Its posts like this one that make me glad I have a job a good honest decent paying one at that. So I can afford to upgrade my computer when I want to 8)..
Granted working means I dont have as much game time but at least when I do game. it looks good and plays well for the most part.
I am currently on a laptop I bough a year and a half ago. core 2 pentium 3 gigs of ram and a geforce 8800 Mobility. 250 gig hard drive ..
It works fine for pretty most every game I am currently playing Age of Conan with settings turned up pretty high and it runs smooth with a hickup every now and then.
This summer I plan on buying a new laptop and handing this one down to my girlfriend for her business needs. We will use the new laptop as a tax write off which is always good 8).
Originally posted by Elikal Ya know I respect every man is free to base his life on irrational assumptions. But still, someone who says "SOE is going to stay forever on the not to buy MMOs" looses all credibility to logic. You conclude from one MMO to another. While sure there are often some things in common, every SOE game was VERY different, and so I expect CO and STO are different, despite similarities. I don't think such gross generalization is really a meaningful way to decide what is good and what isn't. It's like saying you never going to eat Italian food because at school one Italien bully beat you. Understandable, but still irrational.
Quality is often pretty consistent in a given company. SOE has consistently made poor games. Blizzard has consistently made great games. Cryptic has consistently made shallow, superficial games. While it is true that some games do not hold true to the reputation of the parent company, it is also true that most of the time they do. It's pretty rational to base an initial purchases decision (such as whether to pre-order or get the game within the first month) on a company's past products. It is certainly irrational to act like the past work a company has done has no bearing on their future work.
Your bully analogy is flawed. It is more like going to a particular Italian restaurant and you and all your friends order different dishes. All they dishes are badly made and taste awful. On that basis you decide not to eat there again. Now, maybe they do have one or two good dishes and you could go back later and eat those, but you have plenty of reason not to bet your lunch/dinner on that. It doesn't mean you won't go to another Italian restaurant and get food there though, you just don't trust one particular Italian restaurant. Similarly, if one MMO company consistently makes bad MMOs, that doesn't mean you'll never buy an MMO again, but it might well mean you won't trust that company to make a good MMO.
Wait wait... I smell alot of BS in this post.
Which crappy games has SOE "made"? EQ was made before SoE. Excellent game, that once managed by SoE, went downhill. EQ2 had great potential, excellent mmorpg mechanic wise, but not managed well. Vanguard was made by many former SoE and Verant devs, and was a excellent mmorpg that has been pushed into the ground by bad management.
SoE does not MAKE bad games. They destroy great mmorpgs. There is a great difference
Blizzard making great games? They lost most of the devs that had made their games great, non mmorpg wise. MMORPG wise, WoW had great launch timing, and it took alot of the mechanics from the great 3. The great 3 being EQ, DAoC, and AC. They made it easier, and made a good call on low system specs. Hell, some of the devs were the most hardcore gamers in EQ, and that is why most of us who played EQ for years are always bored to tears in WoW. The interface is so influenced you might as well have copied it from the UI's used in EQ.
You are irrational in your research. You lack the ability to properly take facts and convey them as facts. Instead, you take assumptions, notions, and opinions and then relay them here as facts. Akin to crying wolf.
I mean holy hell dude. You think the same people who were working on CO were also working on STO at the same damn time? Do YOU have ANY idea what the workplace for development is? How in the heck can you type out something intelligent and come off as a complete and utter idiot of how things work.
MMO companies are NOT a single isolated establishment like in your example. They often branch out. They have different flavors and dishes. If you go to two different establishments, the chances are abnormally high that one that is bad is more because of the team working behind the scenes. You go to the other establishment, owned by the same parent company, and you might have an utterly wonderful time.
Inform us of your method of comparison because it makes no sense to me. Its not even relative in how you compare.
I wasn't proposing a mechanism of action. Blizzard puts out quality games. That's a fact. Your points on why WoW is a good game doesn't change the fact that it IS a good game. Yes, the devs change, the company has expanded, etc, etc, but they still put out quality games. Bioware also puts out quality games, and the devs change, the company has expanded, etc, etc as well. I'll grant you your point on SoE though, they manage games poorly. You certainly don't seem to be disputing my observed points here. What you DO seem to be doing is putting words in my mouth about how this must work when I didn't comment on that aspect.
If I were to hypothesize on WHY it is that a company does similar work even when the people inside it change, then I'd propose that the management, organizational system, and other internal sociological factors remain similar and are behind this observed phenomenon. That would be my best guess and it seems consistent with what I know of what often happens when a company goes from making great games to making poor games -- the internal dynamics change.
Now, there are certainly companies that are more specific. Some companies make good RTS's, but their other games are poor for instance. Bioware might be bad at making non-RPGs (I don't recall any non-RPG they've ever made though). That said, there are certain underlying consistencies in many companies that don't seem pretty consistent.
As for CO and STO, they were made with very similar guiding principles that Cryptic. Make it quick and make it cheap (among other things). Cryptic has also never shown an interest in making an MMO with depth (and indeed, a game with depth is rather hard to make quick and cheap). It's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious that STO will be a lot like CO in important ways given the similar philosophy and corporate culture that went into making both games. Is it 100% sure? No, but I never claimed it was.
i have low expectations for STO. cryptic has already made some newb mistakes with the OB, like inconsistancies with keys, downloader availability, patches being released early that are bad, etc. that and everything seems very last minute for the OB.
some preorder stuff won't be available for headstart which will mean alot of rerolls depending on your edition of the game.
i've heard bad things about CO, such as major last minute changes to the game. STo isn't what i hoped for in teh beginning but i'll judge based on what it is along the same guidelines i judge any other mmo. mainly is it fun?
as for computer upgrades and whatnot, game specs have been pretty stagnant since crysis set the bar a couple years ago. i built my current system to be able to play that game as a benchmark, and since then has played everything i've thrown at it at max setting. upgrading your computer now and then is just a part of pc gaming, but the last few years hasn't been too bad in terms of needing to upgrade. the advances in technology and what's needed to run the latest games just hasn't advanced at such leaps as they did in the first half of the decade and in the 90s.
as far as swg goes. LOL! the game was never that great and it makes me rofl that ppl are still raging over it. the curb and nge were gambles to improve a game that was never quite star wars in teh first place. i mean the best "classes" were kung fu and swordsman types. storm troopers would kill you in seconds, and everyone stayed in only one of the four worlds. i don't think SOE is a great mmo company, but they're no worse than ncsoft for instance.
overall there i've heard both good things and bad things about STO, but i'll grade it based on what it is, not based on what i want it to be.
Originally posted by Elikal Ya know I respect every man is free to base his life on irrational assumptions. But still, someone who says "SOE is going to stay forever on the not to buy MMOs" looses all credibility to logic. You conclude from one MMO to another. While sure there are often some things in common, every SOE game was VERY different, and so I expect CO and STO are different, despite similarities. I don't think such gross generalization is really a meaningful way to decide what is good and what isn't. It's like saying you never going to eat Italian food because at school one Italien bully beat you. Understandable, but still irrational.
Quality is often pretty consistent in a given company. SOE has consistently made poor games. Blizzard has consistently made great games. Cryptic has consistently made shallow, superficial games. While it is true that some games do not hold true to the reputation of the parent company, it is also true that most of the time they do. It's pretty rational to base an initial purchases decision (such as whether to pre-order or get the game within the first month) on a company's past products. It is certainly irrational to act like the past work a company has done has no bearing on their future work.
Your bully analogy is flawed. It is more like going to a particular Italian restaurant and you and all your friends order different dishes. All they dishes are badly made and taste awful. On that basis you decide not to eat there again. Now, maybe they do have one or two good dishes and you could go back later and eat those, but you have plenty of reason not to bet your lunch/dinner on that. It doesn't mean you won't go to another Italian restaurant and get food there though, you just don't trust one particular Italian restaurant. Similarly, if one MMO company consistently makes bad MMOs, that doesn't mean you'll never buy an MMO again, but it might well mean you won't trust that company to make a good MMO.
Wait wait... I smell alot of BS in this post.
Which crappy games has SOE "made"? EQ was made before SoE. Excellent game, that once managed by SoE, went downhill. EQ2 had great potential, excellent mmorpg mechanic wise, but not managed well. Vanguard was made by many former SoE and Verant devs, and was a excellent mmorpg that has been pushed into the ground by bad management.
SoE does not MAKE bad games. They destroy great mmorpgs. There is a great difference
Blizzard making great games? They lost most of the devs that had made their games great, non mmorpg wise. MMORPG wise, WoW had great launch timing, and it took alot of the mechanics from the great 3. The great 3 being EQ, DAoC, and AC. They made it easier, and made a good call on low system specs. Hell, some of the devs were the most hardcore gamers in EQ, and that is why most of us who played EQ for years are always bored to tears in WoW. The interface is so influenced you might as well have copied it from the UI's used in EQ.
You are irrational in your research. You lack the ability to properly take facts and convey them as facts. Instead, you take assumptions, notions, and opinions and then relay them here as facts. Akin to crying wolf.
I mean holy hell dude. You think the same people who were working on CO were also working on STO at the same damn time? Do YOU have ANY idea what the workplace for development is? How in the heck can you type out something intelligent and come off as a complete and utter idiot of how things work.
MMO companies are NOT a single isolated establishment like in your example. They often branch out. They have different flavors and dishes. If you go to two different establishments, the chances are abnormally high that one that is bad is more because of the team working behind the scenes. You go to the other establishment, owned by the same parent company, and you might have an utterly wonderful time.
Inform us of your method of comparison because it makes no sense to me. Its not even relative in how you compare.
I wasn't proposing a mechanism of action. Blizzard puts out quality games. That's a fact. Your points on why WoW is a good game doesn't change the fact that it IS a good game. Yes, the devs change, the company has expanded, etc, etc, but they still put out quality games. Bioware also puts out quality games, and the devs change, the company has expanded, etc, etc as well. I'll grant you your point on SoE though, they manage games poorly. You certainly don't seem to be disputing my observed points here. What you DO seem to be doing is putting words in my mouth about how this must work when I didn't comment on that aspect.
If I were to hypothesize on WHY it is that a company does similar work even when the people inside it change, then I'd propose that the management, organizational system, and other internal sociological factors remain similar and are behind this observed phenomenon. That would be my best guess and it seems consistent with what I know of what often happens when a company goes from making great games to making poor games -- the internal dynamics change.
Now, there are certainly companies that are more specific. Some companies make good RTS's, but their other games are poor for instance. Bioware might be bad at making non-RPGs (I don't recall any non-RPG they've ever made though). That said, there are certain underlying consistencies in many companies that don't seem pretty consistent.
As for CO and STO, they were made with very similar guiding principles that Cryptic. Make it quick and make it cheap (among other things). Cryptic has also never shown an interest in making an MMO with depth (and indeed, a game with depth is rather hard to make quick and cheap). It's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious that STO will be a lot like CO in important ways given the similar philosophy and corporate culture that went into making both games. Is it 100% sure? No, but I never claimed it was.
This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. Yes I made some blatently stupid statements to get my point across, but the idea is still there whether you agree with it or not. And about computer specs, yesI shouldn't have even brought that up. I guess I'm just fed up with stuttery games, even new computers do it if the game was made with funky mechanics. If I put the settings on low, it shouldn't be stuttering. CO stuttered no matter what settings I had it on.
Please forget about the pc specs argument, it is really irrelevant. This is about mmorpg companies, spotlighting Cryptic.
Oh and about SoE... hated them before NGC or whatever that was. SoE has sucked for...
SWG
EQ2
Vanguard
These were 3 highly anticipated mmorpg's that let me down hardcore because they were rushed and only had good graphics and pc specs in mind. They forgot to make the games content and mechanics good. I've had it with them. Just because SOE is a Sony company, it doesn't make them a good mmorpg company.
I consider Cryptic a rather shady company itself, selling lifetime packages before you realize how short lived the games are. I hope STO proves me wrong but, like I said... I highly doubt it.
I too cant say much until the NDA is lifted but Cryptic is well deserving of their Reputation as Masters of Repitition. Thats not the say the game isnt fun, it can be depending on which end of the Spectrum Game Balance shifts. It shifts back and forth constantly.
I too cant say much until the NDA is lifted but Cryptic is well deserving of their Reputation as Masters of Repitition. Thats not the say the game isnt fun, it can be depending on which end of the Spectrum Game Balance shifts. It shifts back and forth constantly.
That's not good... that's just supporting my theory....
They're not ready for launch and still launching to get it out, another crap quality that SoE leads in the mmorpg industry.
This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. Yes I made some blatently stupid statements to get my point across, but the idea is still there whether you agree with it or not. And about computer specs, yesI shouldn't have even brought that up. I guess I'm just fed up with stuttery games, even new computers do it if the game was made with funky mechanics. If I put the settings on low, it shouldn't be stuttering. CO stuttered no matter what settings I had it on.
Please forget about the pc specs argument, it is really irrelevant. This is about mmorpg companies, spotlighting Cryptic.
Oh and about SoE... hated them before NGC or whatever that was. SoE has sucked for...
SWG
EQ2
Vanguard
These were 3 highly anticipated mmorpg's that let me down hardcore because they were rushed and only had good graphics and pc specs in mind. They forgot to make the games content and mechanics good. I've had it with them. Just because SOE is a Sony company, it doesn't make them a good mmorpg company.
I consider Cryptic a rather shady company itself, selling lifetime packages before you realize how short lived the games are. I hope STO proves me wrong but, like I said... I highly doubt it.
I am a sony hater, but even I can not blame sony for Vanguard. Vanguard was a great concept and they did a good job with the game but because of its high need for high end pc specs, coupled with serious bugs that would cripple a high end pc's frame rate, I sadly say, they killed themselves. Their problem was that they ran out of money before they could finish the game. Vanguard has some of THE best dungeon layouts ever made for any MMO, but it was also poorly implemented in the fact that they made them so huge that they decided to break them up into level ranges which then just became a huge hassle having to run through the crap in the front, to get to the ones that actually would give you exp. So, I want to blame sony, but even they didnt mismanage vanguard. They haven't done a whole lot to help it either, they have done a lot of bug fixes and such, but they haven't really done much to try and help bring the game back to life.
How can you consider cryptic shady because they sell a lifetime subscription to one of their games? COH is still going pretty strong, CO has had a lot of problems from what I hear but that doesn't mean its dead. And I would buy a lifetime sub to STO right now, if they offered it. Granted I will give you one with the in game store. I dont like paying a subscription fee and having an in game store but its by no means a game breaker for me. I think, sadly, its going to become the norm in games because,while people in the USA wont really go for pay to play by hour, we most certainly will buy stupid trinkets to trick out or in game room or have that cute fuzzy bunny following us around. And I think game companies have started realizing that and are ready to try to cash in on that extra income from that. Can't blame them really, it is a business after all.
From what I'm reading.. STO is a lost cause.. The previous devs went under, and Cryptic took over a sinking ship in debt.. What we are seeing now is Cryptic bailing ship and releasing what they can during the "hype" phase and get as much money as possible.. This so reminds me of Vanguard, that SOE bailed out because Vanguard was released too soon and incomplete, but was forced to because of money problems..
IMHO, this game will be dead as a door nail within 1 year of release, especially if they still wish charge $15 a month for an ongoing beta game under development..
I was really looking forward to this game way back when it was first announced, then cancelled, then Cryptic took over.... After trying out CO my expectations for this game went out the door. I'm almost 100% positive that this game will be crap. Even if people are having fun with it now, they probably just have "new mmorpg fever." I had it with CO for a few days before giving up. Also having to keep up with PC specs to have the best graphics availible is a PITA. If STO ends up being what I think it'll be, I'll add Cryptic to my list of "stay away from their mmo's" list. SOE is at the top of that list right now but they'll probably stay up there forever.
If you expect a Star Trek mmoRPG, I think you need to look elsewhere. This is about as Star Trek as the FPS games that were produced several years ago.
Cryptic does simple fight MMO's. They are closer to korean games then western PayToPlay games, simple grindfests.
I doubt STO will be much different, the development time just hasn't been long enough and all the material released emphasizes violence, not what the best of Trek is about.
This is Star Trek for people who thought Enterprise was good because it had space babes and battles.
Everyone who liked TOS, TNG or even DS9, look elsewhere.
If you are a fan of anything Star Trek don't play this game is your recommendation?
That's like saying, If you like seeing naked women, don't go to the strip club. Just look at nudy magazines at home.
Well, maybe that was a poor analogy but I don't see why you wouldn't want to try an online game of your favorite IP instead of playing with your action figurines or homemade created tabletop games.
To whoever said all SOE games are very different, that's because SOE actually only made 2 games (well 3 if you count 989 after '98), the rest are just being published or snagged from a dying company by SOE.
To a point CO & CoH are similar, yet different, CO was probably the biggest disappointment of 2009. I won't be surprised if STO will get that title for 2010.
Originally posted by Chach Lol, If you are a fan of anything Star Trek don't play this game is your recommendation? That's like saying, If you like seeing naked women, don't go to the strip club. Just look at nudy magazines at home. Well, maybe that was a poor analogy but I don't see why you wouldn't want to try an online game of your favorite IP instead of playing with your action figurines or homemade created tabletop games.
I actually understand why that was said, if you're a big Star Trek fan, some people will tell you to stay away from STO I guess, meaning it's probably less about Star Trek than you'd expect. I'm just guessing though.
If you are a fan of anything Star Trek don't play this game is your recommendation?
That's like saying, If you like seeing naked women, don't go to the strip club. Just look at nudy magazines at home.
Well, maybe that was a poor analogy but I don't see why you wouldn't want to try an online game of your favorite IP instead of playing with your action figurines or homemade created tabletop games.
I actually understand why that was said, if you're a big Star Trek fan, some people will tell you to stay away from STO I guess, meaning it's probably less about Star Trek than you'd expect. I'm just guessing though.
Its a widely held sentiment really. STO has very very little to do with Star Trek, its basically Star Trek in name and skin only. Without the name Star Trek in it and the Star Trek skin the game might as well be called CO: Citizens in Space.
The game plays like a slowed down version of Champions Online. It suffers from the same failings. Lack of variety in missions, skills, roles, as well as a severe lack of depth. The game has potential to be fun for a short while but just like CO lacks that longevity. This one sadly I wouldn't play even if it was a console game though, which is sad because even CO would have made a decent console game imho.
The high points and the low points are almost identical to CO, decent looking game, a ton of customization in the char creation, semi fun single player game, gets repetitive and boring fairly fast, lack of depth, lack of content, a lot of it has a slapped together or rushed feel to it.
Hopefully STO will get better in time, but considering how identical it is to CO I think it's fair to assume it will be treated the same which means it will be a long slow road before it actually gets better considering CO has yet to have some of its key issues dealt with.
All in all I ....
Recommend this game to those that enjoy/enjoyed CO as it could be worth the initial buy price as CO was.
And I...
Do not recommend this game to hard core trek fans
Do not recommend this game to those that did not enjoy CO
Do not recommend this game to those that are PvP minded
Do not recommend this game to those looking for diplomacy and exploration playing a huge part or even a mild part in your chars advancement.
Basically I can really only seeing those that enjoyed CO for more than 3-4 weeks really getting into this MMO and I can only see them getting into it if they aren't really hung up on Star Trek. Anything other than a mild interest in the Star Trek IP will likely ruin the experience for you.
Just my opinion, nothing more and simply based off of my experience with STO in the beta. Glad the NDA is finally gone lol!
If you are a fan of anything Star Trek don't play this game is your recommendation?
That's like saying, If you like seeing naked women, don't go to the strip club. Just look at nudy magazines at home.
Well, maybe that was a poor analogy but I don't see why you wouldn't want to try an online game of your favorite IP instead of playing with your action figurines or homemade created tabletop games.
I actually understand why that was said, if you're a big Star Trek fan, some people will tell you to stay away from STO I guess, meaning it's probably less about Star Trek than you'd expect. I'm just guessing though.
Its a widely held sentiment really. STO has very very little to do with Star Trek, its basically Star Trek in name and skin only. Without the name Star Trek in it and the Star Trek skin the game might as well be called CO: Citizens in Space.
The game plays like a slowed down version of Champions Online. It suffers from the same failings. Lack of variety in missions, skills, roles, as well as a severe lack of depth. The game has potential to be fun for a short while but just like CO lacks that longevity. This one sadly I wouldn't play even if it was a console game though, which is sad because even CO would have made a decent console game imho.
The high points and the low points are almost identical to CO, decent looking game, a ton of customization in the char creation, semi fun single player game, gets repetitive and boring fairly fast, lack of depth, lack of content, a lot of it has a slapped together or rushed feel to it.
Hopefully STO will get better in time, but considering how identical it is to CO I think it's fair to assume it will be treated the same which means it will be a long slow road before it actually gets better considering CO has yet to have some of its key issues dealt with.
All in all I ....
Recommend this game to those that enjoy/enjoyed CO as it could be worth the initial buy price as CO was.
And I...
Do not recommend this game to hard core trek fans
Do not recommend this game to those that did not enjoy CO
Do not recommend this game to those that are PvP minded
Do not recommend this game to those looking for diplomacy and exploration playing a huge part or even a mild part in your chars advancement.
Basically I can really only seeing those that enjoyed CO for more than 3-4 weeks really getting into this MMO and I can only see them getting into it if they aren't really hung up on Star Trek. Anything other than a mild interest in the Star Trek IP will likely ruin the experience for you.
Just my opinion, nothing more and simply based off of my experience with STO in the beta. Glad the NDA is finally gone lol!
Comments
Its posts like this one that make me glad I have a job a good honest decent paying one at that. So I can afford to upgrade my computer when I want to 8)..
Granted working means I dont have as much game time but at least when I do game. it looks good and plays well for the most part.
I am currently on a laptop I bough a year and a half ago. core 2 pentium 3 gigs of ram and a geforce 8800 Mobility. 250 gig hard drive ..
It works fine for pretty most every game I am currently playing Age of Conan with settings turned up pretty high and it runs smooth with a hickup every now and then.
This summer I plan on buying a new laptop and handing this one down to my girlfriend for her business needs. We will use the new laptop as a tax write off which is always good 8).
Quality is often pretty consistent in a given company. SOE has consistently made poor games. Blizzard has consistently made great games. Cryptic has consistently made shallow, superficial games. While it is true that some games do not hold true to the reputation of the parent company, it is also true that most of the time they do. It's pretty rational to base an initial purchases decision (such as whether to pre-order or get the game within the first month) on a company's past products. It is certainly irrational to act like the past work a company has done has no bearing on their future work.
Your bully analogy is flawed. It is more like going to a particular Italian restaurant and you and all your friends order different dishes. All they dishes are badly made and taste awful. On that basis you decide not to eat there again. Now, maybe they do have one or two good dishes and you could go back later and eat those, but you have plenty of reason not to bet your lunch/dinner on that. It doesn't mean you won't go to another Italian restaurant and get food there though, you just don't trust one particular Italian restaurant. Similarly, if one MMO company consistently makes bad MMOs, that doesn't mean you'll never buy an MMO again, but it might well mean you won't trust that company to make a good MMO.
Wait wait... I smell alot of BS in this post.
Which crappy games has SOE "made"? EQ was made before SoE. Excellent game, that once managed by SoE, went downhill. EQ2 had great potential, excellent mmorpg mechanic wise, but not managed well. Vanguard was made by many former SoE and Verant devs, and was a excellent mmorpg that has been pushed into the ground by bad management.
SoE does not MAKE bad games. They destroy great mmorpgs. There is a great difference
Blizzard making great games? They lost most of the devs that had made their games great, non mmorpg wise. MMORPG wise, WoW had great launch timing, and it took alot of the mechanics from the great 3. The great 3 being EQ, DAoC, and AC. They made it easier, and made a good call on low system specs. Hell, some of the devs were the most hardcore gamers in EQ, and that is why most of us who played EQ for years are always bored to tears in WoW. The interface is so influenced you might as well have copied it from the UI's used in EQ.
You are irrational in your research. You lack the ability to properly take facts and convey them as facts. Instead, you take assumptions, notions, and opinions and then relay them here as facts. Akin to crying wolf.
I mean holy hell dude. You think the same people who were working on CO were also working on STO at the same damn time? Do YOU have ANY idea what the workplace for development is? How in the heck can you type out something intelligent and come off as a complete and utter idiot of how things work.
MMO companies are NOT a single isolated establishment like in your example. They often branch out. They have different flavors and dishes. If you go to two different establishments, the chances are abnormally high that one that is bad is more because of the team working behind the scenes. You go to the other establishment, owned by the same parent company, and you might have an utterly wonderful time.
Inform us of your method of comparison because it makes no sense to me. Its not even relative in how you compare.
I wasn't proposing a mechanism of action. Blizzard puts out quality games. That's a fact. Your points on why WoW is a good game doesn't change the fact that it IS a good game. Yes, the devs change, the company has expanded, etc, etc, but they still put out quality games. Bioware also puts out quality games, and the devs change, the company has expanded, etc, etc as well. I'll grant you your point on SoE though, they manage games poorly. You certainly don't seem to be disputing my observed points here. What you DO seem to be doing is putting words in my mouth about how this must work when I didn't comment on that aspect.
If I were to hypothesize on WHY it is that a company does similar work even when the people inside it change, then I'd propose that the management, organizational system, and other internal sociological factors remain similar and are behind this observed phenomenon. That would be my best guess and it seems consistent with what I know of what often happens when a company goes from making great games to making poor games -- the internal dynamics change.
Now, there are certainly companies that are more specific. Some companies make good RTS's, but their other games are poor for instance. Bioware might be bad at making non-RPGs (I don't recall any non-RPG they've ever made though). That said, there are certain underlying consistencies in many companies that don't seem pretty consistent.
As for CO and STO, they were made with very similar guiding principles that Cryptic. Make it quick and make it cheap (among other things). Cryptic has also never shown an interest in making an MMO with depth (and indeed, a game with depth is rather hard to make quick and cheap). It's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious that STO will be a lot like CO in important ways given the similar philosophy and corporate culture that went into making both games. Is it 100% sure? No, but I never claimed it was.
Just really wish I could get in the final fantasy beta soon would keep me from wasting my money on this as filler
i have low expectations for STO. cryptic has already made some newb mistakes with the OB, like inconsistancies with keys, downloader availability, patches being released early that are bad, etc. that and everything seems very last minute for the OB.
some preorder stuff won't be available for headstart which will mean alot of rerolls depending on your edition of the game.
i've heard bad things about CO, such as major last minute changes to the game. STo isn't what i hoped for in teh beginning but i'll judge based on what it is along the same guidelines i judge any other mmo. mainly is it fun?
as for computer upgrades and whatnot, game specs have been pretty stagnant since crysis set the bar a couple years ago. i built my current system to be able to play that game as a benchmark, and since then has played everything i've thrown at it at max setting. upgrading your computer now and then is just a part of pc gaming, but the last few years hasn't been too bad in terms of needing to upgrade. the advances in technology and what's needed to run the latest games just hasn't advanced at such leaps as they did in the first half of the decade and in the 90s.
as far as swg goes. LOL! the game was never that great and it makes me rofl that ppl are still raging over it. the curb and nge were gambles to improve a game that was never quite star wars in teh first place. i mean the best "classes" were kung fu and swordsman types. storm troopers would kill you in seconds, and everyone stayed in only one of the four worlds. i don't think SOE is a great mmo company, but they're no worse than ncsoft for instance.
overall there i've heard both good things and bad things about STO, but i'll grade it based on what it is, not based on what i want it to be.
KERPLAH!
Quality is often pretty consistent in a given company. SOE has consistently made poor games. Blizzard has consistently made great games. Cryptic has consistently made shallow, superficial games. While it is true that some games do not hold true to the reputation of the parent company, it is also true that most of the time they do. It's pretty rational to base an initial purchases decision (such as whether to pre-order or get the game within the first month) on a company's past products. It is certainly irrational to act like the past work a company has done has no bearing on their future work.
Your bully analogy is flawed. It is more like going to a particular Italian restaurant and you and all your friends order different dishes. All they dishes are badly made and taste awful. On that basis you decide not to eat there again. Now, maybe they do have one or two good dishes and you could go back later and eat those, but you have plenty of reason not to bet your lunch/dinner on that. It doesn't mean you won't go to another Italian restaurant and get food there though, you just don't trust one particular Italian restaurant. Similarly, if one MMO company consistently makes bad MMOs, that doesn't mean you'll never buy an MMO again, but it might well mean you won't trust that company to make a good MMO.
Wait wait... I smell alot of BS in this post.
Which crappy games has SOE "made"? EQ was made before SoE. Excellent game, that once managed by SoE, went downhill. EQ2 had great potential, excellent mmorpg mechanic wise, but not managed well. Vanguard was made by many former SoE and Verant devs, and was a excellent mmorpg that has been pushed into the ground by bad management.
SoE does not MAKE bad games. They destroy great mmorpgs. There is a great difference
Blizzard making great games? They lost most of the devs that had made their games great, non mmorpg wise. MMORPG wise, WoW had great launch timing, and it took alot of the mechanics from the great 3. The great 3 being EQ, DAoC, and AC. They made it easier, and made a good call on low system specs. Hell, some of the devs were the most hardcore gamers in EQ, and that is why most of us who played EQ for years are always bored to tears in WoW. The interface is so influenced you might as well have copied it from the UI's used in EQ.
You are irrational in your research. You lack the ability to properly take facts and convey them as facts. Instead, you take assumptions, notions, and opinions and then relay them here as facts. Akin to crying wolf.
I mean holy hell dude. You think the same people who were working on CO were also working on STO at the same damn time? Do YOU have ANY idea what the workplace for development is? How in the heck can you type out something intelligent and come off as a complete and utter idiot of how things work.
MMO companies are NOT a single isolated establishment like in your example. They often branch out. They have different flavors and dishes. If you go to two different establishments, the chances are abnormally high that one that is bad is more because of the team working behind the scenes. You go to the other establishment, owned by the same parent company, and you might have an utterly wonderful time.
Inform us of your method of comparison because it makes no sense to me. Its not even relative in how you compare.
I wasn't proposing a mechanism of action. Blizzard puts out quality games. That's a fact. Your points on why WoW is a good game doesn't change the fact that it IS a good game. Yes, the devs change, the company has expanded, etc, etc, but they still put out quality games. Bioware also puts out quality games, and the devs change, the company has expanded, etc, etc as well. I'll grant you your point on SoE though, they manage games poorly. You certainly don't seem to be disputing my observed points here. What you DO seem to be doing is putting words in my mouth about how this must work when I didn't comment on that aspect.
If I were to hypothesize on WHY it is that a company does similar work even when the people inside it change, then I'd propose that the management, organizational system, and other internal sociological factors remain similar and are behind this observed phenomenon. That would be my best guess and it seems consistent with what I know of what often happens when a company goes from making great games to making poor games -- the internal dynamics change.
Now, there are certainly companies that are more specific. Some companies make good RTS's, but their other games are poor for instance. Bioware might be bad at making non-RPGs (I don't recall any non-RPG they've ever made though). That said, there are certain underlying consistencies in many companies that don't seem pretty consistent.
As for CO and STO, they were made with very similar guiding principles that Cryptic. Make it quick and make it cheap (among other things). Cryptic has also never shown an interest in making an MMO with depth (and indeed, a game with depth is rather hard to make quick and cheap). It's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious that STO will be a lot like CO in important ways given the similar philosophy and corporate culture that went into making both games. Is it 100% sure? No, but I never claimed it was.
This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. Yes I made some blatently stupid statements to get my point across, but the idea is still there whether you agree with it or not. And about computer specs, yes I shouldn't have even brought that up. I guess I'm just fed up with stuttery games, even new computers do it if the game was made with funky mechanics. If I put the settings on low, it shouldn't be stuttering. CO stuttered no matter what settings I had it on.
Please forget about the pc specs argument, it is really irrelevant. This is about mmorpg companies, spotlighting Cryptic.
Oh and about SoE... hated them before NGC or whatever that was. SoE has sucked for...
SWG
EQ2
Vanguard
These were 3 highly anticipated mmorpg's that let me down hardcore because they were rushed and only had good graphics and pc specs in mind. They forgot to make the games content and mechanics good. I've had it with them. Just because SOE is a Sony company, it doesn't make them a good mmorpg company.
I consider Cryptic a rather shady company itself, selling lifetime packages before you realize how short lived the games are. I hope STO proves me wrong but, like I said... I highly doubt it.
I too cant say much until the NDA is lifted but Cryptic is well deserving of their Reputation as Masters of Repitition. Thats not the say the game isnt fun, it can be depending on which end of the Spectrum Game Balance shifts. It shifts back and forth constantly.
That's not good... that's just supporting my theory....
They're not ready for launch and still launching to get it out, another crap quality that SoE leads in the mmorpg industry.
This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. Yes I made some blatently stupid statements to get my point across, but the idea is still there whether you agree with it or not. And about computer specs, yes I shouldn't have even brought that up. I guess I'm just fed up with stuttery games, even new computers do it if the game was made with funky mechanics. If I put the settings on low, it shouldn't be stuttering. CO stuttered no matter what settings I had it on.
Please forget about the pc specs argument, it is really irrelevant. This is about mmorpg companies, spotlighting Cryptic.
Oh and about SoE... hated them before NGC or whatever that was. SoE has sucked for...
SWG
EQ2
Vanguard
These were 3 highly anticipated mmorpg's that let me down hardcore because they were rushed and only had good graphics and pc specs in mind. They forgot to make the games content and mechanics good. I've had it with them. Just because SOE is a Sony company, it doesn't make them a good mmorpg company.
I consider Cryptic a rather shady company itself, selling lifetime packages before you realize how short lived the games are. I hope STO proves me wrong but, like I said... I highly doubt it.
I am a sony hater, but even I can not blame sony for Vanguard. Vanguard was a great concept and they did a good job with the game but because of its high need for high end pc specs, coupled with serious bugs that would cripple a high end pc's frame rate, I sadly say, they killed themselves. Their problem was that they ran out of money before they could finish the game. Vanguard has some of THE best dungeon layouts ever made for any MMO, but it was also poorly implemented in the fact that they made them so huge that they decided to break them up into level ranges which then just became a huge hassle having to run through the crap in the front, to get to the ones that actually would give you exp. So, I want to blame sony, but even they didnt mismanage vanguard. They haven't done a whole lot to help it either, they have done a lot of bug fixes and such, but they haven't really done much to try and help bring the game back to life.
How can you consider cryptic shady because they sell a lifetime subscription to one of their games? COH is still going pretty strong, CO has had a lot of problems from what I hear but that doesn't mean its dead. And I would buy a lifetime sub to STO right now, if they offered it. Granted I will give you one with the in game store. I dont like paying a subscription fee and having an in game store but its by no means a game breaker for me. I think, sadly, its going to become the norm in games because,while people in the USA wont really go for pay to play by hour, we most certainly will buy stupid trinkets to trick out or in game room or have that cute fuzzy bunny following us around. And I think game companies have started realizing that and are ready to try to cash in on that extra income from that. Can't blame them really, it is a business after all.
From what I'm reading.. STO is a lost cause.. The previous devs went under, and Cryptic took over a sinking ship in debt.. What we are seeing now is Cryptic bailing ship and releasing what they can during the "hype" phase and get as much money as possible.. This so reminds me of Vanguard, that SOE bailed out because Vanguard was released too soon and incomplete, but was forced to because of money problems..
IMHO, this game will be dead as a door nail within 1 year of release, especially if they still wish charge $15 a month for an ongoing beta game under development..
If you expect a Star Trek mmoRPG, I think you need to look elsewhere. This is about as Star Trek as the FPS games that were produced several years ago.
Cryptic does simple fight MMO's. They are closer to korean games then western PayToPlay games, simple grindfests.
I doubt STO will be much different, the development time just hasn't been long enough and all the material released emphasizes violence, not what the best of Trek is about.
This is Star Trek for people who thought Enterprise was good because it had space babes and battles.
Everyone who liked TOS, TNG or even DS9, look elsewhere.
Lol,
If you are a fan of anything Star Trek don't play this game is your recommendation?
That's like saying, If you like seeing naked women, don't go to the strip club. Just look at nudy magazines at home.
Well, maybe that was a poor analogy but I don't see why you wouldn't want to try an online game of your favorite IP instead of playing with your action figurines or homemade created tabletop games.
To whoever said all SOE games are very different, that's because SOE actually only made 2 games (well 3 if you count 989 after '98), the rest are just being published or snagged from a dying company by SOE.
To a point CO & CoH are similar, yet different, CO was probably the biggest disappointment of 2009. I won't be surprised if STO will get that title for 2010.
I actually understand why that was said, if you're a big Star Trek fan, some people will tell you to stay away from STO I guess, meaning it's probably less about Star Trek than you'd expect. I'm just guessing though.
I actually understand why that was said, if you're a big Star Trek fan, some people will tell you to stay away from STO I guess, meaning it's probably less about Star Trek than you'd expect. I'm just guessing though.
Its a widely held sentiment really. STO has very very little to do with Star Trek, its basically Star Trek in name and skin only. Without the name Star Trek in it and the Star Trek skin the game might as well be called CO: Citizens in Space.
The game plays like a slowed down version of Champions Online. It suffers from the same failings. Lack of variety in missions, skills, roles, as well as a severe lack of depth. The game has potential to be fun for a short while but just like CO lacks that longevity. This one sadly I wouldn't play even if it was a console game though, which is sad because even CO would have made a decent console game imho.
The high points and the low points are almost identical to CO, decent looking game, a ton of customization in the char creation, semi fun single player game, gets repetitive and boring fairly fast, lack of depth, lack of content, a lot of it has a slapped together or rushed feel to it.
Hopefully STO will get better in time, but considering how identical it is to CO I think it's fair to assume it will be treated the same which means it will be a long slow road before it actually gets better considering CO has yet to have some of its key issues dealt with.
All in all I ....
Recommend this game to those that enjoy/enjoyed CO as it could be worth the initial buy price as CO was.
And I...
Do not recommend this game to hard core trek fans
Do not recommend this game to those that did not enjoy CO
Do not recommend this game to those that are PvP minded
Do not recommend this game to those looking for diplomacy and exploration playing a huge part or even a mild part in your chars advancement.
Basically I can really only seeing those that enjoyed CO for more than 3-4 weeks really getting into this MMO and I can only see them getting into it if they aren't really hung up on Star Trek. Anything other than a mild interest in the Star Trek IP will likely ruin the experience for you.
Just my opinion, nothing more and simply based off of my experience with STO in the beta. Glad the NDA is finally gone lol!
I actually understand why that was said, if you're a big Star Trek fan, some people will tell you to stay away from STO I guess, meaning it's probably less about Star Trek than you'd expect. I'm just guessing though.
Its a widely held sentiment really. STO has very very little to do with Star Trek, its basically Star Trek in name and skin only. Without the name Star Trek in it and the Star Trek skin the game might as well be called CO: Citizens in Space.
The game plays like a slowed down version of Champions Online. It suffers from the same failings. Lack of variety in missions, skills, roles, as well as a severe lack of depth. The game has potential to be fun for a short while but just like CO lacks that longevity. This one sadly I wouldn't play even if it was a console game though, which is sad because even CO would have made a decent console game imho.
The high points and the low points are almost identical to CO, decent looking game, a ton of customization in the char creation, semi fun single player game, gets repetitive and boring fairly fast, lack of depth, lack of content, a lot of it has a slapped together or rushed feel to it.
Hopefully STO will get better in time, but considering how identical it is to CO I think it's fair to assume it will be treated the same which means it will be a long slow road before it actually gets better considering CO has yet to have some of its key issues dealt with.
All in all I ....
Recommend this game to those that enjoy/enjoyed CO as it could be worth the initial buy price as CO was.
And I...
Do not recommend this game to hard core trek fans
Do not recommend this game to those that did not enjoy CO
Do not recommend this game to those that are PvP minded
Do not recommend this game to those looking for diplomacy and exploration playing a huge part or even a mild part in your chars advancement.
Basically I can really only seeing those that enjoyed CO for more than 3-4 weeks really getting into this MMO and I can only see them getting into it if they aren't really hung up on Star Trek. Anything other than a mild interest in the Star Trek IP will likely ruin the experience for you.
Just my opinion, nothing more and simply based off of my experience with STO in the beta. Glad the NDA is finally gone lol!
I'm afraid my theory has been confirmed....
What a shame! I'm still gonna try the OB though.