Originally posted by DoomsDay01 I am an MMO player and I am a star trek fan. I can easily understand why a lot of things are the way they are to make the game more enjoyable, that is not going to stop it from feeling like star trek. There has to be concessions to be both, there is no way around it.
They cut corners all over the place and avoid new things as much as possible it seems. There are a lot of problems I have with the game, but I'd say there are two very basic things they should have done and it would not have harmed the game at all. They should have had full Klingon content and a robust non-combat system. The Klingon part would have been relatively easy, but they would have had to take the time needed to make the game right -- Oh, and if you think every review only has good things to say, I'd direct you to Dana's preview on this site, wherein the first part he has his doubts about whether they can even get everything they have together and polished in time, and Dana is no stranger to MMOs; and that's someone who LIKES the game and enjoys repetitive tasks).
As for a robust non-combat system, that would have taken some work. There are other games where combat doesn't exist or is optional, and there are things to learn from them. There are also plenty of non-MMO rpgs that provide non-violent ways to resolve problems (if you choose) with multiple possible paths to follow and different consequences for each path. Something like that would have done a lot to satisfy people who like Star Trek and enjoy the high ideals of the show. Instead we get the Federation going around blowing things up, because Cryptic didn't have much interest in doing the game right, so they didn't work to make sure they'd have the time needed; they just wanted to cash in on the IP.
Anyhow, Player Crews would not have been that hard to do, especially if they were optional.* People act like making things interesting for each crew member would be hard, but I don't see why. You take a standard DPS in an MMO and they frankly don't have a terribly fascinating job. They generally mash buttons in a particular order over and over again and sometimes have to move around. Duplicating that level of involvement is NOT hard...heck, improving on it is probably pretty easy.
Edit: Honestly, I don't really think it is generally any one particular thing by itself that makes those of us unhappy with how STO looks unhappy. It's more the confluence of several things that does that. If it was just one thing we could probably forgive them, but it is item after item after item ranging from IP issues to more general development issues.
*I've kind of come around on this, though I do understand why Cryptic went the way they did, and to me lack of player crews would not have been a deal breaker by any means.
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 No I am not. Player crews could be cool. I don't personally care if they are in the game or not. That doesn't make sense. If you think they would be cool, why don't you want them in the game? Just like PVP. I don't have the right to demand that it not be there. And I never said I didn't want it in the game, I said I dont care if its there or not.
But where are you going to draw a line of what has to be in it? Where does cryptic draw the line for what has to be in it at launch? The line has to be drawn, but they drew it in the wrong place. Being able to run a ship with your friends will be one of the top desires for Trek fans.
Wait and see how many posters complain about it not being in the game, and rightly so, as crew interaction is as much a part of the show as space flight and away teams, and MORE a part of the show than space battles. No way should this game ever have been designed without the option to have players crews. No way.
In your opinion they drew the line in the wrong place. And because of that, you can't see past your preconceptions of what the game should be to see that, yet, it still has a star trek feel to it. One of the things that they have said is, if the demand is there, we will try and put it in. I mean look, they did get bridge interiors into the game after they said it would not be there for launch. It may not be the bridge interior you are expecting, but it IS there.
Like it has been said so many times before, the game can't have everything that everybody wants in it. Its absolutely NOT possible! Your saying strawman, but I bet you that somewhere in the world there is that one guy who wants to play the plasma scrubber and is pissed because its not in the game. And besides, who has said that those options wont be put in down the line? Who has said they will? And the earth is flat. Just because we have a globe of the earth and its round, doesn't mean it is. And you were talking strawman just a minute ago. Really think about that for a moment.
This game has the potential of going for the next 40 years with all the content they have to draw from. Who is to say that they don't actually put in that plasma scrubber in the year 2030? Now, how about what I want from the game? I want NO PVP! So should they take PVP out of the game? You don't have to PvP. Just like you wouldn't have to use a player crew. If they made it open world pvp, I wouldnt have a choice. Again, see, decisions.
Because we all know how open world PVP would be in STO. It would be just like it is in every mmo that has pvp in it. Gank squads running rampant trying to kill that newbie who just left the space station. I agree. Open PvP (especially unrestricted by location) is a serious problem. This game doesn't have it, by all accounts I have heard. But by your account just a few inches above, What if they DID put it in!
We would have hordes of klingons trying to kill everyone at earth. man, this isn't sounding like the star trek IP at all. DOOM to cryptic, they ruined my game!
You have every right to complain about any aspect of the game you don't like. I'm not telling anyone to shut up. Nor am I making smug patronizing intimations of trolling. Which you are, and it's getting old.
Many have told me to shut up, though. That's the big difference.
No, your being selfish. Its all about you you you. You want it this way, you want it that way. You don't care about what anyone else wants or thinks about the game. You think its got to be the way you want it or it isn't star trek and that is simply not the truth.
Your right, everyone has a right to complain about any aspect of the game they want. But to what extent do you go? Where is the line that is complaining and when does it get crossed over into trolling? Complaining about something not being in a game or something that is in the game is one thing. But to be so bold as to say the game doesn't feel like star trek when there are so many elements of star trek in it, or, to slam a company over and over again because they didn't make your version of a game over and over again just may be crossing that line of trolling.
I have stated in many threads of the things that I think are not so star trekkie in the game yet I have never once blamed cryptic because they were in there. Its MY own problem that something in there is bothering me. Just like it is YOUR problem that things aren't exactly the way you want them, yet you will bash the game and the company because of it.
Now, the reason I haven't told you to shut up is the exact reason you don't tell people to shut up, because we all have the right to voice our concerns. But If I feel that you are trolling, which I think you have crossed that line on more than a few occasions, I don't feel bad in calling you out on it. regardless if you think its getting old, Its about as old for you as your irrational preconceptions of what STO should be, for me.
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 I am an MMO player and I am a star trek fan. I can easily understand why a lot of things are the way they are to make the game more enjoyable, that is not going to stop it from feeling like star trek. There has to be concessions to be both, there is no way around it.
They cut corners all over the place and avoid new things as much as possible it seems. There are a lot of problems I have with the game, but I'd say there are two very basic things they should have done and it would not have harmed the game at all. They should have had full Klingon content and a robust non-combat system. The Klingon part would have been relatively easy, but they would have had to take the time needed to make the game right -- Oh, and if you think every review only has good things to say, I'd direct you to Dana's preview on this site, wherein the first part he has his doubts about whether they can even get everything they have together and polished in time, and Dana is no stranger to MMOs; and that's someone who LIKES the game and enjoys repetitive tasks).
And yet Dana also says that it is fun and this coming from someone who had issues with the game. I never said nobody had issues, I said every single one of them said it was still fun despite its issues.
As for a robust non-combat system, that would have taken some work. There are other games where combat doesn't exist or is optional, and there are things to learn from them. There are also plenty of non-MMO rpgs that provide non-violent ways to resolve problems (if you choose) with multiple possible paths to follow and different consequences for each path. Something like that would have done a lot to satisfy people who like Star Trek and enjoy the high ideals of the show. Instead we get the Federation going around blowing things up, because Cryptic didn't have much interest in doing the game right, so they didn't work to make sure they'd have the time needed; they just wanted to cash in on the IP.
We already know there are non violent ways to complete at least 1 mission that has been talked about. There may be a lot more of those in there and there may not be. But for advertising, I can see why they would choose to show combat everywhere over two guys talking it out for 2 minutes.
Anyhow, Player Crews would not have been that hard to do, especially if they were optional.* People act like making things interesting for each crew member would be hard, but I don't see why. You take a standard DPS in an MMO and they frankly don't have a terribly fascinating job. They generally mash buttons in a particular order over and over again and sometimes have to move around. Duplicating that level of involvement is NOT hard...heck, improving on it is probably pretty easy.
And nobody has said they wont have player crews. They did say that it wasn't going to be there for launch. This again is another personal choice. Like for me, I don't care that klingons are basically pvp only right now as I don't really plan on playing a klingon. At least at the start.
Edit: Honestly, I don't really think it is generally any one particular thing by itself that makes those of us unhappy with how STO looks unhappy. It's more the confluence of several things that does that. If it was just one thing we could probably forgive them, but it is item after item after item ranging from IP issues to more general development issues.
*I've kind of come around on this, though I do understand why Cryptic went the way they did, and to me lack of player crews would not have been a deal breaker by any means.
So you have started to realize that there is simply no way that they could get everything in that everyone wanted. Welcome to the club. Your almost there. Your starting to realize that even your own preconceptions of what you wanted star trek to be, is the actual problem, not the game that cryptic has made. Will they put everything that everyone wants into it? Who knows, if the game goes for 40 years, they just may. But at least you are starting to understand that they had to draw lines for release, It doesn't matter if the game was in development for 2 years or 4 years, those lines still have to be drawn. Once they are drawn you have no choice but to look to the future for things that you want in the game and hope they put them in. I mean, if you can come around and understand the lack of player crews at launch, you can also understand why other things are not in there yet or not fully implemented. Kudos to you sir, I think you may come around yet. You will still probably wait 6 months to a year to check out the game but thats fine, You have made the first step in realizing that a game can be fun and successful when you release those preconceptions and understand the game for the way it is.
Edit note*
BTW Drachasor, this really is probably your best post yet. I really do commend you on understanding that preconceptions thing. For so many people, it is dang near impossible for them to ever see that it exists let alone be able to start to see past it. Kudos good sir! Kudos!
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 So you have started to realize that there is simply no way that they could get everything in that everyone wanted. Welcome to the club. Your almost there. Your starting to realize that even your own preconceptions of what you wanted star trek to be, is the actual problem, not the game that cryptic has made. Will they put everything that everyone wants into it? Who knows, if the game goes for 40 years, they just may. But at least you are starting to understand that they had to draw lines for release, It doesn't matter if the game was in development for 2 years or 4 years, those lines still have to be drawn. Once they are drawn you have no choice but to look to the future for things that you want in the game and hope they put them in. I mean, if you can come around and understand the lack of player crews at launch, you can also understand why other things are not in there yet or not fully implemented. Kudos to you sir, I think you may come around yet. You will still probably wait 6 months to a year to check out the game but thats fine, You have made the first step in realizing that a game can be fun and successful when you release those preconceptions and understand the game for the way it is.
Edit note*
BTW Drachasor, this really is probably your best post yet. I really do commend you on understanding that preconceptions thing. For so many people, it is dang near impossible for them to ever see that it exists let alone be able to start to see past it. Kudos good sir! Kudos!
I think you misunderstood me. I was originally against player crews. After various debates on these forums they are a lot more feasible in my mind than I originally thought. More generally, I don't think this game is bad because it fails on levels a game can't reach or is hard to reach, I think the game will be bad because it is rushed, cuts corners, and goes for Star Trek in form over substance. I will check back on the game from time to time after release, but overall I expect it to have a slightly better life than Champions Online (which is not doing so well) -- and only better because the IP is so much stronger. This is my working theory because there are a good many facts that support it, ranging from how Cryptic handled other games, to previews, to what they've cut, to IP they needlessly broke.
Anyhow, you've obviously initially placed me into some sort of "mindless hater" box (the particular label is open to revision) which has never been the case. I suppose I should say that perhaps you are coming around to me here. : )
This kind of reminds me of people who think that anyone that hates the latest Star Trek movie hate it because it doesn't follow the original timeline, or dislike a Harry Potter movie because it doesn't follow the book exactly. I don't care about such things. I hate the last Star Trek movie because the fundamental principles of ethics aren't there, the plot makes no sense, and Kirk is pure id (and hence is a bad commander as he demonstrates multiple times in the movie). The poorer Harry Potter movies are bad not because they cut things, but because they are bad movies (not that I thought any of them were terrible, but some are poor to mediocre while others are good). Similarly, I have well-founded reasons based on the facts available to think STO is not going to be a good game. That reasoning will be put to the test when the game is released, but I certainly have enough reasons to not buy it for the initial release. Naturally, I think my reasoning will be vindicated...the vast majority of the time if I think something will be a dud, then it is...I don't make such predictions lightly (hence there are a lot of duds I don't call, but I experience high accuracy on the ones I do).
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 So you have started to realize that there is simply no way that they could get everything in that everyone wanted. Welcome to the club. Your almost there. Your starting to realize that even your own preconceptions of what you wanted star trek to be, is the actual problem, not the game that cryptic has made. Will they put everything that everyone wants into it? Who knows, if the game goes for 40 years, they just may. But at least you are starting to understand that they had to draw lines for release, It doesn't matter if the game was in development for 2 years or 4 years, those lines still have to be drawn. Once they are drawn you have no choice but to look to the future for things that you want in the game and hope they put them in. I mean, if you can come around and understand the lack of player crews at launch, you can also understand why other things are not in there yet or not fully implemented. Kudos to you sir, I think you may come around yet. You will still probably wait 6 months to a year to check out the game but thats fine, You have made the first step in realizing that a game can be fun and successful when you release those preconceptions and understand the game for the way it is.
Edit note*
BTW Drachasor, this really is probably your best post yet. I really do commend you on understanding that preconceptions thing. For so many people, it is dang near impossible for them to ever see that it exists let alone be able to start to see past it. Kudos good sir! Kudos!
I think you misunderstood me. I was originally against player crews. After various debates on these forums they are a lot more feasible in my mind than I originally thought. More generally, I don't think this game is bad because it fails on levels a game can't reach or is hard to reach, I think the game will be bad because it is rushed, cuts corners, and goes for Star Trek in form over substance. I will check back on the game from time to time after release, but overall I expect it to have a slightly better life than Champions Online (which is not doing so well) -- and only better because the IP is so much stronger. This is my working theory because there are a good many facts that support it, ranging from how Cryptic handled other games, to previews, to what they've cut, to IP they needlessly broke.
But is a game really rushed if they set their own time line? I mean, it doesn't matter if they pick 2 years or 4 years. If they are determined to release on schedule, is it really rushed? What you are saying about cutting corners could very well be true, however it could also be looked at as getting what they can into the game at launch time. And I dont think anything has been cut persay maybe just reshuffled and reprioritized for launch.
Anyhow, you've obviously initially placed me into some sort of "mindless hater" box (the particular label is open to revision) which has never been the case. I suppose I should say that perhaps you are coming around to me here. : )
Not a mindless hater at all. I can understand the feelings you have especially since you feel that CO was a failure. But I think I would also remind you that COH was not a failure so going by record, they are 1 and 1. Maybe this one will actually succeed and work just fine.
This kind of reminds me of people who think that anyone that hates the latest Star Trek movie hate it because it doesn't follow the original timeline, or dislike a Harry Potter movie because it doesn't follow the book exactly. I don't care about such things. I hate the last Star Trek movie because the fundamental principles of ethics aren't there, the plot makes no sense, and Kirk is pure id (and hence is a bad commander as he demonstrates multiple times in the movie). The poorer Harry Potter movies are bad not because they cut things, but because they are bad movies (not that I thought any of them were terrible, but some are poor to mediocre while others are good). Similarly, I have well-founded reasons based on the facts available to think STO is not going to be a good game. That reasoning will be put to the test when the game is released, but I certainly have enough reasons to not buy it for the initial release. Naturally, I think my reasoning will be vindicated...the vast majority of the time if I think something will be a dud, then it is...I don't make such predictions lightly (hence there are a lot of duds I don't call, but I experience high accuracy on the ones I do).
I found the new movie as only ok. I mean, it had the star trek feel but I didn't like the alternate timeline thing. Not because it didn't follow the original but because I find those time lines are just to convenient and overly used. As for your reasoning, You have every right to feel it will fail. I dont know if it will or not, but nothing has smacked me in the head saying this is going to be a bad game, regardless of past choices of other games.
Edit Note*
I will also mention that I feel I am a good judge of a good mmo and bad mmo. I have yet to play an mmo that I felt was bad. In that same line, the mmo's I have felt was bad so far have been shown to have not done well. I don't have this feeling for STO. So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself but the true test will be in open beta where I can get my hands on feel for myself. It may reverse my judgement and it may not but I will be most willing to say either way after I have played with it.
Edit Note* I will also mention that I feel I am a good judge of a good mmo and bad mmo. I have yet to play an mmo that I felt was bad. In that same line, the mmo's I have felt was bad so far have been shown to have not done well. I don't have this feeling for STO. So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself but the true test will be in open beta where I can get my hands on feel for myself. It may reverse my judgement and it may not but I will be most willing to say either way after I have played with it.
Thats where me and you have differed in our discussions DoomsDay01. Your basing your opinion of the game off of what you have yet to experience. Between the two of us, that makes one of us that is basing there opinion of the game on what they've read and heard and not what they've experienced themselves.
I am eager to hear of what you think after OB, as I was pretty hyped earlier on much like you seem to be now. My mind was quickly changed though. I didn't have any expectations and I didn't go in thinking things must be done a certain way. All I was hoping for was a fun Star Trek MMO. Come open beta I would like to hear what you think of the game then because at that time your opinions on the game would be based on something other than what you have chosen to believe. Plenty of info out there about how the game actually is that has been ignored by some of the "So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself" crowd. I would just like to hear from you again all after you have played.
Edit Note* I will also mention that I feel I am a good judge of a good mmo and bad mmo. I have yet to play an mmo that I felt was bad. In that same line, the mmo's I have felt was bad so far have been shown to have not done well. I don't have this feeling for STO. So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself but the true test will be in open beta where I can get my hands on feel for myself. It may reverse my judgement and it may not but I will be most willing to say either way after I have played with it.
Thats where me and you have differed in our discussions DoomsDay01. Your basing your opinion of the game off of what you have yet to experience. Between the two of us, that makes one of us that is basing there opinion of the game on what they've read and heard and not what they've experienced themselves.
I have mentioned before that this was all my opinion and based solely off what I have read and seen in videos.
I am eager to hear of what you think after OB, as I was pretty hyped earlier on much like you seem to be now. My mind was quickly changed though. I didn't have any expectations and I didn't go in thinking things must be done a certain way. All I was hoping for was a fun Star Trek MMO. Come open beta I would like to hear what you think of the game then because at that time your opinions on the game would be based on something other than what you have chosen to believe. Plenty of info out there about how the game actually is that has been ignored by some of the "So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself" crowd. I would just like to hear from you again all after you have played.
Oddly enough, I am not what I would call hyped. I am ready for the game to release as it has been at least 7 years that I have wanted to play this game. I am however, most eager to try it. One thing that puzzles me though. I can gather data, read reviews, watch videos put out by both cryptic and those non sanctioned ones from beta violators. And while I have not had hands on play time, I have not seen anything that tells me this will be a bad game. That doesn't mean that I will or wont like it, it means, so far, everything looks like it should be fun. But again, fun differs from person to person. As for information about what people think of the game, yes, I have seen some of those reports but since I do not know these people or know their requirements for a 'fun' game, I can not base an opinion from that. Just this thread alone shows how much we differ in our opinions of what the game should be like.
I will most definitely, be glad to give my report no matter if its good or bad once I have played in the beta.
Edit Note* I will also mention that I feel I am a good judge of a good mmo and bad mmo. I have yet to play an mmo that I felt was bad. In that same line, the mmo's I have felt was bad so far have been shown to have not done well. I don't have this feeling for STO. So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself but the true test will be in open beta where I can get my hands on feel for myself. It may reverse my judgement and it may not but I will be most willing to say either way after I have played with it.
Thats where me and you have differed in our discussions DoomsDay01. Your basing your opinion of the game off of what you have yet to experience. Between the two of us, that makes one of us that is basing there opinion of the game on what they've read and heard and not what they've experienced themselves.
I have mentioned before that this was all my opinion and based solely off what I have read and seen in videos.
I am eager to hear of what you think after OB, as I was pretty hyped earlier on much like you seem to be now. My mind was quickly changed though. I didn't have any expectations and I didn't go in thinking things must be done a certain way. All I was hoping for was a fun Star Trek MMO. Come open beta I would like to hear what you think of the game then because at that time your opinions on the game would be based on something other than what you have chosen to believe. Plenty of info out there about how the game actually is that has been ignored by some of the "So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself" crowd. I would just like to hear from you again all after you have played.
Oddly enough, I am not what I would call hyped. I am ready for the game to release as it has been at least 7 years that I have wanted to play this game. I am however, most eager to try it. One thing that puzzles me though. I can gather data, read reviews, watch videos put out by both cryptic and those non sanctioned ones from beta violators. And while I have not had hands on play time, I have not seen anything that tells me this will be a bad game. That doesn't mean that I will or wont like it, it means, so far, everything looks like it should be fun. But again, fun differs from person to person. As for information about what people think of the game, yes, I have seen some of those reports but since I do not know these people or know their requirements for a 'fun' game, I can not base an opinion from that. Just this thread alone shows how much we differ in our opinions of what the game should be like.
I will most definitely, be glad to give my report no matter if its good or bad once I have played in the beta.
Meh, I'm just saying you should reserve your opinion of the game until after you have played. "Sounds good on Paper" doesn't always translate well to "in practice".
You have stated a number of times how strongly you feel the game is going to be good, just saying you should save such sentiments until after you've gotten some hands on.
Edited to Add: Keep in mind I am not saying you shouldn't have an opinion of the game and I am not saying you shouldn't state it. Just saying that right now is the time you should be a bit open and not so focused on pushing your opinion on others.
Right now you have an opinion based on what you have heard or read. So your opinion isn't even really your own right now, its an opinion based on the opinion of others. You should wait until your opinion is based on your experience before you put so much faith in it and start trying to push it.
Also, shame on you posters that are apparently once again violating the NDA.
Couple of points:
If developers could get everything into a game that they wanted, they'd never launch
When you start going on about how ppl defending the game are employees and good reviews come from ad revenue, you are crazy
There are certain concessions that HAVE to be made when changing mediums. This goes for every IP ever made.
They didn't "leave romulans out", they gave them a storyline explaining why they're not taking a more active role in the war, same goes for the storyline where (as you can see from the end of DS9) the Klingons are breaking away from their alliance with the federation
Anyone who thinks STO is a "wow-clone" is also crazy
CBS owns the IP, not an individual who claims to be a trek fan. They get to say who provides canon information
As people in the thread have said, some trek fans are quite looking forward to the game exactly the way it is
It's only a small sliver of the community that want player crews, no matter how many posts a crazy person might make. Most people are okay with this.
Non-combat stuff is in game, if not to the extent that some may want it, but that could easily be adjusted if the players show that's what they want
By all accounts, I'm sure Cryptic is working hard on Klingon content to be added as soon as possible, after the uproar of players who have said they want that even before they tried the game.
Okay more than a couple, but there you go.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Meh, I'm just saying you should reserve your opinion of the game until after you have played. "Sounds good on Paper" doesn't always translate well to "in practice". You have stated a number of times how strongly you feel the game is going to be good, just saying you should save such sentiments until after you've gotten some hands on. Edited to Add: Keep in mind I am not saying you shouldn't have an opinion of the game and I am not saying you shouldn't state it. Just saying that right now is the time you should be a bit open and not so focused on pushing your opinion on others. Right now you have an opinion based on what you have heard or read. So your opinion isn't even really your own right now, its an opinion based on the opinion of others. You should wait until your opinion is based on your experience before you put so much faith in it and start trying to push it.
What opinion of mine have I pushed? I have never once told anyone that they should like the game or that they should play it. I have stated that *I* have not found anything about the game that has made we waver from my opinion that I think it will be a good game. Many others, including you, have said the game is doomed to failure. You obviously have information that I am not privy to yet, but many others have also been speculating that the game is going to fail simply based on prior games. If they can make assumptions about a game based off hearsay and speculation, then I think I can postulate my own theories based on previous gaming experiences from cryptic and the information that is available to me. The difference is, I have never once tried to push my own opinion on someone. I have challenged many others who state a game is going to be a failure when they are simply speculating themselves. Telling someone to have an open mind and not taking preconceptions of how they think the game should be is not pushing my own opinion on them.
It may not seem much roach, but if it helps any, I'll change my sig to quote you As far as the MMOs with no combat being successful, most people haven't heard of ATITD, and it obviously cost far less to make than any STO game ever, but lets move on. Regarding the development time, remember also that Cryptic already had an engine they just needed to plug in Star Trek content to. Where another company would have to spend 2 more years developing their own engine from the ground up (and even then they may not get it right), Cryptic can skip a large part of that time and move straight to putting things into the game. Whether you think the game is rushed even so, you still have to admit that this would signifigantly cut down the amount of time they would need to develop the game. I think people really need to try the game before they give it feedback (whether good or bad).
It's very true that would be a significant time/cost saver for development. However it comes with it's own set of downsides (there is no free lunch). Having decided on the engine apriori means that you are constrained in your design to only those features/functionality that the engine ALREADY supports. It's a little backwards from the way alot of big budget projects are handled where you determine the design features that the project MUST HAVE (along with a bunch that you want it to have but can get cut if needed to).....and then go out shopping for an engine (or build your own) based on THAT.
There is some basis for the axiom.... you can have it fast, cheap or good.....pick any two.
Note, I have no idea if STO is going to be good or not......but going with the CO engine, while it will have alot of savings in Dev time and costs....IS going to come with it's own set of downsides in other areas.
I'm not sure if it's been said before as I got tired of reading the petty arguments... but is should be noted that STO is not based on Starfleet in the time of Picard, Sisco and Janeway. It's in the future, a time of war. Peacetime pursuits such as exploration and humanitarian efforts must be put on hold to battle the new Klingon threat. Gunboat diplomacy is now practiced throughout the federation.
Having said that, there are a few things that I'm not happy with, such as the lack of Klingon PvE content, but I'm sure they'll be fixed in time. No MMO has had everything at launch but in time things get fixed or added.
(I've been a trekie for over 30 years and a MMO player for 7 years)
Wow the crazies are out in force in this thread. Also, shame on you posters that are apparently once again violating the NDA. Couple of points:
If developers could get everything into a game that they wanted, they'd never launch When you start going on about how ppl defending the game are employees and good reviews come from ad revenue, you are crazy There are certain concessions that HAVE to be made when changing mediums. This goes for every IP ever made. They didn't "leave romulans out", they gave them a storyline explaining why they're not taking a more active role in the war, same goes for the storyline where (as you can see from the end of DS9) the Klingons are breaking away from their alliance with the federation Anyone who thinks STO is a "wow-clone" is also crazy CBS owns the IP, not an individual who claims to be a trek fan. They get to say who provides canon information As people in the thread have said, some trek fans are quite looking forward to the game exactly the way it is It's only a small sliver of the community that want player crews, no matter how many posts a crazy person might make. Most people are okay with this. Non-combat stuff is in game, if not to the extent that some may want it, but that could easily be adjusted if the players show that's what they want By all accounts, I'm sure Cryptic is working hard on Klingon content to be added as soon as possible, after the uproar of players who have said they want that even before they tried the game.
Okay more than a couple, but there you go.
Responses:
1) "If developers could get everything into a game that they wanted, they'd never launch"
True.... no one is contending that. It is however fair to question some of the design decisions Cryptic has made, whether they have priortized those decisions wisely or not..... and whether they simply didn't budget enough resources to give the IP the kind of scope it really deserves. Ultimately the only thing that matters is whether the Developers put enough into the game to make it attractive to thier target audiance to play. The answer to that is going to depend upon which member of the potential target audiance you ask....for some obviously yes....others obviously no. Just how many folks are they going to end up satisfying enough to play....I'd say until at least a couple of months after launch the only answer that can really be given is... To Be Determined.
2) "When you start going on about how ppl defending the game are employees and good reviews come from ad revenue, you are crazy"
If you know anything about how Tech companies work.....these concerns are not "crazy" .... although that is not to say they are entirely accurate either. Tech companies DO try very hard to influence review sites and reviewers in order to get good hype. Some of the ways they do so are subtle....others are pretty darn blatant. That is not to say that reviewers or even ad based review sites are mere mouthpieces for Developers...... but they ARE often subject to pressure/influence/bias..... and some are better at resisting such influences then others. Any time you read a review from a site that accepts advertising revenue from the products it reviews....or really any reviewer (even volunteer/unpaid ones) that you aren't very familiar with....it's NOT out of line to put your sceptic glasses on when reading the reviews.
Additionaly viral marketing campaigns ARE part of many companies main stream marketing strategies these days..... and these DO often include trying to shape/control the messages being posted on blogs, forums or other social media.
Heck.....for all you know I could be a viral marketer for one of STO's competitors (I'm not....but it's not outside the realm of plausability.... that there may be person or two here who have a "dog in the race" so to speak).
3) "There are certain concessions that HAVE to be made when changing mediums. This goes for every IP ever made."
No arguement there either. The question is have they made the RIGHT concessions or not......and at what point do the concessions become too much that the IP no longer "feels" like itself anymore.
4) "CBS owns the IP, not an individual who claims to be a trek fan. They get to say who provides canon information"
From a legal standpoint...yes the IP owner gets to determine what is done with the IP. However most IP owners do well to remember the standard internet mantra of "You are SO not in charge here". Meaning that ultimately it's the fans that will determine what changes they "accept" to the IP. The IP owner controls copyright...they don't control public opinion/acceptance..... and it's really the later that provides any VALUE to thier IP. So if the IP owner is trying to push changes that fans simply don't like. All they are effectively doing is trashing the value of thier own property.
5) "It's only a small sliver of the community that want player crews, no matter how many posts a crazy person might make. Most people are okay with this."
The only way to state this with any accuracy would be if you had done a survey with representative sampling of the "community" (however you define that demographic). I am fairly certain you haven't (unless you define the "community" as consisting entirely of yourself and whatever alternate personalties you might have) and the only polls that have been conducted here publicaly would contradict this contention. I eagerly await your raw data sets in rebuttal.
I would try this out if the Orion Syndicate was a playable faction/race. Nothing says RP more in the STO universe than being a transportation export/import trader, smuggler, or even slave trader than the OS.
5) "It's only a small sliver of the community that want player crews, no matter how many posts a crazy person might make. Most people are okay with this." The only way to state this with any accuracy would be if you had done a survey with representative sampling of the "community" (however you define that demographic). I am fairly certain you haven't (unless you define the "community" as consisting entirely of yourself and whatever alternate personalties you might have) and the only polls that have been conducted here publicaly would contradict this contention. I eagerly await your raw data sets in rebuttal.
While I don't have any empirical proof one way or the other. I feel that it is safe to say that 90% of the players buying this game don't give a rats ass about player crews.
You have to remember that most people have jobs, families and other obligations. Waiting to get a player crew together. Just to play the game. Is not something most people would be willing to stomach.
On top of that. Not many people want to be forced to group to play. Myself included. Don't get me wrong I enjoy playing in groups. However I play solo a great deal as well.
Now I may be going out on a limb here. However if two STO games came out. One with player crews and one without. I have a hunch that I know which one would capture the most players.
So this past weekend, I visited friends for our monthly board game/RPG session. The host is a board game freak--he's got one of the most massive board game collections ever -- European games with strange, but innovative and fun mechanics, games written in foreign languages in which he has to scour the internet for rules translations. He's sampled two MMOs, (mainly because I'm an MMO geek) but found them wanting. My second friend is a chemist, a real newbie when it comes to MMOs -- we all played DDO for about a month (again, at my prompting), but that came to an end as real life threw us some curves. They are not forum hounds. They don't follow the debates. They are Star Trek geeks however, moreso than even me. So I mentioned to them this weekend about STO releasing in February. They both had only heard about it in passing -- as in, "Yeah, we heard there might be some sort of Star Trek MMO out there." And to my utter surprise, through no more prompting from me than "I'm not happy with the direction STO's going" my two friends jumped in and started describing exactly what THEY, the non-mmo, Star Trek geeks, would like to see in a Star Trek MMO.
Yep, Player crews Manned stations A bridge view Real time crafting mini-game for the Chief Engineer Explorable ships (ship interiors) events happening on board your ship Away teams (which I assured them, were actually in the game)
What really shocked me was that they came up with these ideas without any words from me, without any suggestions, nor encouragement. I just let them talk, because frankly I was thinking, "Damn, this is going to make a great MMORPG.com thread" lol. Not once did they mention:
Wanting to be a captain Wanting exterior, over the hull, view Wanting Extensive combat.
There you have it. Yes, a small sample size to be sure. Anecdotal evidence? Yep. But fascinating nonetheless.
It's funny that you claim/say these people know nothing about mmo's at all yet your/there list is full of mechanics that I would be hard pressed seeing anyone even knowing about if not for being knowledgeable about mmo's.
And I have to keep adding for all the people who try to justify there own unhappiness with what Cryptic is doing only one of the four Star Trek shows was ever considered a success and that would be TNG all the rest of the shows were pulled due to lack of support.
Having said that I'm not holding my breath for the Trekkies to save this project and I could really care less what there desires would be as a group it would mean more to me if they were die hard enough that anything Star Trek was ever considered a true success (and that includes a good many of the films).
I'm an mmo player and a sci fi fan and am more responsible for the creation of this game than any Trekkie will ever be so I'll stick with that validation as opposed to that of some supposed chemist who knows nothing and everything about mmo's at the same time.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
But the thing is, STO wasn't made just for trek geeks.
Source? Link? I would really like to see that one in print before believing it.
I can do you one better. Im not going to sift through all the tons of information to find you a link that you can find yourself. However, I will suggest that you go back and watch some of the videos that have been put out there by cryptic, describing the game. heck, even go back and watch the big announcement of them having the ip. I am almost willing to bet it was even said somewhere in there.
I'm usually very quick to side with the guys seeking the source but this post is very correct. I'll do you one better people have been pissing and moaning since Perpetual first made the statement that "this game is not being made just for Trekkies", that's right the company who first held the rights said it as I recall watching a post full of arguments over it being said and yes it was also covered by Cryptic if not in the first press release about picking up the game the second one. I've heard that some umptenn million times and can hardly see how you could be following this game really closely if you hadn't heard this same thing as well.
Again I'm going to reiterate this game isn't made for Trekkies but mmo players and sadly for some of our high brow community members that isn't going to be good enough I sympathise with them for that but then I have to say move on. I mean really what did you guys do before the announcement of STO just hold your breath waiting for a ST mmo in hopes that it would be made in a way you like it?
I don't think there would be anything wrong with a game with a bit more complexity but I'm also not going to apologize for being happy that this is not just a reskinned EVE online. I almost hate myself for saying this but if this game was nothing more than the "space based" version of WOW I for one would be ok with that why? Well because as it stands now there is no true AAA alternative to the same ole same that's out there every game has elves swords barbarians scantilly clad and I for one would do well with even just new scenery.
If STO can give me the entertainment that I got from LOTRO I for one will call it a success (for me atleast). I tire of the Funcoms of the world busting there humps to make these innovative new systems (that hardly ever work) to appease a very loud and vocal group of players who do nothing but complain at the end result (for good reason).
I applaude Cryptic for building the game the way they know how to build games and not going out on a limb and designing all these foolish little mini games and such before even getting the game off the ground.
While some want to stand on there soap box as "True Trekkies" and demand that the game be developed for the next ten years only to have crazy features even those players complain about, I'm glad to be an avid mmo player, not someone jumping on the bandwagon because the industry finally got notice from me and I'm glad that Cryptic is considering players like myself before considering the small sliver of "Trekkies" who couldn't even keep a Star Trek show on the air.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
5) "It's only a small sliver of the community that want player crews, no matter how many posts a crazy person might make. Most people are okay with this." The only way to state this with any accuracy would be if you had done a survey with representative sampling of the "community" (however you define that demographic). I am fairly certain you haven't (unless you define the "community" as consisting entirely of yourself and whatever alternate personalties you might have) and the only polls that have been conducted here publicaly would contradict this contention. I eagerly await your raw data sets in rebuttal.
While I don't have any empirical proof one way or the other. I feel that it is safe to say that 90% of the players buying this game don't give a rats ass about player crews.
You have to remember that most people have jobs, families and other obligations. Waiting to get a player crew together. Just to play the game. Is not something most people would be willing to stomach.
On top of that. Not many people want to be forced to group to play. Myself included. Don't get me wrong I enjoy playing in groups. However I play solo a great deal as well.
Now I may be going out on a limb here. However if two STO games came out. One with player crews and one without. I have a hunch that I know which one would capture the most players.
Probably true if your assumption about what "player crews" means was the same as most of the people on the Pro "player crews side". However it's not.....most of the pro "player crews" folks don't advocate it as the single, forced option. Very few people on the "player crews" side of the debate actually have proposed/advocated that. Let me frame the issue for you in a way that most people on this side of the fence...I think would see it.
No Player Crews = The way Cryptic is doing it now. NO option to play as a crew member (even for a one off session/raid) on another players ship. Each player MUST play as the Captain of their own ship. Each player fully controls their own ship in space AT ALL TIMES. No OPTION to cede partial control of the ship to another player at any time to achieve cooperative play in space. The ONLY way to group in space is for each player to command/fly their own ship.....and thus you have a group of ships.
Player Crews = The OPTION to play aboard another players ship as a crew member...WHEN YOU WANT TO. This could be achieved by either having player(s) replace the NPC bridge crew (for a play session) when the option is desired or by making different size ships controlable by different numbers of players (i.e. a single person controls a small vessel....a group is needed for a large vessel) or some variation of the above. When you want to play as a group....each player would have the option of controling one or more aspects/stations of the ships operation for cooperative play. When playing solo....the solo player controls the ship entirely by themselves.
THAT, I believe, is what most people are talking about when they say they want the "player crew" option. Very few people are talking about not allowing people to play solo in some manner.
I believe (entirely gut feeling....not based on any hard data) that while most people probably wouldn't be happy having to get together a full group together any time they want to venture out into space...most people (at least those that like Trek) are NOT going to be very happy if that don't ever have the OPTION to play aboard a ship with other people WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE IT.
It's Trek........people are going to expect to be able to be Scotty screaming upto the captain from the Engine Room ... "The Engines canna take it!" ..... or Bones from med-bay "He's Dead Jim!"..... or even Chekov on the bridge "Shields at Full power Kaptain." Yes, they'll want to be able to play solo too...but to NOT have the option to have those moments as part of a crew IS going to be a big deal to alot of folks (IMO)...... at least those who are fans of Trek.
While I don't have any empirical proof one way or the other. I feel that it is safe to say that 90% of the players buying this game don't give a rats ass about player crews. I will predict that 90% of the Trek fans who try this game will care very much about not being able to have player crews. Watch the fora after release and count the posts about that very omission. You have to remember that most people have jobs, families and other obligations. Waiting to get a player crew together. Just to play the game. Is not something most people would be willing to stomach. 1 - forming a group for certain content is something that most MMO players do on a regular basis.
2 - it would be OPTIONAL - just like dungeons and raids are optional in other MMORPGs. On top of that. Not many people want to be forced to group to play. Myself included. Don't get me wrong I enjoy playing in groups. However I play solo a great deal as well. Player crews would be optional. Why can't people understand that? Now I may be going out on a limb here. However if two STO games came out. One with player crews and one without. I have a hunch that I know which one would capture the most players.
If one had no option for player crews and the other did, the latter would be more popular.
If Wow had some solo only (no dungeons, raids, BGs, or arena) servers would they be more or less popular?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Again I'm going to reiterate this game isn't made for Trekkies but mmo players and sadly for some of our high brow community members that isn't going to be good enough I sympathise with them for that but then I have to say move on. Let me ask you this - why take on the IP (and no doubt pay a lot for it) if you aren't intending to please the fans of the IP? I mean really what did you guys do before the announcement of STO just hold your breath waiting for a ST mmo in hopes that it would be made in a way you like it? It was certainly a top choice in 'IPs you would like to see turned into an MMO' discussions. I don't think there would be anything wrong with a game with a bit more complexity but I'm also not going to apologize for being happy that this is not just a reskinned EVE online. I almost hate myself for saying this but if this game was nothing more than the "space based" version of WOW I for one would be ok with that why? Well because as it stands now there is no true AAA alternative to the same ole same that's out there every game has elves swords barbarians scantilly clad and I for one would do well with even just new scenery. If STO can give me the entertainment that I got from LOTRO I for one will call it a success (for me atleast). I tire of the Funcoms of the world busting there humps to make these innovative new systems (that hardly ever work) to appease a very loud and vocal group of players who do nothing but complain at the end result (for good reason). They primarily complain because the product is bad - not because it is innovative. Just being different isn't enough. If it was, WoW would have had its player base sliced up long ago. I applaude Cryptic for building the game the way they know how to build games and not going out on a limb and designing all these foolish little mini games and such before even getting the game off the ground. I condemn them for putting so little thought and effort into what could have been a great MMORPG experience. While some want to stand on there soap box as "True Trekkies" and demand that the game be developed for the next ten years Strawman. There is a big difference between wanting the standard effort (4-5 years) and what you claim. only to have crazy features even those players complain about, I'm glad to be an avid mmo player, not someone jumping on the bandwagon because the industry finally got notice from me and I'm glad that Cryptic is considering players like myself before considering the small sliver of "Trekkies" who couldn't even keep a Star Trek show on the air.
TOS was on for three seasons. TNG for what - eight or nine? Enterprise for four. Voyager for about seven. Don't know about DS9, but I think it was similar to Voyager. So that's about 30 seasons of Trek shows, not counting the animated series. As well as 10 movies, countless books and other merchandise.
That's not a small sliver.
Done right, a Trek MMORPG could hold 500,000 subs worldwide. No question.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
After so many years of mmo playing, I have no illusions whatsoever, beyond that a game will be released. In fact, I pretty much plan on my $50 (now approaching $75 these days) to be a 1 month thing, since most games blow out of the box. It pretty much comes down to how companies react (or not) to what players want, such as the player crews. If they start out responsive, it bodes well for a games future. If not, well...theres always 20 more games just over the horizon.
After so many years of mmo playing, I have no illusions whatsoever, beyond that a game will be released. In fact, I pretty much plan on my $50 (now approaching $75 these days) to be a 1 month thing, since most games blow out of the box.
By buying it, you are telling the companies to make more the same way.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Comments
They cut corners all over the place and avoid new things as much as possible it seems. There are a lot of problems I have with the game, but I'd say there are two very basic things they should have done and it would not have harmed the game at all. They should have had full Klingon content and a robust non-combat system. The Klingon part would have been relatively easy, but they would have had to take the time needed to make the game right -- Oh, and if you think every review only has good things to say, I'd direct you to Dana's preview on this site, wherein the first part he has his doubts about whether they can even get everything they have together and polished in time, and Dana is no stranger to MMOs; and that's someone who LIKES the game and enjoys repetitive tasks).
As for a robust non-combat system, that would have taken some work. There are other games where combat doesn't exist or is optional, and there are things to learn from them. There are also plenty of non-MMO rpgs that provide non-violent ways to resolve problems (if you choose) with multiple possible paths to follow and different consequences for each path. Something like that would have done a lot to satisfy people who like Star Trek and enjoy the high ideals of the show. Instead we get the Federation going around blowing things up, because Cryptic didn't have much interest in doing the game right, so they didn't work to make sure they'd have the time needed; they just wanted to cash in on the IP.
Anyhow, Player Crews would not have been that hard to do, especially if they were optional.* People act like making things interesting for each crew member would be hard, but I don't see why. You take a standard DPS in an MMO and they frankly don't have a terribly fascinating job. They generally mash buttons in a particular order over and over again and sometimes have to move around. Duplicating that level of involvement is NOT hard...heck, improving on it is probably pretty easy.
Edit: Honestly, I don't really think it is generally any one particular thing by itself that makes those of us unhappy with how STO looks unhappy. It's more the confluence of several things that does that. If it was just one thing we could probably forgive them, but it is item after item after item ranging from IP issues to more general development issues.
*I've kind of come around on this, though I do understand why Cryptic went the way they did, and to me lack of player crews would not have been a deal breaker by any means.
You have every right to complain about any aspect of the game you don't like. I'm not telling anyone to shut up. Nor am I making smug patronizing intimations of trolling. Which you are, and it's getting old.
Many have told me to shut up, though. That's the big difference.
No, your being selfish. Its all about you you you. You want it this way, you want it that way. You don't care about what anyone else wants or thinks about the game. You think its got to be the way you want it or it isn't star trek and that is simply not the truth.
Your right, everyone has a right to complain about any aspect of the game they want. But to what extent do you go? Where is the line that is complaining and when does it get crossed over into trolling? Complaining about something not being in a game or something that is in the game is one thing. But to be so bold as to say the game doesn't feel like star trek when there are so many elements of star trek in it, or, to slam a company over and over again because they didn't make your version of a game over and over again just may be crossing that line of trolling.
I have stated in many threads of the things that I think are not so star trekkie in the game yet I have never once blamed cryptic because they were in there. Its MY own problem that something in there is bothering me. Just like it is YOUR problem that things aren't exactly the way you want them, yet you will bash the game and the company because of it.
Now, the reason I haven't told you to shut up is the exact reason you don't tell people to shut up, because we all have the right to voice our concerns. But If I feel that you are trolling, which I think you have crossed that line on more than a few occasions, I don't feel bad in calling you out on it. regardless if you think its getting old, Its about as old for you as your irrational preconceptions of what STO should be, for me.
They cut corners all over the place and avoid new things as much as possible it seems. There are a lot of problems I have with the game, but I'd say there are two very basic things they should have done and it would not have harmed the game at all. They should have had full Klingon content and a robust non-combat system. The Klingon part would have been relatively easy, but they would have had to take the time needed to make the game right -- Oh, and if you think every review only has good things to say, I'd direct you to Dana's preview on this site, wherein the first part he has his doubts about whether they can even get everything they have together and polished in time, and Dana is no stranger to MMOs; and that's someone who LIKES the game and enjoys repetitive tasks).
And yet Dana also says that it is fun and this coming from someone who had issues with the game. I never said nobody had issues, I said every single one of them said it was still fun despite its issues.
As for a robust non-combat system, that would have taken some work. There are other games where combat doesn't exist or is optional, and there are things to learn from them. There are also plenty of non-MMO rpgs that provide non-violent ways to resolve problems (if you choose) with multiple possible paths to follow and different consequences for each path. Something like that would have done a lot to satisfy people who like Star Trek and enjoy the high ideals of the show. Instead we get the Federation going around blowing things up, because Cryptic didn't have much interest in doing the game right, so they didn't work to make sure they'd have the time needed; they just wanted to cash in on the IP.
We already know there are non violent ways to complete at least 1 mission that has been talked about. There may be a lot more of those in there and there may not be. But for advertising, I can see why they would choose to show combat everywhere over two guys talking it out for 2 minutes.
Anyhow, Player Crews would not have been that hard to do, especially if they were optional.* People act like making things interesting for each crew member would be hard, but I don't see why. You take a standard DPS in an MMO and they frankly don't have a terribly fascinating job. They generally mash buttons in a particular order over and over again and sometimes have to move around. Duplicating that level of involvement is NOT hard...heck, improving on it is probably pretty easy.
And nobody has said they wont have player crews. They did say that it wasn't going to be there for launch. This again is another personal choice. Like for me, I don't care that klingons are basically pvp only right now as I don't really plan on playing a klingon. At least at the start.
Edit: Honestly, I don't really think it is generally any one particular thing by itself that makes those of us unhappy with how STO looks unhappy. It's more the confluence of several things that does that. If it was just one thing we could probably forgive them, but it is item after item after item ranging from IP issues to more general development issues.
*I've kind of come around on this, though I do understand why Cryptic went the way they did, and to me lack of player crews would not have been a deal breaker by any means.
So you have started to realize that there is simply no way that they could get everything in that everyone wanted. Welcome to the club. Your almost there. Your starting to realize that even your own preconceptions of what you wanted star trek to be, is the actual problem, not the game that cryptic has made. Will they put everything that everyone wants into it? Who knows, if the game goes for 40 years, they just may. But at least you are starting to understand that they had to draw lines for release, It doesn't matter if the game was in development for 2 years or 4 years, those lines still have to be drawn. Once they are drawn you have no choice but to look to the future for things that you want in the game and hope they put them in. I mean, if you can come around and understand the lack of player crews at launch, you can also understand why other things are not in there yet or not fully implemented. Kudos to you sir, I think you may come around yet. You will still probably wait 6 months to a year to check out the game but thats fine, You have made the first step in realizing that a game can be fun and successful when you release those preconceptions and understand the game for the way it is.
Edit note*
BTW Drachasor, this really is probably your best post yet. I really do commend you on understanding that preconceptions thing. For so many people, it is dang near impossible for them to ever see that it exists let alone be able to start to see past it. Kudos good sir! Kudos!
Edit note*
BTW Drachasor, this really is probably your best post yet. I really do commend you on understanding that preconceptions thing. For so many people, it is dang near impossible for them to ever see that it exists let alone be able to start to see past it. Kudos good sir! Kudos!
I think you misunderstood me. I was originally against player crews. After various debates on these forums they are a lot more feasible in my mind than I originally thought. More generally, I don't think this game is bad because it fails on levels a game can't reach or is hard to reach, I think the game will be bad because it is rushed, cuts corners, and goes for Star Trek in form over substance. I will check back on the game from time to time after release, but overall I expect it to have a slightly better life than Champions Online (which is not doing so well) -- and only better because the IP is so much stronger. This is my working theory because there are a good many facts that support it, ranging from how Cryptic handled other games, to previews, to what they've cut, to IP they needlessly broke.
Anyhow, you've obviously initially placed me into some sort of "mindless hater" box (the particular label is open to revision) which has never been the case. I suppose I should say that perhaps you are coming around to me here. : )
This kind of reminds me of people who think that anyone that hates the latest Star Trek movie hate it because it doesn't follow the original timeline, or dislike a Harry Potter movie because it doesn't follow the book exactly. I don't care about such things. I hate the last Star Trek movie because the fundamental principles of ethics aren't there, the plot makes no sense, and Kirk is pure id (and hence is a bad commander as he demonstrates multiple times in the movie). The poorer Harry Potter movies are bad not because they cut things, but because they are bad movies (not that I thought any of them were terrible, but some are poor to mediocre while others are good). Similarly, I have well-founded reasons based on the facts available to think STO is not going to be a good game. That reasoning will be put to the test when the game is released, but I certainly have enough reasons to not buy it for the initial release. Naturally, I think my reasoning will be vindicated...the vast majority of the time if I think something will be a dud, then it is...I don't make such predictions lightly (hence there are a lot of duds I don't call, but I experience high accuracy on the ones I do).
Edit note*
BTW Drachasor, this really is probably your best post yet. I really do commend you on understanding that preconceptions thing. For so many people, it is dang near impossible for them to ever see that it exists let alone be able to start to see past it. Kudos good sir! Kudos!
I think you misunderstood me. I was originally against player crews. After various debates on these forums they are a lot more feasible in my mind than I originally thought. More generally, I don't think this game is bad because it fails on levels a game can't reach or is hard to reach, I think the game will be bad because it is rushed, cuts corners, and goes for Star Trek in form over substance. I will check back on the game from time to time after release, but overall I expect it to have a slightly better life than Champions Online (which is not doing so well) -- and only better because the IP is so much stronger. This is my working theory because there are a good many facts that support it, ranging from how Cryptic handled other games, to previews, to what they've cut, to IP they needlessly broke.
But is a game really rushed if they set their own time line? I mean, it doesn't matter if they pick 2 years or 4 years. If they are determined to release on schedule, is it really rushed? What you are saying about cutting corners could very well be true, however it could also be looked at as getting what they can into the game at launch time. And I dont think anything has been cut persay maybe just reshuffled and reprioritized for launch.
Anyhow, you've obviously initially placed me into some sort of "mindless hater" box (the particular label is open to revision) which has never been the case. I suppose I should say that perhaps you are coming around to me here. : )
Not a mindless hater at all. I can understand the feelings you have especially since you feel that CO was a failure. But I think I would also remind you that COH was not a failure so going by record, they are 1 and 1. Maybe this one will actually succeed and work just fine.
This kind of reminds me of people who think that anyone that hates the latest Star Trek movie hate it because it doesn't follow the original timeline, or dislike a Harry Potter movie because it doesn't follow the book exactly. I don't care about such things. I hate the last Star Trek movie because the fundamental principles of ethics aren't there, the plot makes no sense, and Kirk is pure id (and hence is a bad commander as he demonstrates multiple times in the movie). The poorer Harry Potter movies are bad not because they cut things, but because they are bad movies (not that I thought any of them were terrible, but some are poor to mediocre while others are good). Similarly, I have well-founded reasons based on the facts available to think STO is not going to be a good game. That reasoning will be put to the test when the game is released, but I certainly have enough reasons to not buy it for the initial release. Naturally, I think my reasoning will be vindicated...the vast majority of the time if I think something will be a dud, then it is...I don't make such predictions lightly (hence there are a lot of duds I don't call, but I experience high accuracy on the ones I do).
I found the new movie as only ok. I mean, it had the star trek feel but I didn't like the alternate timeline thing. Not because it didn't follow the original but because I find those time lines are just to convenient and overly used. As for your reasoning, You have every right to feel it will fail. I dont know if it will or not, but nothing has smacked me in the head saying this is going to be a bad game, regardless of past choices of other games.
Edit Note*
I will also mention that I feel I am a good judge of a good mmo and bad mmo. I have yet to play an mmo that I felt was bad. In that same line, the mmo's I have felt was bad so far have been shown to have not done well. I don't have this feeling for STO. So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself but the true test will be in open beta where I can get my hands on feel for myself. It may reverse my judgement and it may not but I will be most willing to say either way after I have played with it.
Thats where me and you have differed in our discussions DoomsDay01. Your basing your opinion of the game off of what you have yet to experience. Between the two of us, that makes one of us that is basing there opinion of the game on what they've read and heard and not what they've experienced themselves.
I am eager to hear of what you think after OB, as I was pretty hyped earlier on much like you seem to be now. My mind was quickly changed though. I didn't have any expectations and I didn't go in thinking things must be done a certain way. All I was hoping for was a fun Star Trek MMO. Come open beta I would like to hear what you think of the game then because at that time your opinions on the game would be based on something other than what you have chosen to believe. Plenty of info out there about how the game actually is that has been ignored by some of the "So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself" crowd. I would just like to hear from you again all after you have played.
Thats where me and you have differed in our discussions DoomsDay01. Your basing your opinion of the game off of what you have yet to experience. Between the two of us, that makes one of us that is basing there opinion of the game on what they've read and heard and not what they've experienced themselves.
I have mentioned before that this was all my opinion and based solely off what I have read and seen in videos.
I am eager to hear of what you think after OB, as I was pretty hyped earlier on much like you seem to be now. My mind was quickly changed though. I didn't have any expectations and I didn't go in thinking things must be done a certain way. All I was hoping for was a fun Star Trek MMO. Come open beta I would like to hear what you think of the game then because at that time your opinions on the game would be based on something other than what you have chosen to believe. Plenty of info out there about how the game actually is that has been ignored by some of the "So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself" crowd. I would just like to hear from you again all after you have played.
Oddly enough, I am not what I would call hyped. I am ready for the game to release as it has been at least 7 years that I have wanted to play this game. I am however, most eager to try it. One thing that puzzles me though. I can gather data, read reviews, watch videos put out by both cryptic and those non sanctioned ones from beta violators. And while I have not had hands on play time, I have not seen anything that tells me this will be a bad game. That doesn't mean that I will or wont like it, it means, so far, everything looks like it should be fun. But again, fun differs from person to person. As for information about what people think of the game, yes, I have seen some of those reports but since I do not know these people or know their requirements for a 'fun' game, I can not base an opinion from that. Just this thread alone shows how much we differ in our opinions of what the game should be like.
I will most definitely, be glad to give my report no matter if its good or bad once I have played in the beta.
Thats where me and you have differed in our discussions DoomsDay01. Your basing your opinion of the game off of what you have yet to experience. Between the two of us, that makes one of us that is basing there opinion of the game on what they've read and heard and not what they've experienced themselves.
I have mentioned before that this was all my opinion and based solely off what I have read and seen in videos.
I am eager to hear of what you think after OB, as I was pretty hyped earlier on much like you seem to be now. My mind was quickly changed though. I didn't have any expectations and I didn't go in thinking things must be done a certain way. All I was hoping for was a fun Star Trek MMO. Come open beta I would like to hear what you think of the game then because at that time your opinions on the game would be based on something other than what you have chosen to believe. Plenty of info out there about how the game actually is that has been ignored by some of the "So by my own judgement, I feel this game is going to do very well for itself" crowd. I would just like to hear from you again all after you have played.
Oddly enough, I am not what I would call hyped. I am ready for the game to release as it has been at least 7 years that I have wanted to play this game. I am however, most eager to try it. One thing that puzzles me though. I can gather data, read reviews, watch videos put out by both cryptic and those non sanctioned ones from beta violators. And while I have not had hands on play time, I have not seen anything that tells me this will be a bad game. That doesn't mean that I will or wont like it, it means, so far, everything looks like it should be fun. But again, fun differs from person to person. As for information about what people think of the game, yes, I have seen some of those reports but since I do not know these people or know their requirements for a 'fun' game, I can not base an opinion from that. Just this thread alone shows how much we differ in our opinions of what the game should be like.
I will most definitely, be glad to give my report no matter if its good or bad once I have played in the beta.
Meh, I'm just saying you should reserve your opinion of the game until after you have played. "Sounds good on Paper" doesn't always translate well to "in practice".
You have stated a number of times how strongly you feel the game is going to be good, just saying you should save such sentiments until after you've gotten some hands on.
Edited to Add: Keep in mind I am not saying you shouldn't have an opinion of the game and I am not saying you shouldn't state it. Just saying that right now is the time you should be a bit open and not so focused on pushing your opinion on others.
Right now you have an opinion based on what you have heard or read. So your opinion isn't even really your own right now, its an opinion based on the opinion of others. You should wait until your opinion is based on your experience before you put so much faith in it and start trying to push it.
Wow the crazies are out in force in this thread.
Also, shame on you posters that are apparently once again violating the NDA.
Couple of points:
Okay more than a couple, but there you go.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
What opinion of mine have I pushed? I have never once told anyone that they should like the game or that they should play it. I have stated that *I* have not found anything about the game that has made we waver from my opinion that I think it will be a good game. Many others, including you, have said the game is doomed to failure. You obviously have information that I am not privy to yet, but many others have also been speculating that the game is going to fail simply based on prior games. If they can make assumptions about a game based off hearsay and speculation, then I think I can postulate my own theories based on previous gaming experiences from cryptic and the information that is available to me. The difference is, I have never once tried to push my own opinion on someone. I have challenged many others who state a game is going to be a failure when they are simply speculating themselves. Telling someone to have an open mind and not taking preconceptions of how they think the game should be is not pushing my own opinion on them.
It's very true that would be a significant time/cost saver for development. However it comes with it's own set of downsides (there is no free lunch). Having decided on the engine apriori means that you are constrained in your design to only those features/functionality that the engine ALREADY supports. It's a little backwards from the way alot of big budget projects are handled where you determine the design features that the project MUST HAVE (along with a bunch that you want it to have but can get cut if needed to).....and then go out shopping for an engine (or build your own) based on THAT.
There is some basis for the axiom.... you can have it fast, cheap or good.....pick any two.
Note, I have no idea if STO is going to be good or not......but going with the CO engine, while it will have alot of savings in Dev time and costs....IS going to come with it's own set of downsides in other areas.
I'm not sure if it's been said before as I got tired of reading the petty arguments... but is should be noted that STO is not based on Starfleet in the time of Picard, Sisco and Janeway. It's in the future, a time of war. Peacetime pursuits such as exploration and humanitarian efforts must be put on hold to battle the new Klingon threat. Gunboat diplomacy is now practiced throughout the federation.
Having said that, there are a few things that I'm not happy with, such as the lack of Klingon PvE content, but I'm sure they'll be fixed in time. No MMO has had everything at launch but in time things get fixed or added.
(I've been a trekie for over 30 years and a MMO player for 7 years)
Responses:
1) "If developers could get everything into a game that they wanted, they'd never launch"
True.... no one is contending that. It is however fair to question some of the design decisions Cryptic has made, whether they have priortized those decisions wisely or not..... and whether they simply didn't budget enough resources to give the IP the kind of scope it really deserves. Ultimately the only thing that matters is whether the Developers put enough into the game to make it attractive to thier target audiance to play. The answer to that is going to depend upon which member of the potential target audiance you ask....for some obviously yes....others obviously no. Just how many folks are they going to end up satisfying enough to play....I'd say until at least a couple of months after launch the only answer that can really be given is... To Be Determined.
2) "When you start going on about how ppl defending the game are employees and good reviews come from ad revenue, you are crazy"
If you know anything about how Tech companies work.....these concerns are not "crazy" .... although that is not to say they are entirely accurate either. Tech companies DO try very hard to influence review sites and reviewers in order to get good hype. Some of the ways they do so are subtle....others are pretty darn blatant. That is not to say that reviewers or even ad based review sites are mere mouthpieces for Developers...... but they ARE often subject to pressure/influence/bias..... and some are better at resisting such influences then others. Any time you read a review from a site that accepts advertising revenue from the products it reviews....or really any reviewer (even volunteer/unpaid ones) that you aren't very familiar with....it's NOT out of line to put your sceptic glasses on when reading the reviews.
Additionaly viral marketing campaigns ARE part of many companies main stream marketing strategies these days..... and these DO often include trying to shape/control the messages being posted on blogs, forums or other social media.
Heck.....for all you know I could be a viral marketer for one of STO's competitors (I'm not....but it's not outside the realm of plausability.... that there may be person or two here who have a "dog in the race" so to speak).
3) "There are certain concessions that HAVE to be made when changing mediums. This goes for every IP ever made."
No arguement there either. The question is have they made the RIGHT concessions or not......and at what point do the concessions become too much that the IP no longer "feels" like itself anymore.
4) "CBS owns the IP, not an individual who claims to be a trek fan. They get to say who provides canon information"
From a legal standpoint...yes the IP owner gets to determine what is done with the IP. However most IP owners do well to remember the standard internet mantra of "You are SO not in charge here". Meaning that ultimately it's the fans that will determine what changes they "accept" to the IP. The IP owner controls copyright...they don't control public opinion/acceptance..... and it's really the later that provides any VALUE to thier IP. So if the IP owner is trying to push changes that fans simply don't like. All they are effectively doing is trashing the value of thier own property.
5) "It's only a small sliver of the community that want player crews, no matter how many posts a crazy person might make. Most people are okay with this."
The only way to state this with any accuracy would be if you had done a survey with representative sampling of the "community" (however you define that demographic). I am fairly certain you haven't (unless you define the "community" as consisting entirely of yourself and whatever alternate personalties you might have) and the only polls that have been conducted here publicaly would contradict this contention. I eagerly await your raw data sets in rebuttal.
I would try this out if the Orion Syndicate was a playable faction/race. Nothing says RP more in the STO universe than being a transportation export/import trader, smuggler, or even slave trader than the OS.
While I don't have any empirical proof one way or the other. I feel that it is safe to say that 90% of the players buying this game don't give a rats ass about player crews.
You have to remember that most people have jobs, families and other obligations. Waiting to get a player crew together. Just to play the game. Is not something most people would be willing to stomach.
On top of that. Not many people want to be forced to group to play. Myself included. Don't get me wrong I enjoy playing in groups. However I play solo a great deal as well.
Now I may be going out on a limb here. However if two STO games came out. One with player crews and one without. I have a hunch that I know which one would capture the most players.
It's funny that you claim/say these people know nothing about mmo's at all yet your/there list is full of mechanics that I would be hard pressed seeing anyone even knowing about if not for being knowledgeable about mmo's.
And I have to keep adding for all the people who try to justify there own unhappiness with what Cryptic is doing only one of the four Star Trek shows was ever considered a success and that would be TNG all the rest of the shows were pulled due to lack of support.
Having said that I'm not holding my breath for the Trekkies to save this project and I could really care less what there desires would be as a group it would mean more to me if they were die hard enough that anything Star Trek was ever considered a true success (and that includes a good many of the films).
I'm an mmo player and a sci fi fan and am more responsible for the creation of this game than any Trekkie will ever be so I'll stick with that validation as opposed to that of some supposed chemist who knows nothing and everything about mmo's at the same time.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Source? Link? I would really like to see that one in print before believing it.
I can do you one better. Im not going to sift through all the tons of information to find you a link that you can find yourself. However, I will suggest that you go back and watch some of the videos that have been put out there by cryptic, describing the game. heck, even go back and watch the big announcement of them having the ip. I am almost willing to bet it was even said somewhere in there.
I'm usually very quick to side with the guys seeking the source but this post is very correct. I'll do you one better people have been pissing and moaning since Perpetual first made the statement that "this game is not being made just for Trekkies", that's right the company who first held the rights said it as I recall watching a post full of arguments over it being said and yes it was also covered by Cryptic if not in the first press release about picking up the game the second one. I've heard that some umptenn million times and can hardly see how you could be following this game really closely if you hadn't heard this same thing as well.
Again I'm going to reiterate this game isn't made for Trekkies but mmo players and sadly for some of our high brow community members that isn't going to be good enough I sympathise with them for that but then I have to say move on. I mean really what did you guys do before the announcement of STO just hold your breath waiting for a ST mmo in hopes that it would be made in a way you like it?
I don't think there would be anything wrong with a game with a bit more complexity but I'm also not going to apologize for being happy that this is not just a reskinned EVE online. I almost hate myself for saying this but if this game was nothing more than the "space based" version of WOW I for one would be ok with that why? Well because as it stands now there is no true AAA alternative to the same ole same that's out there every game has elves swords barbarians scantilly clad and I for one would do well with even just new scenery.
If STO can give me the entertainment that I got from LOTRO I for one will call it a success (for me atleast). I tire of the Funcoms of the world busting there humps to make these innovative new systems (that hardly ever work) to appease a very loud and vocal group of players who do nothing but complain at the end result (for good reason).
I applaude Cryptic for building the game the way they know how to build games and not going out on a limb and designing all these foolish little mini games and such before even getting the game off the ground.
While some want to stand on there soap box as "True Trekkies" and demand that the game be developed for the next ten years only to have crazy features even those players complain about, I'm glad to be an avid mmo player, not someone jumping on the bandwagon because the industry finally got notice from me and I'm glad that Cryptic is considering players like myself before considering the small sliver of "Trekkies" who couldn't even keep a Star Trek show on the air.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
While I don't have any empirical proof one way or the other. I feel that it is safe to say that 90% of the players buying this game don't give a rats ass about player crews.
You have to remember that most people have jobs, families and other obligations. Waiting to get a player crew together. Just to play the game. Is not something most people would be willing to stomach.
On top of that. Not many people want to be forced to group to play. Myself included. Don't get me wrong I enjoy playing in groups. However I play solo a great deal as well.
Now I may be going out on a limb here. However if two STO games came out. One with player crews and one without. I have a hunch that I know which one would capture the most players.
Probably true if your assumption about what "player crews" means was the same as most of the people on the Pro "player crews side". However it's not.....most of the pro "player crews" folks don't advocate it as the single, forced option. Very few people on the "player crews" side of the debate actually have proposed/advocated that. Let me frame the issue for you in a way that most people on this side of the fence...I think would see it.
No Player Crews = The way Cryptic is doing it now. NO option to play as a crew member (even for a one off session/raid) on another players ship. Each player MUST play as the Captain of their own ship. Each player fully controls their own ship in space AT ALL TIMES. No OPTION to cede partial control of the ship to another player at any time to achieve cooperative play in space. The ONLY way to group in space is for each player to command/fly their own ship.....and thus you have a group of ships.
Player Crews = The OPTION to play aboard another players ship as a crew member...WHEN YOU WANT TO. This could be achieved by either having player(s) replace the NPC bridge crew (for a play session) when the option is desired or by making different size ships controlable by different numbers of players (i.e. a single person controls a small vessel....a group is needed for a large vessel) or some variation of the above. When you want to play as a group....each player would have the option of controling one or more aspects/stations of the ships operation for cooperative play. When playing solo....the solo player controls the ship entirely by themselves.
THAT, I believe, is what most people are talking about when they say they want the "player crew" option. Very few people are talking about not allowing people to play solo in some manner.
I believe (entirely gut feeling....not based on any hard data) that while most people probably wouldn't be happy having to get together a full group together any time they want to venture out into space...most people (at least those that like Trek) are NOT going to be very happy if that don't ever have the OPTION to play aboard a ship with other people WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE IT.
It's Trek........people are going to expect to be able to be Scotty screaming upto the captain from the Engine Room ... "The Engines canna take it!" ..... or Bones from med-bay "He's Dead Jim!"..... or even Chekov on the bridge "Shields at Full power Kaptain." Yes, they'll want to be able to play solo too...but to NOT have the option to have those moments as part of a crew IS going to be a big deal to alot of folks (IMO)...... at least those who are fans of Trek.
If one had no option for player crews and the other did, the latter would be more popular.
If Wow had some solo only (no dungeons, raids, BGs, or arena) servers would they be more or less popular?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
TOS was on for three seasons. TNG for what - eight or nine? Enterprise for four. Voyager for about seven. Don't know about DS9, but I think it was similar to Voyager. So that's about 30 seasons of Trek shows, not counting the animated series. As well as 10 movies, countless books and other merchandise.
That's not a small sliver.
Done right, a Trek MMORPG could hold 500,000 subs worldwide. No question.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
You boys get out and get some sun. Throw a ball around.
I sing the songs that make the young girls cry.
After so many years of mmo playing, I have no illusions whatsoever, beyond that a game will be released. In fact, I pretty much plan on my $50 (now approaching $75 these days) to be a 1 month thing, since most games blow out of the box. It pretty much comes down to how companies react (or not) to what players want, such as the player crews. If they start out responsive, it bodes well for a games future. If not, well...theres always 20 more games just over the horizon.
By buying it, you are telling the companies to make more the same way.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Considering that we've known about this decision for almost a year and people are still bitching about it I wouldn't hold my breath.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
People knew about no interiors as well, yet they kept complaining and Cryptic added a bridge view.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2