If this game succeeds with such a short development time, the genre may reach a new degree of danger.
The least they could do is allow trials at release, which will probably not happen. And I'm not spending $50 blindly without gameplay first, too many new games coming out to face these $50 costs without making sure it will last you more than 40 hours of fun (my average with non-MMO games).
I'll be waiting for these trials though, I'm still waiting for a Darkfall trial.
Amazing. If someone creates a topic saying "the game will suck " and explain why he thinks so,the fanboys unleash hell with "you don't know that yet." or the classic "r u playing the game to know that? and even if you are,that isn't the finished product". BUT,to speak WELL of the game,i don't need to play it. Using the FUTURE in my "guessings" isn't problematic, IF i talk good about the game. Good to know. At least no one can accuse these persons of giving a hard time to the ones praising their games (even if the SAME arguments they make in other threads could be used here) Truly amazing
Well it depends doesnt' it. I can easily see why people would say the game would suck given some of the info out there and what they want/wanted from the game.
From where I'm sitting and what I saw at PAX it seemed like a great game. And at least from what I saw it was good enough to make me want to play it for a while. Sort of like seeing a preview of a movie. It most likely is skewed in the best possible way to make people want to see it but sometimes you can glean enough to know whether the movie will be at least worth a try.
but for people who wanted to play full blown klingon campaigns or wanted player run ships, etc, then sure, the game will suck for them.
edit: besides I think it is the general timbre of the "this game sucks post" that draws player ire. I think if a player made a post and intelligently laid out his/her claims as to why they think the game will not live up to its IP or potential then you would get better discussions (other than a few knee jerk posters).
but saying that game x "blows" and the devs have their head up their asses just isn't conducive to a long and informative thread.
True,man. I'm still in doubt about buying or not (even if i do,only after the release),but nice to see someone answering politely. I mean it. But back into the "x blows for me" subject, what is the line for you? I mean,that feature that,if not well implemented,would ruin your game? As for me,is the worry about RMT affecting gameplay (since two bonus from preorders give bonus and affact gameplay that kinda tells me something,but i'm willing to wait) and if the game don't come with enough diplomacy and the trek feeling. I mean,if i'm not blasting things i'm not playing,that's the time i quit. But i'm open to the good things in here. If it comes out good,i'm rdy to give them my vulcan greeting
=P
And the other? I mean,the ones saying this game will be great. r u buying and playing anyway, or is there something that u won't tolerate if pulled out by the developers?
Oh, no worries, my parents taught me "right". That's how we did things back in the days. You were taught to be polite and well behaved and if you weren't your parents would threaten to break your jaw. It was the old school discipline where you did as you were told and if not your toys were thrown out. ahhh, the good old days. Oh, and grounding actually meant grounding.
But on to your second question, this is how I approach a game...
As any other player there are things that I want to see in the game. However, the truth of the matter, and from what I've learned from experience, is that no game will be what I want because I'm not the one making it. Heck, I got into mmo's because of morrowind and neverwinter nights. Seeing the lineage 2 advertisements (as the game had come out the month prior) I wrongly intuited that Lineage 2 is 3rd person so there is the NWN's angle and it's a large world so it must play like morrowind.
*lol*
Anywho, instead of me internally stating "if game x doesn't have y and z I'm not playing it" I just play it. If I enjoy it then time well spent. If not then I put it away and go on to taking the laundry out.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is somethng that another poster stated elswhere on these forums (and I can't rememer who so sorry mysterious poster!) which is that when we were younger and video games started coming out, we didn't criticize them for having poor graphics or bad ai. We just played them.
Battlezone, pacman, Joust, Centipede, etc, we just put out quarters in and tried them out. They were games and they were fun.
So I will try just about any game because it might be fun. Sure , it might not be the open world simulator that players desire but if I just approach the game like it is a game and allow it to do what it is supposed to do then I could have a good time.
I just take them for what they are without imposing my preconceived notions of what I want.
And fun it sujective. So what I might find fun and exciting might be dull and tedious to another. As for STO, I was never going to try it because to me, star trek mostly resounds in my little mind as the TV series. I love the TV series. But I have never been drawn to a star trek game because to me it has always reminded me of bad sets and william shatner over acting and painted backdrops But it was great and we loved it for what it was. Quite frankly just like video games.
However, as I think of all the Trek movies and the Nect Generation stuff it sort of seems like maybe it's something that I should at least try.
If I have fun great. if not, there is laundry to be done.
** getting back to the old school parenting, when I was young, if I said I was bored (like I see so many people posting or stating in game), my parents would set me to chores. The standard phrase was "you either find something to do or I'll find you something to do." When my customary whine came back "but there's nothing to do" we would get chores for the rest of the day.
I quickly learned not to be bored.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
PotBS is only similair to the ship combat in the fact that their both ships, and the camera placement. I can assure you piloting a galaxy class ship compared to a ship of the line will be dramatically different, if not, alot easier, but i do see what your trying to show. What would be nice would be if there was a server where things like torpedo count, dilithium crystals etc actually mattered, and that you had to replenish them. I can settle for having to replenish crew.
Imagine arriving on starbase, a bunch of body bags get taken off your ship and you announce in global, "Looking to hire new redshirts." The manpower bank must be quite full these days.
It is interesting that Pirates of the BS should come up in context of this game, because one of the biggest complaints players and former players had was that everything was WAY over instanced. Combat instances with timers, sea zones (invisible wall in the ocean) lockouts and the whole deal. People also did not like the lack of meaningful exploration.
Over-instancing and invisible zone barriers broke up what should have been a more open and breathing game into a bunch of disjointed and segregated zones, that led, in part, to why POTBS went down in flames and became an abject failure.
Many of the mistakes that sank POTBS (no pun intended) seem to be repeated here....
I must say I was a little skeptical when Cryptic too over the licence, however the more I see the more I am getting quite stoked up about this game. As another poster said this game does seem to be to Cryptic what Lotro was to Turbine, Lotro found a great balance in keeping most Lord of the Rings fans happy and if Cryptic can do the same they will surely have a massive hit on their hands ....... if they dont I can see the Dev's now being hunted down by angry Trekies with Phasers set too Kill !
It is interesting that Pirates of the BS should come up in context of this game, because one of the biggest complaints players and former players had was that everything was WAY over instanced. Combat instances with timers, sea zones (invisible wall in the ocean) lockouts and the whole deal. People also did not like the lack of meaningful exploration. Over-instancing and invisible zone barriers broke up what should have been a more open and breathing game into a bunch of disjointed and segregated zones, that led, in part, to why POTBS went down in flames and became an abject failure. Many of the mistakes that sank POTBS (no pun intended) seem to be repeated here....
Is POTBS a failure? It has players and is still going.
In my book that spells success.
A game doesn't have to have millions or subs or even multiple hundreds of thousands. If they can get a devoted fan base and can pay the bills at the end of the day AND continue development then they have a success.
If PTOBS closes then it will have failed.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It is interesting that Pirates of the BS should come up in context of this game, because one of the biggest complaints players and former players had was that everything was WAY over instanced. Combat instances with timers, sea zones (invisible wall in the ocean) lockouts and the whole deal. People also did not like the lack of meaningful exploration. Over-instancing and invisible zone barriers broke up what should have been a more open and breathing game into a bunch of disjointed and segregated zones, that led, in part, to why POTBS went down in flames and became an abject failure. Many of the mistakes that sank POTBS (no pun intended) seem to be repeated here....
Is POTBS a failure? It has players and is still going.
In my book that spells success.
A game doesn't have to have millions or subs or even multiple hundreds of thousands. If they can get a devoted fan base and can pay the bills at the end of the day AND continue development then they have a success.
If PTOBS closes then it will have failed.
This has been greatly debated about this game and others, and the generally community feeling seems to be that a game need not close its doors completely to be considered a "failure" or commercial falilure. Futher, that just because a company does not pull the plug right way (SOE), and that a game continues to exist without significant support or development for long periods of time, it can't be considered a "success". Failing to meet the "hype" or company expectations must also be figured into the equation.
POTBS had all of this.
With POTBS, there was a very lackluster launch, of a not very polished or well balanced game system, followed by an increasingly unhappy playerbase, followed by heavy player cancellations and server merges within a short period after the game launched. The servers are bottomed out now, and it is all but canceled.
Also, SOE is notoriously slow to put games out of their misery, because of their "Station Pass" where medoicre/bad games go to "not die" (SWG has lost something on the order of 95% of its playerbase since its highwater mark, and on the order of 150k+ players since the infamous NGE of 2005. No one currently can call that anything BUT a failure, with a straight face, and that game has not closed yet).
NCSoft canned TR when it arguably had more subs than several SOE games, it is just that their benchmarks for financial preformance are different.
My point was that a (relatively recently released) game with several similar features/game mechanics as STO has, did not fare well at all, and crashed pretty hard in the short period after launch. STO seems to be repeating some of these "disliked" mechanics.
Klingon content will probably be added post-launch. Along with other new factions like Romulans or Cardassians or Dominion. I don't have much experiene with MMOs. I played the free trial month of SWG and LOTRonline. I didn't really like either of them. But I like the idea of a massively mutliplayer online game. I think STO will be the first MMO I subscribe for a long time and enjoy. I am interested in hearing why you think STO won't be great. What exactly is wrong with it? I think Cryptic's STO looks great.
I see where you are coming from. Since you "don't have much experience with MMOs," you are exactly the type of player Cryptic marketing is looking for. Someone dazzled by the screenshots
Most of the negativity you will find on these boards are not directed at the game, per se, but at the design decisions in refernce to the Star Trek IP. There are those of us who disappointed that Cryptic is essentially slapping a Trek skin on a run-of-the-mill MMO design, tossing aside signature Trek elements (crewed vessels, deep problem solving) in favor of standard MMO content (kill, kill, repeat).
Having little experience in MMOs, this should all seem very new and exciting to you.
My point was that a (relatively recently released) game with several similar features/game mechanics as STO has, did not fare well at all, and crashed pretty hard in the short period after launch. STO seems to be repeating some of these "disliked" mechanics.
I just wondering if, when all and said and done, these mechanics are really going to be an issue.
For instance (no pun intended but it's coming) players are complaining about "instanced play" in STO. However, we know that a game like Guild Wars which is comprised of all instanced play is very successful.
Furthermore, games like LOTRO or WoW which have quite a few instances (though an open world) are also considered successful.
Part of my thought is that players are equating STO to Eve. Not in the idea that the game play will be similar but that Eve is an open space game where one has to travel in open space. so of course, with it being one of the few popular space games out there, anything that deviates from it will be looked at with raised eye brows.
In the end, instanced play is only bad to those players who hate instances. There are players who dont' mind them and in some cases enjoy them because they give very pointed story telling.
I realize that there are many players who like open world games but the huge flaw with open world games (in my opinion) is that it's hard to maintain continuity.
I can be in a dungeon doing a quest in an open world game, surrounded by the final nemesis and someone can run by and yell "hey bob!" to a player and it all sort of becomes surreal. In an instance it is a definite focused gameplay event.
so in the end, huge die hard star trek fans migh treally hate STO. Just as the die hard Lord of the Rings fans hated LOTRO.
If one looks at cryptic's games then one of course sees that they do rely upon instances for storry telling events. Well, at least in the CoX games.
I would consider those games to be very successful. If cryptic can make their game play elements work, despite the criticisms of those who want it to be something different then it could be a success.
As far as sony not shutting down games because of their station pass, that is a very good point. I can only assume that if there are players playing POTBS then they must like it or else they would take their business elsewhere.
I thnk with a game like POTBS, part of the problem at least from my limited knowledge of the game, is that they changed part of the game design late in the process. It was my understanding that the game was mostly about ship combat but wasn't really going to bring in much of the player avatar as people content. Then when players said they wanted/needed this they added it and that's where some of the issues started cropping up.
STO seems, other than its original design by perpetual (I think that was the original dev?) to be sticking closely to a careful design by Cryptic. Only time will tell whether it works.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
My point was that a (relatively recently released) game with several similar features/game mechanics as STO has, did not fare well at all, and crashed pretty hard in the short period after launch. STO seems to be repeating some of these "disliked" mechanics.
I just wondering if, when all and said and done, these mechanics are really going to be an issue.
For instance (no pun intended but it's coming) players are complaining about "instanced play" in STO. However, we know that a game like Guild Wars which is comprised of all instanced play is very successful.
Furthermore, games like LOTRO or WoW which have quite a few instances (though an open world) are also considered successful.
Part of my thought is that players are equating STO to Eve. Not in the idea that the game play will be similar but that Eve is an open space game where one has to travel in open space. so of course, with it being one of the few popular space games out there, anything that deviates from it will be looked at with raised eye brows.
In the end, instanced play is only bad to those players who hate instances. There are players who dont' mind them and in some cases enjoy them because they give very pointed story telling.
I realize that there are many players who like open world games but the huge flaw with open world games (in my opinion) is that it's hard to maintain continuity.
I can be in a dungeon doing a quest in an open world game, surrounded by the final nemesis and someone can run by and yell "hey bob!" to a player and it all sort of becomes surreal. In an instance it is a definite focused gameplay event.
so in the end, huge die hard star trek fans migh treally hate STO. Just as the die hard Lord of the Rings fans hated LOTRO.
If one looks at cryptic's games then one of course sees that they do rely upon instances for storry telling events. Well, at least in the CoX games.
I would consider those games to be very successful. If cryptic can make their game play elements work, despite the criticisms of those who want it to be something different then it could be a success.
As far as sony not shutting down games because of their station pass, that is a very good point. I can only assume that if there are players playing POTBS then they must like it or else they would take their business elsewhere.
I thnk with a game like POTBS, part of the problem at least from my limited knowledge of the game, is that they changed part of the game design late in the process. It was my understanding that the game was mostly about ship combat but wasn't really going to bring in much of the player avatar as people content. Then when players said they wanted/needed this they added it and that's where some of the issues started cropping up.
STO seems, other than its original design by perpetual (I think that was the original dev?) to be sticking closely to a careful design by Cryptic. Only time will tell whether it works.
Many of the unhappy POTBS players (and myself as well) were not saying that all instancing is bad, raids and storytelling and plot bosses can all be instanced effectively and well, when done correctly. The problem with much of POTBS, it was WAY over instanced, especially combat, which was the core of game play. The same could be said of DDO, which was very heavily instanced, to include a lot of the non-combat, in town play (way back when, at least).
One of the other core weaknesses of POTBS and STO may be falling into the same trap, was they also did not give enough time/thought to the economic and RvR aspects of the game. Both did not/do not work correctly and we very prone to "exploitation", at least to the point that normal people mostly could not compete on the economy side or in RvR. They were just plain broken. Bad design, devs that did not listen to the testers, and game mechanics that were too narrowly controlled/written to be enjoyable to many people.
As an aside, the 1 person I still know that plays Pirates of the BS states that they are basically down to a single server that has a decent population for each of the factions, with the others remaining few, not.
I just get the feeling that STO is being rushed out the door to sell boxes, using the easiest possible game mechanics to get things to "work" and that Cryptic hopes people will stay around long enough to buy the expansions that put in the other stuff many people believe should be in at launch.
I just wondering if, when all and said and done, these mechanics are really going to be an issue. For instance (no pun intended but it's coming) players are complaining about "instanced play" in STO. However, we know that a game like Guild Wars which is comprised of all instanced play is very successful. Furthermore, games like LOTRO or WoW which have quite a few instances (though an open world) are also considered successful. Part of my thought is that players are equating STO to Eve. Not in the idea that the game play will be similar but that Eve is an open space game where one has to travel in open space. so of course, with it being one of the few popular space games out there, anything that deviates from it will be looked at with raised eye brows. In the end, instanced play is only bad to those players who hate instances. There are players who dont' mind them and in some cases enjoy them because they give very pointed story telling. I realize that there are many players who like open world games but the huge flaw with open world games (in my opinion) is that it's hard to maintain continuity. I can be in a dungeon doing a quest in an open world game, surrounded by the final nemesis and someone can run by and yell "hey bob!" to a player and it all sort of becomes surreal. In an instance it is a definite focused gameplay event. so in the end, huge die hard star trek fans migh treally hate STO. Just as the die hard Lord of the Rings fans hated LOTRO. If one looks at cryptic's games then one of course sees that they do rely upon instances for storry telling events. Well, at least in the CoX games. I would consider those games to be very successful. If cryptic can make their game play elements work, despite the criticisms of those who want it to be something different then it could be a success. As far as sony not shutting down games because of their station pass, that is a very good point. I can only assume that if there are players playing POTBS then they must like it or else they would take their business elsewhere. I thnk with a game like POTBS, part of the problem at least from my limited knowledge of the game, is that they changed part of the game design late in the process. It was my understanding that the game was mostly about ship combat but wasn't really going to bring in much of the player avatar as people content. Then when players said they wanted/needed this they added it and that's where some of the issues started cropping up. STO seems, other than its original design by perpetual (I think that was the original dev?) to be sticking closely to a careful design by Cryptic. Only time will tell whether it works.
Many of the unhappy POTBS players (and myself as well) were not saying that all instancing is bad, raids and storytelling and plot bosses can all be instanced effectively and well, when done correctly. The problem with much of POTBS, it was WAY over instanced, especially combat, which was the core of game play. The same could be said of DDO, which was very heavily instanced, to include a lot of the non-combat, in town play (way back when, at least).
One of the other core weaknesses of POTBS and STO may be falling into the same trap, was they also did not give enough time/thought to the economic and RvR aspects of the game. Both did not/do not work correctly and we very prone to "exploitation", at least to the point that normal people mostly could not compete on the economy side or in RvR. They were just plain broken. Bad design, devs that did not listen to the testers, and game mechanics that were too narrowly controlled/written to be enjoyable to many people.
As an aside, the 1 person I still know that plays Pirates of the BS states that they are basically down to a single server that has a decent population for each of the factions, with the others remaining few, not.
I just get the feeling that STO is being rushed out the door to sell boxes, using the easiest possible game mechanics to get things to "work" and that Cryptic hopes people will stay around long enough to buy the expansions that put in the other stuff many people believe should be in at launch.
The over instanced is a tough one. Sure, it takes the game further away from the traditional mmo format but as I mentioned, guild wars was all instances.
to further that point, I've been thinking a lot about LOTRO and though I enjoy the game and have quite a few good things to say about it, there is a part of me who would have instanced a fair amount of it. Partly because looking at bree being grand central station or even Moria with how they went about it sort of cheapens those places for me.
I get what you are saying about the RvR not being done well or being exploitable. I also dont' doubt that they need to get it out the door.
Elsewhere on this forum is an article about "why mmo's suck" which talks about some of the things that mmo developers go through in order to create and finish their games. I have no doubt that some of the negatives listed in that article are plaguing Cryptic as we speak.
In the end, I'm more about trying things out to see if I'd like them. Heck, that's how I got interested in mmo's as I really thought that I was just going to spend a week in Lineage 2 to see what it was like and then end it. yadda, yadda, yadda, years later here I am.
With STO, I'm willing to try it and see if I can get some enjoyment out of it. It's very possible that they will flub it. But my sense, regardless of the players that will hate it, is that it will be reasonably successful.
I think Cryptic knows this as well. It has to be their LOTRO.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Im on a wait and see with this mmo. There are many aspects i dont liek such as lack of other empire races to play, lack of ship exploration etc.
I hope the game does well. I have a friend in beta and he feeds me updates.
(AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH dances on Enterprise Captains Chair!)
All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care. Playing: ESO, WOT, Smite, and Marvel Heroes
The over instanced is a tough one. Sure, it takes the game further away from the traditional mmo format but as I mentioned, guild wars was all instances. to further that point, I've been thinking a lot about LOTRO and though I enjoy the game and have quite a few good things to say about it, there is a part of me who would have instanced a fair amount of it. Partly because looking at bree being grand central station or even Moria with how they went about it sort of cheapens those places for me. I get what you are saying about the RvR not being done well or being exploitable. I also dont' doubt that they need to get it out the door. Elsewhere on this forum is an article about "why mmo's suck" which talks about some of the things that mmo developers go through in order to create and finish their games. I have no doubt that some of the negatives listed in that article are plaguing Cryptic as we speak. In the end, I'm more about trying things out to see if I'd like them. Heck, that's how I got interested in mmo's as I really thought that I was just going to spend a week in Lineage 2 to see what it was like and then end it. yadda, yadda, yadda, years later here I am. With STO, I'm willing to try it and see if I can get some enjoyment out of it. It's very possible that they will flub it. But my sense, regardless of the players that will hate it, is that it will be reasonably successful. I think Cryptic knows this as well. It has to be their LOTRO.
Well, I think instances and specifically how they are used depends alot on the type/style of game. The fact that GW is almost fully instanced works, in that game, because the primary game mechanic used for core gameplay is an arena. Heck, the whole game was mostly a big arena with some pve sorta thrown in on the side. Since it is was mostly a closed off arena anyway, and that GW was all about group vs group combat, instances don't hurt anything.
POTBS, STO, and several others are in a different category, as they revolve (or should) around an open world with heavy pve as part of core gameplay. It is in this environment that over instancing will kill the flow of a game meant to have an open world or would best have an open world. The over use of zones and instanced everything is a major reason POTBS was not more successful, from a design perspective. STO might fall into this trap as well.
From a programming perspective, instances are a very easy solution to get all of the different parts or different kinds of encounters to work correctly: they are all in their own little box, and do not have to work together with "the world". It is for this reason that programmers are tempted to over use instancing and zoning as opposed to integrating content into an open world, even when over instancing can hurt the overall game experience. And it is that temptation that all too many devs succumb to.
That said, we'll see how it all comes out with STO. If STO is supposed to be an open universe with all these different places to go and fight in and explore, the over use of instances can only hurt overall cohesiveness and depth.
In the end, I will probably wait before buying this game, because there are too many question that remain and too many things that are "known" that I don't think will come out well. Plus, I have bought far too many $50 coasters and supporting companies that put out sub-par/unfinished/shallow games (should STO be one of these at release) is why so many mediocre MMOs have come out in recent years.
Well, I think instances and specifically how they are used depends alot on the type/style of game. The fact that GW is almost fully instanced works, in that game, because the primary game mechanic used for core gameplay is an arena. Heck, the whole game was mostly a big arena with some pve sorta thrown in on the side. Since it is was mostly a closed off arena anyway, and that GW was all about group vs group combat, instances don't hurt anything. POTBS, STO, and several others are in a different category, as they revolve (or should) around an open world with heavy pve as part of core gameplay. It is in this environment that over instancing will kill the flow of a game meant to have an open world or would best have an open world. The over use of zones and instanced everything is a major reason POTBS was not more successful, from a design perspective. STO might fall into this trap as well.
Not disagreesing with the instancing part, its garbage, but why should STO revolve around PvE? There are tons of Star Trek single player games which revolve around PvE, STO as an MMORPG has a chance to make it revolve around PvP.
I know it wont be but I am not seeing any obvious reasons why STO should be a core PvE game. I dont think any MMORPG should be. If it is then it is better of as a single player, or co-op limited multiplayer game, not an MMORPG where the main thing is to interact with other people.
So you wait until your house is built to go after the contractors when you notice something is/was being done wrong beforehand? Great logic....
If your not buying the house why do you care?
To further elaborate then
You hear a house is being built by someone and you MIGHT want to buy it and they are offering selected people a sneak preview inside, you go round and see the shape of the house, some of the rooms but upstairs is off limits as they want to 'Surprise' you with some cool stuff. then you can have some input if you are gonna buy it but if your just there to stand in the middle of the street shouting 'Boo you house sucks' without talking to the builders, then you wonder why people walk past muttering 'You Crazy' as they make there way inside.
Or this is a better one actually from Siluis (kudos to those who know who he is)
If you walk past a kitchen and smell food cooking and the chef offers to cook some for you but you have no idea what it is, then dont be surprised if people get offended when you dis the chef without tasting the food (thats the gist basically)
Well, I think instances and specifically how they are used depends alot on the type/style of game. The fact that GW is almost fully instanced works, in that game, because the primary game mechanic used for core gameplay is an arena. Heck, the whole game was mostly a big arena with some pve sorta thrown in on the side. Since it is was mostly a closed off arena anyway, and that GW was all about group vs group combat, instances don't hurt anything. POTBS, STO, and several others are in a different category, as they revolve (or should) around an open world with heavy pve as part of core gameplay. It is in this environment that over instancing will kill the flow of a game meant to have an open world or would best have an open world. The over use of zones and instanced everything is a major reason POTBS was not more successful, from a design perspective. STO might fall into this trap as well.
Not disagreesing with the instancing part, its garbage, but why should STO revolve around PvE? There are tons of Star Trek single player games which revolve around PvE, STO as an MMORPG has a chance to make it revolve around PvP.
I know it wont be but I am not seeing any obvious reasons why STO should be a core PvE game. I dont think any MMORPG should be. If it is then it is better of as a single player, or co-op limited multiplayer game, not an MMORPG where the main thing is to interact with other people.
Well, whether STO should or shouldn't. revolve around PvE, it is going to, simply because PvP choices are so limited, or will be at launch time. If they had playable Romulans, Breen, and several other of the main species in there, PvP could be more of a central focus. Also, counter-intuitively, a game with solid crafting can have more of a PvP focus if done well, and not so heavy on PvE when there other options to gain equipment than looting. But that does not seem to the case here.
STO will be PvE centered, because of how the game systems have been set up.
With STO, I'm willing to try it and see if I can get some enjoyment out of it. It's very possible that they will flub it. But my sense, regardless of the players that will hate it, is that it will be reasonably successful. I think Cryptic knows this as well. It has to be their LOTRO.
Here is the huge difference about LOTRO though....it actually had a decently long development cycle. It was also one of the most polished games on release that I have seen to date. They weren't scaling back on the feature set before release....they were busy tightening up content and chasing down the last few bugs. They also had everything feature wise they planned to release for the game in closed Beta for testing.
It also was quite a feature/content rich system on release. True...it was geared toward casual play...and wasn't intended to be a Middle Earth simulator (even though some die hard fans did want that)..... that's about the only superficial similarties I see between the two games.
I WAS/AM very pleased with LOTRO...and I'm a big Tolkien fan...... however STO seems to be a VERY different type of product... everything about it screams built quick/cheap for fast ROI.
Well, I think instances and specifically how they are used depends alot on the type/style of game. The fact that GW is almost fully instanced works, in that game, because the primary game mechanic used for core gameplay is an arena. Heck, the whole game was mostly a big arena with some pve sorta thrown in on the side. Since it is was mostly a closed off arena anyway, and that GW was all about group vs group combat, instances don't hurt anything. POTBS, STO, and several others are in a different category, as they revolve (or should) around an open world with heavy pve as part of core gameplay. It is in this environment that over instancing will kill the flow of a game meant to have an open world or would best have an open world. The over use of zones and instanced everything is a major reason POTBS was not more successful, from a design perspective. STO might fall into this trap as well.
Not disagreesing with the instancing part, its garbage, but why should STO revolve around PvE? There are tons of Star Trek single player games which revolve around PvE, STO as an MMORPG has a chance to make it revolve around PvP.
I know it wont be but I am not seeing any obvious reasons why STO should be a core PvE game. I dont think any MMORPG should be. If it is then it is better of as a single player, or co-op limited multiplayer game, not an MMORPG where the main thing is to interact with other people.
Well, whether STO should or shouldn't. revolve around PvE, it is going to, simply because PvP choices are so limited, or will be at launch time. If they had playable Romulans, Breen, and several other of the main species in there, PvP could be more of a central focus. Also, counter-intuitively, a game with solid crafting can have more of a PvP focus if done well, and not so heavy on PvE when there other options to gain equipment than looting. But that does not seem to the case here.
STO will be PvE centered, because of how the game systems have been set up.
Yeah I can buy that. I thought you meant that Star Trek IP is somehow naturally done with a PvE focus in mind and that I disagree with cause there are tons of conflicts in the Star Trek IP which could be done as PvP.
All the noisy negativists, just ignore them! I've been following Star Trek Online since Perpetual had the license, and I can tell you Cryptic's Star Trek Online is going to be a quality experience and a wonderful MMORPG. Sure, if you look at everything in a negative and unhappy manner, then you will find fault with everything. But all indications are that Star Trek Online will be a kick-ass experience. Faults with the game are there, for example the lack of Klingon content. But I never cared for Klingons anyway, and in an expansion pack a second race will be more fleshed out. Another fault is the lack of ship interiors besides the bridge. But Cryptic is going to implement additional ship interiors post-launch. There is infinite space exploration. There are social hubs like Earth Spacedock and DS9 and Risa and Vulcan. There is space combat and ground combat. Some missions take place inside starships. There is exploration and diplomacy. Customization of your race and avatar look. You can level yourself up to a Sovereign Class starship. There will be expansion packs every 4 months delivering new content like ship interiors and new races and space sectors. Cryptic has fleshed out the lore behind STO. There will be a Trek novel released in March 2010 called Needs of the Many based on Trek Online. I think Star Trek Online looks great. I pre-ordered the CE and look forward to playing it in February. See you in Starfleet!
Can you please elaborate on the "Exploration" and "Diplomacy" styles of play that you mentioned. These are the main principles of Star Trek, but I was under the impression that these were completely ignored in STO in favour of it being basically a combat game where you either fight things in a ship or fight things in an away team.
What can explore other than a randomly generated combat scenario?
What can I accomplish through diplomacy and what is it like?
It didn't sound like any of this was actually in the game. If I'm wrong, please explain.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
If your not buying the house why do you care? To further elaborate then You hear a house is being built by someone and you MIGHT want to buy it and they are offering selected people a sneak preview inside, you go round and see the shape of the house, some of the rooms but upstairs is off limits as they want to 'Surprise' you with some cool stuff. then you can have some input if you are gonna buy it but if your just there to stand in the middle of the street shouting 'Boo you house sucks' without talking to the builders, then you wonder why people walk past muttering 'You Crazy' as they make there way inside.
Or this is a better one actually from Siluis (kudos to those who know who he is) If you walk past a kitchen and smell food cooking and the chef offers to cook some for you but you have no idea what it is, then dont be surprised if people get offended when you dis the chef without tasting the food (thats the gist basically)
To further belabor the house analogy:
A new housing subdivision is being built. The builder floods the media with advertisement, loudly proclaiming to offer a new and exciting, modern home. There is quite a lot of buzz, as this development is offering Tuscan themed architecture, where most everything else in town is Victorian.
While only a select few can see the inside of the model home, anyone can view a feature and price sheet.
Listed features include:
3 bedrooms, 2 bath, no options.
A standard kitchen, no upgrades available.
A choice from over 1000 interior/ exterior paint colors.
No broadband cable (It’s too hard to do.)
Price point at the high end for town.
First-time home buyers are very excited about the house and are preordering for themselves. They like the color options, as they have seen these very same colors on TV and in magazines.
Although some present homeowners simply like the house without reservation, others say, while the façade is definitely different from the rest of the area, they were hoping for more options. But as seeing their old home has a cracking foundation and a leaking roof, they will buy one anyway.
Myself, I wonder aloud what exactly is supposed to be new and exciting about this house. Some new home buyers angrily shout at me, “Just look at the pretty colors!”
Some current homeowners sneer and ask “Just what did you expect?” To which I say, “I already have 3 bedrooms. I want something a little bigger. And broadband would be nice, too.” To this they shrug and mutter something about maybe it will be offered in the future.
Others simply quietly nod in agreement with me but point out it is the only place in town to get Tuscan themed architecture.
(This is a good point. I really like Tuscan design.)
As I already have an adequate home, I see no point in buying a new house just for the façade and pretty colors. I can wait for the next developer to offer something different.
My only problem is that some of the people in the forum are the victorian owners moaning at the Tuscan owners about the fact they want a disco room for their friends to come over and the builders are saying that it will never happen, but still they belabour the point
Maybe when the launch comes and the division opens the builders turn around and say 'We got the Broadband and stuff in, we didnt say anything because we didnt know if it would be done' and the Tuscan owners are standing around with massive smiles on their faces
Tman I like you analogy better than mine My only problem is that some of the people in the forum are the victorian owners moaning at the Tuscan owners about the fact they want a disco room for their friends to come over and the builders are saying that it will never happen, but still they belabour the point Maybe when the launch comes and the division opens the builders turn around and say 'We got the Broadband and stuff in, we didnt say anything because we didnt know if it would be done' and the Tuscan owners are standing around with massive smiles on their faces
Assuming I'm reading those analogies right...
I think a lot of people find the Player Crews thing intellectually stimulating. That's why they talk about it. It's fun and Star Trek MMO related even if it isn't STO related, so they talk and talk and have a good time doing so. Yeah, it annoys them Cryptic didn't go that way, but that's only a small part of the reason why they talk about it, imho. (I suppose I could have continued the analogy further in some way with peopel talking about how cool a pool table would be, even if there is no room for one, and enjoying the talk and finding it worthwhile even though they couldn't get one or something, but pretty soon none of us would know what we were talking about).
As for development in general, most firms don't keep a tight lip on things that might be in the game. There are in fact hardly any companies that don't have to scale back promises. Bioware is one, but Cryptic is not. Early on they promised full content for Klingons, but a couple months back or so they scaled back such promises and changed what they were saying. Obviously they were vaguer at first, but they said they'd have all the stuff the Feds did. Cryptic tends to yell to the moon about things they are happy with and give lots of details be as quiet as possible about things they don't think people will like or just avoid giving many details about non-exciting things. Note how they talk on and on about the combat system and give pretty good details on it. They are vague about genesis as far as randomized content is concerned (where it doesn't involve combat anyhow), obviously they avoided talking about the Klingons even during Klingon Month, etc. If they had something awesome they thought would have made it into the game, they'd have talked about it months ago, and would now be scaling back such promises or continuing them. I'm pretty sure we know the general nature of the game and its parts, with only some details left ot fill....that's just how Cryptic rolls as best I can tell.
Comments
If this game succeeds with such a short development time, the genre may reach a new degree of danger.
The least they could do is allow trials at release, which will probably not happen. And I'm not spending $50 blindly without gameplay first, too many new games coming out to face these $50 costs without making sure it will last you more than 40 hours of fun (my average with non-MMO games).
I'll be waiting for these trials though, I'm still waiting for a Darkfall trial.
Well it depends doesnt' it. I can easily see why people would say the game would suck given some of the info out there and what they want/wanted from the game.
From where I'm sitting and what I saw at PAX it seemed like a great game. And at least from what I saw it was good enough to make me want to play it for a while. Sort of like seeing a preview of a movie. It most likely is skewed in the best possible way to make people want to see it but sometimes you can glean enough to know whether the movie will be at least worth a try.
but for people who wanted to play full blown klingon campaigns or wanted player run ships, etc, then sure, the game will suck for them.
edit: besides I think it is the general timbre of the "this game sucks post" that draws player ire. I think if a player made a post and intelligently laid out his/her claims as to why they think the game will not live up to its IP or potential then you would get better discussions (other than a few knee jerk posters).
but saying that game x "blows" and the devs have their head up their asses just isn't conducive to a long and informative thread.
True,man. I'm still in doubt about buying or not (even if i do,only after the release),but nice to see someone answering politely. I mean it. But back into the "x blows for me" subject, what is the line for you? I mean,that feature that,if not well implemented,would ruin your game? As for me,is the worry about RMT affecting gameplay (since two bonus from preorders give bonus and affact gameplay that kinda tells me something,but i'm willing to wait) and if the game don't come with enough diplomacy and the trek feeling. I mean,if i'm not blasting things i'm not playing,that's the time i quit. But i'm open to the good things in here. If it comes out good,i'm rdy to give them my vulcan greeting
=P
And the other? I mean,the ones saying this game will be great. r u buying and playing anyway, or is there something that u won't tolerate if pulled out by the developers?
Oh, no worries, my parents taught me "right". That's how we did things back in the days. You were taught to be polite and well behaved and if you weren't your parents would threaten to break your jaw. It was the old school discipline where you did as you were told and if not your toys were thrown out. ahhh, the good old days. Oh, and grounding actually meant grounding.
But on to your second question, this is how I approach a game...
As any other player there are things that I want to see in the game. However, the truth of the matter, and from what I've learned from experience, is that no game will be what I want because I'm not the one making it. Heck, I got into mmo's because of morrowind and neverwinter nights. Seeing the lineage 2 advertisements (as the game had come out the month prior) I wrongly intuited that Lineage 2 is 3rd person so there is the NWN's angle and it's a large world so it must play like morrowind.
*lol*
Anywho, instead of me internally stating "if game x doesn't have y and z I'm not playing it" I just play it. If I enjoy it then time well spent. If not then I put it away and go on to taking the laundry out.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is somethng that another poster stated elswhere on these forums (and I can't rememer who so sorry mysterious poster!) which is that when we were younger and video games started coming out, we didn't criticize them for having poor graphics or bad ai. We just played them.
Battlezone, pacman, Joust, Centipede, etc, we just put out quarters in and tried them out. They were games and they were fun.
So I will try just about any game because it might be fun. Sure , it might not be the open world simulator that players desire but if I just approach the game like it is a game and allow it to do what it is supposed to do then I could have a good time.
I just take them for what they are without imposing my preconceived notions of what I want.
And fun it sujective. So what I might find fun and exciting might be dull and tedious to another. As for STO, I was never going to try it because to me, star trek mostly resounds in my little mind as the TV series. I love the TV series. But I have never been drawn to a star trek game because to me it has always reminded me of bad sets and william shatner over acting and painted backdrops But it was great and we loved it for what it was. Quite frankly just like video games.
However, as I think of all the Trek movies and the Nect Generation stuff it sort of seems like maybe it's something that I should at least try.
If I have fun great. if not, there is laundry to be done.
** getting back to the old school parenting, when I was young, if I said I was bored (like I see so many people posting or stating in game), my parents would set me to chores. The standard phrase was "you either find something to do or I'll find you something to do." When my customary whine came back "but there's nothing to do" we would get chores for the rest of the day.
I quickly learned not to be bored.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It is interesting that Pirates of the BS should come up in context of this game, because one of the biggest complaints players and former players had was that everything was WAY over instanced. Combat instances with timers, sea zones (invisible wall in the ocean) lockouts and the whole deal. People also did not like the lack of meaningful exploration.
Over-instancing and invisible zone barriers broke up what should have been a more open and breathing game into a bunch of disjointed and segregated zones, that led, in part, to why POTBS went down in flames and became an abject failure.
Many of the mistakes that sank POTBS (no pun intended) seem to be repeated here....
I must say I was a little skeptical when Cryptic too over the licence, however the more I see the more I am getting quite stoked up about this game. As another poster said this game does seem to be to Cryptic what Lotro was to Turbine, Lotro found a great balance in keeping most Lord of the Rings fans happy and if Cryptic can do the same they will surely have a massive hit on their hands ....... if they dont I can see the Dev's now being hunted down by angry Trekies with Phasers set too Kill !
Is POTBS a failure? It has players and is still going.
In my book that spells success.
A game doesn't have to have millions or subs or even multiple hundreds of thousands. If they can get a devoted fan base and can pay the bills at the end of the day AND continue development then they have a success.
If PTOBS closes then it will have failed.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Is POTBS a failure? It has players and is still going.
In my book that spells success.
A game doesn't have to have millions or subs or even multiple hundreds of thousands. If they can get a devoted fan base and can pay the bills at the end of the day AND continue development then they have a success.
If PTOBS closes then it will have failed.
This has been greatly debated about this game and others, and the generally community feeling seems to be that a game need not close its doors completely to be considered a "failure" or commercial falilure. Futher, that just because a company does not pull the plug right way (SOE), and that a game continues to exist without significant support or development for long periods of time, it can't be considered a "success". Failing to meet the "hype" or company expectations must also be figured into the equation.
POTBS had all of this.
With POTBS, there was a very lackluster launch, of a not very polished or well balanced game system, followed by an increasingly unhappy playerbase, followed by heavy player cancellations and server merges within a short period after the game launched. The servers are bottomed out now, and it is all but canceled.
Also, SOE is notoriously slow to put games out of their misery, because of their "Station Pass" where medoicre/bad games go to "not die" (SWG has lost something on the order of 95% of its playerbase since its highwater mark, and on the order of 150k+ players since the infamous NGE of 2005. No one currently can call that anything BUT a failure, with a straight face, and that game has not closed yet).
NCSoft canned TR when it arguably had more subs than several SOE games, it is just that their benchmarks for financial preformance are different.
My point was that a (relatively recently released) game with several similar features/game mechanics as STO has, did not fare well at all, and crashed pretty hard in the short period after launch. STO seems to be repeating some of these "disliked" mechanics.
I see where you are coming from. Since you "don't have much experience with MMOs," you are exactly the type of player Cryptic marketing is looking for. Someone dazzled by the screenshots
Most of the negativity you will find on these boards are not directed at the game, per se, but at the design decisions in refernce to the Star Trek IP. There are those of us who disappointed that Cryptic is essentially slapping a Trek skin on a run-of-the-mill MMO design, tossing aside signature Trek elements (crewed vessels, deep problem solving) in favor of standard MMO content (kill, kill, repeat).
Having little experience in MMOs, this should all seem very new and exciting to you.
I just wondering if, when all and said and done, these mechanics are really going to be an issue.
For instance (no pun intended but it's coming) players are complaining about "instanced play" in STO. However, we know that a game like Guild Wars which is comprised of all instanced play is very successful.
Furthermore, games like LOTRO or WoW which have quite a few instances (though an open world) are also considered successful.
Part of my thought is that players are equating STO to Eve. Not in the idea that the game play will be similar but that Eve is an open space game where one has to travel in open space. so of course, with it being one of the few popular space games out there, anything that deviates from it will be looked at with raised eye brows.
In the end, instanced play is only bad to those players who hate instances. There are players who dont' mind them and in some cases enjoy them because they give very pointed story telling.
I realize that there are many players who like open world games but the huge flaw with open world games (in my opinion) is that it's hard to maintain continuity.
I can be in a dungeon doing a quest in an open world game, surrounded by the final nemesis and someone can run by and yell "hey bob!" to a player and it all sort of becomes surreal. In an instance it is a definite focused gameplay event.
so in the end, huge die hard star trek fans migh treally hate STO. Just as the die hard Lord of the Rings fans hated LOTRO.
If one looks at cryptic's games then one of course sees that they do rely upon instances for storry telling events. Well, at least in the CoX games.
I would consider those games to be very successful. If cryptic can make their game play elements work, despite the criticisms of those who want it to be something different then it could be a success.
As far as sony not shutting down games because of their station pass, that is a very good point. I can only assume that if there are players playing POTBS then they must like it or else they would take their business elsewhere.
I thnk with a game like POTBS, part of the problem at least from my limited knowledge of the game, is that they changed part of the game design late in the process. It was my understanding that the game was mostly about ship combat but wasn't really going to bring in much of the player avatar as people content. Then when players said they wanted/needed this they added it and that's where some of the issues started cropping up.
STO seems, other than its original design by perpetual (I think that was the original dev?) to be sticking closely to a careful design by Cryptic. Only time will tell whether it works.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I just wondering if, when all and said and done, these mechanics are really going to be an issue.
For instance (no pun intended but it's coming) players are complaining about "instanced play" in STO. However, we know that a game like Guild Wars which is comprised of all instanced play is very successful.
Furthermore, games like LOTRO or WoW which have quite a few instances (though an open world) are also considered successful.
Part of my thought is that players are equating STO to Eve. Not in the idea that the game play will be similar but that Eve is an open space game where one has to travel in open space. so of course, with it being one of the few popular space games out there, anything that deviates from it will be looked at with raised eye brows.
In the end, instanced play is only bad to those players who hate instances. There are players who dont' mind them and in some cases enjoy them because they give very pointed story telling.
I realize that there are many players who like open world games but the huge flaw with open world games (in my opinion) is that it's hard to maintain continuity.
I can be in a dungeon doing a quest in an open world game, surrounded by the final nemesis and someone can run by and yell "hey bob!" to a player and it all sort of becomes surreal. In an instance it is a definite focused gameplay event.
so in the end, huge die hard star trek fans migh treally hate STO. Just as the die hard Lord of the Rings fans hated LOTRO.
If one looks at cryptic's games then one of course sees that they do rely upon instances for storry telling events. Well, at least in the CoX games.
I would consider those games to be very successful. If cryptic can make their game play elements work, despite the criticisms of those who want it to be something different then it could be a success.
As far as sony not shutting down games because of their station pass, that is a very good point. I can only assume that if there are players playing POTBS then they must like it or else they would take their business elsewhere.
I thnk with a game like POTBS, part of the problem at least from my limited knowledge of the game, is that they changed part of the game design late in the process. It was my understanding that the game was mostly about ship combat but wasn't really going to bring in much of the player avatar as people content. Then when players said they wanted/needed this they added it and that's where some of the issues started cropping up.
STO seems, other than its original design by perpetual (I think that was the original dev?) to be sticking closely to a careful design by Cryptic. Only time will tell whether it works.
Many of the unhappy POTBS players (and myself as well) were not saying that all instancing is bad, raids and storytelling and plot bosses can all be instanced effectively and well, when done correctly. The problem with much of POTBS, it was WAY over instanced, especially combat, which was the core of game play. The same could be said of DDO, which was very heavily instanced, to include a lot of the non-combat, in town play (way back when, at least).
One of the other core weaknesses of POTBS and STO may be falling into the same trap, was they also did not give enough time/thought to the economic and RvR aspects of the game. Both did not/do not work correctly and we very prone to "exploitation", at least to the point that normal people mostly could not compete on the economy side or in RvR. They were just plain broken. Bad design, devs that did not listen to the testers, and game mechanics that were too narrowly controlled/written to be enjoyable to many people.
As an aside, the 1 person I still know that plays Pirates of the BS states that they are basically down to a single server that has a decent population for each of the factions, with the others remaining few, not.
I just get the feeling that STO is being rushed out the door to sell boxes, using the easiest possible game mechanics to get things to "work" and that Cryptic hopes people will stay around long enough to buy the expansions that put in the other stuff many people believe should be in at launch.
Many of the unhappy POTBS players (and myself as well) were not saying that all instancing is bad, raids and storytelling and plot bosses can all be instanced effectively and well, when done correctly. The problem with much of POTBS, it was WAY over instanced, especially combat, which was the core of game play. The same could be said of DDO, which was very heavily instanced, to include a lot of the non-combat, in town play (way back when, at least).
One of the other core weaknesses of POTBS and STO may be falling into the same trap, was they also did not give enough time/thought to the economic and RvR aspects of the game. Both did not/do not work correctly and we very prone to "exploitation", at least to the point that normal people mostly could not compete on the economy side or in RvR. They were just plain broken. Bad design, devs that did not listen to the testers, and game mechanics that were too narrowly controlled/written to be enjoyable to many people.
As an aside, the 1 person I still know that plays Pirates of the BS states that they are basically down to a single server that has a decent population for each of the factions, with the others remaining few, not.
I just get the feeling that STO is being rushed out the door to sell boxes, using the easiest possible game mechanics to get things to "work" and that Cryptic hopes people will stay around long enough to buy the expansions that put in the other stuff many people believe should be in at launch.
The over instanced is a tough one. Sure, it takes the game further away from the traditional mmo format but as I mentioned, guild wars was all instances.
to further that point, I've been thinking a lot about LOTRO and though I enjoy the game and have quite a few good things to say about it, there is a part of me who would have instanced a fair amount of it. Partly because looking at bree being grand central station or even Moria with how they went about it sort of cheapens those places for me.
I get what you are saying about the RvR not being done well or being exploitable. I also dont' doubt that they need to get it out the door.
Elsewhere on this forum is an article about "why mmo's suck" which talks about some of the things that mmo developers go through in order to create and finish their games. I have no doubt that some of the negatives listed in that article are plaguing Cryptic as we speak.
In the end, I'm more about trying things out to see if I'd like them. Heck, that's how I got interested in mmo's as I really thought that I was just going to spend a week in Lineage 2 to see what it was like and then end it. yadda, yadda, yadda, years later here I am.
With STO, I'm willing to try it and see if I can get some enjoyment out of it. It's very possible that they will flub it. But my sense, regardless of the players that will hate it, is that it will be reasonably successful.
I think Cryptic knows this as well. It has to be their LOTRO.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Im on a wait and see with this mmo. There are many aspects i dont liek such as lack of other empire races to play, lack of ship exploration etc.
I hope the game does well. I have a friend in beta and he feeds me updates.
(AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH dances on Enterprise Captains Chair!)
All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care.
Playing: ESO, WOT, Smite, and Marvel Heroes
Well, I think instances and specifically how they are used depends alot on the type/style of game. The fact that GW is almost fully instanced works, in that game, because the primary game mechanic used for core gameplay is an arena. Heck, the whole game was mostly a big arena with some pve sorta thrown in on the side. Since it is was mostly a closed off arena anyway, and that GW was all about group vs group combat, instances don't hurt anything.
POTBS, STO, and several others are in a different category, as they revolve (or should) around an open world with heavy pve as part of core gameplay. It is in this environment that over instancing will kill the flow of a game meant to have an open world or would best have an open world. The over use of zones and instanced everything is a major reason POTBS was not more successful, from a design perspective. STO might fall into this trap as well.
From a programming perspective, instances are a very easy solution to get all of the different parts or different kinds of encounters to work correctly: they are all in their own little box, and do not have to work together with "the world". It is for this reason that programmers are tempted to over use instancing and zoning as opposed to integrating content into an open world, even when over instancing can hurt the overall game experience. And it is that temptation that all too many devs succumb to.
That said, we'll see how it all comes out with STO. If STO is supposed to be an open universe with all these different places to go and fight in and explore, the over use of instances can only hurt overall cohesiveness and depth.
In the end, I will probably wait before buying this game, because there are too many question that remain and too many things that are "known" that I don't think will come out well. Plus, I have bought far too many $50 coasters and supporting companies that put out sub-par/unfinished/shallow games (should STO be one of these at release) is why so many mediocre MMOs have come out in recent years.
Not disagreesing with the instancing part, its garbage, but why should STO revolve around PvE? There are tons of Star Trek single player games which revolve around PvE, STO as an MMORPG has a chance to make it revolve around PvP.
I know it wont be but I am not seeing any obvious reasons why STO should be a core PvE game. I dont think any MMORPG should be. If it is then it is better of as a single player, or co-op limited multiplayer game, not an MMORPG where the main thing is to interact with other people.
My gaming blog
I have high hopes for STO, but having been burned out from many MMO launches I think I will sit this one out and read some reviews for a change.
So you wait until your house is built to go after the contractors when you notice something is/was being done wrong beforehand?
Great logic....
If your not buying the house why do you care?
To further elaborate then
You hear a house is being built by someone and you MIGHT want to buy it and they are offering selected people a sneak preview inside, you go round and see the shape of the house, some of the rooms but upstairs is off limits as they want to 'Surprise' you with some cool stuff. then you can have some input if you are gonna buy it but if your just there to stand in the middle of the street shouting 'Boo you house sucks' without talking to the builders, then you wonder why people walk past muttering 'You Crazy' as they make there way inside.
Or this is a better one actually from Siluis (kudos to those who know who he is)
If you walk past a kitchen and smell food cooking and the chef offers to cook some for you but you have no idea what it is, then dont be surprised if people get offended when you dis the chef without tasting the food (thats the gist basically)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Norsefire-logo.png
Not disagreesing with the instancing part, its garbage, but why should STO revolve around PvE? There are tons of Star Trek single player games which revolve around PvE, STO as an MMORPG has a chance to make it revolve around PvP.
I know it wont be but I am not seeing any obvious reasons why STO should be a core PvE game. I dont think any MMORPG should be. If it is then it is better of as a single player, or co-op limited multiplayer game, not an MMORPG where the main thing is to interact with other people.
Well, whether STO should or shouldn't. revolve around PvE, it is going to, simply because PvP choices are so limited, or will be at launch time. If they had playable Romulans, Breen, and several other of the main species in there, PvP could be more of a central focus. Also, counter-intuitively, a game with solid crafting can have more of a PvP focus if done well, and not so heavy on PvE when there other options to gain equipment than looting. But that does not seem to the case here.
STO will be PvE centered, because of how the game systems have been set up.
Here is the huge difference about LOTRO though....it actually had a decently long development cycle. It was also one of the most polished games on release that I have seen to date. They weren't scaling back on the feature set before release....they were busy tightening up content and chasing down the last few bugs. They also had everything feature wise they planned to release for the game in closed Beta for testing.
It also was quite a feature/content rich system on release. True...it was geared toward casual play...and wasn't intended to be a Middle Earth simulator (even though some die hard fans did want that)..... that's about the only superficial similarties I see between the two games.
I WAS/AM very pleased with LOTRO...and I'm a big Tolkien fan...... however STO seems to be a VERY different type of product... everything about it screams built quick/cheap for fast ROI.
Not disagreesing with the instancing part, its garbage, but why should STO revolve around PvE? There are tons of Star Trek single player games which revolve around PvE, STO as an MMORPG has a chance to make it revolve around PvP.
I know it wont be but I am not seeing any obvious reasons why STO should be a core PvE game. I dont think any MMORPG should be. If it is then it is better of as a single player, or co-op limited multiplayer game, not an MMORPG where the main thing is to interact with other people.
Well, whether STO should or shouldn't. revolve around PvE, it is going to, simply because PvP choices are so limited, or will be at launch time. If they had playable Romulans, Breen, and several other of the main species in there, PvP could be more of a central focus. Also, counter-intuitively, a game with solid crafting can have more of a PvP focus if done well, and not so heavy on PvE when there other options to gain equipment than looting. But that does not seem to the case here.
STO will be PvE centered, because of how the game systems have been set up.
Yeah I can buy that. I thought you meant that Star Trek IP is somehow naturally done with a PvE focus in mind and that I disagree with cause there are tons of conflicts in the Star Trek IP which could be done as PvP.
My gaming blog
Can you please elaborate on the "Exploration" and "Diplomacy" styles of play that you mentioned. These are the main principles of Star Trek, but I was under the impression that these were completely ignored in STO in favour of it being basically a combat game where you either fight things in a ship or fight things in an away team.
What can explore other than a randomly generated combat scenario?
What can I accomplish through diplomacy and what is it like?
It didn't sound like any of this was actually in the game. If I'm wrong, please explain.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
To further belabor the house analogy:
A new housing subdivision is being built. The builder floods the media with advertisement, loudly proclaiming to offer a new and exciting, modern home. There is quite a lot of buzz, as this development is offering Tuscan themed architecture, where most everything else in town is Victorian.
While only a select few can see the inside of the model home, anyone can view a feature and price sheet.
Listed features include:
3 bedrooms, 2 bath, no options.
A standard kitchen, no upgrades available.
A choice from over 1000 interior/ exterior paint colors.
No broadband cable (It’s too hard to do.)
Price point at the high end for town.
First-time home buyers are very excited about the house and are preordering for themselves. They like the color options, as they have seen these very same colors on TV and in magazines.
Although some present homeowners simply like the house without reservation, others say, while the façade is definitely different from the rest of the area, they were hoping for more options. But as seeing their old home has a cracking foundation and a leaking roof, they will buy one anyway.
Myself, I wonder aloud what exactly is supposed to be new and exciting about this house. Some new home buyers angrily shout at me, “Just look at the pretty colors!”
Some current homeowners sneer and ask “Just what did you expect?” To which I say, “I already have 3 bedrooms. I want something a little bigger. And broadband would be nice, too.” To this they shrug and mutter something about maybe it will be offered in the future.
Others simply quietly nod in agreement with me but point out it is the only place in town to get Tuscan themed architecture.
(This is a good point. I really like Tuscan design.)
As I already have an adequate home, I see no point in buying a new house just for the façade and pretty colors. I can wait for the next developer to offer something different.
Tman
I like you analogy better than mine
My only problem is that some of the people in the forum are the victorian owners moaning at the Tuscan owners about the fact they want a disco room for their friends to come over and the builders are saying that it will never happen, but still they belabour the point
Maybe when the launch comes and the division opens the builders turn around and say 'We got the Broadband and stuff in, we didnt say anything because we didnt know if it would be done' and the Tuscan owners are standing around with massive smiles on their faces
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Norsefire-logo.png
Assuming I'm reading those analogies right...
I think a lot of people find the Player Crews thing intellectually stimulating. That's why they talk about it. It's fun and Star Trek MMO related even if it isn't STO related, so they talk and talk and have a good time doing so. Yeah, it annoys them Cryptic didn't go that way, but that's only a small part of the reason why they talk about it, imho. (I suppose I could have continued the analogy further in some way with peopel talking about how cool a pool table would be, even if there is no room for one, and enjoying the talk and finding it worthwhile even though they couldn't get one or something, but pretty soon none of us would know what we were talking about).
As for development in general, most firms don't keep a tight lip on things that might be in the game. There are in fact hardly any companies that don't have to scale back promises. Bioware is one, but Cryptic is not. Early on they promised full content for Klingons, but a couple months back or so they scaled back such promises and changed what they were saying. Obviously they were vaguer at first, but they said they'd have all the stuff the Feds did. Cryptic tends to yell to the moon about things they are happy with and give lots of details be as quiet as possible about things they don't think people will like or just avoid giving many details about non-exciting things. Note how they talk on and on about the combat system and give pretty good details on it. They are vague about genesis as far as randomized content is concerned (where it doesn't involve combat anyhow), obviously they avoided talking about the Klingons even during Klingon Month, etc. If they had something awesome they thought would have made it into the game, they'd have talked about it months ago, and would now be scaling back such promises or continuing them. I'm pretty sure we know the general nature of the game and its parts, with only some details left ot fill....that's just how Cryptic rolls as best I can tell.
Is the market that good for people to be looking at buying a house???