much thought on the tittle instead of the actual game. In your opinion it might not be star trek but it could still be a kick ass game, but you shun it not because its a bad game but because its not as trekish as you think it should be...
If they're planning to launch a game w/o any Star Trek philosophy, dont use that name to claim players, just call it "Space Online" or "Space killers online", but dont use the Star Trek name cause isnt a Trek game...This is shameful.
We Are Blind .. To The Worlds Within Us .. Waiting To Be Born
I won't be wasting my money on any other game....because I no longer wish to support MMOs that cater to the Killer and Achiever Gamers and ignore/minimize the Explorer and Socializer Gamers (reference the Bartle Gamers Profile). I am burnt out attempting to adapt to MMOs that are not designed with Players like myself in mind. Take a good look at my signature on this post......perhaps then you can understand why I place far more emphasis on the social aspects of MMOs than on Combat.
Would I myself make a good Captain of a Federation Starship? NO WAY if you look at my Bartle Gamers Profile...but I would be well suited to Science division or Medical...so for STO to be designed in such a way to automatically make every Player a Captain also automatically excludes myself from ever fully enjoying the game. Think about it...would you want a Captain in your Fleet that has a Bartle's Killer score of ZERO?
I had hoped that STO being based upon Star Trek that perhaps this MMO would finally be designed to appeal more to the Explorers and the Socializers...I was wrong. STO will be just like all other MMOs...Designed first and foremost for the Killers and Achievers.
I am a Trekkie...and I really have no desire to play a Star Trek game of any type or genre unless it allows Players the ability to work together as a Crew to man a Star Ship.
Will STO be an Awesome Game? I believe it will. Most Players are going to have a blast in STO. Enjoy.
The Bartle data is antiquated crappola designed for text based MUDs and has very little relevance to mmorpgs. It's people that have a screwed up concept of what mmorpgs are that keep referencing it as something to be paid attention to in regards to mmorpgs. It's people that think mmorpgs are evolved from MUDs.
They're not.
mmorpgs are evolved from TT (table top) RPGs, and the "RPG" isn't about playing make believe and all this other drek they want to hang on it. RPG is about the mechanics (turn based dice rolls and character progression via learnt skills, advancing skills, gaining experience, acquiring new items, etc etc)
If you're lamenting that mmorpgs aren't more like MUDs and don't specifically cater to people that just want to inhabit some virtual world, make believe some intricately thought out character, and yammer away all day long to others then you're barking up the wrong tree. You are, and have been, following the completely wrong genre. Unfortunately there's just enough other mutton heads out there that have it all screwed up in their minds too to give this bunch this very very false sense of entitlement.
These people want to change what mmorpgs are. They want to turn them into sims rather than games. A place inhabited by people that do nothing but chin wag all day long. In short, they want to suck all the fun out of them and make sure they're only populated by pompous pinheads like themselves.
You lost me, what is shameful about this? Not having customizable ship interiors/PC crews? Or the fact that the universe is a little more volitile?
Cryptic has stated that many of the missions and story arcs aren't combat centric. They also have a whole procedurally generation mechanic (ie guided random content) for exploration! ST, IMO, is about a finding human ideal and analyzing this ideal. There are a lot of facets around this, exploration, diplomacy, science/discovery, etc.
To me, the way they used the crews in the shows/movies is a television tool. It's what that genre uses. The game/MMO genre uses individual avatars to represent the whole ship's experience. That way you can experience the whole story (just as you did as a viewer) and not just the engineer's view of the story. What's the problem?