Bored to death of people declaring games a failure before they have been released and without the poster having even logged on for one second. Is CO a poor game? Possibly but comic book heroes didn't interest me so I've not played it or any of the others of that genre. Is there a chance that STO will be rubbish? Yes. Is it likely that some of the fault will lie with Cryptic? Of course.
Is it possible it will be the best game ever released? Yes though the reality is that it will be somewhere in the middle. I'm looking forward to giving it a try and see how well they do. But, them I'm more interested in having fun and enjoying myself than screaming at the net about all that is wrong with MMOs.
P.S. Getting a new computer shouldn't be mandatory but neither should the rest of the world be held back because some people can't or won't upgrade.
With STO cryptic need to do things they haven't done before, develop skills and talents not seen in CO - they need to make the game itself fun to play, they need the experience to feel like Star Trek (or at least some space opera inspired fanstasy) they cannot just rely on lots of pretty superficials that make no real difference to the experience.
While this is obviously unknown territory for them as a studio I think it must be a pivotal requirement of the design brief and franchise license so learn they must.... I hope its not beyond them and I hope that the demands here make them a wiser and smarter company for the future.
Undernourished and restricive mmo's like CO need to be consigned to the past, this title is Cryptics best chance to prove avatar customisation isn't their only skill and in turn secure a stake in what is a more competitive and diverse future market.
Just to clear something up, Sony technically owned Everquest since day one. Yes, Verant is credited with making the game but it was Sony that created verant. They didn't think EQ would become the success it did so they founded Verant in case the game tanked leaving Sony's credibility intact. Also, who else do you think worked Verant? Yep, your boy Smedley.
Look up the documentary "Evercracked". It explains everything. You can still hate SOE regardless of course.
I have no expectations of STO other than for it to be different than games i've previously played and i certainly have no great expectations of Cryptic. That being said, i've pre-ordered and will give the game a try for at least a month or two after launch, will it live up to the hype that everyone ese seems to be feeling for the game? Probably not, no games ever do but at this point in MMO gaming when i've tried practically everything going over the years other than this genre i'm more than willing to give it a shot.
Pre-ordering a game when you have low expectations for it, is just encouraging the industry to produce more disappointing games.
/shrug I'd rather be a glass half full kinda guy than half empty any day of the week.
Well personally I am having a blast in STO, but there is a huge hate machine with an agenda in beta, they are not testing the game they are just flooding the forums with doom and fail posts, some will even admit that it's simply because they want STO to fail to make more room for SW:TOR. It's frustrating for the devs who are trying to get an accurate picture of what going on in beta. I think that we are going to see major changes to how ganes are tested very soon, as all this axe grinding is stupid.
Just to clear something up, Sony technically owned Everquest since day one. Yes, Verant is credited with making the game but it was Sony that created verant. They didn't think EQ would become the success it did so they founded Verant in case the game tanked leaving Sony's credibility intact. Also, who else do you think worked Verant? Yep, your boy Smedley. Look up the documentary "Evercracked". It explains everything. You can still hate SOE regardless of course.
Sony owned yes, but not SoE, since that was a different division. Think of Blizzard North. We all know of 989 studios. It is on the game and all of EQ, which i got the original launch box and all. 989 was the publisher, Verant the development company, that used to be Redeye.
As far as management goes, each division is given a budget. They are responsible for their own divisions. Hell, each division competes for more budgets if they do better than other divisions. So while Sony owns them all, SoE did NOT own Verant in the beginning. They had not absorbed them into the SoE division yet.
Smedley also wasnt a bad guy at all, till he got all that power, being in SoE. When they were small divisions, they all worked so much harder. With less internal competition, Smedley and the like just went bad.
Your history seems to lack, in your crunched up presentation, ALOT of key factors.
Originally posted by Kabaal /shrug I'd rather be a glass half full kinda guy than half empty any day of the week.
When I pay for a drink - I expect and demand that the glass be full.
Exactly. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, if you paid for a full glass, you got ripped off. Question is, do you just take it like a sucker?
Originally posted by Kabaal /shrug I'd rather be a glass half full kinda guy than half empty any day of the week.
When I pay for a drink - I expect and demand that the glass be full.
Exactly. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, if you paid for a full glass, you got ripped off. Question is, do you just take it like a sucker?
It's just a video game. It's not some life-changing event.
I have yet to buy an mmo title that I have played for less time than a single player game.
Originally posted by Kabaal /shrug I'd rather be a glass half full kinda guy than half empty any day of the week.
When I pay for a drink - I expect and demand that the glass be full.
Exactly. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, if you paid for a full glass, you got ripped off. Question is, do you just take it like a sucker?
Honestly, for every person that raises a stink and demand the second half, many more (whatever amount you want to put it at) just walk away and never return. Those are the people that make developers pull their hair out, as they can only guess why they left silently. Which glass wasn't full enough for them? The one that the loud people are yelling about, or something else entirely?
There are too many other entertainment choices to expect the customers to give you a second chance after being "suckered" and many will feel taken no matter what you do. Quite the dilemma for the business, as throwing money at the problem doesn't help solve it.
I am surprised to see the comment above re hate arising from the future competition from bioware - I don't really see STO and SW:ToR as competitors.
Traditionally the two franchises have quite different approaches to storytelling and combat with the result that the fanbases have tended to remain segregated...it is perhaps ironic that a Star Trek mmo is always going to shift the bias away from the iconic Star Trek philosophy into some really extreme war torn scenario to 'excuse' the predominance of staple mmo play (and circumvent the need for imagination in gameplay) but even then I don't see that as really causing too many folks to consider jumping ship - the title, the ship design, the characters will be strong enough to carry this game - the key is for Cryptic to avoid killing the goose that has given it some potentially golden eggs.
The company did trade on a lot of charity when it came to CO and that is where a lot of players feel let down imo.
Originally posted by Kabaal /shrug I'd rather be a glass half full kinda guy than half empty any day of the week.
When I pay for a drink - I expect and demand that the glass be full.
Exactly. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, if you paid for a full glass, you got ripped off. Question is, do you just take it like a sucker?
It's just a video game. It's not some life-changing event.
I have yet to buy an mmo title that I have played for less time than a single player game.
Agree 100% there. To continue with the going analogy, I think too many people these days buy a drink and then expect to get free dinner and a lap dance.
The initial purchase price for an mmo is a lot better value than most other games on the market. AND you get a choice whether to pay to continue or not.
I've bought many MMOs that I did not play past the first month or two. But I don't regret buying any of them.
I fully expect to dump STO after a month or two. But I expect to have my fun creating and doing stuff in the STO universe.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
I have yet to buy an mmo title that I have played for less time than a single player game.
I have yet to buy a single player game that I have to keep paying for after the first month.
Think his point was that buying an MMO and only playing the free month and never subbing again due to not liking the game enough pretty much made up for the retail cost of the game (he didnt feel cheated). In other words he had 30 days of play time for that $50~ vs the average 15 hours of gameplay on a single player game of almost the same price.
Your post doesnt really fit because if you are unhappy with the MMO you dont have to continue paying the monthly fee. You dont have to keep paying after the first month unless you want to.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I have yet to buy an mmo title that I have played for less time than a single player game.
I have yet to buy a single player game that I have to keep paying for after the first month.
I have yet to take a month to figure out if I want to play for another month or not.
I have yet to purchase a MMO without playing some kind of in-game gameplay trial before spending a cent with it.
You beat me there. I always buy the games. Even bought horizons knowing the issues. Not because I want to support bad games, but because I always find alot of effort from the developers who are not the big names, and when you give reviews saying how this or what was good, it helps them use that to maybe land even better jobs in the industry with less failure management.
I like to support the programmers, the graphic designers, and whatnot. They are just told what to do. Sometimes they make absolutely amazing things with the limited resources they got. I like to give them props for such things.
Well personally I am having a blast in STO, but there is a huge hate machine with an agenda in beta, they are not testing the game they are just flooding the forums with doom and fail posts, some will even admit that it's simply because they want STO to fail to make more room for SW:TOR. It's frustrating for the devs who are trying to get an accurate picture of what going on in beta. I think that we are going to see major changes to how ganes are tested very soon, as all this axe grinding is stupid.
It is extremely stupid and very petty. I hope they can come up with something that helps eliminate those people. BETA is for testing the game, nothing else. Having to deal with the people with an axe to grind on the forums is bad enough.
I also don't understand the whole comparison with TOR either because they are two completely different games based off two completely different IPs. They shouldn't feel so threatened.
Originally posted by Creasian I like to support the programmers, the graphic designers, and whatnot. They are just told what to do. Sometimes they make absolutely amazing things with the limited resources they got. I like to give them props for such things.
I like to support the skilled ones. The ones who make good games.
It's just charity, otherwise.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I thought I saw somewhere that the minimal specs to play this game were quite low. My laptop was the high end laptop 3 years ago. It still plays some games quite well. It played WOW over 1600 x 1200 with great fps. Everything turned on cept for shadows.
I could have sworn the minimal was 1.8ghz processor 1g RAM. Not very high specs at all. I think your 4-5 year old pc should still handle this game very well. The question is about the games out later this year. They sound like they will need higher end pcs.
To say a game will be 100% fail and that you know this, please will you look into your crystal ball and tell me where I will be in 5 years? How much money do I make? Could you tell me the winning lotto numbers this Saturday?
It is extremely stupid and very petty. I hope they can come up with something that helps eliminate those people. BETA is for testing the game, nothing else. Tell that to the companies who sell beta access. Expecting people who paid to get in to act like employees is unreasonable. If you want professional testing - pay for it. Having to deal with the people with an axe to grind on the forums is bad enough. I also don't understand the whole comparison with TOR either because they are two completely different games based off two completely different IPs. They shouldn't feel so threatened.
So, negative comments from beta testers are part of an agenda, but positive ones are true and pure?
This is hilarious. I won't make any 'tinfoil hat' comments, even though I have certainly had them come my way.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
My system was high end 5-6 years ago. It has a pentium 4 3.2GHZ, 2GB RAM, RADEON X1950 pro (I upgraded form original a few years back.) That made me LOL! I played CO with alot of stuttering and lag, graphics didn't look too good. I tried it on the pc at work which was high end 2 years ago, not sure on specs but it has 4GB RAM and a good graphics card (from 2 years ago.) It looked nice on that pc and ran smoother.
I know I need to upgrade but really those of us that like to buy brand name pc's have to pay thousands of dollars to get the best experience every few years? That's too much money for most. Seriously, you don't need thousands dollars, just buy a medium PC ($800), then for the next 2 years buy a new decent video card and maybe add a some RAM. (much less than $300). Your computer will run smoothly and in the end you'll spent under $1500 over 3 years, more like $1200. Buying the top end PC then letting it rot till you can't play anything is the worse thing you can do as overall you'll have crappy gaming experience.
My system was high end 5-6 years ago. It has a pentium 4 3.2GHZ, 2GB RAM, RADEON X1950 pro (I upgraded form original a few years back.) That made me LOL! I played CO with alot of stuttering and lag, graphics didn't look too good. I tried it on the pc at work which was high end 2 years ago, not sure on specs but it has 4GB RAM and a good graphics card (from 2 years ago.) It looked nice on that pc and ran smoother.
I know I need to upgrade but really those of us that like to buy brand name pc's have to pay thousands of dollars to get the best experience every few years? That's too much money for most. Seriously, you don't need thousands dollars, just buy a medium PC ($800), then for the next 2 years buy a new decent video card and maybe add a some RAM. (much less than $300). Your computer will run smoothly and in the end you'll spent under $1500 over 3 years, more like $1200. Buying the top end PC then letting it rot till you can't play anything is the worse thing you can do as overall you'll have crappy gaming experience.
Aye, you can build a great system for less than $900 and then maybe $200 a year for the next few years. Once you have a PC built all you really need to do is just replace the major parts that get out dated over time and you can still end up with a PC that meets/beats specs.
As others have said after the initial purchase the most you will have to do is upgrade the graphics card every year or so. A good CPU can last you at least 2 years before falling below required specs of newer games.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
It is extremely stupid and very petty. I hope they can come up with something that helps eliminate those people. BETA is for testing the game, nothing else. Tell that to the companies who sell beta access. Expecting people who paid to get in to act like employees is unreasonable. If you want professional testing - pay for it. Having to deal with the people with an axe to grind on the forums is bad enough. I also don't understand the whole comparison with TOR either because they are two completely different games based off two completely different IPs. They shouldn't feel so threatened.
So, negative comments from beta testers are part of an agenda, but positive ones are true and pure?
This is hilarious. I won't make any 'tinfoil hat' comments, even though I have certainly had them come my way.
Originally posted by Creasian I like to support the programmers, the graphic designers, and whatnot. They are just told what to do. Sometimes they make absolutely amazing things with the limited resources they got. I like to give them props for such things.
I like to support the skilled ones. The ones who make good games.
It's just charity, otherwise.
So the guy who did the volumetric clouds in Vanguard should be called unskilled on the account that the game, on a mass scale, is considered a bad game? If you were told vanguard sucks, you might not try it. Then you wouldnt understand the sheer amount of props that guy got for his work. Which, might I add, was just amazing.
Your retort is about quantity. Alot of good things to make the overall game good.
Mine is about still giving props to the individual good things, even in a bad game.
Comments
Bored to death of people declaring games a failure before they have been released and without the poster having even logged on for one second. Is CO a poor game? Possibly but comic book heroes didn't interest me so I've not played it or any of the others of that genre. Is there a chance that STO will be rubbish? Yes. Is it likely that some of the fault will lie with Cryptic? Of course.
Is it possible it will be the best game ever released? Yes though the reality is that it will be somewhere in the middle. I'm looking forward to giving it a try and see how well they do. But, them I'm more interested in having fun and enjoying myself than screaming at the net about all that is wrong with MMOs.
P.S. Getting a new computer shouldn't be mandatory but neither should the rest of the world be held back because some people can't or won't upgrade.
With STO cryptic need to do things they haven't done before, develop skills and talents not seen in CO - they need to make the game itself fun to play, they need the experience to feel like Star Trek (or at least some space opera inspired fanstasy) they cannot just rely on lots of pretty superficials that make no real difference to the experience.
While this is obviously unknown territory for them as a studio I think it must be a pivotal requirement of the design brief and franchise license so learn they must.... I hope its not beyond them and I hope that the demands here make them a wiser and smarter company for the future.
Undernourished and restricive mmo's like CO need to be consigned to the past, this title is Cryptics best chance to prove avatar customisation isn't their only skill and in turn secure a stake in what is a more competitive and diverse future market.
Just to clear something up, Sony technically owned Everquest since day one. Yes, Verant is credited with making the game but it was Sony that created verant. They didn't think EQ would become the success it did so they founded Verant in case the game tanked leaving Sony's credibility intact. Also, who else do you think worked Verant? Yep, your boy Smedley.
Look up the documentary "Evercracked". It explains everything. You can still hate SOE regardless of course.
Pre-ordering a game when you have low expectations for it, is just encouraging the industry to produce more disappointing games.
/shrug I'd rather be a glass half full kinda guy than half empty any day of the week.
When I pay for a drink - I expect and demand that the glass be full.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Well personally I am having a blast in STO, but there is a huge hate machine with an agenda in beta, they are not testing the game they are just flooding the forums with doom and fail posts, some will even admit that it's simply because they want STO to fail to make more room for SW:TOR. It's frustrating for the devs who are trying to get an accurate picture of what going on in beta. I think that we are going to see major changes to how ganes are tested very soon, as all this axe grinding is stupid.
Sony owned yes, but not SoE, since that was a different division. Think of Blizzard North. We all know of 989 studios. It is on the game and all of EQ, which i got the original launch box and all. 989 was the publisher, Verant the development company, that used to be Redeye.
As far as management goes, each division is given a budget. They are responsible for their own divisions. Hell, each division competes for more budgets if they do better than other divisions. So while Sony owns them all, SoE did NOT own Verant in the beginning. They had not absorbed them into the SoE division yet.
Smedley also wasnt a bad guy at all, till he got all that power, being in SoE. When they were small divisions, they all worked so much harder. With less internal competition, Smedley and the like just went bad.
Your history seems to lack, in your crunched up presentation, ALOT of key factors.
When I pay for a drink - I expect and demand that the glass be full.
Exactly. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, if you paid for a full glass, you got ripped off. Question is, do you just take it like a sucker?
When I pay for a drink - I expect and demand that the glass be full.
Exactly. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, if you paid for a full glass, you got ripped off. Question is, do you just take it like a sucker?
It's just a video game. It's not some life-changing event.
I have yet to buy an mmo title that I have played for less time than a single player game.
When I pay for a drink - I expect and demand that the glass be full.
Exactly. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, if you paid for a full glass, you got ripped off. Question is, do you just take it like a sucker?
Honestly, for every person that raises a stink and demand the second half, many more (whatever amount you want to put it at) just walk away and never return. Those are the people that make developers pull their hair out, as they can only guess why they left silently. Which glass wasn't full enough for them? The one that the loud people are yelling about, or something else entirely?
There are too many other entertainment choices to expect the customers to give you a second chance after being "suckered" and many will feel taken no matter what you do. Quite the dilemma for the business, as throwing money at the problem doesn't help solve it.
Avatars are people too
I am surprised to see the comment above re hate arising from the future competition from bioware - I don't really see STO and SW:ToR as competitors.
Traditionally the two franchises have quite different approaches to storytelling and combat with the result that the fanbases have tended to remain segregated...it is perhaps ironic that a Star Trek mmo is always going to shift the bias away from the iconic Star Trek philosophy into some really extreme war torn scenario to 'excuse' the predominance of staple mmo play (and circumvent the need for imagination in gameplay) but even then I don't see that as really causing too many folks to consider jumping ship - the title, the ship design, the characters will be strong enough to carry this game - the key is for Cryptic to avoid killing the goose that has given it some potentially golden eggs.
The company did trade on a lot of charity when it came to CO and that is where a lot of players feel let down imo.
When I pay for a drink - I expect and demand that the glass be full.
Exactly. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, if you paid for a full glass, you got ripped off. Question is, do you just take it like a sucker?
It's just a video game. It's not some life-changing event.
I have yet to buy an mmo title that I have played for less time than a single player game.
Agree 100% there. To continue with the going analogy, I think too many people these days buy a drink and then expect to get free dinner and a lap dance.
The initial purchase price for an mmo is a lot better value than most other games on the market. AND you get a choice whether to pay to continue or not.
I've bought many MMOs that I did not play past the first month or two. But I don't regret buying any of them.
I fully expect to dump STO after a month or two. But I expect to have my fun creating and doing stuff in the STO universe.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
I have yet to buy a single player game that I have to keep paying for after the first month.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I have yet to buy a single player game that I have to keep paying for after the first month.
Think his point was that buying an MMO and only playing the free month and never subbing again due to not liking the game enough pretty much made up for the retail cost of the game (he didnt feel cheated). In other words he had 30 days of play time for that $50~ vs the average 15 hours of gameplay on a single player game of almost the same price.
Your post doesnt really fit because if you are unhappy with the MMO you dont have to continue paying the monthly fee. You dont have to keep paying after the first month unless you want to.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I have yet to buy a single player game that I have to keep paying for after the first month.
I have yet to take a month to figure out if I want to play for another month or not.
I have yet to buy a single player game that I have to keep paying for after the first month.
I have yet to take a month to figure out if I want to play for another month or not.
I have yet to purchase a MMO without playing some kind of in-game gameplay trial before spending a cent with it.
I have yet to buy a single player game that I have to keep paying for after the first month.
I have yet to take a month to figure out if I want to play for another month or not.
I have yet to purchase a MMO without playing some kind of in-game gameplay trial before spending a cent with it.
You beat me there. I always buy the games. Even bought horizons knowing the issues. Not because I want to support bad games, but because I always find alot of effort from the developers who are not the big names, and when you give reviews saying how this or what was good, it helps them use that to maybe land even better jobs in the industry with less failure management.
I like to support the programmers, the graphic designers, and whatnot. They are just told what to do. Sometimes they make absolutely amazing things with the limited resources they got. I like to give them props for such things.
It is extremely stupid and very petty. I hope they can come up with something that helps eliminate those people. BETA is for testing the game, nothing else. Having to deal with the people with an axe to grind on the forums is bad enough.
I also don't understand the whole comparison with TOR either because they are two completely different games based off two completely different IPs. They shouldn't feel so threatened.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
I like to support the skilled ones. The ones who make good games.
It's just charity, otherwise.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I thought I saw somewhere that the minimal specs to play this game were quite low. My laptop was the high end laptop 3 years ago. It still plays some games quite well. It played WOW over 1600 x 1200 with great fps. Everything turned on cept for shadows.
I could have sworn the minimal was 1.8ghz processor 1g RAM. Not very high specs at all. I think your 4-5 year old pc should still handle this game very well. The question is about the games out later this year. They sound like they will need higher end pcs.
To say a game will be 100% fail and that you know this, please will you look into your crystal ball and tell me where I will be in 5 years? How much money do I make? Could you tell me the winning lotto numbers this Saturday?
So, negative comments from beta testers are part of an agenda, but positive ones are true and pure?
This is hilarious. I won't make any 'tinfoil hat' comments, even though I have certainly had them come my way.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Aye, you can build a great system for less than $900 and then maybe $200 a year for the next few years. Once you have a PC built all you really need to do is just replace the major parts that get out dated over time and you can still end up with a PC that meets/beats specs.
As others have said after the initial purchase the most you will have to do is upgrade the graphics card every year or so. A good CPU can last you at least 2 years before falling below required specs of newer games.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
So, negative comments from beta testers are part of an agenda, but positive ones are true and pure?
This is hilarious. I won't make any 'tinfoil hat' comments, even though I have certainly had them come my way.
You just did.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
I like to support the skilled ones. The ones who make good games.
It's just charity, otherwise.
So the guy who did the volumetric clouds in Vanguard should be called unskilled on the account that the game, on a mass scale, is considered a bad game? If you were told vanguard sucks, you might not try it. Then you wouldnt understand the sheer amount of props that guy got for his work. Which, might I add, was just amazing.
Your retort is about quantity. Alot of good things to make the overall game good.
Mine is about still giving props to the individual good things, even in a bad game.
It isnt charity.