Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Failing the IP while delivering a decent...
thexrated
Member UncommonPosts: 1,368
...arcade game that seems almost eager to forget about the most basic premise of Star Trek?
This is not about technical aspects of the game. Not about overly used instancing or "Sector Space".
The point is that this game does not deserve the title Star Trek Online. I could live with Star Trek Arcade Online at least I would know that it would not be a serious attempt on the IP. I can also understand why they went this direction, but I do not have to like it.
Keep in mind that developers of this title actually had one of the richest and most developed sci-fi IPs to work with. Hundreds upon hundreds of episodes, movies and books to draw content from. They could have have created multilayered missions that make you ponder the situation you are in and force make difficult decisions that would affect the journey of your character. To create missions that touch on the premise "to seek out new life and civilizations". Instead they created an arcade game that has a PvE that is not much different from Diablo. Playing as a Starfleet officer in this game is more aligned of playing a hybrid Klingon/Cardassian warmonger with no concern for peace. All that matters is getting to a better ship with more firepower and of course the next promotion - all in the best Ferengi tradition instead of Starfleet. They forgot the main thing - exploration of humanity, the moral aspect of what being a Starfleet officer is all about and how it is different from today's standards - instead Cryptic created a game that is all about mindless combat.
Roddenberry said, "...each episode to act on two levels: as a suspenseful adventure story and as a morality tale."
While I am not a huge fan, I do like Star Trek. I have watched all episodes and films. Even read couple of books. I honestly do not buy in the claim that fans of the IP will enjoy this game. I would say that this game is a huge let down especially for the fans. But of course there must be some exceptions. I would also say that those less familiar with the IP will get most out of this game, as they have much lower expectations.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
Comments
I guess the moral of the story is they should have spent more time on the game.
This is not a game.
I have watched all episodes and films. Even read couple of books.
You are a huge fan lol
I think you need to change the title of your thread. While you explained the failing IP part, you had nothing decent to say in anyway shape or form.
This is why I wish companies would stop trying to get the big IPs. You can't ever meet people's expectations of what that world should be.
Lately all the companies seem to be trying to get every popular movie/book into an MMO form, but it's not going to work. Anytime you have a big IP the fans have their beliefs of what being in that world would be like. They will all be disappointed and give up on the game and you will be left with non fan gamers who find the game fun. So why do the ip in the first place?
It's not tough to do the same setting and style of an IP but not use the name. Ships that explore space and have a crew? Easy to make and then pick a name like Spaceships. Who cares if it's not an ip? The original MMOs weren't IPs, and they are still running to this day after over a decade because people find them fun. When did it become necessary for the MMO to be a world people already knew? I want a world I don't know so that I can explore it and learn about it. I don't want to go "Hey I've seen that in a movie but it's not what I expected".
Go back to non IP MMOs, it will result in less disappointment and I'd wager even more fun.
Nah. I am a sci-fi fan, but not really a trekkie. I like it, but there are better things out there.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
Who?
Nah. I am a sci-fi fan, but not really a trekkie. I like it, but there are better things out there.
Gotta agree there, ive watched most of the episodes, and im a fan, but i like most scifi, still waiting patiently for them to make a B5 mmo lol, or a Dune one.
Overall the game is okay I guess, I just dont really find it that Trek like.
To me its like they've just placed a Star Trek suit on a normal game that wouldnt have anywhere near the same level of hype without the IP attached to it.
only analogy I can think of is this:
Its like they've stuck a pair of horns on the side of a horses head and placed a banner underneath it that says "Cow"
Personally i found bridge commander more involving than, sto the constant warp to this planet, spending 2mins there, beaming down, warping back up killing a few bad guys. its almost as if they try and distract you by sending you off on so many different things to stop you realising that there isnt that much to do.
Overall I think its at least 6 months short on content, i'll give it a go then and see if its any better.
Granted in 6 months, everyone will be running around as Admirals.... the game wouldnt be star trek without a few hundred thousand admirals rollin around.
Your point is moot OP as it doesn't explain why it fails. Just stating it fails is not a reason.
I dunno, I stopped reading at ...
Actually just kidding. I read it all. I consider myself a star trek fan. I have enjoyed all of the series, the movies, I am even coming around to reboot, I did actually like it more the second time I watched it. Now, with that said, I could not give you a single quote from Roddenberry's life. So, yeah, your more than a huge fan.
So, what you want is an MMO that throws morality at you at every turn and you want a diplomatic solution for every option in the game. Sorry, this is the wrong game for you. As a matter of fact, I seriously doubt you will ever see that game made simply because it would not make for a "fun" game. Oh sure, some people would like it, but you have to remember that while these companies are making games, they are making games to make money, not so that 100 people out of 50,000 would like it. They are making a game to try and please star trek fans but more importantly to try and bring in the most subscribers. To do that, your going to have a lot of concessions. You don't like it, oh well, its not for everyone. But please, Dont try to tell me that a star trek fan wont like this game, because I already know your wrong. I enjoy the game and I am a star trek fan. I know many folks who enjoy star trek and that enjoy the game. So if your going to spout off about how bad the game is, at least keep it honest and to the point of YOU don't like it.
"Now, with that said, I could not give you a single quote from Roddenberry's life. So, yeah, your more than a huge fan."
Yeah, Googling stuff is so hard.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
HAHAHAHA, the FACT that you even thought about going to google to search up a quote from him is proof enough.
Really? Baldur's Gate did pretty well. It threw morality at you a lot (part of the alignment system). It had diplomatic solutions for some problems. It was very popular, fun, and it has already been made.
Anyhow, Star Trek didn't have "diplomatic solutions for every option", but there were diplomatic solutions and they weren't trivial. A game that had diplomacy at least come up in a meaningful way would be worthwhile, a lot of fun, and more worthy of being called a "Star Trek" game.
As it is now, STO is kinda like Guild Wars in space with a monthly fee and micro-transactions. Lame.
Carefully reading the OP does in fact explain why the OP thinks the game fails to deliver, here, I'll help you out.
...arcade game that seems almost eager to forget about the most basic premise of Star Trek?
.... Instead they created an arcade game that has a PvE that is not much different from Diablo.
Playing as a Starfleet officer in this game is more aligned of playing a hybrid Klingon/Cardassian warmonger with no concern for peace. All that matters is getting to a better ship with more firepower and of course the next promotion - all in the best Ferengi tradition instead of Starfleet.
They forgot the main thing - exploration of humanity, the moral aspect of what being a Starfleet officer is all about and how it is different from today's standards - instead Cryptic created a game that is all about mindless combat.
And I agree with the OP, they created a Star Trek game, maybe even a good combat game, but it not the virtual world with all the possibilities the game could have had.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I dunno, I stopped reading at ...
Actually just kidding. I read it all. I consider myself a star trek fan. I have enjoyed all of the series, the movies, I am even coming around to reboot, I did actually like it more the second time I watched it. Now, with that said, I could not give you a single quote from Roddenberry's life. So, yeah, your more than a huge fan.
So, what you want is an MMO that throws morality at you at every turn and you want a diplomatic solution for every option in the game. Sorry, this is the wrong game for you. As a matter of fact, I seriously doubt you will ever see that game made simply because it would not make for a "fun" game. Oh sure, some people would like it, but you have to remember that while these companies are making games, they are making games to make money, not so that 100 people out of 50,000 would like it. They are making a game to try and please star trek fans but more importantly to try and bring in the most subscribers. To do that, your going to have a lot of concessions. You don't like it, oh well, its not for everyone. But please, Dont try to tell me that a star trek fan wont like this game, because I already know your wrong. I enjoy the game and I am a star trek fan. I know many folks who enjoy star trek and that enjoy the game. So if your going to spout off about how bad the game is, at least keep it honest and to the point of YOU don't like it.
How about this, I'm not much of a Star Trek fan at all. I know most of the main characters and that's about it. I couldn't tell you about plot lines other then Picard was a borg once. I'm not interested in the STO at all, it seems boring and unoriginal. I highly doubt I would have any fun.
Now a game with decisions that affect future situations, with morality included as well? Count me in that actually sounds fun and a nice welcome change of pace from the another MMO with combat, levels, classes and nothing matters. So there you can count someone else in on the game you think no one would enjoy. I like depth, modern MMOs have none. I like choices, modern MMOS have none. I'm not a big fan of a monthly fee for (to use the OPs term) arcades style fighting and respawning, and that's all companies make now.
Really? Baldur's Gate did pretty well. It threw morality at you a lot (part of the alignment system). It had diplomatic solutions for some problems. It was very popular, fun, and it has already been made.
Anyhow, Star Trek didn't have "diplomatic solutions for every option", but there were diplomatic solutions and they weren't trivial. A game that had diplomacy at least come up in a meaningful way would be worthwhile, a lot of fun, and more worthy of being called a "Star Trek" game.
As it is now, STO is kinda like Guild Wars in space with a monthly fee and micro-transactions. Lame.
I could see how alignment could make a diffrence to how certain races react to you but not in a multi factioned game. and bulders gate isnt an mmo. Guild wars LOL. I dont even have to take a shot at that you sunk your who point by adding guildwars
Carefully reading the OP does in fact explain why the OP thinks the game fails to deliver, here, I'll help you out.
...arcade game that seems almost eager to forget about the most basic premise of Star Trek?
.... Instead they created an arcade game that has a PvE that is not much different from Diablo.
Playing as a Starfleet officer in this game is more aligned of playing a hybrid Klingon/Cardassian warmonger with no concern for peace. All that matters is getting to a better ship with more firepower and of course the next promotion - all in the best Ferengi tradition instead of Starfleet.
They forgot the main thing - exploration of humanity, the moral aspect of what being a Starfleet officer is all about and how it is different from today's standards - instead Cryptic created a game that is all about mindless combat.
And I agree with the OP, they created a Star Trek game, maybe even a good combat game, but it not the virtual world with all the possibilities the game could have had.
and still can. they are being forced by atari to release early.
Really? Baldur's Gate did pretty well. It threw morality at you a lot (part of the alignment system). It had diplomatic solutions for some problems. It was very popular, fun, and it has already been made.
Anyhow, Star Trek didn't have "diplomatic solutions for every option", but there were diplomatic solutions and they weren't trivial. A game that had diplomacy at least come up in a meaningful way would be worthwhile, a lot of fun, and more worthy of being called a "Star Trek" game.
As it is now, STO is kinda like Guild Wars in space with a monthly fee and micro-transactions. Lame.
And when was baldurs gate and MMO? Oh thats right, NEVER. You can not have that complexity that a single player game has and put it in an MMO. No matter how much you want to, no matter how much you beg to, no matter how much you have to, you will never be able to affect the game world of an MMO. They are not designed that way and cant be. Just look at guild wars for an example. What you do affects your instances of the world. You dont rescue someone, they are not there down the line in the story. But as soon as you group with someone else who did rescue them, then POOF, there they are. See, it just doesn't work in MMO's, It can't. Single player games are designed to give the single player that unique experience and nobody outside of YOU will be effected. As soon as you move over to an MMO style, all things change, its no longer about YOU, its about ALL of the people in the game.
Personally I think STO does a pretty decent job of making it feel like you are the one they need to do these things for. but again, we are not affecting the game world in the slightest.
You dont think the plight of the mine workers was worthy of the diplomacy they gave to that little story? What do you want? You want to go to klingon homeworld and convince worf and the council that this war is wrong and it must be stopped? you want to convince the gorn that fighting is not the answer and that peace is the only way? Good luck with that.
I dunno, I stopped reading at ...
Actually just kidding. I read it all. I consider myself a star trek fan. I have enjoyed all of the series, the movies, I am even coming around to reboot, I did actually like it more the second time I watched it. Now, with that said, I could not give you a single quote from Roddenberry's life. So, yeah, your more than a huge fan.
So, what you want is an MMO that throws morality at you at every turn and you want a diplomatic solution for every option in the game. Sorry, this is the wrong game for you. As a matter of fact, I seriously doubt you will ever see that game made simply because it would not make for a "fun" game. Oh sure, some people would like it, but you have to remember that while these companies are making games, they are making games to make money, not so that 100 people out of 50,000 would like it. They are making a game to try and please star trek fans but more importantly to try and bring in the most subscribers. To do that, your going to have a lot of concessions. You don't like it, oh well, its not for everyone. But please, Dont try to tell me that a star trek fan wont like this game, because I already know your wrong. I enjoy the game and I am a star trek fan. I know many folks who enjoy star trek and that enjoy the game. So if your going to spout off about how bad the game is, at least keep it honest and to the point of YOU don't like it.
How about this, I'm not much of a Star Trek fan at all. I know most of the main characters and that's about it. I couldn't tell you about plot lines other then Picard was a borg once. I'm not interested in the STO at all, it seems boring and unoriginal. I highly doubt I would have any fun.
Now a game with decisions that affect future situations, with morality included as well? Count me in that actually sounds fun and a nice welcome change of pace from the another MMO with combat, levels, classes and nothing matters. So there you can count someone else in on the game you think no one would enjoy. I like depth, modern MMOs have none. I like choices, modern MMOS have none. I'm not a big fan of a monthly fee for (to use the OPs term) arcades style fighting and respawning, and that's all companies make now.
And that is your choice. You dont think it would be fun for you and you probably wont play it. As I just told the other guy, you can't have in depth single player experiences in an MMO. It is just not possible. Those things are written to tell you a story and let YOU decide the fate of the world. That is not possible in an MMO because there are thousands upon thousands of people playing the exact same game. I would love a world that my every decision changes it, but even I understand that something like that isn't possible in an MMO simply because of the nature of the game it is. Please enjoy the single player games, many of them are very good, you sound like you will be a lot more happy in that world than in the world of an MMO.
Really? Baldur's Gate did pretty well. It threw morality at you a lot (part of the alignment system). It had diplomatic solutions for some problems. It was very popular, fun, and it has already been made.
Anyhow, Star Trek didn't have "diplomatic solutions for every option", but there were diplomatic solutions and they weren't trivial. A game that had diplomacy at least come up in a meaningful way would be worthwhile, a lot of fun, and more worthy of being called a "Star Trek" game.
As it is now, STO is kinda like Guild Wars in space with a monthly fee and micro-transactions. Lame.
I could see how alignment could make a diffrence to how certain races react to you but not in a multi factioned game. and bulders gate isnt an mmo. Guild wars LOL. I dont even have to take a shot at that you sunk your who point by adding guildwars
The only alignment system that I have seen that even half way worked was way back in EQ1. And ever since then, people complain, why should such and such faction hate me, its stupid, I can't get into that part of the world because they always kill me, waaaah waaaah waaaah. THAT is the reason nobody does alignment anymore. I really hate to say it, but the wow generation is what really has killed this genre. They don't want to earn their levels, they dont want to actually have to figure out quests, they want everything handed to them on a platter. Blame them for the game companies trying to put out what the general population wants. When game companies actually do try to do stuff differently, then those same people balk at them and do nothing but complain about how these new innovations suck. Well, we are stuck with what we got. like it or not, its what we have. Don't like it, dont play it. Its pretty simple.(BTW Recker, this really isn't so much a reply to you, pretty much only the alignment part.)
Really? Baldur's Gate did pretty well. It threw morality at you a lot (part of the alignment system). It had diplomatic solutions for some problems. It was very popular, fun, and it has already been made.
Anyhow, Star Trek didn't have "diplomatic solutions for every option", but there were diplomatic solutions and they weren't trivial. A game that had diplomacy at least come up in a meaningful way would be worthwhile, a lot of fun, and more worthy of being called a "Star Trek" game.
As it is now, STO is kinda like Guild Wars in space with a monthly fee and micro-transactions. Lame.
And when was baldurs gate and MMO? Oh thats right, NEVER. You can not have that complexity that a single player game has and put it in an MMO. No matter how much you want to, no matter how much you beg to, no matter how much you have to, you will never be able to affect the game world of an MMO. They are not designed that way and cant be. Just look at guild wars for an example. What you do affects your instances of the world. You dont rescue someone, they are not there down the line in the story. But as soon as you group with someone else who did rescue them, then POOF, there they are. See, it just doesn't work in MMO's, It can't. Single player games are designed to give the single player that unique experience and nobody outside of YOU will be effected. As soon as you move over to an MMO style, all things change, its no longer about YOU, its about ALL of the people in the game.
Personally I think STO does a pretty decent job of making it feel like you are the one they need to do these things for. but again, we are not affecting the game world in the slightest.
You dont think the plight of the mine workers was worthy of the diplomacy they gave to that little story? What do you want? You want to go to klingon homeworld and convince worf and the council that this war is wrong and it must be stopped? you want to convince the gorn that fighting is not the answer and that peace is the only way? Good luck with that.
First, you said there were no games that did that. You said such games would be BORING. I indicated a game that was not boring that did it. Proof of principle that gameplay like that WORKS. You don't get to change the rules of your objection partway through.
Secondly, we are talking about diplomacy and decisions making a difference in an MMO. You say "this is imposible" but that's an extremely limited and frankly flat-out wrong view. SW:TOR will offer this, and a Star Trek game certainly could have. If Systems were procedurally generated, including inhabitants, etc, then the basic properties could be determined by some random numbers. After exploration those values and the results of your interaction could certainly be saved so you could revisit. Hence exploring new words, interacting with them, and that mattering (and others could visit and change things too). At the very least, meaningful decisions for the main story arc could have been made. It's quite possible, but admittedly maybe that's too ambitious for a company like Cryptic which focuses pretty cheap randomization. On the other hand, if they decided not to do that with random content, that doesn't mean they couldn't have with non-random content...
Thirdly, again on your "it's impossible" schtick, you act like players can't make meaningful differences in existing MMOs? They do in Sandboxes all the time. Players in Eve make stations, guilds, politics, etc. Now, in a Star Trek game you'd need some NPC cultures to interact with, but the idea that it is "impossible" to make interaction with NPC cultures is silly.
Fourthly, the miners didn't have diplomacy. It was just regurgitating what people said. You made no decisions in resolving that plot, you made no difference. All you did was copy and paste. A meaningful interaction would have been where you listen to the plight, then you have a choice of ways to resolve the situation and you pick one and follow through with it. That's a meaningful decision and it is quite possible to have this in even an MMO.
Lastly, I am not saying there should always be peaceful solutions. You read my post pretty poorly to accuse me of that. Then again, your post is so full of strawmen that it might not be worth responding to (seems like you are just trolling my post). I brought up Baldur's Gate as a game with a mechanic for making MEANINGFUL decisions. Is violence always avoidable there? No, it certainly isn't. Sometimes it is though. A good Star Trek game should be similar, though with a difference mix of avoidable vs. non-avoidable violence.
Really? Baldur's Gate did pretty well. It threw morality at you a lot (part of the alignment system). It had diplomatic solutions for some problems. It was very popular, fun, and it has already been made.
Anyhow, Star Trek didn't have "diplomatic solutions for every option", but there were diplomatic solutions and they weren't trivial. A game that had diplomacy at least come up in a meaningful way would be worthwhile, a lot of fun, and more worthy of being called a "Star Trek" game.
As it is now, STO is kinda like Guild Wars in space with a monthly fee and micro-transactions. Lame.
And when was baldurs gate and MMO? Oh thats right, NEVER. You can not have that complexity that a single player game has and put it in an MMO. No matter how much you want to, no matter how much you beg to, no matter how much you have to, you will never be able to affect the game world of an MMO. They are not designed that way and cant be. Just look at guild wars for an example. What you do affects your instances of the world. You dont rescue someone, they are not there down the line in the story. But as soon as you group with someone else who did rescue them, then POOF, there they are. See, it just doesn't work in MMO's, It can't. Single player games are designed to give the single player that unique experience and nobody outside of YOU will be effected. As soon as you move over to an MMO style, all things change, its no longer about YOU, its about ALL of the people in the game.
Personally I think STO does a pretty decent job of making it feel like you are the one they need to do these things for. but again, we are not affecting the game world in the slightest.
You dont think the plight of the mine workers was worthy of the diplomacy they gave to that little story? What do you want? You want to go to klingon homeworld and convince worf and the council that this war is wrong and it must be stopped? you want to convince the gorn that fighting is not the answer and that peace is the only way? Good luck with that.
First, you said there were no games that did that. You said such games would be BORING. I indicated a game that was not boring that did it. Proof of principle that gameplay like that WORKS. You don't get to change the rules of your objection partway through.
First, we are on an MMO site, talking about an MMO and when I say games, I was talking about MMO's. YOU are the one who brought in single player games to try and counteract me and it didnt work.
Secondly, we are talking about diplomacy and decisions making a difference in an MMO. You say "this is imposible" but that's an extremely limited and frankly flat-out wrong view. SW:TOR will offer this, and a Star Trek game certainly could have. If Systems were procedurally generated, including inhabitants, etc, then the basic properties could be determined by some random numbers. After exploration those values and the results of your interaction could certainly be saved so you could revisit. Hence exploring new words, interacting with them, and that mattering (and others could visit and change things too). At the very least, meaningful decisions for the main story arc could have been made. It's quite possible, but admittedly maybe that's too ambitious for a company like Cryptic which focuses pretty cheap randomization. On the other hand, if they decided not to do that with random content, that doesn't mean they couldn't have with non-random content...
Yeah, I think you are going to be surprised by SW:TOR. In that the decisions you make are going to be about the exact same ones you do in Guildwars. It actually was stated a while back, that grouping in TOR would cause those same issues of immersion. I also think your going to be surprised at just how instanced TOR is going to be to. From everything I have read, it sounds like it is going to be VERY similar to ST in terms of instancing. But then again, I don't really consider GW or DDO or STO as a full fledged MMO. I guess we will just have to wait and see how in depth your decisions really are going to be in TOR. I am suspecting about the same as it was in GW.
Thirdly, again on your "it's impossible" schtick, you act like players can't make meaningful differences in existing MMOs? They do in Sandboxes all the time. Players in Eve make stations, guilds, politics, etc. Now, in a Star Trek game you'd need some NPC cultures to interact with, but the idea that it is "impossible" to make interaction with NPC cultures is silly.
Come on, did you just jump on the MMO scene? Of course players cant be trusted to make meaningful differences. Look at any GM even ever done, all they ever want to do is, KILL THE GM! Oh and dont bring Eve into it. Anyone with any lick of sense knows that players in Eve can be trusted about as far as you can throw them. Do I even need to recite the past activities of espionage that has went in on that game?
Fourthly, the miners didn't have diplomacy. It was just regurgitating what people said. You made no decisions in resolving that plot, you made no difference. All you did was copy and paste. A meaningful interaction would have been where you listen to the plight, then you have a choice of ways to resolve the situation and you pick one and follow through with it. That's a meaningful decision and it is quite possible to have this in even an MMO.
Yep, you are right, you had to answer some questions, but if you got it wrong, oh well those poor miners where just going to be stuck with all that heavy workload and no play.
Lastly, I am not saying there should always be peaceful solutions. You read my post pretty poorly to accuse me of that. Then again, your post is so full of strawmen that it might not be worth responding to (seems like you are just trolling my post). I brought up Baldur's Gate as a game with a mechanic for making MEANINGFUL decisions. Is violence always avoidable there? No, it certainly isn't. Sometimes it is though. A good Star Trek game should be similar, though with a difference mix of avoidable vs. non-avoidable violence.
Who says that may not be in there? Nobody has gotten to see all the content. Maybe they actually give us a choice, but you know what? It still is meaningless because it does not effect the entire game world. And it never will, because it can not be done in an MMO in any fashion that can let everyone have that opportunity to do it. Again, MMO's are made for ALL the folks, Not as a single story just for one user. So far, you haven't proved anything yet other than the fact that your trying to dance around the issue that it simply can not be done in an MMO setting that will allow all people to affect the game world. There are just to many assholes in the world that would love nothing more than to make a decision that would ruin the game fun for everyone else after them.
That's a false dichotomy. Meaningless choices are meaningless because they don't actually affect anything. That doesn't mean a choice is meaningless if it doesn't affect everything. Are the choices you make every day meaningless? Is who you spend time with, what you do, what your job is, and other things meaningless because it doesn't have a massive effect on the entire planet? Hardly. Similarly, an MMO can have meaningful decisions even in an instance-like environment. Choosing if someone lives or dies, choosing how to handle a situations that affects how the encounter plays out, etc, etc, are meaningful decisions. A meaningless decision would be choosing to allow someone to come with you, but no matter what you say they come with you anyways, or choosing not to kill a guy who dies in the next 5 seconds anyhow...those decisions truly don't matter.
STO could easily of allowed instanced decisions that affect how things play out, and even give you a reputation for certain things (that could affect other things in the game such as how people react to you). Instead they don't both with any sort of depth, and so the game is horribly shallow. The main difference between you and me is that you are happy with an extremely shallow MMO even when it is an IP that shouldn't be shallow. I expect more, and quite frankly it looks like I'll get it in the next year or two.
That's a false dichotomy. Meaningless choices are meaningless because they don't actually affect anything. That doesn't mean a choice is meaningless if it doesn't affect everything. Are the choices you make every day meaningless? Is who you spend time with, what you do, what your job is, and other things meaningless because it doesn't have a massive effect on the entire planet? Hardly. Similarly, an MMO can have meaningful decisions even in an instance-like environment. Choosing if someone lives or dies, choosing how to handle a situations that affects how the encounter plays out, etc, etc, are meaningful decisions. A meaningless decision would be choosing to allow someone to come with you, but no matter what you say they come with you anyways, or choosing not to kill a guy who dies in the next 5 seconds anyhow...those decisions truly don't matter.
STO could easily of allowed instanced decisions that affect how things play out, and even give you a reputation for certain things (that could affect other things in the game such as how people react to you). Instead they don't both with any sort of depth, and so the game is horribly shallow. The main difference between you and me is that you are happy with an extremely shallow MMO even when it is an IP that shouldn't be shallow. I expect more, and quite frankly it looks like I'll get it in the next year or two.
As I stated, They did have that in guildwars. You can affect YOUR instance of it, but as soon as you join a group with someone, every decision you made is meaningless because now your in someone elses version of their world. Do you really call that an MMO? I sure as heck dont and it proves my point that it can't be done in an MMO setting to where everyone is going to see the effect of each others decisions. Now, if we don't care about that immersion than I will gladly concede the point that it can be done to a limited extent but it is still not on a global scale for an MMO. So in those terms, yes STO could have allowed those diplomacy decisions.
That's a false dichotomy. Meaningless choices are meaningless because they don't actually affect anything. That doesn't mean a choice is meaningless if it doesn't affect everything. Are the choices you make every day meaningless? Is who you spend time with, what you do, what your job is, and other things meaningless because it doesn't have a massive effect on the entire planet? Hardly. Similarly, an MMO can have meaningful decisions even in an instance-like environment. Choosing if someone lives or dies, choosing how to handle a situations that affects how the encounter plays out, etc, etc, are meaningful decisions. A meaningless decision would be choosing to allow someone to come with you, but no matter what you say they come with you anyways, or choosing not to kill a guy who dies in the next 5 seconds anyhow...those decisions truly don't matter.
STO could easily of allowed instanced decisions that affect how things play out, and even give you a reputation for certain things (that could affect other things in the game such as how people react to you). Instead they don't both with any sort of depth, and so the game is horribly shallow. The main difference between you and me is that you are happy with an extremely shallow MMO even when it is an IP that shouldn't be shallow. I expect more, and quite frankly it looks like I'll get it in the next year or two.
As I stated, They did have that in guildwars. You can affect YOUR instance of it, but as soon as you join a group with someone, every decision you made is meaningless because now your in someone elses version of their world. Do you really call that an MMO? I sure as heck dont and it proves my point that it can't be done in an MMO setting to where everyone is going to see the effect of each others decisions. Now, if we don't care about that immersion than I will gladly concede the point that it can be done to a limited extent but it is still not on a global scale for an MMO. So in those terms, yes STO could have allowed those diplomacy decisions.
In groups you'd make group decisions. What's so hard about that? Group-focused things might limit how much carry-over to future instances you can have, but it certainly doesn't mean you can't make decisions that matter.
I agree completly!!!!!
And I said it about this one before even if this game was pure gold it woud fail the fans of the IP understandably so. There are few IPs though that I think could be done into a MMO but all of them are game IPs where the MMO would be more of a sequel in a new genre than a MMO of said IP i.e. FF, Warcraft, Starcraft really just about any RTS, RPG or Adventure even some of the FPS titles out there could sequal them selves into an MMO genre.
And your point that you could take insperation from the IP as opposed to using it, dead on, the best MMOs I have played have been this way i.e. EQ and DAoC especialy DAoC highly inspired by the Nordic Brit and Celtic methos and culture, with somthing like this IP you have to be extra carful not to piss off the owners of the IP but it can be done, has been done before.
Even LoTRo I would like better if I wasn't having conflics with the game world and my interpretation of the books it really is a good game and I loved the books; I just cant get past my pre-conseved expectations enough to really sink into the game like I did with EQ, DAoC and WoW (which of course is Warcraft IP but as I said above its a bit diffrent with game).
Now if you just have to make an MMO from some non game IP then you had better pick one that isnt well defined and or set the game so far out of the original time line that it works, the Star Wars MMO might make it for this reason, its so far out side the fan known time line that they have some flexability though I think they should have when forward not backward . . . they did go back right or am I mistaken?