Hmm, I'll ask again. Can we get some more detail on that non-combat mission?
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
PvP. I'm an ESAK type but oddly, I do like PvP as a part - a well executed, griefers not allowed part- of a game. I would ask:
How is Cryptic's implementation of PvP zones for fighting purposes? Got room, can things turn into endless kiting, etc?
How are the rewards for victory - or actually, ARE there any rewards for victory in PvP?
How are the death penalties - I understand that it's just travel time only, so how does that affect a battle? Can you rejoin if you're fast enough, and does that lead to endless (and therefore victoryless) fights?
Thanks for asking BTW, this is a very good direction for you guys.
I for one was thrilled that they opted not to puse for player controlled crews, I despise depending on people who are inherently undependable to show up for mmo events and or participate in raids etc. And for the peopel who argue that it fundamentally stops being a trek experience for me trek was and always will be about the ships, which cryptic as painstakingly made an effort to get right both in exploration and combat. Player Crews = optional. That pretty much shoots your blustering down.
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
I for one was thrilled that they opted not to puse for player controlled crews, I despise depending on people who are inherently undependable to show up for mmo events and or participate in raids etc. And for the peopel who argue that it fundamentally stops being a trek experience for me trek was and always will be about the ships, which cryptic as painstakingly made an effort to get right both in exploration and combat. Player Crews = optional. That pretty much shoots your blustering down.
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
Them bots sure are skillful...
Never played L4D -- and I can't speak to the amount of effort the developers put into their AI. I've played plenty of games where the AI is more than adequate, and some where the inefficiencies of the AI were compensated for by giving the NPCs buffs.
And since Cryptic is using NPCs crews already, one better hope that they've written fantastic AI. Because of that, I think you're sarcasm is unfounded.
But I've answered this already in a post above if you want a more in depth response.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
ok it never astonishes me how at ad nauseaum people keep referring to cannon and the preservation of an ip. If the trek ip was kept as gene roddenberry had intended trek never would have become successful as it did. After the first season of TNG he was relegated to a consultant and not an executive producer of anything trek related from that point on. Seriously, you need to research your history a little better. He was heavily involved with the development of ST:TNG -- title not withstanding. He wasn't 'relegated' to consultant -- his personal health was in decline, and he gave the day to day control of the series over to others. He still consulted on the series, but no one had pushed him aside as you imply. Did it become better because of bringing others in? Possibly. The original series is pretty damn good. But just because he brought others in to the fold doesn't mean he lost control. It was still ultimately vetted through his vision.
To argue that the fundamental changed cryptic made to ensure a fun, immersive game that attracts a broad swath of the public to atleast try the game breaks or some how alters the ip is a bit ridiculous. Half the games out out under the trek name failed because they tried too hard to appease the cannon hugging minority of the trek fan base. Proof? Evidence? Some might argue they failed, not because they tried to appease the canon, but because they just sucked as games. Some might even argue that they failed because they did not follow canon enough. even most of the writers for all three recent series cited the suffocating constraints adhering to cannon and trek techno-babble as something that eventually led to the near death of trek. You certainly love unsubstantiated claims. Even if this were true, said constraints would have been even more harsh on ST:TNG since things were still vetted through Roddenberry. And yet that series did rather well. Possibly these unnamed and 'nebulous' writers you refer too just plain sucked at writing scripts. God knows there are plenty of bad script writers in Hollywood who some how find work. I for one was thrilled that they opted not to puse for player controlled crews, I despise depending on people who are inherently undependable to show up for mmo events and or participate in raids etc. And for the peopel who argue that it fundamentally stops being a trek experience for me trek was and always will be about the ships, which cryptic as painstakingly made an effort to get right both in exploration and combat. Player Crews = optional. That pretty much shoots your blustering down.
There's always going to be nay-sayers but for the love of god stop citing ip and cannon when in fact the ip and or cannon hasn't been adhered to for some time, and stop say my or our trek..it isn't your franchise to mainuplate it's paramounts and for once it looks as if they found the right people to do justice to us fans who have suffered through over a decade of awful trek games Sorry, but the canon HAS been adhered to -- up until the most recent movie -- and perhaps Enterprise (which sucked on many levels not the least of which was its apocryphal tendencies.)
Just FYI, have either of you read "Memories of the Future" by Wil Wheaton? It is an excellent read on the making of ST:TNG and shed an amazing amount of light for me on why I HATED that series, despite my real liking of the actors and their performances and my being raised on Star Trek lol.
I for one was thrilled that they opted not to puse for player controlled crews, I despise depending on people who are inherently undependable to show up for mmo events and or participate in raids etc. And for the peopel who argue that it fundamentally stops being a trek experience for me trek was and always will be about the ships, which cryptic as painstakingly made an effort to get right both in exploration and combat. Player Crews = optional. That pretty much shoots your blustering down.
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
Them bots sure are skillful...
Never played L4D -- and I can't speak to the amount of effort the developers put into their AI. I've played plenty of games where the AI is more than adequate, and some where the inefficiencies of the AI were compensated for by giving the NPCs buffs.
And since Cryptic is using NPCs crews already, one better hope that they've written fantastic AI. Because of that, I think you're sarcasm is unfounded.
But I've answered this already in a post above if you want a more in depth response.
Actually my sarcastic appraisal of botskills was founded on a bedrock of experience. The experience of playing this scenario: Team A is entirely controlled by players. Team B has just 1 A.I controlled player, AKA - Bot. Bot does something stupid. Team B dies. Bot is incapable of moving with the fluidity and accuracy of a player; Team B fails. Bot has inferior situational prioritizing skills (eg. The "I, Robot" problem). Team B dies gradually, 1 at a time.
Anyone who's played L4D recognizes the above scenarios but then the same could be true of most games where an A.I player is on your team against human players. While I concur that the issues would be nowhere near as pronounced for an A.I controlled Security officer on a ships' Bridge, the fact remains: Inherent, unequivocal, inferiority. Well not fact, opinion.
Of course the importance of the inherent, unequivocal, inferiority of bots is somewhat diminished, if every ship is full of bots...and just one player per ship to rule them all.
I do not understand the angst about this game (I am by no way garaunteeing success). Can anyone who is upset about player crews honestly tell me you would be 100% satisfied with the game if player crews were included? Conversely, those who are in favor of the current format... are 100% happy with the game without player crews? I realize no one has played it publicly but I would venture to say that everyone has their issues with the game. In fact, that is true with any game. You can never please anyone. If Cryptic included player crew only format (I realize that empty spot could be populated by NPCs), I'm sure there would just as much of an outcry from the non-player crew side of things.
If player crews were included in STO, I would be approximately 35-50% more satisfied with the game than I am now. If full starship interiors were included I would be another 35-50% more satisfied with the game. These are my two biggest gripes with this game, and I feel that the game would be much, much, much more "Star Trek," much more unique and much more fun with both aspects in the game.
Also, I personally don't want to play a game set 30 years after Nemesis. That movie sucked and that era doesn't interest me in the slightest. I would love to play an MMO that takes place at the height of the Dominion War because DS9 was my very favourite Star Trek series, but all things considered I can live with Cryptic's "30 years after Nemesis."
Hmm, I'll ask again. Can we get some more detail on that non-combat mission?
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
PvP. I'm an ESAK type but oddly, I do like PvP as a part - a well executed, griefers not allowed part- of a game. I would ask:
How is Cryptic's implementation of PvP zones for fighting purposes? Got room, can things turn into endless kiting, etc?
How are the rewards for victory - or actually, ARE there any rewards for victory in PvP?
How are the death penalties - I understand that it's just travel time only, so how does that affect a battle? Can you rejoin if you're fast enough, and does that lead to endless (and therefore victoryless) fights?
Thanks for asking BTW, this is a very good direction for you guys.
From what I've heard from several sources, there is no PvP in the beta atm, so that can't do a beta report on it. Maybe they can get information elsewhere though. They have said Klingons will get skills and all advancement from PvP...one imagines a Fed player could as well (but who knows?)
All Cryptic has to do is crank up the settings on the bots and they will eat any human player alive. The difficulty with bots is not how well they play. It's slowing them down enough so a human can play against them. New topic: Cryptic appears to have been given a tough job. Finish this game within the time frame. The choices made will leave a playable game at release. That time frame after release is when Cryptic will need good feedback. That is when we players can let them know what features we want added or changed. Explain your desires reasonably and be specific as possible. Think about the possibilities! : )
You could say the same thing about Champions Online, and that doesn't seem to have helped much. You're basically telling people to pay money to beta test.
I agree with you on that last complaint, hopefully that's something they change before release. Thanks for the preview, this game is really looking stunning.
I agree about the last one too. Too bad the game requires a pixel shader. My computer has a G-Force 4 video card, no pixel shader. Oh well, i'll get one one way, or another. I am a trekie too, so i will play this game.
I for one was thrilled that they opted not to puse for player controlled crews, I despise depending on people who are inherently undependable to show up for mmo events and or participate in raids etc. And for the peopel who argue that it fundamentally stops being a trek experience for me trek was and always will be about the ships, which cryptic as painstakingly made an effort to get right both in exploration and combat. Player Crews = optional. That pretty much shoots your blustering down.
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
Them bots sure are skillful...
Never played L4D -- and I can't speak to the amount of effort the developers put into their AI. I've played plenty of games where the AI is more than adequate, and some where the inefficiencies of the AI were compensated for by giving the NPCs buffs.
And since Cryptic is using NPCs crews already, one better hope that they've written fantastic AI. Because of that, I think you're sarcasm is unfounded.
But I've answered this already in a post above if you want a more in depth response.
Actually my sarcastic appraisal of botskills was founded on a bedrock of experience. The experience of playing this scenario: Team A is entirely controlled by players. Team B has just 1 A.I controlled player, AKA - Bot. Bot does something stupid. Team B dies. Bot is incapable of moving with the fluidity and accuracy of a player; Team B fails. Bot has inferior situational prioritizing skills (eg. The "I, Robot" problem). Team B dies gradually, 1 at a time.
Anyone who's played L4D recognizes the above scenarios but then the same could be true of most games where an A.I player is on your team against human players. While I concur that the issues would be nowhere near as pronounced for an A.I controlled Security officer on a ships' Bridge, the fact remains: Inherent, unequivocal, inferiority. Well not fact, opinion.
Of course the importance of the inherent, unequivocal, inferiority of bots is somewhat diminished, if every ship is full of bots...and just one player per ship to rule them all.
Of course, but now you're creating specific situations to prove a narrow point. My comment refers to a comparison of NPC crews vs Player crews as it pertains to the PvE content.
Obviously, in PvP situations, this is different. And being obvious, I didn't think it bore mentioning. Sorry. In order to level the playing field, you could have PvP instances that are NPC crew only OR Player Crew only -- but likely not a mixture for the reason you stated.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Just FYI, have either of you read "Memories of the Future" by Wil Wheaton? It is an excellent read on the making of ST:TNG and shed an amazing amount of light for me on why I HATED that series, despite my real liking of the actors and their performances and my being raised on Star Trek lol. Wil has some podcasts of excerpts on his site, but he'd started it as a series of blog episodes, so you can actually read some of the early content here - http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/01/03/star-trek-the-next-generation-encounter-at-farpoint-part-i/ . Warning, Wil works blue (dirty) in his language quite a bit. It's always to point, but definitely something to be aware of.
Excellent! Many thanks for mentioning these, Wootin. I never new that Weaton was such a talented and hilarious writer.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I read the review and all the replies. I have not been following this game but am mildly curious. I guess the questions I have are, "Was it fun for you?"; "Was the game somehow truly unique and, if so, in what ways?"; "In its present condition, could you see yourself playing the game for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, or for year(s)?"
My fear for the non-combat attempts at "feeling" Trek will be superficial at best.
Mission: Captain, the population of Space Station Zebra is threatening to riot... go be diplomatic or something.
Zebra Officer: People are mad about stuff. Go talk to John to find out why.
*go talk to John with the little ? over his head*
John: People like strawberry ice cream. We only get chocolate. But that's not all, go talk to Sarah.
*go talk to Sarah with the little ? over her head*
Sarah: My favorite TV show has too many commercials. But that's not all, go talk to Tim.
*go talk to Tim with the little ? over his head*
Tim: Every time I get my clothes back from the laundromat, they make me itchy! But that's not all, go talk to Betty.
*can't find Betty. Check broadcast channel*
Broadcast: Anyone know where Betty is?
Broadcast: ur mom
Broadcast: i been lookin 2. any1 no?
Broadcast: did u check the wiki?!?!?
Broadcast: Hey, anyone know where I can find Betty?
Broadcast: that was just asked idiot
Broadcast: Sorry, I just got here...
*eventually find Betty*
Betty: My cat ran away and no one will help me. You should go back to the Zebra Officer.
*return to Zebra Officer with the ? over his head*
Zebra Officer: Oh, you're back... what did you find out? Do the residents prefer chocolate ice cream?
*no*
Zebra Officer: Do the residents like all of our information breaks during entertainment programming?
*no*
Zebra Officer: Should our laundromats use more fabric softeners?
*yes*
Zebra Officer: Should we allocate more resources to pet rescue?
*yes*
Zebra Officer: Wow, Captain, you sure did your homework. With all this new information, we'll be able to end the riots!
*select reward: Explodo Ray Cannon, a new bridge officer recruit, and some ambiguous cash*
... Does that "feel" like Star Trek? Not to me. That's like Super NIntendo levels of play. Sometimes I think I'd rather have no execution of a playstyle than a really poor execution.
Comments
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
PvP. I'm an ESAK type but oddly, I do like PvP as a part - a well executed, griefers not allowed part- of a game. I would ask:
How is Cryptic's implementation of PvP zones for fighting purposes? Got room, can things turn into endless kiting, etc?
How are the rewards for victory - or actually, ARE there any rewards for victory in PvP?
How are the death penalties - I understand that it's just travel time only, so how does that affect a battle? Can you rejoin if you're fast enough, and does that lead to endless (and therefore victoryless) fights?
Thanks for asking BTW, this is a very good direction for you guys.
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
Them bots sure are skillful...
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
Them bots sure are skillful...
Never played L4D -- and I can't speak to the amount of effort the developers put into their AI. I've played plenty of games where the AI is more than adequate, and some where the inefficiencies of the AI were compensated for by giving the NPCs buffs.
And since Cryptic is using NPCs crews already, one better hope that they've written fantastic AI. Because of that, I think you're sarcasm is unfounded.
But I've answered this already in a post above if you want a more in depth response.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
Just FYI, have either of you read "Memories of the Future" by Wil Wheaton? It is an excellent read on the making of ST:TNG and shed an amazing amount of light for me on why I HATED that series, despite my real liking of the actors and their performances and my being raised on Star Trek lol.
Wil has some podcasts of excerpts on his site, but he'd started it as a series of blog episodes, so you can actually read some of the early content here - http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/01/03/star-trek-the-next-generation-encounter-at-farpoint-part-i/ .
Warning, Wil works blue (dirty) in his language quite a bit. It's always to point, but definitely something to be aware of.
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
Them bots sure are skillful...
Never played L4D -- and I can't speak to the amount of effort the developers put into their AI. I've played plenty of games where the AI is more than adequate, and some where the inefficiencies of the AI were compensated for by giving the NPCs buffs.
And since Cryptic is using NPCs crews already, one better hope that they've written fantastic AI. Because of that, I think you're sarcasm is unfounded.
But I've answered this already in a post above if you want a more in depth response.
Actually my sarcastic appraisal of botskills was founded on a bedrock of experience. The experience of playing this scenario: Team A is entirely controlled by players. Team B has just 1 A.I controlled player, AKA - Bot. Bot does something stupid. Team B dies. Bot is incapable of moving with the fluidity and accuracy of a player; Team B fails. Bot has inferior situational prioritizing skills (eg. The "I, Robot" problem). Team B dies gradually, 1 at a time.
Anyone who's played L4D recognizes the above scenarios but then the same could be true of most games where an A.I player is on your team against human players. While I concur that the issues would be nowhere near as pronounced for an A.I controlled Security officer on a ships' Bridge, the fact remains: Inherent, unequivocal, inferiority. Well not fact, opinion.
Of course the importance of the inherent, unequivocal, inferiority of bots is somewhat diminished, if every ship is full of bots...and just one player per ship to rule them all.
If player crews were included in STO, I would be approximately 35-50% more satisfied with the game than I am now. If full starship interiors were included I would be another 35-50% more satisfied with the game. These are my two biggest gripes with this game, and I feel that the game would be much, much, much more "Star Trek," much more unique and much more fun with both aspects in the game.
Also, I personally don't want to play a game set 30 years after Nemesis. That movie sucked and that era doesn't interest me in the slightest. I would love to play an MMO that takes place at the height of the Dominion War because DS9 was my very favourite Star Trek series, but all things considered I can live with Cryptic's "30 years after Nemesis."
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
PvP. I'm an ESAK type but oddly, I do like PvP as a part - a well executed, griefers not allowed part- of a game. I would ask:
How is Cryptic's implementation of PvP zones for fighting purposes? Got room, can things turn into endless kiting, etc?
How are the rewards for victory - or actually, ARE there any rewards for victory in PvP?
How are the death penalties - I understand that it's just travel time only, so how does that affect a battle? Can you rejoin if you're fast enough, and does that lead to endless (and therefore victoryless) fights?
Thanks for asking BTW, this is a very good direction for you guys.
From what I've heard from several sources, there is no PvP in the beta atm, so that can't do a beta report on it. Maybe they can get information elsewhere though. They have said Klingons will get skills and all advancement from PvP...one imagines a Fed player could as well (but who knows?)
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
I know this is probably impossible, but anything at all on Klingons would be really wonderful!
All Cryptic has to do is crank up the settings on the bots and they will eat any human player alive.
The difficulty with bots is not how well they play. It's slowing them down enough so a human can play against them.
New topic:
Cryptic appears to have been given a tough job. Finish this game within the time frame.
The choices made will leave a playable game at release.
That time frame after release is when Cryptic will need good feedback.
That is when we players can let them know what features we want added or changed.
Explain your desires reasonably and be specific as possible.
Think about the possibilities! : )
According to the devs, expect a lot of Klingon info from Jack himself within the next couple of days.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
You could say the same thing about Champions Online, and that doesn't seem to have helped much. You're basically telling people to pay money to beta test.
Resistance is futile!
You will all be assimilated!
It's a game. Get over yourselves.
If this one doesn't work for you, great!
Go play the one you want!
I agree about the last one too. Too bad the game requires a pixel shader. My computer has a G-Force 4 video card, no pixel shader. Oh well, i'll get one one way, or another. I am a trekie too, so i will play this game.
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
Them bots sure are skillful...
Never played L4D -- and I can't speak to the amount of effort the developers put into their AI. I've played plenty of games where the AI is more than adequate, and some where the inefficiencies of the AI were compensated for by giving the NPCs buffs.
And since Cryptic is using NPCs crews already, one better hope that they've written fantastic AI. Because of that, I think you're sarcasm is unfounded.
But I've answered this already in a post above if you want a more in depth response.
Actually my sarcastic appraisal of botskills was founded on a bedrock of experience. The experience of playing this scenario: Team A is entirely controlled by players. Team B has just 1 A.I controlled player, AKA - Bot. Bot does something stupid. Team B dies. Bot is incapable of moving with the fluidity and accuracy of a player; Team B fails. Bot has inferior situational prioritizing skills (eg. The "I, Robot" problem). Team B dies gradually, 1 at a time.
Anyone who's played L4D recognizes the above scenarios but then the same could be true of most games where an A.I player is on your team against human players. While I concur that the issues would be nowhere near as pronounced for an A.I controlled Security officer on a ships' Bridge, the fact remains: Inherent, unequivocal, inferiority. Well not fact, opinion.
Of course the importance of the inherent, unequivocal, inferiority of bots is somewhat diminished, if every ship is full of bots...and just one player per ship to rule them all.
Of course, but now you're creating specific situations to prove a narrow point. My comment refers to a comparison of NPC crews vs Player crews as it pertains to the PvE content.
Obviously, in PvP situations, this is different. And being obvious, I didn't think it bore mentioning. Sorry. In order to level the playing field, you could have PvP instances that are NPC crew only OR Player Crew only -- but likely not a mixture for the reason you stated.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
Excellent! Many thanks for mentioning these, Wootin. I never new that Weaton was such a talented and hilarious writer.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I read the review and all the replies. I have not been following this game but am mildly curious. I guess the questions I have are, "Was it fun for you?"; "Was the game somehow truly unique and, if so, in what ways?"; "In its present condition, could you see yourself playing the game for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, or for year(s)?"
My fear for the non-combat attempts at "feeling" Trek will be superficial at best.
Mission: Captain, the population of Space Station Zebra is threatening to riot... go be diplomatic or something.
Zebra Officer: People are mad about stuff. Go talk to John to find out why.
*go talk to John with the little ? over his head*
John: People like strawberry ice cream. We only get chocolate. But that's not all, go talk to Sarah.
*go talk to Sarah with the little ? over her head*
Sarah: My favorite TV show has too many commercials. But that's not all, go talk to Tim.
*go talk to Tim with the little ? over his head*
Tim: Every time I get my clothes back from the laundromat, they make me itchy! But that's not all, go talk to Betty.
*can't find Betty. Check broadcast channel*
Broadcast: Anyone know where Betty is?
Broadcast: ur mom
Broadcast: i been lookin 2. any1 no?
Broadcast: did u check the wiki?!?!?
Broadcast: Hey, anyone know where I can find Betty?
Broadcast: that was just asked idiot
Broadcast: Sorry, I just got here...
*eventually find Betty*
Betty: My cat ran away and no one will help me. You should go back to the Zebra Officer.
*return to Zebra Officer with the ? over his head*
Zebra Officer: Oh, you're back... what did you find out? Do the residents prefer chocolate ice cream?
*no*
Zebra Officer: Do the residents like all of our information breaks during entertainment programming?
*no*
Zebra Officer: Should our laundromats use more fabric softeners?
*yes*
Zebra Officer: Should we allocate more resources to pet rescue?
*yes*
Zebra Officer: Wow, Captain, you sure did your homework. With all this new information, we'll be able to end the riots!
*select reward: Explodo Ray Cannon, a new bridge officer recruit, and some ambiguous cash*
... Does that "feel" like Star Trek? Not to me. That's like Super NIntendo levels of play. Sometimes I think I'd rather have no execution of a playstyle than a really poor execution.