Merely 2 and half years is just NOT ENOUGH! You cannot create a succesful MMO in just 2 and half years! PERIOD!
I do not agree with this. There's no reason you cannot take an existing engine, slap on some new art, and create an enjoyable and sucessful game. The key is not to be overly ambitious and tell your customers upfront what they will and will not be getting.
Now, some IPs cannot be done justice in such a timespan. That's a different matter.
Maybe if you had a ton of money and could hire a ridiculous number of people that is true. But good writing and questing takes time, and that's not related to the engine that much. Good combat systems take time, and that's not related to the engine all that much. Plenty of other things about an MMO take time to do right, cutting out designing the engine does save time, but I know of zero MMOs made in so short a period that have done well. Heck, the ones made in 3 full years that have done well are completely unheard of by me (I doubt they exist). Like someone said, compared to a single-player game, MMOs require a TON of content work for all the players and all that takes time. Randomizing things can help, but it takes a TON of time to make a good randomizer, and it just seems like they've rushed into all this and haven't taken nearly enough time. Another two years and we all would have been a lot better off.
I've read the artical and several replies, both positive and negative. What I don't get is how people can say their disapointed with the level of PvE for Klingons when NO ONE HAS PLAYED IT YET!! .
Bingo! One and a half month from release and no one has played the Klingon content yet since it has not made it into beta. What does that tell you?
That's very sweet and unjudgemental of you. Now, please come back down to reality. The FACT is that mmos are judged and purchased based on preliminary feedback, marketing, and pr for the game. Right now, Cryptic has made a terrible pr move. Like it or not, people WILL react to it, whether they should or shouldn't. Instead of being annoyed at the players for rushing to conclusions (which you will NEVER be able to stop), you should be annoyed with Cryptic for making such a bad pr move. The bottom line fact of the matter is that NOTHING pisses off mmo players more than devs reneging on prior content promises. Cryptic has broken the golden rule that they should have learned a long time ago from the mistakes of their competitors. From my perspective, it's a bad business mistake that will cost them a lot.
Bad PR move? I have to disagree with you there. I don't see them reneging anything here. What I do see is a lot of people taking what was said and going off on a tangent based on wild assumptions rather than what's really there. I see people complaining that Klingons are not gonna have PvE and they'll be purely PvP; that's not what was said in the article. What was said was that they'll have more PvP and less PvE than the Federation; and that fits both the game and the mythos perfectly.
They have said no genesis content and no episodic content. The PvE is "random encounters"literally.
As for the idea the Klingons are more suited to PvP than PVE, care to explain that assertion? How can a war with the Romulans be represented in PvP when there are no players who control Romulans? How can the exploration and conquest/assimilation/vassalage/etc of more primitive cultures be shown if no players control such groups? While there is some sense of honor among SOME PvPers, one doesn't see it as a general feature of PvPers, and so the idea that a Klingon's word of honor means something in a strict PvP environment is ridiculous. Do you have anything to answer this beyond a so far baseless claim that it isn't true?
In MMO's... its all about character development... do you or do you NOT feel attached to your characters. Do they make you log in month after month... do they engage you to buy more accounts to explore different facet of the game as a different profession, ect ect.
If you don't feel connected to your character.. if its limited in development... if its too one-dimensional... the player will bore and leave and look for that connection in another game.
My point here is.... if Klingons are not really a full-fledged character.. it its really just a one-dimensional 'shooter' character... then it will attract a very narrow playerbase.. and they will not stick around for long.
STO Klingons will, at least at launch.. be more about the Ship than the personality.
PvE gives you time to invest in your character.. get connected.. and those NPC missions and kills bond the character with the player.
I think STO is going to have a huge core of loyal 'Star Trek Fan(atic)' federation players... then a whole 'transiant' bunch of Klingon players that come and go.
Klingons... quest for honor.. proving yourself worthy... defending your leadership challenges.. all really good NPC-based character development opportunities.
Yes.. PvP is important at launch, but so is TWO FULLY DEVELOPED FACTIONs... at least two.. more is better.
I guess we will all have the luxury of watching this 'experiment' in the next year or so. If it was up to me.. I wouldn't 'cheat' on the 2nd faction development before launch.
Merely 2 and half years is just NOT ENOUGH! You cannot create a succesful MMO in just 2 and half years! PERIOD!
I do not agree with this. There's no reason you cannot take an existing engine, slap on some new art, and create an enjoyable and sucessful game. The key is not to be overly ambitious and tell your customers upfront what they will and will not be getting.
Now, some IPs cannot be done justice in such a timespan. That's a different matter.
Maybe if you had a ton of money and could hire a ridiculous number of people that is true. But good writing and questing takes time, and that's not related to the engine that much. Good combat systems take time, and that's not related to the engine all that much. Plenty of other things about an MMO take time to do right, cutting out designing the engine does save time, but I know of zero MMOs made in so short a period that have done well. Heck, the ones made in 3 full years that have done well are completely unheard of by me (I doubt they exist). Like someone said, compared to a single-player game, MMOs require a TON of content work for all the players and all that takes time. Randomizing things can help, but it takes a TON of time to make a good randomizer, and it just seems like they've rushed into all this and haven't taken nearly enough time. Another two years and we all would have been a lot better off.
QFT! Well said. Even with a licensed engine it doesn't mean that you can do it in 2 and half years.
Vanguard and AION are MMO's build on licensed engines. Both had at least 4 years development time.
Age of Conan and WAR were build on existing inhouse engines. Both had at least 4 years development time (WAR I think a bit shorter).
AION, AoC and WAR had huge development teams (200+ peeps) and yet they still released with not enough content, were very buggy and felt unpolished.
And tman5 thinks that Cryptic will do better with almost half the development time and a much smaller team?? Yeah right. Just have to point to their other game. Champions Online.
I had not changed my mind about purchasing the game at launch but did think the news about the Klingon faction for Cryptic and the game was overall bad but after reading this article I think it makes some sense and works out much better than the earlier news made it seem.
But one thing Emmert says in the article I have a problem with is the line about if you don't have it in at launch you may as well not have it, new subscribers should not be the only reason to improve on a game especially when it is just adding content we are speaking of and not outright changes. I just hope that this statement isn't a reflection of how alot of devs in the industry think (though I fear it may be) and that is looking at game improvements simply as a tool to increase subs. And I'm sometimes led to believe that may be the case since I think the rate of change in mmo's doesn't reflect the capabilities available to most companies.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
That's very sweet and unjudgemental of you. Now, please come back down to reality. The FACT is that mmos are judged and purchased based on preliminary feedback, marketing, and pr for the game. Right now, Cryptic has made a terrible pr move. Like it or not, people WILL react to it, whether they should or shouldn't. Instead of being annoyed at the players for rushing to conclusions (which you will NEVER be able to stop), you should be annoyed with Cryptic for making such a bad pr move. The bottom line fact of the matter is that NOTHING pisses off mmo players more than devs reneging on prior content promises. Cryptic has broken the golden rule that they should have learned a long time ago from the mistakes of their competitors. From my perspective, it's a bad business mistake that will cost them a lot.
Bad PR move? I have to disagree with you there. I don't see them reneging anything here. What I do see is a lot of people taking what was said and going off on a tangent based on wild assumptions rather than what's really there. I see people complaining that Klingons are not gonna have PvE and they'll be purely PvP; that's not what was said in the article. What was said was that they'll have more PvP and less PvE than the Federation; and that fits both the game and the mythos perfectly.
What I see missing in most of these posts is just plain common sense. Sure, be pissed off at what it could be lacking, but if you're gonna be closed-minded and foolish and refuse to play based on nothing more than an assumption without any facts or experience to back you, then this game is definitely not for you and I'm not sad to se you go.
My issue is people are reacting; they're not using their brains, they're just taking a line or two and running off into the wild blue yonder crying 'FOUL!'. Frankly, I expect better from a Star Trek fan-base, period.
Well the first thing you have to realize is that this is a mmo audience, not a star trek fan-base (even though the two do merge in many cases). Second, I never said I wouldn't play the game. I'm just saying that it was well-known there would be Federation and Klingon factions in the game, and now one of those factions will be marginalized to some degree. From the analytical viewpoint of mmos, I see this as a big mistake, and those reasons are in the quote you posted. I've seen a fair amount of mmos launch and every one that has pulled this kind of stunt has suffered. Despite the IP, I don't see the results being much different this time around, although I could certainly be wrong.
Until they make a sandbox ST MMO I won't be happy, what they are making is a poor excuse of a game and it's only worse they used the ST IP when it deserves so much more than what cryptic is doing with it. Yeah they are given a time-frame... guess what, deny the time-frame. Christ if I was a developer I'd be ashamed to release this game the way it's unfolding.
In MMO's... its all about character development... do you or do you NOT feel attached to your characters. Do they make you log in month after month... do they engage you to buy more accounts to explore different facet of the game as a different profession, ect ect. If you don't feel connected to your character.. if its limited in development... if its too one-dimensional... the player will bore and leave and look for that connection in another game. My point here is.... if Klingons are not really a full-fledged character.. it its really just a one-dimensional 'shooter' character... then it will attract a very narrow playerbase.. and they will not stick around for long. STO Klingons will, at least at launch.. be more about the Ship than the personality. ...
Quoted for Truth.
Exactly the point I made on another forum and the reasoning behind my post all the way back on page two of the thread.
Listening to this guy speak makes me see this game failing due to being rushed to the sales floor by the clueless execs.If anything can be learned from Blizzard is that when making a game time should not be a huge factor.When the game is ready then release.I already see from reading this that the game is going to release with the release now add later mentality and will fail.I am sure a few trekkie nerds will probably stay with it to live out their fantasies,but over all this is not what I was looking forward to hearing.I still plan on trying the game out,but I have decided not to buy the game at release like I was going to do after reading this post,I will be taking a wait and see approach to the game from here on out.
Yeah is it just me or is STO seeming to be driving strait toward Star Wars Galaxies territory? Honestly I was so happy for Galaxies and then I played it. Now I'm only 1/4 the Star Wars fan that I am a Star Trek Fan. So yeah, I'm VERY gunshy about STO. So yeah no pay until I play. Period.
In fact I don't plan to buy a box of this even if I do get into the game. So I shall wait for Free trial or Beta.
Current Game: Asssasins Creed 2(PS3, Gamer Tag: Happy_Hubby) Current MMO: World of Warcraft and World of Tanks Former Subscribed MMO: Star Trek Online, Aion, WoW, Guild Wars, Eve Online, DAoC, City of Heroes, Shattered Galaxy, 10six. Tried: Too many to list
..... Klingon space will be divided into two core sectors. The first is an area only for Klingons where they are free to fight each other. The second is an area, the neutral zone, where Federation and Klingon space overlap. Both will have a lot of content. “When you go into that system it will spawn a PvP arena map and then you fight it out,” Emmert explained. All PvP in Star Trek Online, initially, will take place in instances. This, for one, eliminates the problems of population imbalance, which could really get out of control in a single shard game. ..... "War Zone: These are static areas players can explore from both factions. They have PvE objectives, but also run the risk of running into PvP enemies."
So, according to the above... The "neutral zone" is same with the War Zone and even that will be made up of 10 vs 10 instances?
10 v 10 instance. For christs sake, this single-player game type, wrapped in a false mmorpg package like POtBS, has gotta stop. Hopefully this game will crash and burn from even kids refusing to pay $15/month for a single-player game.
While I don't disagree that game companies should be allowed all the time they need to get a game just 'right' I'm sad to say that the real world doesn't work that way. The timetables are really set by the investors and and the IP holder so contracts are signed agreeing to this before the developer see's one shiny dime of investor money or the IP in question. Sometimes in extreme cases they can get the investors to give them another month or two but what some people are asking for(6 months to a year delay) where STO is concerned is just not feasible and just won't happen. Cryptic had their timetable set for them when they got the IP license from CBS and the funding for the game from investors. They are under contract to meet that deadline. It sucks, yes but it is the reality of it all. In a perfect world developers would have all the time and money they need to make perfect games but we don't live in that world now do we?
As for the article it was very enlightening and explains a lot, not only about the decisions they have made but why they were made as well. Sure, I too wanted the Klingons to be a faction that was playable from the start but perhaps that will come in time. I will still play and reserve my judgment of the game until I've had that chance.
Bren
All game developers need to learn The Seven P's: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
No project- game or otherwise- has unlimited time or budget. However, proper requirements assessment and definition is essential to performance. Too many times - and I believe Cryptic and STO is an example - nothing more than a rough idea is pitched to an investor, and from this "concept" a budget set and development scheduled. Only later as the details are worked out does it become apparent the scope is too large for allotted resources and disappointment ensues.
Take the time upfront to clearly plan and scope the project and pitch your idea based on solid details of execution. Know exactly what will be in game before allocating resources and before opening your mouth to potential customers. Stop biting off more than you can chew. Stop lowballing investors. Stop disappointing your customers.
It's also clear from this article that Cryptic still has no idea what the Klingon faction will really be all about. This is pure damage control.
Interestingly enough, according to the STOKED podcast, Cryptic gained the IP after Perpetual folded in a one week window by slapping some Star Trek art onto the Champions engine and promising to deliver the game fast and cheap. They say that you can have a project done fast, cheap or good, and you can only choose two of the above. Seems like Cryptic planned to deliver this game fast and cheap from the very beginning.
The fact that Klingons are more PvP than the Federation MAKES SENSE with the cannon, or have people forgotten that Klingons are a WARRIOR RACE!? They already announced they will add Klingon Episodes IF enough people insist they do. The fact they've stated that is a GOOD THING. Perhaps something as simple as a Yes/No poll asking 'Should Cryptic add Klingon Episodic content?' would be what they're planning, but I'm eager to play the game regardless.
What's with people claiming that "PvP makes sense for Klingons!!!"? How does that even make sense? The Klingons are a warrior race, so combat style gameplay makes sense for them. This combat gameplay can be both PvP and PvE. Why does it have to be just one or the other?
For example, I would expect that "Klingon exploration missions" would involve the player "conquering new life and new civilizations" just like the Federation exploration would involve peaceful contact and scientific exploration. Both systems would be PvE, but one would be based on war and combat and the other peace and exploration. Both would make sense from a "canon" Star Trek perspective.
So no, Klingon does not automatically equal PvP, it does equal combat, but this can be PvE and PvP combat.
“If I sit back and wait for it to be perfect, frankly people aren’t going to wait around for it,” he added.
Ok... I stopped at this in the article. That kinda proofs that this game has absolutly NOTHING to do with gamers...
These guys are ready to launch whatever buggy crap they have at launch day... The fact is that playes would wait MUCH longer for a good and solid game.
Be perpaired to see another AOC or WAR launch when this game releases.
To be fair to Jack, he was responding to a question about why they didn't just not launch with Klingon then include them as a more robust faction with full PvE options. He cited CoH where they did that, waited to have full fledged crafting and PvP for later, and no one gave the game a second look when they launched them. Thus, they felt with Klingons it was better to have them there in a limited form at launch as the basis for a larger system than later as a full fledged system.
As a CoH player I can say that PvP in CoH was never very good to begin with, and no one really cared about the crafting system. The crafting system is good and all, but not a very high priority for the CoH community. Ask Jack why he adamantly refused to put in a flashback system, which was something the players really wanted.
What's with people claiming that "PvP makes sense for Klingons!!!"? How does that even make sense? The Klingons are a warrior race, so combat style gameplay makes sense for them. This combat gameplay can be both PvP and PvE. Why does it have to be just one or the other?
Because you are supposed to be a pain the the ass to Federation players and the Feds and Klingons are at war.
I dont have high hopes about this game. My main reasons?
- instanced pvp; i saw that with PotBS and it was horrible
- short development time; i cannot think of 1 MMO i liked, that has such short time to market. it feels like being rushed.
- limited features at start; i lost faith that games full of potential will live up to it
Off topic about project management
It is very well possible to make a project plan (and planning) and get your game done according to it. I am a PM in the ICT business and deliver project results on time, daily.
It takes :
- experience (if you dont have that in-house, buy it from others)
- well defined goals and a good breakdown in money, people, time, to get them done
- Publishers and developpers and everyone else involved that stick to the plan and live up to their initial signature
I have a feeling that many companies very well know they wont be able to live up to their promisses but go on with in anyway. To get the budget they otherwise would have never gotten. Resulting in poor MMO that do their genre more harm than good.
Currently playing browser games. Waiting for Albion Online, Citadel of Sorcery and Camelot Unchained. Played: almost all MMO pre 2007
The issue is in the second quotation, "It’s just a simple matter of you have a certain amount of time ....." How many companies do we see that have undesirable time constraints put on game projects. Whoever is in change needs to be more flexible with the time line so we would see idea's come reality at release and not half attempts with an add on / update later on. You can do anything you want even with a Trek IP within reason, if time is the main thing against you - wise up and change it across the industry. Even admission is there. So why not take the right course of action to make the most popular adjustments for launch and delay a bit longer. It is often community feedback that has been saying the same thing for a while. A few month push back won't ruin a launch. Trek fans have been waiting long enough for something right and I was first looking for an ST mmo back in 1999 and all this time later the most ideal PVP situation is not realised for launch fruition. I can live with it, even the 10v10 limit, but I would like to see a focus here throughout the summer/autumn next year.
I find this interesting as well, when all of these publishers are trying to alchemicaly decipher why WoW is SO flipping successful, they all seem to miss the fact that Blizzard religiously adheres to a 'release when it's ready' philosophy, and don't just invest money, but time in their product.
Could the fact that Blizzard shipped a complete game have SOMETHING to do with their success? NO WAY! That'd be too easy!
Interestingly enough, according to the STOKED podcast, Cryptic gained the IP after Perpetual folded in a one week window by slapping some Star Trek art onto the Champions engine and promising to deliver the game fast and cheap. They say that you can have a project done fast, cheap or good, and you can only choose two of the above. Seems like Cryptic planned to deliver this game fast and cheap from the very beginning.
Merely 2 and half years is just NOT ENOUGH! You cannot create a succesful MMO in just 2 and half years! PERIOD!
I do not agree with this. There's no reason you cannot take an existing engine, slap on some new art, and create an enjoyable and sucessful game. The key is not to be overly ambitious and tell your customers upfront what they will and will not be getting. <<<< MAIN POINT
Now, some IPs cannot be done justice in such a timespan. That's a different matter. <<<SECONDARY POINT
Maybe if you had a ton of money and could hire a ridiculous number of people that is true. But good writing and questing takes time, and that's not related to the engine that much. Good combat systems take time, and that's not related to the engine all that much. Plenty of other things about an MMO take time to do right, cutting out designing the engine does save time, but I know of zero MMOs made in so short a period that have done well. Heck, the ones made in 3 full years that have done well are completely unheard of by me (I doubt they exist). Like someone said, compared to a single-player game, MMOs require a TON of content work for all the players and all that takes time. Randomizing things can help, but it takes a TON of time to make a good randomizer, and it just seems like they've rushed into all this and haven't taken nearly enough time. Another two years and we all would have been a lot better off.
QFT! Well said. Even with a licensed engine it doesn't mean that you can do it in 2 and half years.
Vanguard and AION are MMO's build on licensed engines. Both had at least 4 years development time.
Age of Conan and WAR were build on existing inhouse engines. Both had at least 4 years development time (WAR I think a bit shorter).
AION, AoC and WAR had huge development teams (200+ peeps) and yet they still released with not enough content, were very buggy and felt unpolished.
And tman5 thinks that Cryptic will do better with almost half the development time and a much smaller team?? Yeah right. Just have to point to their other game. Champions Online.
Enough said.
Obviously, both you and Drachasor missed my main point, so I highlighted it so you could reread it.
I also highlighted my secondary point, which goes right to the question of whether Star Trek is the right property to tackle given the obvious constraints of time and money.
Cryptic is not alone in making promises they cannot keep. That is MMO industry standard and will continue that way until MMO customers refuse to accept less than promised.
But, as has been said, MMOs are like crack and some tweakers don't care if their junk is cut with bleach as long as they get their next fix.
Cryptic is not alone in making promises they cannot keep. That is MMO industry standard and will continue that way until MMO customers refuse to accept less than promised.
But, as has been said, MMOs are like crack and some tweakers don't care if their junk is cut with bleach as long as they get their next fix.
Quoted for truthiness.
I have never seen such a group of consumers so willing to be manipulated, deceived, and cheated by people they are paying.
It's truly incredible.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Comments
I do not agree with this. There's no reason you cannot take an existing engine, slap on some new art, and create an enjoyable and sucessful game. The key is not to be overly ambitious and tell your customers upfront what they will and will not be getting.
Now, some IPs cannot be done justice in such a timespan. That's a different matter.
Maybe if you had a ton of money and could hire a ridiculous number of people that is true. But good writing and questing takes time, and that's not related to the engine that much. Good combat systems take time, and that's not related to the engine all that much. Plenty of other things about an MMO take time to do right, cutting out designing the engine does save time, but I know of zero MMOs made in so short a period that have done well. Heck, the ones made in 3 full years that have done well are completely unheard of by me (I doubt they exist). Like someone said, compared to a single-player game, MMOs require a TON of content work for all the players and all that takes time. Randomizing things can help, but it takes a TON of time to make a good randomizer, and it just seems like they've rushed into all this and haven't taken nearly enough time. Another two years and we all would have been a lot better off.
Bingo! One and a half month from release and no one has played the Klingon content yet since it has not made it into beta. What does that tell you?
My gaming blog
Bad PR move? I have to disagree with you there. I don't see them reneging anything here. What I do see is a lot of people taking what was said and going off on a tangent based on wild assumptions rather than what's really there. I see people complaining that Klingons are not gonna have PvE and they'll be purely PvP; that's not what was said in the article. What was said was that they'll have more PvP and less PvE than the Federation; and that fits both the game and the mythos perfectly.
They have said no genesis content and no episodic content. The PvE is "random encounters"literally.
As for the idea the Klingons are more suited to PvP than PVE, care to explain that assertion? How can a war with the Romulans be represented in PvP when there are no players who control Romulans? How can the exploration and conquest/assimilation/vassalage/etc of more primitive cultures be shown if no players control such groups? While there is some sense of honor among SOME PvPers, one doesn't see it as a general feature of PvPers, and so the idea that a Klingon's word of honor means something in a strict PvP environment is ridiculous. Do you have anything to answer this beyond a so far baseless claim that it isn't true?
In MMO's... its all about character development... do you or do you NOT feel attached to your characters. Do they make you log in month after month... do they engage you to buy more accounts to explore different facet of the game as a different profession, ect ect.
If you don't feel connected to your character.. if its limited in development... if its too one-dimensional... the player will bore and leave and look for that connection in another game.
My point here is.... if Klingons are not really a full-fledged character.. it its really just a one-dimensional 'shooter' character... then it will attract a very narrow playerbase.. and they will not stick around for long.
STO Klingons will, at least at launch.. be more about the Ship than the personality.
PvE gives you time to invest in your character.. get connected.. and those NPC missions and kills bond the character with the player.
I think STO is going to have a huge core of loyal 'Star Trek Fan(atic)' federation players... then a whole 'transiant' bunch of Klingon players that come and go.
Klingons... quest for honor.. proving yourself worthy... defending your leadership challenges.. all really good NPC-based character development opportunities.
Yes.. PvP is important at launch, but so is TWO FULLY DEVELOPED FACTIONs... at least two.. more is better.
I guess we will all have the luxury of watching this 'experiment' in the next year or so. If it was up to me.. I wouldn't 'cheat' on the 2nd faction development before launch.
But hey.. its not my money.. good luck!
SWG/STO/(SWTOR)
I do not agree with this. There's no reason you cannot take an existing engine, slap on some new art, and create an enjoyable and sucessful game. The key is not to be overly ambitious and tell your customers upfront what they will and will not be getting.
Now, some IPs cannot be done justice in such a timespan. That's a different matter.
Maybe if you had a ton of money and could hire a ridiculous number of people that is true. But good writing and questing takes time, and that's not related to the engine that much. Good combat systems take time, and that's not related to the engine all that much. Plenty of other things about an MMO take time to do right, cutting out designing the engine does save time, but I know of zero MMOs made in so short a period that have done well. Heck, the ones made in 3 full years that have done well are completely unheard of by me (I doubt they exist). Like someone said, compared to a single-player game, MMOs require a TON of content work for all the players and all that takes time. Randomizing things can help, but it takes a TON of time to make a good randomizer, and it just seems like they've rushed into all this and haven't taken nearly enough time. Another two years and we all would have been a lot better off.
QFT! Well said. Even with a licensed engine it doesn't mean that you can do it in 2 and half years.
Vanguard and AION are MMO's build on licensed engines. Both had at least 4 years development time.
Age of Conan and WAR were build on existing inhouse engines. Both had at least 4 years development time (WAR I think a bit shorter).
AION, AoC and WAR had huge development teams (200+ peeps) and yet they still released with not enough content, were very buggy and felt unpolished.
And tman5 thinks that Cryptic will do better with almost half the development time and a much smaller team?? Yeah right. Just have to point to their other game. Champions Online.
Enough said.
I can not wait to play it...
I had not changed my mind about purchasing the game at launch but did think the news about the Klingon faction for Cryptic and the game was overall bad but after reading this article I think it makes some sense and works out much better than the earlier news made it seem.
But one thing Emmert says in the article I have a problem with is the line about if you don't have it in at launch you may as well not have it, new subscribers should not be the only reason to improve on a game especially when it is just adding content we are speaking of and not outright changes. I just hope that this statement isn't a reflection of how alot of devs in the industry think (though I fear it may be) and that is looking at game improvements simply as a tool to increase subs. And I'm sometimes led to believe that may be the case since I think the rate of change in mmo's doesn't reflect the capabilities available to most companies.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Bad PR move? I have to disagree with you there. I don't see them reneging anything here. What I do see is a lot of people taking what was said and going off on a tangent based on wild assumptions rather than what's really there. I see people complaining that Klingons are not gonna have PvE and they'll be purely PvP; that's not what was said in the article. What was said was that they'll have more PvP and less PvE than the Federation; and that fits both the game and the mythos perfectly.
What I see missing in most of these posts is just plain common sense. Sure, be pissed off at what it could be lacking, but if you're gonna be closed-minded and foolish and refuse to play based on nothing more than an assumption without any facts or experience to back you, then this game is definitely not for you and I'm not sad to se you go.
My issue is people are reacting; they're not using their brains, they're just taking a line or two and running off into the wild blue yonder crying 'FOUL!'. Frankly, I expect better from a Star Trek fan-base, period.
Well the first thing you have to realize is that this is a mmo audience, not a star trek fan-base (even though the two do merge in many cases). Second, I never said I wouldn't play the game. I'm just saying that it was well-known there would be Federation and Klingon factions in the game, and now one of those factions will be marginalized to some degree. From the analytical viewpoint of mmos, I see this as a big mistake, and those reasons are in the quote you posted. I've seen a fair amount of mmos launch and every one that has pulled this kind of stunt has suffered. Despite the IP, I don't see the results being much different this time around, although I could certainly be wrong.
Until they make a sandbox ST MMO I won't be happy, what they are making is a poor excuse of a game and it's only worse they used the ST IP when it deserves so much more than what cryptic is doing with it. Yeah they are given a time-frame... guess what, deny the time-frame. Christ if I was a developer I'd be ashamed to release this game the way it's unfolding.
Full Sail University - Game Design
Quoted for Truth.
Exactly the point I made on another forum and the reasoning behind my post all the way back on page two of the thread.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Well, lets just hope the Orion gals look good in Hawt Pants! :P
Listening to this guy speak makes me see this game failing due to being rushed to the sales floor by the clueless execs.If anything can be learned from Blizzard is that when making a game time should not be a huge factor.When the game is ready then release.I already see from reading this that the game is going to release with the release now add later mentality and will fail.I am sure a few trekkie nerds will probably stay with it to live out their fantasies,but over all this is not what I was looking forward to hearing.I still plan on trying the game out,but I have decided not to buy the game at release like I was going to do after reading this post,I will be taking a wait and see approach to the game from here on out.
Just put Cardassians or Romulans in with the same setup as Klingons.
I will fight the Klingons then!!!!!
*Sigh*
Yeah is it just me or is STO seeming to be driving strait toward Star Wars Galaxies territory? Honestly I was so happy for Galaxies and then I played it. Now I'm only 1/4 the Star Wars fan that I am a Star Trek Fan. So yeah, I'm VERY gunshy about STO. So yeah no pay until I play. Period.
In fact I don't plan to buy a box of this even if I do get into the game. So I shall wait for Free trial or Beta.
Current Game: Asssasins Creed 2(PS3, Gamer Tag: Happy_Hubby)
Current MMO: World of Warcraft and World of Tanks
Former Subscribed MMO: Star Trek Online, Aion, WoW, Guild Wars, Eve Online, DAoC, City of Heroes, Shattered Galaxy, 10six.
Tried: Too many to list
So, according to the above... The "neutral zone" is same with the War Zone and even that will be made up of 10 vs 10 instances?
10 v 10 instance. For christs sake, this single-player game type, wrapped in a false mmorpg package like POtBS, has gotta stop. Hopefully this game will crash and burn from even kids refusing to pay $15/month for a single-player game.
I smell another Conan/WAR/Aion... I for one canceled my pre-order and am not going to buy this game till I see some serious reviews/player base...
All game developers need to learn The Seven P's: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
No project- game or otherwise- has unlimited time or budget. However, proper requirements assessment and definition is essential to performance. Too many times - and I believe Cryptic and STO is an example - nothing more than a rough idea is pitched to an investor, and from this "concept" a budget set and development scheduled. Only later as the details are worked out does it become apparent the scope is too large for allotted resources and disappointment ensues.
Take the time upfront to clearly plan and scope the project and pitch your idea based on solid details of execution. Know exactly what will be in game before allocating resources and before opening your mouth to potential customers. Stop biting off more than you can chew. Stop lowballing investors. Stop disappointing your customers.
It's also clear from this article that Cryptic still has no idea what the Klingon faction will really be all about. This is pure damage control.
Interestingly enough, according to the STOKED podcast, Cryptic gained the IP after Perpetual folded in a one week window by slapping some Star Trek art onto the Champions engine and promising to deliver the game fast and cheap. They say that you can have a project done fast, cheap or good, and you can only choose two of the above. Seems like Cryptic planned to deliver this game fast and cheap from the very beginning.
What's with people claiming that "PvP makes sense for Klingons!!!"? How does that even make sense? The Klingons are a warrior race, so combat style gameplay makes sense for them. This combat gameplay can be both PvP and PvE. Why does it have to be just one or the other?
For example, I would expect that "Klingon exploration missions" would involve the player "conquering new life and new civilizations" just like the Federation exploration would involve peaceful contact and scientific exploration. Both systems would be PvE, but one would be based on war and combat and the other peace and exploration. Both would make sense from a "canon" Star Trek perspective.
So no, Klingon does not automatically equal PvP, it does equal combat, but this can be PvE and PvP combat.
Ok... I stopped at this in the article. That kinda proofs that this game has absolutly NOTHING to do with gamers...
These guys are ready to launch whatever buggy crap they have at launch day... The fact is that playes would wait MUCH longer for a good and solid game.
Be perpaired to see another AOC or WAR launch when this game releases.
To be fair to Jack, he was responding to a question about why they didn't just not launch with Klingon then include them as a more robust faction with full PvE options. He cited CoH where they did that, waited to have full fledged crafting and PvP for later, and no one gave the game a second look when they launched them. Thus, they felt with Klingons it was better to have them there in a limited form at launch as the basis for a larger system than later as a full fledged system.
As a CoH player I can say that PvP in CoH was never very good to begin with, and no one really cared about the crafting system. The crafting system is good and all, but not a very high priority for the CoH community. Ask Jack why he adamantly refused to put in a flashback system, which was something the players really wanted.
Because you are supposed to be a pain the the ass to Federation players and the Feds and Klingons are at war.
I'm half serious.
I dont have high hopes about this game. My main reasons?
- instanced pvp; i saw that with PotBS and it was horrible
- short development time; i cannot think of 1 MMO i liked, that has such short time to market. it feels like being rushed.
- limited features at start; i lost faith that games full of potential will live up to it
Off topic about project management
It is very well possible to make a project plan (and planning) and get your game done according to it. I am a PM in the ICT business and deliver project results on time, daily.
It takes :
- experience (if you dont have that in-house, buy it from others)
- well defined goals and a good breakdown in money, people, time, to get them done
- Publishers and developpers and everyone else involved that stick to the plan and live up to their initial signature
I have a feeling that many companies very well know they wont be able to live up to their promisses but go on with in anyway. To get the budget they otherwise would have never gotten. Resulting in poor MMO that do their genre more harm than good.
Currently playing browser games. Waiting for Albion Online, Citadel of Sorcery and Camelot Unchained.
Played: almost all MMO pre 2007
I find this interesting as well, when all of these publishers are trying to alchemicaly decipher why WoW is SO flipping successful, they all seem to miss the fact that Blizzard religiously adheres to a 'release when it's ready' philosophy, and don't just invest money, but time in their product.
Could the fact that Blizzard shipped a complete game have SOMETHING to do with their success? NO WAY! That'd be too easy!
Interestingly enough, according to the STOKED podcast, Cryptic gained the IP after Perpetual folded in a one week window by slapping some Star Trek art onto the Champions engine and promising to deliver the game fast and cheap. They say that you can have a project done fast, cheap or good, and you can only choose two of the above. Seems like Cryptic planned to deliver this game fast and cheap from the very beginning.
The truth!
I do not agree with this. There's no reason you cannot take an existing engine, slap on some new art, and create an enjoyable and sucessful game. The key is not to be overly ambitious and tell your customers upfront what they will and will not be getting. <<<< MAIN POINT
Now, some IPs cannot be done justice in such a timespan. That's a different matter. <<<SECONDARY POINT
Maybe if you had a ton of money and could hire a ridiculous number of people that is true. But good writing and questing takes time, and that's not related to the engine that much. Good combat systems take time, and that's not related to the engine all that much. Plenty of other things about an MMO take time to do right, cutting out designing the engine does save time, but I know of zero MMOs made in so short a period that have done well. Heck, the ones made in 3 full years that have done well are completely unheard of by me (I doubt they exist). Like someone said, compared to a single-player game, MMOs require a TON of content work for all the players and all that takes time. Randomizing things can help, but it takes a TON of time to make a good randomizer, and it just seems like they've rushed into all this and haven't taken nearly enough time. Another two years and we all would have been a lot better off.
QFT! Well said. Even with a licensed engine it doesn't mean that you can do it in 2 and half years.
Vanguard and AION are MMO's build on licensed engines. Both had at least 4 years development time.
Age of Conan and WAR were build on existing inhouse engines. Both had at least 4 years development time (WAR I think a bit shorter).
AION, AoC and WAR had huge development teams (200+ peeps) and yet they still released with not enough content, were very buggy and felt unpolished.
And tman5 thinks that Cryptic will do better with almost half the development time and a much smaller team?? Yeah right. Just have to point to their other game. Champions Online.
Enough said.
Obviously, both you and Drachasor missed my main point, so I highlighted it so you could reread it.
I also highlighted my secondary point, which goes right to the question of whether Star Trek is the right property to tackle given the obvious constraints of time and money.
Cryptic is not alone in making promises they cannot keep. That is MMO industry standard and will continue that way until MMO customers refuse to accept less than promised.
But, as has been said, MMOs are like crack and some tweakers don't care if their junk is cut with bleach as long as they get their next fix.
Quoted for truthiness.
I have never seen such a group of consumers so willing to be manipulated, deceived, and cheated by people they are paying.
It's truly incredible.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2