What an awful review. The reviewer spends the readers time showing off his personal bias in an already unfair comparison. The reviewer assumes that his readers should like what he likes and dislike what he dislikes about these games. He then goes on to unfairly weight the likes/dislikes so that EVE gets a superior score. (I personally found it to be offensively prejudicial the fact that the author decided to count STO's similarity with Champions Online as a negative aspect. Twice.)
When first playing STO, I too struggled with making something out of the game. for example, it was unlike other games in terms of gameplay, and had to exist alongside tons of pre-existing lore. But now, just months after the game's release, it's easy to understand. The game is intended to be episodic and arcade-like, and it excels at both. If you don't like those fundamental aspects then you won't like the game.
EVE is intended to be open-ended, non-directional, highly cooperative, with the game developing slowly and methodically. If you like the gameplay of STO, you may not like playing EVE.
Neither STO nor EVE had the same handicaps or aptitudes at their genesis. And as someone stated in an earlier thread, EVE has had years to come to be what it is today; STO only months. But even that doesn't mean anything. We could revisit STO six years hence and it would still be a very different game than today's EVE. The ultimate question in reviewing these games should be, "Is it good at what it is, and is it fun in that context?" Sure STO loses a point or two for being new and glitchy. I seem to remember EVE having some technical problems in the beginning and at times along the way. But in the final analysis STO should earn a score very much closer to EVE's.
I would give STO 7/10, and EVE 8/10. The reason why EVE doesn't get a perfect score is primarily that it has very poor customization and can be very boring to play. STO loses major points for STILL not addressing glitches that have been in the game since before two content updates. MMORPG Rule #4: Stop adding content until you fix what you already have! Otherwise, both games are highly recommended. They are both good examples of the fun and variety one can have in space-themed MMO's.
so eve is just slightly better then sto in yours eyes? you are a funny boy/girl.
I 3930k -- Rampage IV Extreme -- G.skill RipjawsZ 32 GB -- Corsair Force Series 3 120gb -- G.skill Phoenix Pro 60gb -- WD 1 TB Black -- Corsair H 100 -- Thermaltake Level 10 Gt Snow Edition -- Corsair AX1200 -- Asus 560 Ti Sli -- Microsoft Sidewinder X4 -- Logitech G5 -- DELL UltraSharp 2007FP -- Samsung Syncmaster Sa700 -- Logitech Z2300 -- Logitech G35 -- Logitech G600 White -- coming soon : Dell U2711.
I have disagreed with some of your assesments in the past. But here your reasoning does justfy the scores that you have given.
I have played both and I am not currently subscribed to either.
I will say that I had EvE figured out very quickly. Especially the combat system since it is virtualy the same as the Naval Combat games that I was playing in the 70's and 80's.
The rest of the game system is very straight forward.
I do agree that group activity in EvE is far better than it is in STO. I also agree that the social aspect is an important aspect of any MMORPG.
But this is where we disagree almost universally. The author seems to feel that games that are viable for players to PuG easily as opposed to strictly playing within a closed circle of Guild/Corporation/Fleet are bad games and constantly rates them lower.
In this case I agree with the comparative rating even though it is for completely different reasons.
Cryptic vs CCP lol aaaahhh man I love it a mindless inferior company up against a more superior company lol keep these types of articles coming MMORPG.com.
I'm sorry but this really has to be the dumbest idea for a column series ever.
All these articles are just a glorified version of the typical Game X vs. Game Y silliness that we find on forums and eventually turn into flame wars.
On a site that describes itself with the phrase "MMORPG.com strives to bring you the best news, features and community in the MMORPG genre.", do we really want to be blatantly promoting fights amongst community members? It's shameful! The site can't be that hard up for content can it? What possible good can come from these? There's already reviews and user ratings on this site, we apparently need a 3rd way of rating games? One that's apparently specifically designed for use in flame wars.
Also, after having read this specific article, I would like to call baloney on the writer. In his profile he clearly plays EVE regularly, while in the article he admits "The world of Star Trek is one unknown to me." Don't get me wrong, as a personal preference I believe EVE is a better game overall, but I call into question the bias of the writer. EVE gets 9 or 10 on everything? Come on now.
How can this make sense? "Other than creating a portrait for your character, nothing really distinguishes your characters identity or look. While you spend most of your time looking at the metallic shininess that is your ship, you cannot experiment with colour schemes, spoilers, or even body kits. It is a small gripe but you can but wish for a little aesthetic creation. 9/10 " 9/10 when you basically admit that there is no 'character' in your player character? You're giving it a 9/10 based solely on the mechanics of there being tons of skills and those being realtime, and the rest of the character being largely non-existant. Compare that to STO which uses arguably one of the best character customization systems out there (if not to the extent that CO/CoX have it), which he gives a 5/10.
The phrasing doesn't even go together. "Rather than simply having to contend with the one avatar, players can create and customize their crew, away team, and even ship. And this aspect goes further in that the player can shape the abilities of their team."
followed shortly by
"... if you are an MMORPG fan who wants a challenge, or indeed a Trekkie who wants more than the ability to elongate noses, this doesn’t quite hit the mark."
These two comments seem at odds to me at the very least. It seems like he simply glossed over the facts on STO while he held EVE's system up in the limelight.
While most people in the comments can agree that EVE is generally accepted as a better game, many people point out that the two aren't even really comparable. EVE's been around much longer, they're very different play styles, so on and so forth.
I call into question the journalistic integrity of the writer and, frankly, the need for this type of column to even exist. I would love for an editor to contribute to this thread and comment on these points as well as the reasons for these "fighting" articles. Did an editor review the article before it was posted? Can we have numbers on how much time the writer spent in each game?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
If they gave CCP the Star Trek License (or even me) I believe a game that would kick ass would be created. All Star Trek needs(or any other space game for that matter) is a little bit of Eve, just a little, not too much.
Played em both, wasted 300 on the lifetime sub.....this isnt even fair and the 2 games arent really even similar....you'd do better comparing apples and oranges....Eve for the win, even if 98% of the players are 29 year old douches who live at home with mom and dad or "are in college"...STO is the biggest fail ever....im so sorry it ended up like it has....Bethesda let us down
Altough I agree that overall STO is a lacklustre game, specially compared to Eve, it does shine in one area and that is combat. In Eve combat is all about preparation and numbers where as in STO combat is much more action oriented and dependant on the skill of you as a player.
You have shield facings that you can change, option to use torpedoes or lasers depending on the shield status of your foe and a multitude of other elements that makes combat in STO much, much more fun than the rather stale and assymetric (meaning you almost never have 5v5 PvP fights) of Eve.
So Eve for sure is a better MMORPG than STO but to not bring up the strongest element of STO is rather weak...
I disagree with you on the combat comparisons. My 5 year old Son has his own set of characters on STO and does all his own combat. He is pretty decent in both space and ground combat and even knows not to take the coconuts (Tribbles) because they eat all his food and fill up his bags. Now how much preperation for combat can a 5 year old do.
There's some things to like about STO to be fair. Once user generated content comes out it should at least have something that sets it apart. The trek lore-heads (the remaining players..) should do some great work with it.
Comparing it against a popular MMO that is a proven sucess for being completely different from what's out there isn't the best way to illustrate facts about either game.
Will I love watching eve's alliance touraments and have been watching them since the 4th one, I found playing the game to be to boring and grindy beyond all hell as a new player. Eve is simply more for the people that have the huge amount of time to invest in it. Sto is more for the people that seek more instant grativication and have far less time to invest.
Comments
so eve is just slightly better then sto in yours eyes? you are a funny boy/girl.
I 3930k -- Rampage IV Extreme -- G.skill RipjawsZ 32 GB -- Corsair Force Series 3 120gb -- G.skill Phoenix Pro 60gb -- WD 1 TB Black -- Corsair H 100 -- Thermaltake Level 10 Gt Snow Edition -- Corsair AX1200 -- Asus 560 Ti Sli -- Microsoft Sidewinder X4 -- Logitech G5 -- DELL UltraSharp 2007FP -- Samsung Syncmaster Sa700 -- Logitech Z2300 -- Logitech G35 -- Logitech G600 White -- coming soon : Dell U2711.
I have disagreed with some of your assesments in the past. But here your reasoning does justfy the scores that you have given.
I have played both and I am not currently subscribed to either.
I will say that I had EvE figured out very quickly. Especially the combat system since it is virtualy the same as the Naval Combat games that I was playing in the 70's and 80's.
The rest of the game system is very straight forward.
I do agree that group activity in EvE is far better than it is in STO. I also agree that the social aspect is an important aspect of any MMORPG.
But this is where we disagree almost universally. The author seems to feel that games that are viable for players to PuG easily as opposed to strictly playing within a closed circle of Guild/Corporation/Fleet are bad games and constantly rates them lower.
In this case I agree with the comparative rating even though it is for completely different reasons.
Cryptic vs CCP lol aaaahhh man I love it a mindless inferior company up against a more superior company lol keep these types of articles coming MMORPG.com.
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb....
I'm sorry but this really has to be the dumbest idea for a column series ever.
All these articles are just a glorified version of the typical Game X vs. Game Y silliness that we find on forums and eventually turn into flame wars.
On a site that describes itself with the phrase "MMORPG.com strives to bring you the best news, features and community in the MMORPG genre.", do we really want to be blatantly promoting fights amongst community members? It's shameful! The site can't be that hard up for content can it? What possible good can come from these? There's already reviews and user ratings on this site, we apparently need a 3rd way of rating games? One that's apparently specifically designed for use in flame wars.
Also, after having read this specific article, I would like to call baloney on the writer. In his profile he clearly plays EVE regularly, while in the article he admits "The world of Star Trek is one unknown to me." Don't get me wrong, as a personal preference I believe EVE is a better game overall, but I call into question the bias of the writer. EVE gets 9 or 10 on everything? Come on now.
How can this make sense? "Other than creating a portrait for your character, nothing really distinguishes your characters identity or look. While you spend most of your time looking at the metallic shininess that is your ship, you cannot experiment with colour schemes, spoilers, or even body kits. It is a small gripe but you can but wish for a little aesthetic creation. 9/10 " 9/10 when you basically admit that there is no 'character' in your player character? You're giving it a 9/10 based solely on the mechanics of there being tons of skills and those being realtime, and the rest of the character being largely non-existant. Compare that to STO which uses arguably one of the best character customization systems out there (if not to the extent that CO/CoX have it), which he gives a 5/10.
The phrasing doesn't even go together. "Rather than simply having to contend with the one avatar, players can create and customize their crew, away team, and even ship. And this aspect goes further in that the player can shape the abilities of their team."
followed shortly by
"... if you are an MMORPG fan who wants a challenge, or indeed a Trekkie who wants more than the ability to elongate noses, this doesn’t quite hit the mark."
These two comments seem at odds to me at the very least. It seems like he simply glossed over the facts on STO while he held EVE's system up in the limelight.
While most people in the comments can agree that EVE is generally accepted as a better game, many people point out that the two aren't even really comparable. EVE's been around much longer, they're very different play styles, so on and so forth.
I call into question the journalistic integrity of the writer and, frankly, the need for this type of column to even exist. I would love for an editor to contribute to this thread and comment on these points as well as the reasons for these "fighting" articles. Did an editor review the article before it was posted? Can we have numbers on how much time the writer spent in each game?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
If they gave CCP the Star Trek License (or even me) I believe a game that would kick ass would be created. All Star Trek needs(or any other space game for that matter) is a little bit of Eve, just a little, not too much.
This is not a game.
This is not a game.
Played em both, wasted 300 on the lifetime sub.....this isnt even fair and the 2 games arent really even similar....you'd do better comparing apples and oranges....Eve for the win, even if 98% of the players are 29 year old douches who live at home with mom and dad or "are in college"...STO is the biggest fail ever....im so sorry it ended up like it has....Bethesda let us down
Shouldnt they compare Eve with Excel or Lotus 123?
STO should be compared to Auto Assault.
EVE vs STO:
Ptooey on them BOTH!
Gold Farms & (ahem) "Excange" among Clans, Friends, & especially -- sall we say "Social Engeneering"
GEEZ! C'MON!
Maxximus
Been Their Done That - Games are fun, but some are a "RICO" - Google It.
-- The Maxx
Sadly STO is a champions online mod to look like Star Trek.
Spot on.
Hmm, okay guys (gals) wrap your heads around this for a second.
I'm seeing a lot of "You cant even compair" style of comments. Especially the first few pages.
But why is this a bad comparison or unfair comparison?
Is it because EVE is that good???
OR
Is it because Star Trek Online is that bad???
Think about that for a moment...
"I understand that if I hear any more words come pouring out of your **** mouth, Ill have to eat every fucking chicken in this room."
sigh....just....sigh. misstep mmorpg.
I disagree with you on the combat comparisons. My 5 year old Son has his own set of characters on STO and does all his own combat. He is pretty decent in both space and ground combat and even knows not to take the coconuts (Tribbles) because they eat all his food and fill up his bags. Now how much preperation for combat can a 5 year old do.
Geez poor STO. Way to pick on the retarded kid.
There's some things to like about STO to be fair. Once user generated content comes out it should at least have something that sets it apart. The trek lore-heads (the remaining players..) should do some great work with it.
Comparing it against a popular MMO that is a proven sucess for being completely different from what's out there isn't the best way to illustrate facts about either game.
Currently Playing: The Game
OR
because they have nothing to compare to begin with other than the fact that there is "space"
Funny you should mention that, STO has many bad guys whose only weapons are knives. knife vs. phaser,, go figure.
Meh! Pointless article is pointless.
I think it would have been more fair with STO -v- E&B
But E&B would still have won, lol
Having played both games, this is the post I most agree with on this thread.
And, please, do we need any more similies like: Comparing Eve to STO is like comparing a wrecking ball to a ... whatever, BB, marble, etc.?
STO vs EVE? seriously...
on the other side, is there a game STO would actually win against? >.>
Will I love watching eve's alliance touraments and have been watching them since the 4th one, I found playing the game to be to boring and grindy beyond all hell as a new player. Eve is simply more for the people that have the huge amount of time to invest in it. Sto is more for the people that seek more instant grativication and have far less time to invest.
Pandering to haters FTW! At least the author was right about one thing, he loves dollars.
Like comparing salsa and apples 2 totally different things.