This is not Star Trek Online but Star Fleet Battles with Ground Combat Online, if they would have sold it as such I would probably still be playing. Too bad, oh well lets see what Bioware can do with Star Wars.
Starfleet Battles, played straight out of the ziplock bag with a paper map and a couple of dozen cardboard counters, was far more interesting as a tactical starship game. I still have my (much-expanded) boxed set!
"I can't say this enough, with sufficient stress or in any more effective a font: Star Trek Online is not a game. Not by any measurable yardstick. Neither is it an effective online social space (the other vital component for any decent MMO title), as it offers little in the way of communication tools, player meeting spaces or guild functionality. "
I have been saying this game is not an MMORPG but this fellow claims it is not even a game. LOL
I loved this part: "I can't say this enough, with sufficient stress or in any more effective a font: Star Trek Online is not a game. Not by any measurable yardstick. Neither is it an effective online social space (the other vital component for any decent MMO title), as it offers little in the way of communication tools, player meeting spaces or guild functionality. "
I have been saying this game is not an MMORPG but this fellow claims it is not even a game. LOL
I don't know if I'd go that far. I do agree it's not an mmo. I soloed every mission up to ra5 and turned off zone chat because of the damn gold spam. I beat the game in 28 days and saw no reason to give cryptic 15 bucks a month to sit in borg space and do nothing. Too bad I can't trade it in somewhere.
I have to say this MMO did really disapoint me, I am not a big fan of start trek and as far as story goes I was willing to accept it as is, I dont really get half the references in game and was really just willing to learn about the IP as I played, I do like sci-fi tho in general and the thing that really attracted to this game was their original ( before it was sold to cryptic) design of having different players perform different roles in a ship, a ship being a place where people could even live, that was what I wanted to play and once they scrapped it for a dumbed down version of EVE it just smelled of mediocre.
Originally posted by rav3n2 I have to say this MMO did really disapoint me, I am not a big fan of start trek and as far as story goes I was willing to accept it as is, I dont really get half the references in game and was really just willing to learn about the IP as I played
They actually did nothing to explain ingame what is the Federation, its principles, its guiding directives. They supposed everyone knows everything about Star Trek and likes to read a reference or two to random episodes between mindlessly blasting one klingon fleet after another.
I was in closed beta, and back then the game was much more fun than what it is today. The reviewer's main complaint seems to be the lack of difficulty or challenge. Well, the game in closed beta had that difficulty, it was fun! But then for some reason they decided people wouldn't like dying, and in one fell swoop I like to call 'the death of STO', they doubled everybody's health, every ship's hull and everybody's shields (in effect, quadrupling the 'hit points'), and made the enemies do less damage. Basically, it turned into god mode playing. Not only that, but the 'death penalty' that I already thought was not enough, was removed (originally, you would have a # of people in the ship, and as you died you would lose a % of them, only replenishable at the nearest starbase).
I guess it all happened when the WoW crowd, bored until the next expansion, joined in open beta and started saying it was 'too difficult'... sheesh.
Not sure how a review that harsh (but accurate IMO) ends up with a 5.5. I guess for them to score it lower, the game needs to crash every 10 minutes or have some other massive technical issues.
i rated game 2/10 in cryptics online pole. find this rating very high for such a bad game. and i completely agree with the observation that cryptic is now banning "forum trolls" for saying exactly what ever major review has said. worst online game i have personally played, and i think im at about 20 titles now.
What's even better, the devs are purposely derailing threads that challenge them. I started a thread last night asking about the subscription numbers and a DEV promptly derailed it into a joke thread. Then the Cryptic butt kissers piled on. That forum is nothing like it was when I started back in early 09. Most of the mature people have already left and what is left is arrogant morons who must have crap on their faces with all the butt kissing they do. And I thought SWG in it's heydey had brownosers. They're amatuers compared to these people.
you cant blame cryptic for doing that, unfortunatly, the horse is out of the barn, and locking the gate now is doing cryptic no good at all.
if they had with some moderation in controlling the forums from the beginning to have a more positive spin, they probably wouldnt have people emo raging (yea ive done it) about being seriously ripped off.
i dont blame anyone for enjoying the game, fact is, if it was my very first mmo, it would probably be allright imo.
but having seen lots of games now, i cant beleive i was stupid enough to shell out for this game. its not the first bad title ive payed for, but its the first one were the devs were so blatent in showing there hand. this game is a blatant cash grab riding on the startrek name, and yes im one of the sci-fi fans (stated as nerd in another sto forum) that got ripped and is pissed about it.
if cryptic even gave a time-line with what they plan to release, and what kind of content they expect at those dates i still would have quit the game but maybe i wouldnt be so pissed about it all.
theres a great new post from a lietime sub who states that the lifetime "bonus's" hes getting really dont amount to anything.
i disagree, if that is what is offered id consider that a glorious insult if i had payed for a lifetime sub, and an insult is still something.
IF THE ONLY DEFENCE FOR CRITICISM OF A GAME IS CALLING SOMEONE A TROLL OR HATER, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME
i rated game 2/10 in cryptics online pole. find this rating very high for such a bad game. and i completely agree with the observation that cryptic is now banning "forum trolls" for saying exactly what ever major review has said. worst online game i have personally played, and i think im at about 20 titles now.
What's even better, the devs are purposely derailing threads that challenge them. I started a thread last night asking about the subscription numbers and a DEV promptly derailed it into a joke thread. Then the Cryptic butt kissers piled on. That forum is nothing like it was when I started back in early 09. Most of the mature people have already left and what is left is arrogant morons who must have crap on their faces with all the butt kissing they do. And I thought SWG in it's heydey had brownosers. They're amatuers compared to these people.
LOL what did you expect, them to say "yes, we're hemorraging subscriptions"?
What's even better, the devs are purposely derailing threads that challenge them. I started a thread last night asking about the subscription numbers and a DEV promptly derailed it into a joke thread. Then the Cryptic butt kissers piled on. That forum is nothing like it was when I started back in early 09. Most of the mature people have already left and what is left is arrogant morons who must have crap on their faces with all the butt kissing they do. And I thought SWG in it's heydey had brownosers. They're amatuers compared to these people.
LOL what did you expect, them to say "yes, we're hemorraging subscriptions"?
I expected to at least be able to have a discussion about what they might be. I didn't expect a dev to come in and derail it. That's a first for me. Usually you get no response or a thread closing, but not a purpose derailment. That's just unprofessional. For me it was the final straw.
Game is a 3/10 at best. I've explained my gripes too many times to repeat. Worst MMO since CO back in '09.
Saddest part is not my $60 lost, it's the belief in the IP. Too bad Bioware or Turbine didn't get the IP.
Luckily, I had the option to do the trial. Thank god! I gave it an honest 3-4 hours. But after that, I did not feel the tiny slightest desire to play it again. In fact, it never even occured me that it's on my PC.... I recognised a few days later only, that it's actually there.
It's not only a not good game - it's a game that is no fun to play, so much that you immediately forget you ever played with it
DB
Denial makes one look a lot dumber than he/she actually is.
but PCGamer UK gave it 74%!!!! They gave LOTRO 75% I've given up on PCGamer, they don't even seem to play the games before they review. What a load of crap.
but PCGamer UK gave it 74%!!!! They gave LOTRO 75% I've given up on PCGamer, they don't even seem to play the games before they review. What a load of crap.
LOTRO came out a long time ago, and at that time it wasnt that good but has flourished massively since. I take it you didn't read the newest edition you just skipped to the STO review and came online and posted? If you have read the latest edition you would've seen they did a large 8 or so pages on the future mmo's and what they will offer and the best of the bunch thats already out, LOTRO came out at either 4 or 5 stars reflecting that things have changed drastically with that game.
To be fair with PC Gamer in the STO review they also said that its worth buying to check it out but after the 1st month to ditch it, on the whole i thought their review was fair in pointing the good parts out, but also very fair in slamming the awful parts. Maybe 74% was generous but having read their review a couple of times now, everything they wrote in that review is what everyone on the net is saying about STO.
This game is a good example of someone taking a big name product and whiping up a quick MMO to make some fast cash.
The look and feel of the game is to "wowish" and arcadey for a ST game. Some of the content is just out of place, doesn't make sense and was obviously thrown in because they didn't want to invest the time to make something more true to the IP. Ground combat is a good example of this.
Now I see why this game was canceled twice over the years before it got released....
I'm just glad Bioware got the right to the next starwars MMO or it could have ended up like this.
I hope to god that Craptic don't get thier filthy hands on Forgotten Realms IP.
Atari already have the rights to make games based on D&D... The question is if Turbine and Hasbro will be able to stop them from using it.
The thing that has me happy is that Atari's most recent financial statements actually provide evidence for both Turbine and Hasbro, in effect helping their case. It's like in one of those legal shows where the clever lawyers gets someone to admit they did something wrong, but in this case Atari did it all on their own. Hasbro's case is even stronger as Atari's statements in those reports mentions both selling the distribution rights in Europe to Namco-Bandai, but also mentions the fact that Hasbro did try to negotiate in good faith with Atari on the situation, which Atari's intial statement (after the lawsuit) denied. I'm going to sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
but PCGamer UK gave it 74%!!!! They gave LOTRO 75% I've given up on PCGamer, they don't even seem to play the games before they review. What a load of crap.
LOTRO came out a long time ago, and at that time it wasnt that good but has flourished massively since. I take it you didn't read the newest edition you just skipped to the STO review and came online and posted? If you have read the latest edition you would've seen they did a large 8 or so pages on the future mmo's and what they will offer and the best of the bunch thats already out, LOTRO came out at either 4 or 5 stars reflecting that things have changed drastically with that game.
To be fair with PC Gamer in the STO review they also said that its worth buying to check it out but after the 1st month to ditch it, on the whole i thought their review was fair in pointing the good parts out, but also very fair in slamming the awful parts. Maybe 74% was generous but having read their review a couple of times now, everything they wrote in that review is what everyone on the net is saying about STO.
Actually LOTRO was pretty good at launch and one of the most stable and complete launches ever, it also had plenty of content for people who took out a lifetime sub (me included and could see past the first few months). I did read the mmo feature and it's nice to see LOTRO getting some credit at last in a magazine that is pretty much nearly a house magazine for Blizzard (see the why you must play cataclysm feature). My problem isn't the 74% given to STO it's the continual lack of coverage of LOTRO in PCGamer compared the monthly mentions of WoW. I've been buying PCGamer for more than five years, but i'm fed up with reading about WoW, Team Fortress and the few other games the PCGamer staff play.
but PCGamer UK gave it 74%!!!! They gave LOTRO 75% I've given up on PCGamer, they don't even seem to play the games before they review. What a load of crap.
LOTRO came out a long time ago, and at that time it wasnt that good but has flourished massively since. I take it you didn't read the newest edition you just skipped to the STO review and came online and posted? If you have read the latest edition you would've seen they did a large 8 or so pages on the future mmo's and what they will offer and the best of the bunch thats already out, LOTRO came out at either 4 or 5 stars reflecting that things have changed drastically with that game.
To be fair with PC Gamer in the STO review they also said that its worth buying to check it out but after the 1st month to ditch it, on the whole i thought their review was fair in pointing the good parts out, but also very fair in slamming the awful parts. Maybe 74% was generous but having read their review a couple of times now, everything they wrote in that review is what everyone on the net is saying about STO.
Actually LOTRO was pretty good at launch and one of the most stable and complete launches ever, it also had plenty of content for people who took out a lifetime sub (me included and could see past the first few months). I did read the mmo feature and it's nice to see LOTRO getting some credit at last in a magazine that is pretty much nearly a house magazine for Blizzard (see the why you must play cataclysm feature). My problem isn't the 74% given to STO it's the continual lack of coverage of LOTRO in PCGamer compared the monthly mentions of WoW. I've been buying PCGamer for more than five years, but i'm fed up with reading about WoW, Team Fortress and the few other games the PCGamer staff play.
To be fair to PCGAMER, most of their readers do play WoW, and there is even a guild of pcgamer readers on the steamwheedle cartel server - over 500 members apparently, and yes i was one of them for a while... tbh, i thought the review or perhaps i should say, pre-view of cataclysm was well done, and informative, not that i entirely agree with all their reviews (SW:ToR and STO specifically) but for the most part i find them generally well written and accurate, i certainly dont see them as being in Blizzards pocket, and so what if the PCGamer staff actually play the games their reviewing, that makes them informed at the very least, as there are quite enough unmarried marriage counsellor types out there already
I always refer to this site as it takes the average of all those reviews.
A lot of unsold boxes in the shops atm. Summer sales could be a great time to pick up at (I guess) 9.99 Euro copy.
I saw AoC 2 month subs cards for 9 Euros. Some excellent shopping opportunities for those bored players coming.in the quiet months. War basic box was up for sale at 5 Euro.
If FF14 and SW don't hit the multi million market, it could be the end of PC and massively launched MMO game play as we know it.
The "outside world" is no longer accepting subpar products, that's clear. "hardcore mmorpg.com ers" should be aware.
Want a real mmorpg? Play WOW with experience turned off mode and be Pve_Pvp King at any level without a rat race.
Originally posted by Matt_UK Actually LOTRO was pretty good at launch and one of the most stable and complete launches ever, it also had plenty of content for people who took out a lifetime sub (me included and could see past the first few months). I did read the mmo feature and it's nice to see LOTRO getting some credit at last in a magazine that is pretty much nearly a house magazine for Blizzard (see the why you must play cataclysm feature). My problem isn't the 74% given to STO it's the continual lack of coverage of LOTRO in PCGamer compared the monthly mentions of WoW. I've been buying PCGamer for more than five years, but i'm fed up with reading about WoW, Team Fortress and the few other games the PCGamer staff play.
LOTRO was perhaps the best mmo release since 2004 in many regards and still better than some 2004 games in many areas. However many people did complain about the lack of content around level 35 and beyond. It was a pretty big deal.
Comments
Starfleet Battles, played straight out of the ziplock bag with a paper map and a couple of dozen cardboard counters, was far more interesting as a tactical starship game. I still have my (much-expanded) boxed set!
I loved this part:
"I can't say this enough, with sufficient stress or in any more effective a font: Star Trek Online is not a game. Not by any measurable yardstick. Neither is it an effective online social space (the other vital component for any decent MMO title), as it offers little in the way of communication tools, player meeting spaces or guild functionality. "
I have been saying this game is not an MMORPG but this fellow claims it is not even a game. LOL
I don't know if I'd go that far. I do agree it's not an mmo. I soloed every mission up to ra5 and turned off zone chat because of the damn gold spam. I beat the game in 28 days and saw no reason to give cryptic 15 bucks a month to sit in borg space and do nothing. Too bad I can't trade it in somewhere.
i rated game 2/10 in cryptics online pole. find this rating very high for such a bad game.
and i completely agree with the observation that cryptic is now banning "forum trolls" for saying exactly what ever major review has said.
worst online game i have personally played, and i think im at about 20 titles now.
IF THE ONLY DEFENCE FOR CRITICISM OF A GAME IS CALLING SOMEONE A TROLL OR HATER, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME
I have to say this MMO did really disapoint me, I am not a big fan of start trek and as far as story goes I was willing to accept it as is, I dont really get half the references in game and was really just willing to learn about the IP as I played, I do like sci-fi tho in general and the thing that really attracted to this game was their original ( before it was sold to cryptic) design of having different players perform different roles in a ship, a ship being a place where people could even live, that was what I wanted to play and once they scrapped it for a dumbed down version of EVE it just smelled of mediocre.
They actually did nothing to explain ingame what is the Federation, its principles, its guiding directives. They supposed everyone knows everything about Star Trek and likes to read a reference or two to random episodes between mindlessly blasting one klingon fleet after another.
I was in closed beta, and back then the game was much more fun than what it is today. The reviewer's main complaint seems to be the lack of difficulty or challenge. Well, the game in closed beta had that difficulty, it was fun! But then for some reason they decided people wouldn't like dying, and in one fell swoop I like to call 'the death of STO', they doubled everybody's health, every ship's hull and everybody's shields (in effect, quadrupling the 'hit points'), and made the enemies do less damage. Basically, it turned into god mode playing. Not only that, but the 'death penalty' that I already thought was not enough, was removed (originally, you would have a # of people in the ship, and as you died you would lose a % of them, only replenishable at the nearest starbase).
I guess it all happened when the WoW crowd, bored until the next expansion, joined in open beta and started saying it was 'too difficult'... sheesh.
Not sure how a review that harsh (but accurate IMO) ends up with a 5.5. I guess for them to score it lower, the game needs to crash every 10 minutes or have some other massive technical issues.
What's even better, the devs are purposely derailing threads that challenge them. I started a thread last night asking about the subscription numbers and a DEV promptly derailed it into a joke thread. Then the Cryptic butt kissers piled on. That forum is nothing like it was when I started back in early 09. Most of the mature people have already left and what is left is arrogant morons who must have crap on their faces with all the butt kissing they do. And I thought SWG in it's heydey had brownosers. They're amatuers compared to these people.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
you cant blame cryptic for doing that, unfortunatly, the horse is out of the barn, and locking the gate now is doing cryptic no good at all.
if they had with some moderation in controlling the forums from the beginning to have a more positive spin, they probably wouldnt have people emo raging (yea ive done it) about being seriously ripped off.
i dont blame anyone for enjoying the game, fact is, if it was my very first mmo, it would probably be allright imo.
but having seen lots of games now, i cant beleive i was stupid enough to shell out for this game. its not the first bad title ive payed for, but its the first one were the devs were so blatent in showing there hand. this game is a blatant cash grab riding on the startrek name, and yes im one of the sci-fi fans (stated as nerd in another sto forum) that got ripped and is pissed about it.
if cryptic even gave a time-line with what they plan to release, and what kind of content they expect at those dates i still would have quit the game but maybe i wouldnt be so pissed about it all.
theres a great new post from a lietime sub who states that the lifetime "bonus's" hes getting really dont amount to anything.
i disagree, if that is what is offered id consider that a glorious insult if i had payed for a lifetime sub, and an insult is still something.
IF THE ONLY DEFENCE FOR CRITICISM OF A GAME IS CALLING SOMEONE A TROLL OR HATER, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME
What's even better, the devs are purposely derailing threads that challenge them. I started a thread last night asking about the subscription numbers and a DEV promptly derailed it into a joke thread. Then the Cryptic butt kissers piled on. That forum is nothing like it was when I started back in early 09. Most of the mature people have already left and what is left is arrogant morons who must have crap on their faces with all the butt kissing they do. And I thought SWG in it's heydey had brownosers. They're amatuers compared to these people.
LOL what did you expect, them to say "yes, we're hemorraging subscriptions"?
LOL what did you expect, them to say "yes, we're hemorraging subscriptions"?
I expected to at least be able to have a discussion about what they might be. I didn't expect a dev to come in and derail it. That's a first for me. Usually you get no response or a thread closing, but not a purpose derailment. That's just unprofessional. For me it was the final straw.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Very harsh review, but spot on!
Agreed 100% on all points.
The review is pretty much spot-on with my impressions of the game.
I am just amazed that Cryptic thought this would be enough to satisfy their players. It really is barely even a game in the normal sense.
I hope to god that Craptic don't get thier filthy hands on Forgotten Realms IP.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Atari already have the rights to make games based on D&D... The question is if Turbine and Hasbro will be able to stop them from using it.
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Luckily, I had the option to do the trial. Thank god! I gave it an honest 3-4 hours. But after that, I did not feel the tiny slightest desire to play it again. In fact, it never even occured me that it's on my PC.... I recognised a few days later only, that it's actually there.
It's not only a not good game - it's a game that is no fun to play, so much that you immediately forget you ever played with it
DB
Denial makes one look a lot dumber than he/she actually is.
PCGamer US gave it 5.5
but PCGamer UK gave it 74%!!!! They gave LOTRO 75% I've given up on PCGamer, they don't even seem to play the games before they review. What a load of crap.
LOTRO came out a long time ago, and at that time it wasnt that good but has flourished massively since. I take it you didn't read the newest edition you just skipped to the STO review and came online and posted? If you have read the latest edition you would've seen they did a large 8 or so pages on the future mmo's and what they will offer and the best of the bunch thats already out, LOTRO came out at either 4 or 5 stars reflecting that things have changed drastically with that game.
To be fair with PC Gamer in the STO review they also said that its worth buying to check it out but after the 1st month to ditch it, on the whole i thought their review was fair in pointing the good parts out, but also very fair in slamming the awful parts. Maybe 74% was generous but having read their review a couple of times now, everything they wrote in that review is what everyone on the net is saying about STO.
This game is a good example of someone taking a big name product and whiping up a quick MMO to make some fast cash.
The look and feel of the game is to "wowish" and arcadey for a ST game. Some of the content is just out of place, doesn't make sense and was obviously thrown in because they didn't want to invest the time to make something more true to the IP. Ground combat is a good example of this.
Now I see why this game was canceled twice over the years before it got released....
I'm just glad Bioware got the right to the next starwars MMO or it could have ended up like this.
Atari already have the rights to make games based on D&D... The question is if Turbine and Hasbro will be able to stop them from using it.
The thing that has me happy is that Atari's most recent financial statements actually provide evidence for both Turbine and Hasbro, in effect helping their case. It's like in one of those legal shows where the clever lawyers gets someone to admit they did something wrong, but in this case Atari did it all on their own. Hasbro's case is even stronger as Atari's statements in those reports mentions both selling the distribution rights in Europe to Namco-Bandai, but also mentions the fact that Hasbro did try to negotiate in good faith with Atari on the situation, which Atari's intial statement (after the lawsuit) denied. I'm going to sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
LOTRO came out a long time ago, and at that time it wasnt that good but has flourished massively since. I take it you didn't read the newest edition you just skipped to the STO review and came online and posted? If you have read the latest edition you would've seen they did a large 8 or so pages on the future mmo's and what they will offer and the best of the bunch thats already out, LOTRO came out at either 4 or 5 stars reflecting that things have changed drastically with that game.
To be fair with PC Gamer in the STO review they also said that its worth buying to check it out but after the 1st month to ditch it, on the whole i thought their review was fair in pointing the good parts out, but also very fair in slamming the awful parts. Maybe 74% was generous but having read their review a couple of times now, everything they wrote in that review is what everyone on the net is saying about STO.
Actually LOTRO was pretty good at launch and one of the most stable and complete launches ever, it also had plenty of content for people who took out a lifetime sub (me included and could see past the first few months). I did read the mmo feature and it's nice to see LOTRO getting some credit at last in a magazine that is pretty much nearly a house magazine for Blizzard (see the why you must play cataclysm feature). My problem isn't the 74% given to STO it's the continual lack of coverage of LOTRO in PCGamer compared the monthly mentions of WoW. I've been buying PCGamer for more than five years, but i'm fed up with reading about WoW, Team Fortress and the few other games the PCGamer staff play.
LOTRO came out a long time ago, and at that time it wasnt that good but has flourished massively since. I take it you didn't read the newest edition you just skipped to the STO review and came online and posted? If you have read the latest edition you would've seen they did a large 8 or so pages on the future mmo's and what they will offer and the best of the bunch thats already out, LOTRO came out at either 4 or 5 stars reflecting that things have changed drastically with that game.
To be fair with PC Gamer in the STO review they also said that its worth buying to check it out but after the 1st month to ditch it, on the whole i thought their review was fair in pointing the good parts out, but also very fair in slamming the awful parts. Maybe 74% was generous but having read their review a couple of times now, everything they wrote in that review is what everyone on the net is saying about STO.
Actually LOTRO was pretty good at launch and one of the most stable and complete launches ever, it also had plenty of content for people who took out a lifetime sub (me included and could see past the first few months). I did read the mmo feature and it's nice to see LOTRO getting some credit at last in a magazine that is pretty much nearly a house magazine for Blizzard (see the why you must play cataclysm feature). My problem isn't the 74% given to STO it's the continual lack of coverage of LOTRO in PCGamer compared the monthly mentions of WoW. I've been buying PCGamer for more than five years, but i'm fed up with reading about WoW, Team Fortress and the few other games the PCGamer staff play.
To be fair to PCGAMER, most of their readers do play WoW, and there is even a guild of pcgamer readers on the steamwheedle cartel server - over 500 members apparently, and yes i was one of them for a while... tbh, i thought the review or perhaps i should say, pre-view of cataclysm was well done, and informative, not that i entirely agree with all their reviews (SW:ToR and STO specifically) but for the most part i find them generally well written and accurate, i certainly dont see them as being in Blizzards pocket, and so what if the PCGamer staff actually play the games their reviewing, that makes them informed at the very least, as there are quite enough unmarried marriage counsellor types out there already
The average of professional reviews stands now at: 63% for STO.
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/924226-star-trek-online/index.html
Based on 14 seperate reviews.
I always refer to this site as it takes the average of all those reviews.
A lot of unsold boxes in the shops atm. Summer sales could be a great time to pick up at (I guess) 9.99 Euro copy.
I saw AoC 2 month subs cards for 9 Euros. Some excellent shopping opportunities for those bored players coming.in the quiet months. War basic box was up for sale at 5 Euro.
If FF14 and SW don't hit the multi million market, it could be the end of PC and massively launched MMO game play as we know it.
The "outside world" is no longer accepting subpar products, that's clear. "hardcore mmorpg.com ers" should be aware.
Want a real mmorpg? Play WOW with experience turned off mode and be Pve_Pvp King at any level without a rat race.
LOTRO was perhaps the best mmo release since 2004 in many regards and still better than some 2004 games in many areas. However many people did complain about the lack of content around level 35 and beyond. It was a pretty big deal.