Hrm... at least I will get some play time out of it when it releases, hopefully just enough to tide me over till TOR comes out then.
Aye. Even though I am more a Star Trek fan than I am Star Wars, I will eventually navigate to the better of the two games which I expect to be TOR along with almost everyone else probably.
Time will tell.
Exactly the same sentiment from me.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
This is not to say I didn't enjoy those gleeful feelings in Star Wars. When ... Anikin destroys that Nemoidian Mothership, there is certainly some revelry to be had...
If you can still find any joy in any part of The Phantom Menace it's obvious you haven't seen :
I agree with your overall arguement. That said it got me thinking about video games in general and it's a hard task to find compelling examples of non-combat oriented advancement or challenges. Older adventure games like Zork or the ironically named Space Quests, Kings Quests etc. Actually it might be great if quest and missions were more like the puzzles in these old games.
The miner quest is a step in the right direction. I wonder how much patience the average gamer will have with them though.
Old puzzle or mystery solving (Myst comes to mind) games are basically single person game. It is hard to make it a permanent online game, unless there are crimes everyday for you to solve without fighting the criminal.
Hrm... at least I will get some play time out of it when it releases, hopefully just enough to tide me over till TOR comes out then.
Aye. Even though I am more a Star Trek fan than I am Star Wars, I will eventually navigate to the better of the two games which I expect to be TOR along with almost everyone else probably.
Time will tell.
Exactly the same sentiment from me.
Yeah, I am holding on to my three current subs and watching. These 2 games looks interesting. But, you know, with WAR and AoC, and tons of failed launch, I am not rushing in to play on day 1 of any launch.
Sounds promising. I probably would have played the miner mission just as you did, Jon. What, you mean I have to pay attention?
Indeed. Requiring one to actually read the text is a very good mechanic and I hope for those playing the game that it is a common theme in quests.
Perhaps Cryptic will put more than just a couple of varied quests in the game, unlike what Mythic did with Warhammer - overselling their special quest features and barely using them.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I'm interested in knowing if there's multiple ways to complete a mission. For instance, could you have navigated to the same side of the Azura as the Orion battleship, dropped just the shield on the Azura's side and beamed them out, then fled for partial credit? Or were you railroaded into fighting the battleship whether you wanted to or not? Things like that turn a game from "just another MMO" to a really cool one, because you can adapt your strategy to your abilities and get over humps that you're not really suited to handle at that point in the game.
Multiple paths to completion would be brilliant... you could then reward players who actually try another tactic other than combat. Not all quests would have alternatives, i.e. some cannot be resolved without combat so players cannot assume there is an alternative to be found. Have to keep the player guessing.
This would actually be quite a clever way of bringing a Star Trek approach to how you play Star Trek Online missions. You could even have some sort of reputation with Starfleet for being a thinking Captain. Such reputation might lead to additional quests that require thought and strategy.
Of course within a few weeks, the missions and how to solve them without combat would be posted on the web... but that's just life with the internet eh.
Bottom line, I agree with Wootin. This would make a very cool mmo.
Multiple paths to completion would be brilliant... you could then reward players who actually try another tactic other than combat. Not all quests would have alternatives, i.e. some cannot be resolved without combat so players cannot assume there is an alternative to be found. Have to keep the player guessing.
This would actually be quite a clever way of bringing a Star Trek approach to how you play Star Trek Online missions. You could even have some sort of reputation with Starfleet for being a thinking Captain. Such reputation might lead to additional quests that require thought and strategy.
This approach would also be in keeping with ST Lore since if you think about it, Picard got various missions from StarFleet of a diplo nature / first contact based on his personality / command style which Kirk probably wouldn't have.
Get known as 1 type of Captain and it opens up that branch of the missions tree, other type different mission tree.
After all can you picture Kirk doing the 'ahhh click clack smack smack ....' greeting to those bug people that Picard did?
Originally posted by Nebless After all can you picture Kirk doing the 'ahhh click clack smack smack ....' greeting to those bug people that Picard did? 'ahhhhh ahhhhhh ...... oh screw it!'
He got on fine with the mobsters.
I agree that missions being tailored to the Captain's experience would be a good design, but it's more of a BioWare kind of design.
Frankly, we would all be better off if BioWare was doing the Trek MMO and Cryptic was doing Star Wars.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Originally posted by Nebless After all can you picture Kirk doing the 'ahhh click clack smack smack ....' greeting to those bug people that Picard did? 'ahhhhh ahhhhhh ...... oh screw it!'
He got on fine with the mobsters.
Wasnt the prime directive kind of important to the Federation? whatever happened to Diplomacy first, Phasers last.. kind of thing, its not that im against PVP etc, its just that i dont think the current focus, which seems to be predominantly combat orientated, is the right one.
we come in peace 'shoot to kill' is now the starfleet motto...
Originally posted by Phry Wasnt the prime directive kind of important to the Federation? whatever happened to Diplomacy first, Phasers last.. kind of thing, its not that im against PVP etc, its just that i dont think the current focus, which seems to be predominantly combat orientated, is the right one. we come in peace 'shoot to kill' is now the starfleet motto...
Yup.
Aside from the graphics and sound effects, this game is not going to feel like Trek to me.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
A constant refrain about most games out right now is that they are repetitive which makes sense when people play them 80 hours a week or more as it is pretty hard to come up with unique content that doesn't repeat as fast or faster than people can chew their way through it.
While space combat in Trek was less prominent in the movies and the various series to fail to have it would restrict the final game to a very small part of the market and would likely be accused of being boring with no action to keep people interested. It seems like they are trying to add layers to the game ontop of the basic Trek premise which sounds good. The last thing I want to play is another Eve online that is so narrowly focused that it quickly loses fun. I want to explore, to interact and to sometimes blow someone into itty bitty little pieces.
Not sure how this game is going to turn out in the long run but it definitely has my interest and I will be giving it a try when it is released.
A constant refrain about most games out right now is that they are repetitive which makes sense when people play them 80 hours a week or more as it is pretty hard to come up with unique content that doesn't repeat as fast or faster than people can chew their way through it.
While space combat in Trek was less prominent in the movies and the various series to fail to have it would restrict the final game to a very small part of the market and would likely be accused of being boring with no action to keep people interested. It seems like they are trying to add layers to the game ontop of the basic Trek premise which sounds good. The last thing I want to play is another Eve online that is so narrowly focused that it quickly loses fun. I want to explore, to interact and to sometimes blow someone into itty bitty little pieces.
Not sure how this game is going to turn out in the long run but it definitely has my interest and I will be giving it a try when it is released.
A constant refrain about most games out right now is that they are repetitive which makes sense when people play them 80 hours a week or more as it is pretty hard to come up with unique content that doesn't repeat as fast or faster than people can chew their way through it.
While space combat in Trek was less prominent in the movies and the various series to fail to have it would restrict the final game to a very small part of the market and would likely be accused of being boring with no action to keep people interested. It seems like they are trying to add layers to the game ontop of the basic Trek premise which sounds good. The last thing I want to play is another Eve online that is so narrowly focused that it quickly loses fun. I want to explore, to interact and to sometimes blow someone into itty bitty little pieces.
I don't think anyone has suggested having no combat in the game. I'd be fine with a nice border war campaign for PvP between Federation and the Empire - in addition to the exploration and diplomacy which the series focused on.
The quality of the the combat is an issue, as well. Space combat looks okay to me, but the ground combat looks like garbage. Nothing like Trek which was all about utilizing cover and making flanking moves. Not to mention characters taking multiple hits to knock down - completely unlike Trek. The ground combat is just standard MMO combat with a Trek skin.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
This is a promising sign, the fact that there does seem some attempt at mission variety is already very distinct from CO which has none. Equally I am very happy with making the Klingons a prodominently pvp race, the style and ambition of the races need to be distinct and different and that is a good way to achieve it. As the game expands it would be nice to see playable Vulcan, Borg and Romulan races all offering a different playing experience with diffferent baises to pvp, pve and exploration etc. Real replay variety and real factional boundaries that open into a solid endgame.
Although the federation is at war there needs to be an indentity to them that is nevertheless familiar, a positive and progressive optimism for a better future is really at the core of what makes Roddenberry's Star Trek distinct from virtually all other Sci Fi franchises.
I'd given up on Cryptic after CO but I might just be tempted to give this a go after all.
Nicely written article, Jon. Fairly objective and detailed. The cargo ship mission and diplomacy mission did have an air of Trek about them.
But the Species 8472 mission set off some subtle warning bells and then your comments: 1. Miners came to the forefront again in a quick combat mission as they were being attacked by Orions. Being my badass self, I popped in with my ship and blasted 'em out of the sky. You are describing an emotion more fitting of Star Wars than Star Trek here. And that is what I've finally realized about STO: it has a cynical interpretation of the Star Trek universe. With rare exception (the final DS 9 episodes) did the emotion of 'badassery' ever play across the screen for the protagonists. They were almost always loathe to use force to solve a problem, and never gleeful about it as this mission clearly evokes is you. In Star Wars? Yes. Plenty of 'badassery' and 'yippie' moments of glee at the destruction of opponents. Star Trek? Yeah, not so much.
If these 'yippie' moments are what STO is going for, then Cryptic really has failed to present Star Trek in a way I find appealing.
I don't agree.
One of the early knocks on TNG was that in situations where Kirk would "kick ass", Picard would instead have a meeting.
Kirk was most definitely a swashbuckling kicker of behind, in my opinion.
Though I might agree with the idea that Trek evolved over time to sometimes be other than that. Still, you yourself "yippied" when the Federation fleet destroyed the cube in First Contact, no?
Originally posted by Phry Wasnt the prime directive kind of important to the Federation? whatever happened to Diplomacy first, Phasers last.. kind of thing, its not that im against PVP etc, its just that i dont think the current focus, which seems to be predominantly combat orientated, is the right one. we come in peace 'shoot to kill' is now the starfleet motto...
I don't think anyone has suggested having no combat in the game. I'd be fine with a nice border war campaign for PvP between Federation and the Empire - in addition to the exploration and diplomacy which the series focused on.
The quality of the the combat is an issue, as well. Space combat looks okay to me, but the ground combat looks like garbage. Nothing like Trek which was all about utilizing cover and making flanking moves. Not to mention characters taking multiple hits to knock down - completely unlike Trek. The ground combat is just standard MMO combat with a Trek skin.
These are from 2 different posts but kind of go together.
For Phry sadly we can say 'this ain't your grandparents TV show anymore'. The canon Cryptic has come up with is a war between the Federation and pretty much everyone else. With that thought in mind what they're doing for the missions makes sense. Might not be right, but works for THEIR canon. Plus for the mission vs the Orions; we'll they were pirates even back in Archer's day so going to a fight with them makes prefect sense and for any Klingon missions Cryptic just has to point towards it's canon.
For MMO Doubter from what I've read that's exactly what they're doing. The Border War part will be the Pvp zone between the Klingons and Fed's. For the missions, you'd pretty much always have ships slipping across the border both ways to raid / harass the enemy so the NPC missions work there.
Might not be what any of us would like to see for an IP like Star Trek and some where I read what has to be the perfect definition of the game: 'They (Cryptic) aren't making a game for everyone, nor are they making a game for just the Trekers, but they are making the most of what they can'. Wish I could find it again since I know I mangaled it.
Nicely written article, Jon. Fairly objective and detailed. The cargo ship mission and diplomacy mission did have an air of Trek about them.
But the Species 8472 mission set off some subtle warning bells and then your comments: 1. Miners came to the forefront again in a quick combat mission as they were being attacked by Orions. Being my badass self, I popped in with my ship and blasted 'em out of the sky. You are describing an emotion more fitting of Star Wars than Star Trek here. And that is what I've finally realized about STO: it has a cynical interpretation of the Star Trek universe. With rare exception (the final DS 9 episodes) did the emotion of 'badassery' ever play across the screen for the protagonists. They were almost always loathe to use force to solve a problem, and never gleeful about it as this mission clearly evokes is you. In Star Wars? Yes. Plenty of 'badassery' and 'yippie' moments of glee at the destruction of opponents. Star Trek? Yeah, not so much.
If these 'yippie' moments are what STO is going for, then Cryptic really has failed to present Star Trek in a way I find appealing.
wasn't a big part of star trek(especially tng) the idealism and the fact that humanity was meant to have moved on beyond its baser instincts
wasn't a big part of star trek(especially tng) the idealism and the fact that humanity was meant to have moved on beyond its baser instincts
Of course. But that has sort of been the goal of civilization from its inception.
We are still only human.
Picard himself acknowledges this very thing to Q during Farpoint. After having unleashed a bit of Hamlet's "Oh what a work is man" speech upon Q, Q sneers and says "you don't really believe that, do you?"
Picard replies that he envisions humans becoming that. Someday.
Originally posted by Scrogdog I don't agree. One of the early knocks on TNG was that in situations where Kirk would "kick ass", Picard would instead have a meeting. Kirk was most definitely a swashbuckling kicker of behind, in my opinion. [Emphasis Added] Though I might agree with the idea that Trek evolved over time to sometimes be other than that. Still, you yourself "yippied" when the Federation fleet destroyed the cube in First Contact, no?
Not sure I really agree with that assessment. Kirk, above all, did whatever he had to do to save lives. I don't think Kirk engaged in unnecessary violence and even when he did fight he tried to stop it when he could. Remember, Kirk only killed the Klingon Captain in Star Trek III because the Klingon wanted them BOTH to die and hence Kirk couldn't save him. This was the SAME Klingon responsible for the death of Kirk's son not so long before. Saying he was a swashbuckling kicker of behind seems about as accurate of saying Superman is a swashbuckling kicker of behind. Yes, they can both kick ass when needed, but they both avoid violence when they can as well. So that moniker seems quite lacking to me.
As for Picard, I think early TNG did have a bit of a problem where something like "shields down to 60%" and Picard would just be hailing. That sort of thing makes sense when no significant damage is being done, but those scenes always seemed a bit unrealistic to me when it was a Romulan Warbird or Uxbridge's recreation where significant damage would be dealt and no sign talking was going to work (e.g. no sign hails would ever even be responded to). It only seemed to work for plot-reasons, rather than logical ones. Didn't come up THAT much, but was jarring from time to time. I think they stepped back from this later (rewatching TNG now, but just near the end of season 3).
One of the main other differences between Picard and Kirk is that Kirk was more proactive about protecting primitive cultures, violating the prime directive when needed. Picard was so placid that rewatching some of the early episodes is a bit shocking. He was willing to let planets explode of natural causes because stopping it would interfere with natural cultural development -- the natural development being death and the end of all future development. Picard only backed down from such positions because of the rest of the crew. I think he lightens up on it later...he was at times extremely cold in the beginning though.
Anyhow, overall I don't think they are THAT different, but they do have different strengths. Picard is better at diplomacy and Kirk is better at fighting, but they are both willing to use either method and avoid even the death of their enemies whenever they can manage it.
So people didn't like the fact that the writer said he felt like he was a badass? If that's all we have to complain about out of this article, I think the game's going to be just fine.
I see people saying that the federation was only this aggressive in times of direct war, like with the dominion war. I guess it's a good thing that the federation is now in times very near to if not in open war.
Also he did say that he was coming to the aid of miners being attacked by pirates. I don't think even picard would stop to try diplomacy with a group of orion syndicate pirates if they were in the middle of killing people.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Comments
Aye. Even though I am more a Star Trek fan than I am Star Wars, I will eventually navigate to the better of the two games which I expect to be TOR along with almost everyone else probably.
Time will tell.
Exactly the same sentiment from me.
If you can still find any joy in any part of The Phantom Menace it's obvious you haven't seen :
io9.com/5431426/70+minute-review-of-phantom-menace-is-the-only-prequel-im-ever-watching-again
.. (it's 70 minutes long )
I agree with your overall arguement. That said it got me thinking about video games in general and it's a hard task to find compelling examples of non-combat oriented advancement or challenges. Older adventure games like Zork or the ironically named Space Quests, Kings Quests etc. Actually it might be great if quest and missions were more like the puzzles in these old games.
The miner quest is a step in the right direction. I wonder how much patience the average gamer will have with them though.
Old puzzle or mystery solving (Myst comes to mind) games are basically single person game. It is hard to make it a permanent online game, unless there are crimes everyday for you to solve without fighting the criminal.
Aye. Even though I am more a Star Trek fan than I am Star Wars, I will eventually navigate to the better of the two games which I expect to be TOR along with almost everyone else probably.
Time will tell.
Exactly the same sentiment from me.
Yeah, I am holding on to my three current subs and watching. These 2 games looks interesting. But, you know, with WAR and AoC, and tons of failed launch, I am not rushing in to play on day 1 of any launch.
Indeed. Requiring one to actually read the text is a very good mechanic and I hope for those playing the game that it is a common theme in quests.
Perhaps Cryptic will put more than just a couple of varied quests in the game, unlike what Mythic did with Warhammer - overselling their special quest features and barely using them.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Multiple paths to completion would be brilliant... you could then reward players who actually try another tactic other than combat. Not all quests would have alternatives, i.e. some cannot be resolved without combat so players cannot assume there is an alternative to be found. Have to keep the player guessing.
This would actually be quite a clever way of bringing a Star Trek approach to how you play Star Trek Online missions. You could even have some sort of reputation with Starfleet for being a thinking Captain. Such reputation might lead to additional quests that require thought and strategy.
Of course within a few weeks, the missions and how to solve them without combat would be posted on the web... but that's just life with the internet eh.
Bottom line, I agree with Wootin. This would make a very cool mmo.
I suddenly have the urge to pre-order this game.
I'm mainly looking forward to TOR, but this game seems like a very interesting one judging from recent hands-on articles!
Might be in for a buy, although I'll probably wait a bit to see how it shapes up...
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Multiple paths to completion would be brilliant... you could then reward players who actually try another tactic other than combat. Not all quests would have alternatives, i.e. some cannot be resolved without combat so players cannot assume there is an alternative to be found. Have to keep the player guessing.
This would actually be quite a clever way of bringing a Star Trek approach to how you play Star Trek Online missions. You could even have some sort of reputation with Starfleet for being a thinking Captain. Such reputation might lead to additional quests that require thought and strategy.
This approach would also be in keeping with ST Lore since if you think about it, Picard got various missions from StarFleet of a diplo nature / first contact based on his personality / command style which Kirk probably wouldn't have.
Get known as 1 type of Captain and it opens up that branch of the missions tree, other type different mission tree.
After all can you picture Kirk doing the 'ahhh click clack smack smack ....' greeting to those bug people that Picard did?
'ahhhhh ahhhhhh ...... oh screw it!'
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
He got on fine with the mobsters.
I agree that missions being tailored to the Captain's experience would be a good design, but it's more of a BioWare kind of design.
Frankly, we would all be better off if BioWare was doing the Trek MMO and Cryptic was doing Star Wars.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Me too!!
This all sounds promising.
He got on fine with the mobsters.
Wasnt the prime directive kind of important to the Federation? whatever happened to Diplomacy first, Phasers last.. kind of thing, its not that im against PVP etc, its just that i dont think the current focus, which seems to be predominantly combat orientated, is the right one.
we come in peace 'shoot to kill' is now the starfleet motto...
Yup.
Aside from the graphics and sound effects, this game is not going to feel like Trek to me.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
A constant refrain about most games out right now is that they are repetitive which makes sense when people play them 80 hours a week or more as it is pretty hard to come up with unique content that doesn't repeat as fast or faster than people can chew their way through it.
While space combat in Trek was less prominent in the movies and the various series to fail to have it would restrict the final game to a very small part of the market and would likely be accused of being boring with no action to keep people interested. It seems like they are trying to add layers to the game ontop of the basic Trek premise which sounds good. The last thing I want to play is another Eve online that is so narrowly focused that it quickly loses fun. I want to explore, to interact and to sometimes blow someone into itty bitty little pieces.
Not sure how this game is going to turn out in the long run but it definitely has my interest and I will be giving it a try when it is released.
Amen.
I don't think anyone has suggested having no combat in the game. I'd be fine with a nice border war campaign for PvP between Federation and the Empire - in addition to the exploration and diplomacy which the series focused on.
The quality of the the combat is an issue, as well. Space combat looks okay to me, but the ground combat looks like garbage. Nothing like Trek which was all about utilizing cover and making flanking moves. Not to mention characters taking multiple hits to knock down - completely unlike Trek. The ground combat is just standard MMO combat with a Trek skin.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I had the exact same thought, actually.
But, oh well. As long as one of the two is good.
In fact, if both are good then I'm not sure what I'll do.
This is a promising sign, the fact that there does seem some attempt at mission variety is already very distinct from CO which has none. Equally I am very happy with making the Klingons a prodominently pvp race, the style and ambition of the races need to be distinct and different and that is a good way to achieve it. As the game expands it would be nice to see playable Vulcan, Borg and Romulan races all offering a different playing experience with diffferent baises to pvp, pve and exploration etc. Real replay variety and real factional boundaries that open into a solid endgame.
Although the federation is at war there needs to be an indentity to them that is nevertheless familiar, a positive and progressive optimism for a better future is really at the core of what makes Roddenberry's Star Trek distinct from virtually all other Sci Fi franchises.
I'd given up on Cryptic after CO but I might just be tempted to give this a go after all.
I don't agree.
One of the early knocks on TNG was that in situations where Kirk would "kick ass", Picard would instead have a meeting.
Kirk was most definitely a swashbuckling kicker of behind, in my opinion.
Though I might agree with the idea that Trek evolved over time to sometimes be other than that. Still, you yourself "yippied" when the Federation fleet destroyed the cube in First Contact, no?
I don't think anyone has suggested having no combat in the game. I'd be fine with a nice border war campaign for PvP between Federation and the Empire - in addition to the exploration and diplomacy which the series focused on.
The quality of the the combat is an issue, as well. Space combat looks okay to me, but the ground combat looks like garbage. Nothing like Trek which was all about utilizing cover and making flanking moves. Not to mention characters taking multiple hits to knock down - completely unlike Trek. The ground combat is just standard MMO combat with a Trek skin.
These are from 2 different posts but kind of go together.
For Phry sadly we can say 'this ain't your grandparents TV show anymore'. The canon Cryptic has come up with is a war between the Federation and pretty much everyone else. With that thought in mind what they're doing for the missions makes sense. Might not be right, but works for THEIR canon. Plus for the mission vs the Orions; we'll they were pirates even back in Archer's day so going to a fight with them makes prefect sense and for any Klingon missions Cryptic just has to point towards it's canon.
For MMO Doubter from what I've read that's exactly what they're doing. The Border War part will be the Pvp zone between the Klingons and Fed's. For the missions, you'd pretty much always have ships slipping across the border both ways to raid / harass the enemy so the NPC missions work there.
Might not be what any of us would like to see for an IP like Star Trek and some where I read what has to be the perfect definition of the game: 'They (Cryptic) aren't making a game for everyone, nor are they making a game for just the Trekers, but they are making the most of what they can'. Wish I could find it again since I know I mangaled it.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
wasn't a big part of star trek(especially tng) the idealism and the fact that humanity was meant to have moved on beyond its baser instincts
Of course. But that has sort of been the goal of civilization from its inception.
We are still only human.
Picard himself acknowledges this very thing to Q during Farpoint. After having unleashed a bit of Hamlet's "Oh what a work is man" speech upon Q, Q sneers and says "you don't really believe that, do you?"
Picard replies that he envisions humans becoming that. Someday.
Not sure I really agree with that assessment. Kirk, above all, did whatever he had to do to save lives. I don't think Kirk engaged in unnecessary violence and even when he did fight he tried to stop it when he could. Remember, Kirk only killed the Klingon Captain in Star Trek III because the Klingon wanted them BOTH to die and hence Kirk couldn't save him. This was the SAME Klingon responsible for the death of Kirk's son not so long before. Saying he was a swashbuckling kicker of behind seems about as accurate of saying Superman is a swashbuckling kicker of behind. Yes, they can both kick ass when needed, but they both avoid violence when they can as well. So that moniker seems quite lacking to me.
As for Picard, I think early TNG did have a bit of a problem where something like "shields down to 60%" and Picard would just be hailing. That sort of thing makes sense when no significant damage is being done, but those scenes always seemed a bit unrealistic to me when it was a Romulan Warbird or Uxbridge's recreation where significant damage would be dealt and no sign talking was going to work (e.g. no sign hails would ever even be responded to). It only seemed to work for plot-reasons, rather than logical ones. Didn't come up THAT much, but was jarring from time to time. I think they stepped back from this later (rewatching TNG now, but just near the end of season 3).
One of the main other differences between Picard and Kirk is that Kirk was more proactive about protecting primitive cultures, violating the prime directive when needed. Picard was so placid that rewatching some of the early episodes is a bit shocking. He was willing to let planets explode of natural causes because stopping it would interfere with natural cultural development -- the natural development being death and the end of all future development. Picard only backed down from such positions because of the rest of the crew. I think he lightens up on it later...he was at times extremely cold in the beginning though.
Anyhow, overall I don't think they are THAT different, but they do have different strengths. Picard is better at diplomacy and Kirk is better at fighting, but they are both willing to use either method and avoid even the death of their enemies whenever they can manage it.
So people didn't like the fact that the writer said he felt like he was a badass? If that's all we have to complain about out of this article, I think the game's going to be just fine.
I see people saying that the federation was only this aggressive in times of direct war, like with the dominion war. I guess it's a good thing that the federation is now in times very near to if not in open war.
Also he did say that he was coming to the aid of miners being attacked by pirates. I don't think even picard would stop to try diplomacy with a group of orion syndicate pirates if they were in the middle of killing people.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Uh, I don't want Cryptic touching Star Wars, thanks. Maybe Bioware can do the next Trek MMO and get it right.
mmorpg.com has the best STO info. Thanks!