I too believe the score should of went up and not down. The reviewer couldn't find things that made STO stand out from the rest of the MMO's? How about player made missions? Bridge crews with trainable skills for starters. He also said the game plays more like a RTS and that grouping isn't a big factor in game play. All this could be said about most MMO's as most can be played solo. If you belong to a good fleet you would see that many missions require team work and the society/social aspect is very much alive if you chose it to be. PvP without belonging to an team/Fleet is certainly a bad experience in my opinion. As for the ground combat, it is much like any other MMO, you have skills to train up and use in the combat. The big difference in my opinion is if you don't train up any ground skills you just gimped your character and are useless to your group/fleet for such missions. Yes your bridge crews can make up for your lack of skills solo, but doesn't work at all when you group up.
Lets be honest in that STO wasn't designed as a game for those wanting detailed exploration instead of what it is, a game set in a time of open warfare. That has dissolutioned many to the point they can't stand the fact that STO exists and see only failings. to me the game is fun for what it was designed to be and hopefully they strengthen the end game. I would like to see meaningful realm verus Realm type conquests!
It was an honest review, IMO. Personally, I don't think the previous review score needed to be used as the baseline for a new review. The reviewers gave their opinions based on what they played and scored the game to the best of their abilities; however, different people = different scores. Simple. Just because you don't agree with the review score, for any reason, doesn't invalidate the score.
BTW, I like the new review format direction you guys are taking.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Wow , nothing like an truthful article ( compared to the previous one that was more about Graphics, Sound, RPG , Value , Fun ( WTF ), Community , it was a real fluff peice and it still got only 7.4 ) to bring out the fury of the CDF. Truth hurts and the subscribers just don't plain like it. In my opinion she was dead on , and that's what bothers most of these posters. In fact I think she struggled not to bury this game. She seemed like she was struggling to give it a 6 on the value end, and a 7 on the gameplay score.
People need to be little more objective. While I agree the Ground combat will be an improvement , it's just an insignificant improvement that will not resurrect the fortunes of this game, no matter how much you yell and stamp your feet that the game has improved. It's improved too little to late. People are looking forward to new games not discredited old games. If it takes a Dev 1.5 to two years after release to get the game in an acceptable form or shape to play , it's forgotten.
I've been a STO sub on and off since release (mostly off). The game was flawed from the beginning. It could have been great. Some of my complaints which will likely never change:
-You start the game as a Lt. and immediately have a ship command. I think you should start the game as a captain and stay a captain, advancing your skills (experience) within that rank.
-Its not viable to fly whatever ship you want. Say you like the original series Kirk Enterprise. You might say "screw it, I like and will fly it even if its weak, ill just put in the latest Mark XII equipement!" Nope, the gear actually scales down when you put it in a older ship.
I still play it occasionally because I think the space combat is actually fun, I just wish there was a reason to play it at max level.
Lol with all the other stuff that's went on with swg, and eve and now this rofl. This site is so interesting. It like a box full of chocolates, you never know what your going to get.
I love the score its dead on and should have been the first score they did.
So, are there any other examples here on MMORPG of current reviews being lower than the previous reviews, with the exception of SWG and the NGE? If this is just the result of the "new rating system" surely there would be other examples.
You guys all freaking out over the lowering of the score need to think about it realistically. With two different reviewers, you are going to get two different scores, if Lori had done the initial review, it probably would have scored a 5.0 and this new score of 6.5 would be an improvement.
I do agree it does not make much sense to have different people review then re-review games based on each person having different tastes and preferences, but this is the nature of review sites, people come and go. I like how Game Informer does it and actually has two people do the review so you can see the scores froming from two different people. Maybe MMORPG needs to start having a panel of three or 4 people review the games and each gives a score. This way, I can follow the score of the reviewer who best fits my play style.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Umm, what the hell? Ur saying that the game has improved and etc, but because of its failings it gets A LOWER SCORE THAN WHAT IT DID *ORIGINALLY* in the first review?
i mean U understad it fully well if you don't like this game, im for example a fervent hater of C-store myself. BUT to indicate that the game has gotten WORSE since release DESPITE all the updates and etc is just rubbish! Rubbish, I tells ya!
You guys all freaking out over the lowering of the score need to think about it realistically. With two different reviewers, you are going to get two different scores,
If that is truly the explanation, then what other games has this happened to?
No matter what site reviews STO, you will find Nagus defending it to the hilt. Wheres Armsman and the unoffical Dev Kitlor?
This review is spot on. The game is a single player game with Subsciption and a C-store that gets all the new ships and costumes. It uses the pretence of a foundry so you, the paying public, can do the content for the hame.
Whatever you say, These 3 people plus the other Cryptic fanbois will shout you down with the Devs backing them up and shutting down any threads on the offical site, if they don't like it.
The dye was cast when they stop the 100,000s of people from writing I quit threads.
Go to Cryptic other sites such as Co and the new Netherwinter and guess who's there defending Cryptic... Yep Nagus and his pals.
This review was spot on. The game is good. but shallow and is a good single player no sub scription game
I've got no issue with the score or the previous score. However, I do have an issue with doing the review TODAY when everyone knows that within 2 weeks the ground game is going to be drastically different enough to warrant another review.
Yes, I realize there is a disclaimer in the latest review stating they are aware of this and will review the game in 6 months or so. But still, this review today couldn't have waited another 2 weeks? I can't take today's review seriously, to be honest, knowing what is to come. Plus, the small fact that I personally was waiting for Season 4 to go live before resubbing to the game for a month to see the improvements. Even I am willing to wait, why shouldn't the reviewer? On top of that, the Season 4 patch is the first major patch after the selling of Cryptic and it seems to be turning into the best update to date? Coincidence? Probably, but it lends itself to contemplation and further enforces even more reason to wait to re-review after Season 4 goes live.
I liked the "Repititious game play" thing in the "Cons" section. That is pretty much a given for any MMO you play.
To a varying degree. It's all about how it's hidden or incorporated into the game. If it were the same in every game, it would be the exact same complaint for every game.
Also, let me add that the review was in progress long before Season 4 was set to hit live servers. We'll most certainly re-visit the game post-Season 4.
Which made Ms. May's review totally worthless. It shouldn't matter how long the review was in progress - logic would dictate that the review should have been delayed, then modified once the new content (which addresses one of the game's major drawbacks) went live and tested by the reviewer. As it stands, this 're-review' is nothing more than filler.
Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. - Marie Curie
Also, let me add that the review was in progress long before Season 4 was set to hit live servers. We'll most certainly re-visit the game post-Season 4.
Which made Ms. May's review totally worthless. It shouldn't matter how long the review was in progress - logic would dictate that the review should have been delayed, then modified once the new content (which addresses one of the game's major drawbacks) went live and tested by the reviewer. As it stands, this 're-review' is nothing more than filler.
Well said. By the way, I think your Sig is pretty cool.
"To a varying degree. It's all about how it's hidden or incorporated into the game. If it were the same in every game, it would be the exact same complaint for every game."
Exactly this. I find it laughable everytime someone uses the excuse that all MMOs are repetative. That is not the point at all. Game designers call it, "How do we make fun, fun again." STO fails miserably at this question.
And to that I say, good review. Spot on. Wait for season 4? Why is the answer for this game always wait until the next update? Why is the state of the game NOW never discussed honestly by some?
To be fair Harryhausen, the next update is in only two weeks. Does it really seem like to much to ask to wait till then?
"To be fair Harryhausen, the next update is in only two weeks. Does it really seem like to much to ask to wait till then?
"Why wait? I have seen most of what will be released in S4, it isn't going to change much. Yeah, again, some things will be prettier, but there is no content and the whole "ground revamp" is a let down.
The review is fair and honest. This whole, "the game will be better in the next patch" BS has been going on since launch. The only thing that seems to change is the next "it will get better when" date.
PS: Sorry to all, but I haven't figured out how to quote individual posts yet.
I think it is a well deserved rating. Even a bit too good.
Star Trek Online is nothing short than a BETRAYAL of EVERYTHING that made Star Trek! ST NEVER was about kill as many Klingons as you can! It was about personal stories! About interactions and personal development. I am not even sure it CAN be made into a MMO! STO is a slap in the face of every true Trekker. It's an ok one time run through to Admiral, and then forget it. Cryptic made this with minimal copy paste effort to demonstrate MMOs can be made in super fast time with little effort and maximal stockholder value. They used the IP to milk the fans.
Mediocre is still an euphemism!
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
The original score was too high. I think this is a fair review. When the game came out I would have given it a 4.0, but from the looks of things it has definitely improved since then. Personally I'm not willing to pay $15/month for a mediocre game when there are better ones out there.
Comments
I too believe the score should of went up and not down. The reviewer couldn't find things that made STO stand out from the rest of the MMO's? How about player made missions? Bridge crews with trainable skills for starters. He also said the game plays more like a RTS and that grouping isn't a big factor in game play. All this could be said about most MMO's as most can be played solo. If you belong to a good fleet you would see that many missions require team work and the society/social aspect is very much alive if you chose it to be. PvP without belonging to an team/Fleet is certainly a bad experience in my opinion. As for the ground combat, it is much like any other MMO, you have skills to train up and use in the combat. The big difference in my opinion is if you don't train up any ground skills you just gimped your character and are useless to your group/fleet for such missions. Yes your bridge crews can make up for your lack of skills solo, but doesn't work at all when you group up.
Lets be honest in that STO wasn't designed as a game for those wanting detailed exploration instead of what it is, a game set in a time of open warfare. That has dissolutioned many to the point they can't stand the fact that STO exists and see only failings. to me the game is fun for what it was designed to be and hopefully they strengthen the end game. I would like to see meaningful realm verus Realm type conquests!
This , and besides im not realy a fan of the game since it still doesnt manage to keep me around for longer than a week BUT..
the last time i checked it has come long ways since startup (YUk!) and improved a fair bit.
Still not for me but this review was kinda bizzar.
It was an honest review, IMO. Personally, I don't think the previous review score needed to be used as the baseline for a new review. The reviewers gave their opinions based on what they played and scored the game to the best of their abilities; however, different people = different scores. Simple. Just because you don't agree with the review score, for any reason, doesn't invalidate the score.
BTW, I like the new review format direction you guys are taking.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Wow , nothing like an truthful article ( compared to the previous one that was more about Graphics, Sound, RPG , Value , Fun ( WTF ), Community , it was a real fluff peice and it still got only 7.4 ) to bring out the fury of the CDF. Truth hurts and the subscribers just don't plain like it. In my opinion she was dead on , and that's what bothers most of these posters. In fact I think she struggled not to bury this game. She seemed like she was struggling to give it a 6 on the value end, and a 7 on the gameplay score.
People need to be little more objective. While I agree the Ground combat will be an improvement , it's just an insignificant improvement that will not resurrect the fortunes of this game, no matter how much you yell and stamp your feet that the game has improved. It's improved too little to late. People are looking forward to new games not discredited old games. If it takes a Dev 1.5 to two years after release to get the game in an acceptable form or shape to play , it's forgotten.
Shouldnt this reviewer have waited until the ground combat revamp to do this?
I think STO is a good game, not great, but surely underscored in the re-review.
I've been a STO sub on and off since release (mostly off). The game was flawed from the beginning. It could have been great. Some of my complaints which will likely never change:
-You start the game as a Lt. and immediately have a ship command. I think you should start the game as a captain and stay a captain, advancing your skills (experience) within that rank.
-Its not viable to fly whatever ship you want. Say you like the original series Kirk Enterprise. You might say "screw it, I like and will fly it even if its weak, ill just put in the latest Mark XII equipement!" Nope, the gear actually scales down when you put it in a older ship.
I still play it occasionally because I think the space combat is actually fun, I just wish there was a reason to play it at max level.
Lol with all the other stuff that's went on with swg, and eve and now this rofl. This site is so interesting. It like a box full of chocolates, you never know what your going to get.
I love the score its dead on and should have been the first score they did.
I am still waiting for sto to go free to play.
So, are there any other examples here on MMORPG of current reviews being lower than the previous reviews, with the exception of SWG and the NGE? If this is just the result of the "new rating system" surely there would be other examples.
You guys all freaking out over the lowering of the score need to think about it realistically. With two different reviewers, you are going to get two different scores, if Lori had done the initial review, it probably would have scored a 5.0 and this new score of 6.5 would be an improvement.
I do agree it does not make much sense to have different people review then re-review games based on each person having different tastes and preferences, but this is the nature of review sites, people come and go. I like how Game Informer does it and actually has two people do the review so you can see the scores froming from two different people. Maybe MMORPG needs to start having a panel of three or 4 people review the games and each gives a score. This way, I can follow the score of the reviewer who best fits my play style.
THE REVIEWERS ARE DIFFERENT
Patrick Gerard
Lori May
I liked the "Repititious game play" thing in the "Cons" section. That is pretty much a given for any MMO you play.
Umm, what the hell? Ur saying that the game has improved and etc, but because of its failings it gets A LOWER SCORE THAN WHAT IT DID *ORIGINALLY* in the first review?
i mean U understad it fully well if you don't like this game, im for example a fervent hater of C-store myself. BUT to indicate that the game has gotten WORSE since release DESPITE all the updates and etc is just rubbish! Rubbish, I tells ya!
If that is truly the explanation, then what other games has this happened to?
No matter what site reviews STO, you will find Nagus defending it to the hilt. Wheres Armsman and the unoffical Dev Kitlor?
This review is spot on. The game is a single player game with Subsciption and a C-store that gets all the new ships and costumes. It uses the pretence of a foundry so you, the paying public, can do the content for the hame.
Whatever you say, These 3 people plus the other Cryptic fanbois will shout you down with the Devs backing them up and shutting down any threads on the offical site, if they don't like it.
The dye was cast when they stop the 100,000s of people from writing I quit threads.
Go to Cryptic other sites such as Co and the new Netherwinter and guess who's there defending Cryptic... Yep Nagus and his pals.
This review was spot on. The game is good. but shallow and is a good single player no sub scription game
I've got no issue with the score or the previous score. However, I do have an issue with doing the review TODAY when everyone knows that within 2 weeks the ground game is going to be drastically different enough to warrant another review.
Yes, I realize there is a disclaimer in the latest review stating they are aware of this and will review the game in 6 months or so. But still, this review today couldn't have waited another 2 weeks? I can't take today's review seriously, to be honest, knowing what is to come. Plus, the small fact that I personally was waiting for Season 4 to go live before resubbing to the game for a month to see the improvements. Even I am willing to wait, why shouldn't the reviewer? On top of that, the Season 4 patch is the first major patch after the selling of Cryptic and it seems to be turning into the best update to date? Coincidence? Probably, but it lends itself to contemplation and further enforces even more reason to wait to re-review after Season 4 goes live.
Anyway, that's my only beef.
To a varying degree. It's all about how it's hidden or incorporated into the game. If it were the same in every game, it would be the exact same complaint for every game.
Which made Ms. May's review totally worthless. It shouldn't matter how long the review was in progress - logic would dictate that the review should have been delayed, then modified once the new content (which addresses one of the game's major drawbacks) went live and tested by the reviewer. As it stands, this 're-review' is nothing more than filler.
Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. - Marie Curie
Well said. By the way, I think your Sig is pretty cool.
"To a varying degree. It's all about how it's hidden or incorporated into the game. If it were the same in every game, it would be the exact same complaint for every game."
Exactly this. I find it laughable everytime someone uses the excuse that all MMOs are repetative. That is not the point at all. Game designers call it, "How do we make fun, fun again." STO fails miserably at this question.
To be fair Harryhausen, the next update is in only two weeks. Does it really seem like to much to ask to wait till then?
"Me thinks you need a new hobby."
Why? And what is your point?
"To be fair Harryhausen, the next update is in only two weeks. Does it really seem like to much to ask to wait till then?
"Why wait? I have seen most of what will be released in S4, it isn't going to change much. Yeah, again, some things will be prettier, but there is no content and the whole "ground revamp" is a let down.
The review is fair and honest. This whole, "the game will be better in the next patch" BS has been going on since launch. The only thing that seems to change is the next "it will get better when" date.
PS: Sorry to all, but I haven't figured out how to quote individual posts yet.
I think it is a well deserved rating. Even a bit too good.
Star Trek Online is nothing short than a BETRAYAL of EVERYTHING that made Star Trek! ST NEVER was about kill as many Klingons as you can! It was about personal stories! About interactions and personal development. I am not even sure it CAN be made into a MMO! STO is a slap in the face of every true Trekker. It's an ok one time run through to Admiral, and then forget it. Cryptic made this with minimal copy paste effort to demonstrate MMOs can be made in super fast time with little effort and maximal stockholder value. They used the IP to milk the fans.
Mediocre is still an euphemism!
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
The original score was too high. I think this is a fair review. When the game came out I would have given it a 4.0, but from the looks of things it has definitely improved since then. Personally I'm not willing to pay $15/month for a mediocre game when there are better ones out there.