Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What is the main critique from trekkies?
cygnetsong
Member Posts: 63
There are a lot of purists out there that are (or will be) upset with the game. Can someone sum up the main beef? To me, it seems that the devs are trying hard to get it as close to cannon as possible and still be a good game.
Is it the fact that everyone has their own ship? I would think that people would understand that it would be darn near impossible to make it fun to be a bridge officer, getting carted around by the captain, doing whatever he/she wants.
Is it the deviation from other cannon?
Secondly, do you think these people will come around, ultimately?
Comments
Star wars fans like jet fighters in space. Star Trek fans like submarines in space.
STO appears to consist of a magical invisible camera that floats above the ship and looks down on it while the captain presses up for up and down for down and shoot to shoot.
STO seems to be closer to the old Afterburner arcade game than Star Trek. That's part of what annoys us a bit.
Here, I found some leaked video of STO gameplay...
"It is in your nature to do one thing correctly; Before me, you rightfully tremble. But, fear is not what you owe me. You owe me awe." ~Francis Dolarhyde
That's a great analogy!
That's a great analogy!
Thanks, I'm proud of that one, lol.
Anyway, to answer the second part of your question, come around? I'm already on board. It's Star Trek ffs, of course I'll give it a whirl. I may be very disappointed that it doesn't seem to be being developed as awesomely as I would have had it developed, but still, I'll give it a go.
"It is in your nature to do one thing correctly; Before me, you rightfully tremble. But, fear is not what you owe me. You owe me awe." ~Francis Dolarhyde
The sub analogy was pretty good.
I think the BIG thing is that most Trek purists would expect a game more like pre-CU SWG and not CO. I would argue that they are not really trying to stay close to canon either, TBH.
Well, I think that the primary thing is that Star Trek was as much about stories, characters and even the human condition as it was phasers and action.
In other words, Star Trek is a most difficult thing to capture in a game, MMO or otherwise, in my opinion.
That isn't to say that I won't try the game and enjoy it. I think that I will enjoy it.
If you ask me, while many may say that I've set my bar to low, I'm of the opinion that most of the nay-sayers have set thier bar too high.
I mean, I loved SWG. But it was a far thing from feeling like I was in one of the movies.
STO will be about tooling around in a universe with the trappings of Star Trek. It will not feel like you are watching or participating in a Star Trek tv show or movie. By necessity.
Gene Roddenberry himself referred to TOS as "Wagon Train to the Stars" meaning that the setting was merely a vehicle to tell stories. It could have just as easily been the wild west or something else. It's a setting.
We'll get the setting part. We won't get the story part, well, at least not on any recognizable level. We might get a piece of the cool characters part, that is, if there are any RPers left in the world rather than l33t loot whores. Still they won't be part of your crew as those will merely be NPC automatons, at least at launch.
Is Afterburner the game where you sometimes have to find a Mothership to refuel? I played a game like that in my favorite watering hole back in the day. Been wondering off and on what the name of it was. Anyway, that game was great but hopefully will not be the ST mmo
I don't if I quite qualify as a trekkie, but I am a fan of the Star Trek universe. Obviously different people have different complaints about the game, but I think it's fair to say that several of us are unhappy because we do not feel that the devs are trying as hard as they could be to stick as close to the cannon as possible. One of the devs was quoted in an interview as saying something along the lines of that the most important thing for them was gameplay and ”fun”, with sticking to the IP a close second.
Tman5 summed up ”our” position quite nicely in another thread:
As to the fun vs IP argument: I think IP should come first, fun second. Because if the IP itself isn't already fun , why bother with a game in the first place? If you put someone else's concept of "fun" first, the IP just becomes paint. Star Trek is more than paint. That is the concern of those of us who are skeptical of this effort.
As for the part about coming around, I can only speak for myself, but I fully intend to give the game a try before making a final decision. I know that it will not be my dream Star Trek game, but I still hope it will be fun to play nonetheless.
If the game had been true to the IP it would be an enormous undertaking.
Think about it. Each station would need it's own mini-game with content.
Now multiply that by the different ways players would want to play each station.
Now add the skill trees and the changes each would make to overall play.
The mind starts to bend under the strain.
This Tman5 is right. When it comes to IP vs fun, I've always said; "Umm, are you trying to say that our IP isn't fun already? Are you arrogantly assuming that we have been sitting around watching Star Trek all these years going; "Ya know, this is... OKAY, but it could be a lot better."? No, we are Star Trek fans because we actually LIKE Star Trek."
It's like when the new movie came out. I was like; "Do you honestly think we've been sitting around all these years watching Star Trek and thinking; "This is cool and all, but it would be a lot better with more explosions and motorcycles!"?"
Though, I did eventually watch the new Star Trek and enjoyed the hell out of it. :P
"It is in your nature to do one thing correctly; Before me, you rightfully tremble. But, fear is not what you owe me. You owe me awe." ~Francis Dolarhyde
People like Star Trek for a lot of different reasons. Naturally some of those fans have different complaints about the game. For some it is that the main focus seems to just be combat, and the little bit of non-combat doesn't sound or look to be that involving. For others, it is that the combat itself isn't very Star Trek considering there are ships with healing beams coming out of their deflectors and other aspects of the Tank/Healer/DPS which is NOT how a fight in Star Trek works. There's also the fact the Klingons are a PvP only faction at launch, which bothers people who wanted to get involved in a Klingon Empire story, since the Klingon culture is very rich. As others have said, the shallowness of the crew is something that bothers many, as crew interaction was a big thing on the show, but in this game crew members have zero personality. There are those that don't like the fact you uniforms aren't at ALL uniform in the game, or how everyone has shields for ground combat and takes multiple weapon hits to die.* Ground persons shooting out healing at range is also ridiculous as well. Some people don't want a Cash Shop in a Subscription game, and that kills some interest for them. Another problem is that the game seems to be rushed, having a VERY short development cycle, and Cryptic is known for making relatively shallow games (and CO which had a slightly longer cycle came out with TONS of problems which it still has). PvP for instance, has received ZERO testing so far (it isn't in closed beta), and as everyone knows PvP is not easy to balance, so people interested in that in a Star Trek context are probably turned off. Cryptic seems to want to make a lot of incentives to pre-order...e.g. buy before you try or anyone else who has tried the game can talk about it, and some people don't like how that smacks of just trying to make some quick bucks -- seems a bit too desperate for early cash.
There really isn't any one reason that applies to everyone. There happen to be a ton of potential reasons available. Personally my dislike started with the Tank/Healer/DPS combat system (though I doubt you have to play with this, since Cryptic is known for...poorly tuned group content, but I thought this game would finally get away from that). Other things piled up from there one after another.
*They could have made it so that "hits" are shown as misses until the one taks you down, and that would have been a lot more true to the IP.
It wouldn't be all that hard. I know EXACTLY how to make a Star Trek mmo that fits the IP perfectly and would be fun as hell, and would be everything ST fans have always wanted, and wouldn't be any harder to make than any other modern MMO.
I only got about two more years till I get my CS degree and get started on the path that leads me to the head of such a game. Just wait, it WILL happen. :P
"It is in your nature to do one thing correctly; Before me, you rightfully tremble. But, fear is not what you owe me. You owe me awe." ~Francis Dolarhyde
Non-Player crews *cough* they had an awesome chance for an unique "group" experience that would feel lively as Star Trek. You could still have NPCs doing that, but with the option to have human people assigned to crew roles. Everyone improving (leveling) on a specific role.
Ships that shoot beams that heal other ships? Okay... high danger of feeling like a re-skin of what we play on the fantasy genre for over a decade already, especially with the non-3D free movement in SPACE.
Exploration? We'll see how that galaxy randomizator will do against the test of time.
And no... you can't place health bars to represent a whole ships, where will the "damage report" "our main cannons are destroyed sir, engines are almost gone too". That can work for shields but not for the dozens of ship components.
my favourite trek series was Enterprise - Captain Archer etc. not that i didnt like the other series (well DS9 was a bit monotonous at times and a bit too 'mystical' for me in places) but i liked the whole 'exploration' bit, im just hoping that this game doesnt just turn into an online version of starfleet battles, not that im against pvp, i, er.. quite like that, its just that for some reason i thought that star trek was less combat orientated, except for klingons, they would rather fight than talk, most of the time or fight and talk perhaps? anyway i still think that STO should be multiple factions, not just 2, federation vs klingon, if theres one thing i remember from star trek, is that space was full of races that didnt necessarily fall into either category, Romulans being a nonentity, and ferengi reduced to sidekick status, perhaps not unduly but.... sometimes you can simplify things far too much and im wondering that, if in an effort to reduce complexity, if cryptic hasnt over simplified
For me personally... I dont like the idea of everyone having a ship. I know it would be damn hard to make it a playable mmo otherwise, but personally I would prefer if guilds had ships. It would be outside the box, and a lot more interesting game play mechanics.
The borg... quite possibly my favorite sci fi race of any series...however what took an entire armada to destroy in the series (one cube) you can apparently solo as a newbie. I have a big issue with that.
I dont like the fact that the federation is the only real side. Sure klingons are there as a "PvP option" whatever the hell that means... but it basically shows the scope of the game for a huge franchise was extremely narrow, rushed, and limited.
Its almost like Champs online was released and when it didnt do well they started rushing out STO just to keep the lights on. It may not actually be that way... but you dont take a bad game release and try and fix it by rushing another bad game.
My last complaint from what I have seen from the leak videos is the crowding. You are sending me to a planet to do X while you send 900 other newbies there to do X. This doesnt feel like a mission, it feels like a hoop to jump through. Personally I'd have liked missions to be more individualistic. If you gotta instance them then do so, but sharing space with 9000 other fleet officers just seems a bit funky.
Ground combat also reminds me of my limited time in CoH...
Im a huuuuge trek fan and Im definitely looking forward to beta so I can get my hands on it and then make my opinion more legit, but Im afraid from what I have seen this game looks like its going to be a very limited version of champions online (ground combat) with a limited / bastardized version of the old Earth and beyond game.
I really really hope Im wrong.
Everyone seems to have something different that they feel will be a 'dealbreaker" for them. For me, I have yet to find my dealbreaker, and thus I'm full tilt on STO.
I would like to reiterate that there's simply an endemic problem with converting an IP from one medium to another, because everyone has a different idea of what makes the IP important.
I think the key point though is that, whether you feel it's 100% true to the IP or not so much, Star Trek Online will be absolutely fun to play. If it's fun, and enjoyable, people will learn to live with things like no player crews (at least in space), or mostly pvp content for the Klingons (though some would argue that's rather in character for klingons).
In the end, the game is definately worth at least a try.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
You realize that under the recent FCC ruling you are obliged, under law, to identify any material connection to products and/or services while promoting said products or services?
As to the OP.....
I am far from a purist. I have acknowledged in other posts the need for NPC crews at least on some level. There are other areas which leave me feeling 'meh' but aren't deal breakers. But here are the deal breakers for me:
1) No player crews as an option.
2). The lack of ship interiors. Yes, I know they're adding Bridges, but only as social hubs apparently. It was a step in the right direction, and I've given credit where credit is due.
3). External view only. No option for internal view.
4). Far too much emphasis on combat. Yes Cryptic has payed lip-service to other systems of non-combat, but haven't shown us much regarding these systems.
There ya go. Will I try it? Only on a free trial -- whether that's open beta or not is up to Cryptic.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
I have heard from more than one beta tester that it is NOT fun. I don't think there is any way you can guarantee the game will be fun. I played CoH for a couple months early after it came out, but quite because it was very repetitive and boring. I have heard many people complain about the same thing in CO. There's not a lot of reason to think STO, with the shortest dev time yet from Cryptic is going to be much different. Short, instanced content, little character interaction (a hallmark of Star Trek, but not STO from what I've heard), a lot of combat, boring non-combat options, unbalanced pvp, etc.
I'm sure some people will still like it. Heck, hard to find a game anywhere that someone doesn't like. It's silly to say that it will be fun to play...you can guarantee a message like that (and like I said at the beginning, i've heard multiple beta testers say different).
You realize that under the recent FCC ruling you are obliged, under law, to identify any material connection to products and/or services while promoting said products or services?
As to the OP.....
I am far from a purist. I have acknowledged in other posts the need for NPC crews at least on some level. There are other areas which leave me feeling 'meh' but aren't deal breakers. But here are the deal breakers for me:
1) No player crews as an option.
2). The lack of ship interiors. Yes, I know they're adding Bridges, but only as social hubs apparently. It was a step in the right direction, and I've given credit where credit is due.
3). External view only. No option for internal view.
4). Far too much emphasis on combat. Yes Cryptic has payed lip-service to other systems of non-combat, but haven't shown us much regarding these systems.
There ya go. Will I try it? Only on a free trial -- whether that's open beta or not is up to Cryptic.
I have to say a lot of people don't seem to fully grock the implications of no ship interiors. This isn't really about touring the ship, looking at quarters, engineering, etc. No interiors means that there can be no content that takes place inside the ship. How many episodes were there where everything happened ON the ship? Quite a lot. Quite a lot of very powerful episodes. No ship interiors means nothing like this is going to be around at launch, and possibly never (like someone on another thread said, people who really want interiors won't play, and Cryptic only said interiors MIGHT be added later if there is demand...but since the people who demand it won't be playing...less likely it will make it).
"Wagon Train" was a western TV show at the time. Star Trek was dubbed "Wagon Train to the stars" so that stupid Hollywood execs could say "ohhhhh, it's like that TV show "Wagon Train" but set in space!"
Perhaps yours does. Mine does not.
Stay tuned. I'm working on it.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Can't wait to play on the holodeck!
Look at this hailing situation:
I follow the game enough to know see that they have tons of these generic looking encounters.
Cryptic is trying a Customer Development approach to MMO creation.
You realize that under the recent FCC ruling you are obliged, under law, to identify any material connection to products and/or services while promoting said products or services?
As to the OP.....
I am far from a purist. I have acknowledged in other posts the need for NPC crews at least on some level. There are other areas which leave me feeling 'meh' but aren't deal breakers. But here are the deal breakers for me:
1) No player crews as an option.
2). The lack of ship interiors. Yes, I know they're adding Bridges, but only as social hubs apparently. It was a step in the right direction, and I've given credit where credit is due.
3). External view only. No option for internal view.
4). Far too much emphasis on combat. Yes Cryptic has payed lip-service to other systems of non-combat, but haven't shown us much regarding these systems.
There ya go. Will I try it? Only on a free trial -- whether that's open beta or not is up to Cryptic.
I have to say a lot of people don't seem to fully grock the implications of no ship interiors. This isn't really about touring the ship, looking at quarters, engineering, etc. No interiors means that there can be no content that takes place inside the ship. How many episodes were there where everything happened ON the ship? Quite a lot. Quite a lot of very powerful episodes. No ship interiors means nothing like this is going to be around at launch, and possibly never (like someone on another thread said, people who really want interiors won't play, and Cryptic only said interiors MIGHT be added later if there is demand...but since the people who demand it won't be playing...less likely it will make it).
Your last point is something that has been bothering me lately. They've said this about a few systems now (most recently with regard to Klingons). And it's a very deceptive, convient excuse for Cryptic to use. In their defense, they're not the first Developers, nor are they the first business, to use such circular logic. Cryptic is setting themselves up to rationalize all sorts of deficiencies.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
Is this an example of a mission? Or an example of Cryptics procedural content?
It will be intersting to see Cryptics exploration system in action. Will it be Mad Libs in space? Procedural content can work -- Bethesda built much of its company around that. However, SWG's procedural missions were an unqualified joke. Boring beyond endurance.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
There are many things I do not like about this game's development, but the single irresovable issue for me is the lack of crewed vessels. Yes, I fully appreciate how "hard" that would be. Yet without it you will not have the level of personal interaction which is the defining essence of Star Trek. Without this defining aspect, this game could wear the colors of any other IP and no one would notice.
I expect client-side mods that reskin the game into BSG, B5 and other scifi IPs.
Will I come around? Once the launch bugs shake out and they offer a free trial, I will gladly try it. Assuming no surprises in how I understand the game plays, I do not expect to sub beyond that.