That makes no sense. The last review was 7.4, and the game has improved since then. Your saying the game has gotten worse since the last review? I guess this websites own reviewers arent even in agreement.
We're in transition to a new system of reviewing games (we'll be announcing it soon) and each review has been done (and often has been done) by different writers. Scores will vary for this reason, a game's score isn't guaranteed to go up or stay the same with every re-review.
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.
I'm a lifetime subscriber to Star Trek Online, and have been since launch.
I've played a number of other MMOs, and I do like STO, and the game has been significantly improved since it was launched. But it launched in such a poor state that mediocre is an apt description of STO.
I think that the final score given in this re-review was generous.
Paragon City Refugee - "We're heroes. It's what we do."
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!
Agreed. I fail to understand how despite comments on the game improving considerably since launch, the score is lowered in the re-review. I understand that MAY be due to a new review system on mmorpg.com's part, as well as a different reviewer taking up the reigns on this one, but it still doesn't make much sense to me.
Also, the reference to RTS gameplay really throws me for a loop. The closest thing to RTS elements I see in STO are being able to set rally points for your bridge officers in ground combat, as well as being able to select their target(s), and set them to passive or aggressive modes. The space combat has no relation to RTS elements whatsoever. Has the reviewer played an RTS before?
STO is not perfect, but I've found it to be very enjoyable so far. It's a great Star Trek game & MMO, and I think the reviewer under scored it. It also would have been very wise to merely wait for the new ground combat revamp to take hold, as it's merely a week or two away at this point.
I cannot begin to fathom the rage these fanbois are basking in. Seriously, I know the ideal of different people having different opinions might be terrifying and evil to you guys, but that's the way the adult world works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and very rarely are any 2 opinions the exact same. Different reviewers, different opinions, different scores. Hopefully, you guys can get past this intolerance and learn a little bit of respect for the individuality of others.
Did you guys ever consider the simple notion that...
Even though STO may have improved since it's launch, but it's score has gone down is becuase expections, or the "standard" is always progressing and demanding more from games?
The standard is like inflation, and a game's improvement is it's dividends, if the inflation is growing faster then your investment is earning dividends then its a loss of money.
Same notion here -- While STO has improved the demands of the industry, consumer base, and overall gaming world has dramatic increased since STO launched, in thus its improvements are not keeping pace with demands.
When you "RE"-Review a game, you are reviewing the game based on it's CURRENT state based on the CURRENT state of comparable games.
There are games in the market now that were not around when STO launched, thus creating a new base of dynamics to compare STO on.
I cannot begin to fathom the rage these fanbois are basking in. Seriously, I know the ideal of different people having different opinions might be terrifying and evil to you guys, but that's the way the adult world works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and very rarely are any 2 opinions the exact same. Different reviewers, different opinions, different scores. Hopefully, you guys can get past this intolerance and learn a little bit of respect for the individuality of others.
That's good advice. Perhaps you should heed it yourself?
I see no rage, ranting or raving. I see differing opinions exactly as you describe. I'll offer your own closing sentence to consider. See above.
Hope the same reviewer checks it out again with season 4. Even then it's just an opinion and anyone curious about the game should give the trial a go and see for themselves.
Did you guys ever consider the simple notion that...
Even though STO may have improved since it's launch, but it's score has gone down is becuase expections, or the "standard" is always progressing and demanding more from games?
By that logic the rating of EVERY game would be going down, unless you are actually suggesting that EVERY other game is meeting the rising expectations?
That's good advice. Perhaps you should heed it yourself?
I see no rage, ranting or raving. I see differing opinions exactly as you describe. I'll offer your own closing sentence to consider. See above.
I'm sorry you took my comment so personally and felt a need to respond so confusingly. I don't really care what the reviewer's opinion or score of a game is. If I like a game, I play it and enjoy it without feeling the need to be validated by others. If they want to rank something lower than their coworker, so be it. If you love the game, great, I'm not demonizing you or anyone else for liking it. I'm just suggesting that you stop attacking this woman simply because her review and opinion was different that her predecessors. I'm sorry you find that reasonable request so personally insulting that you felt the need to project on me so nonsensically.
well if you actually look at this reviewers track record anything thats not a fantasy mmo or of a genre she plays this is the review style she gives take it with a grain of salt hard for a walmart employee to sell ya a new car just like its hard for a non space mmo gamer to review a space game if you like it awesome if not ok too just dont read too much into this ones review
I am often curious about scores in these reviews. You write two paragraphs with hardly a good thing to say about this feature and yet you still give them a 6? What would a game need to lack to get a 5 or 4?
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
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!
That's good advice. Perhaps you should heed it yourself?
I see no rage, ranting or raving. I see differing opinions exactly as you describe. I'll offer your own closing sentence to consider. See above.
I'm sorry you took my comment so personally and felt a need to respond so confusingly. I don't really care what the reviewer's opinion or score of a game is. If I like a game, I play it and enjoy it without feeling the need to be validated by others. If they want to rank something lower than their coworker, so be it. If you love the game, great, I'm not demonizing you or anyone else for liking it. I'm just suggesting that you stop attacking this woman simply because her review and opinion was different that her predecessors. I'm sorry you find that reasonable request so personally insulting that you felt the need to project on me so nonsensically.
I didn't take it personally. I just find it odd that you're telling those with a differing opinion to stop 'attacking' the reviewer by offering constructive criticism, and their own thoughts on the current state of STO, when the only attacks I see here so far are from posters who seem to resort to name calling and belittlement in the name of defending the review. I found your post on the intolerance of other's opinions ironic in this regard.
I agree with your viewpoint on reviews, and I've found a number of poorly rated games to be very enjoyable.
I'm not projecting anything on to you as you put it. I was merely replying to your comment. I'm not sure how else you would expect me to do so on a commenting system like this. If you have a better method, than please enlighten me.
I fail to grasp the reason for this re-review at this point of time when it's known that somewhen in July the game will receive a major upgrade which will, among others, bring an overhaul to the ground combat system. Why not write this article then?
Anyway, i played through the open beta and left utterly disappointed. This was not the ST MMO i imagined. However, i must addmit that since release the devs worked on reshaping STO and today it looks quite better than 16 months ago. I'll wait for season 4 to settle and give it one more try.
This thread is pretty funny. The truth is, no game is all good or bad, and anyone who says otherwise is simply blinded by their own bias. I'm not going to be a fanboy and pretend the game is perfect, and I'm also not going to be a hater and pretend nothing is good about it. Are there problems? Of course; just like in every other game I have ever played. I also have fun.
Awaiting: Wild Star |Blade & Soul | The Repopulation | The Elder Scrolls online | ArcheAge | Firefall | Survarium | Bless | Black Desert |
Played: Guild Wars | Diablo 3 |The War Z | Runescape |World of Warcraft |Combat Arms |Perfect World | Rift | Fiesta | DC universe online | Aion | Age of Conan |Allods | Vindictus | The Secret World | Forge | Battle of the Immortals | Global Agenda| Cabal Online | Tera |
This thread is pretty funny. The truth is, no game is all good or bad, and anyone who says otherwise is simply blinded by their own bias. I'm not going to be a fanboy and pretend the game is perfect, and I'm also not going to be a hater and pretend nothing is good about it. Are there problems? Of course; just like in every other game I have ever played. I also have fun.
Its pretty simple. Sometimes people get so butthurt that a game isnt what they wanted it to be that they only thing that can ease the burning is to try their very best to make other people not like it too. I honestly feel sorry for them, because they must be pretty sore.
I fail to grasp the reason for this re-review at this point of time when it's known that somewhen in July the game will receive a major upgrade which will, among others, bring an overhaul to the ground combat system. Why not write this article then?
Anyway, i played through the open beta and left utterly disappointed. This was not the ST MMO i imagined. However, i must addmit that since release the devs worked on reshaping STO and today it looks quite better than 16 months ago. I'll wait for season 4 to settle and give it one more try.
Please , major upgrade is laughable. If you consider importing a function from CO and adding a reticle a major upgrade and rebalancing and restructuring ground skills , then fine. I suppose then the Crafting upgrade was a huge game chaging experience or Diplomacy ? How many players or how did that actually strenghten the game , how about bridges and their functionality ?
The core of the game is bad , it starts with the engine and the design choices , they aren't necessarily Dstahl's fault. The higher you build on a bad foundation the sooner the thing collapses .
I tore this game up as much as any reviewer in the beginning but even I have to admit that this "re-review" is both ill-timed and possibly mis-informed.
As an on-off player since open beta, this review is mostly accurate (if ill timed). But to not mention the foundry or the innovative method of content updates, the weekly series, is just an injustice to this game. Makes me think the review was done at the start of september last year. Also the crafting section is really out of date, having received a major revamp in December.
To say nothing of the lack of content klingon side, shows just how a narrow view of this game the reviewer had.
I am curious what is exactly RTS like in this game? It keeps getting brought up but i fail to see it. I don't see people managing resources or building cities or units to attack their enemies with. Aren't games like Warcraft (1,2,3) starcraft, Age Of empires, etc RTS games? Maybe I'm blind but i just don't see it.
No endgame? We get 5ish new episode arcs (which will be ramped backup after S4) regularly, each with a well told engaging story. Is this not endgame content? Last i checked endgame contect was stuff you could do after hitting max level, correct? we have crafting, episode series, STF's, Tons of repeatable missions, PvP, The foundry (which is huge for us that like to tell our own stories too), etc. In my opinion i see some endgame there, maybe it's not a loot grind like WoW but it does seem to exist. Maybe i missed the boat on that one as well.
Personally i think this is a bad timed review and seems to not have played much of the game that i have. I can easily understand that this game is not for everyone and there is alot of things wrong with it, no doubt. However i just can't agree with this review.
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!
I have no problem with the actual score, it's the scenario that erks me. It should be a reverse IMO lower to a higher score at least when we're talking improvements
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
We're in transition to a new system of reviewing games (we'll be announcing it soon) and each review has been done (and often has been done) by different writers. Scores will vary for this reason, a game's score isn't guaranteed to go up or stay the same with every re-review.
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.
With respect,
Are you saying that the review ratings only apply to the people reviewing the games? And not to the games as a standard template from 1 to 10? I think thats a VERY subjective review of any game and perhaps that should be illustrated more on each review.
Warning: This rating does not belong to a rating system, but is a number decided soley by the reviewer and can not be used in any way, shape or form to measure a prospective gamer's possible gaming intererests on any covered titles.
something like that... or am I mistaken? I hope so. I come to this site hoping the ratings are consistant across all titles, that a 3.2 to one game means its 3.2 compared to a 7.9 to another.
Comments
This is great news Mike!
I'm a lifetime subscriber to Star Trek Online, and have been since launch.
I've played a number of other MMOs, and I do like STO, and the game has been significantly improved since it was launched. But it launched in such a poor state that mediocre is an apt description of STO.
I think that the final score given in this re-review was generous.
Paragon City Refugee - "We're heroes. It's what we do."
Agreed. I fail to understand how despite comments on the game improving considerably since launch, the score is lowered in the re-review. I understand that MAY be due to a new review system on mmorpg.com's part, as well as a different reviewer taking up the reigns on this one, but it still doesn't make much sense to me.
Also, the reference to RTS gameplay really throws me for a loop. The closest thing to RTS elements I see in STO are being able to set rally points for your bridge officers in ground combat, as well as being able to select their target(s), and set them to passive or aggressive modes. The space combat has no relation to RTS elements whatsoever. Has the reviewer played an RTS before?
STO is not perfect, but I've found it to be very enjoyable so far. It's a great Star Trek game & MMO, and I think the reviewer under scored it. It also would have been very wise to merely wait for the new ground combat revamp to take hold, as it's merely a week or two away at this point.
I cannot begin to fathom the rage these fanbois are basking in. Seriously, I know the ideal of different people having different opinions might be terrifying and evil to you guys, but that's the way the adult world works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and very rarely are any 2 opinions the exact same. Different reviewers, different opinions, different scores. Hopefully, you guys can get past this intolerance and learn a little bit of respect for the individuality of others.
Did you guys ever consider the simple notion that...
Even though STO may have improved since it's launch, but it's score has gone down is becuase expections, or the "standard" is always progressing and demanding more from games?
The standard is like inflation, and a game's improvement is it's dividends, if the inflation is growing faster then your investment is earning dividends then its a loss of money.
Same notion here -- While STO has improved the demands of the industry, consumer base, and overall gaming world has dramatic increased since STO launched, in thus its improvements are not keeping pace with demands.
When you "RE"-Review a game, you are reviewing the game based on it's CURRENT state based on the CURRENT state of comparable games.
There are games in the market now that were not around when STO launched, thus creating a new base of dynamics to compare STO on.
That's good advice. Perhaps you should heed it yourself?
I see no rage, ranting or raving. I see differing opinions exactly as you describe. I'll offer your own closing sentence to consider. See above.
Hope the same reviewer checks it out again with season 4. Even then it's just an opinion and anyone curious about the game should give the trial a go and see for themselves.
.. .... .- - . - .-. --- .-.. .-.. ... .-- .... --- .-. . .--. --- .-. - .-.-.-
--------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate.
Link to any site where he is and I bet you'll also be bashing it.By that logic the rating of EVERY game would be going down, unless you are actually suggesting that EVERY other game is meeting the rising expectations?
I'm sorry you took my comment so personally and felt a need to respond so confusingly. I don't really care what the reviewer's opinion or score of a game is. If I like a game, I play it and enjoy it without feeling the need to be validated by others. If they want to rank something lower than their coworker, so be it. If you love the game, great, I'm not demonizing you or anyone else for liking it. I'm just suggesting that you stop attacking this woman simply because her review and opinion was different that her predecessors. I'm sorry you find that reasonable request so personally insulting that you felt the need to project on me so nonsensically.
well if you actually look at this reviewers track record anything thats not a fantasy mmo or of a genre she plays this is the review style she gives take it with a grain of salt hard for a walmart employee to sell ya a new car just like its hard for a non space mmo gamer to review a space game if you like it awesome if not ok too just dont read too much into this ones review
Social: 6/10
I am often curious about scores in these reviews. You write two paragraphs with hardly a good thing to say about this feature and yet you still give them a 6? What would a game need to lack to get a 5 or 4?
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I did not review Star Trek Online. Patrick Gerard did, as the teaser of the article you linked clearly states.
I didn't take it personally. I just find it odd that you're telling those with a differing opinion to stop 'attacking' the reviewer by offering constructive criticism, and their own thoughts on the current state of STO, when the only attacks I see here so far are from posters who seem to resort to name calling and belittlement in the name of defending the review. I found your post on the intolerance of other's opinions ironic in this regard.
I agree with your viewpoint on reviews, and I've found a number of poorly rated games to be very enjoyable.
I'm not projecting anything on to you as you put it. I was merely replying to your comment. I'm not sure how else you would expect me to do so on a commenting system like this. If you have a better method, than please enlighten me.
I fail to grasp the reason for this re-review at this point of time when it's known that somewhen in July the game will receive a major upgrade which will, among others, bring an overhaul to the ground combat system. Why not write this article then?
Anyway, i played through the open beta and left utterly disappointed. This was not the ST MMO i imagined. However, i must addmit that since release the devs worked on reshaping STO and today it looks quite better than 16 months ago. I'll wait for season 4 to settle and give it one more try.
This game is that bad............................
Playing: Single player games |
Awaiting: Wild Star |Blade & Soul | The Repopulation | The Elder Scrolls online | ArcheAge | Firefall | Survarium | Bless | Black Desert |
Played: Guild Wars | Diablo 3 |The War Z | Runescape |World of Warcraft |Combat Arms |Perfect World | Rift | Fiesta | DC universe online | Aion | Age of Conan |Allods | Vindictus | The Secret World | Forge | Battle of the Immortals | Global Agenda| Cabal Online | Tera |
Its pretty simple. Sometimes people get so butthurt that a game isnt what they wanted it to be that they only thing that can ease the burning is to try their very best to make other people not like it too. I honestly feel sorry for them, because they must be pretty sore.Please , major upgrade is laughable. If you consider importing a function from CO and adding a reticle a major upgrade and rebalancing and restructuring ground skills , then fine. I suppose then the Crafting upgrade was a huge game chaging experience or Diplomacy ? How many players or how did that actually strenghten the game , how about bridges and their functionality ?
The core of the game is bad , it starts with the engine and the design choices , they aren't necessarily Dstahl's fault. The higher you build on a bad foundation the sooner the thing collapses .
STO clearly took advantage of hardcore collector fans with their microtransaction store.
Cryptic, an entity who wishes to go both the subscription+item shop method, will never get my dollar.
No respect at all for them
I tore this game up as much as any reviewer in the beginning but even I have to admit that this "re-review" is both ill-timed and possibly mis-informed.
As an on-off player since open beta, this review is mostly accurate (if ill timed). But to not mention the foundry or the innovative method of content updates, the weekly series, is just an injustice to this game. Makes me think the review was done at the start of september last year. Also the crafting section is really out of date, having received a major revamp in December.
To say nothing of the lack of content klingon side, shows just how a narrow view of this game the reviewer had.
I am curious what is exactly RTS like in this game? It keeps getting brought up but i fail to see it. I don't see people managing resources or building cities or units to attack their enemies with. Aren't games like Warcraft (1,2,3) starcraft, Age Of empires, etc RTS games? Maybe I'm blind but i just don't see it.
No endgame? We get 5ish new episode arcs (which will be ramped backup after S4) regularly, each with a well told engaging story. Is this not endgame content? Last i checked endgame contect was stuff you could do after hitting max level, correct? we have crafting, episode series, STF's, Tons of repeatable missions, PvP, The foundry (which is huge for us that like to tell our own stories too), etc. In my opinion i see some endgame there, maybe it's not a loot grind like WoW but it does seem to exist. Maybe i missed the boat on that one as well.
Personally i think this is a bad timed review and seems to not have played much of the game that i have. I can easily understand that this game is not for everyone and there is alot of things wrong with it, no doubt. However i just can't agree with this review.
I have no problem with the actual score, it's the scenario that erks me. It should be a reverse IMO lower to a higher score at least when we're talking improvements
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
With respect,
Are you saying that the review ratings only apply to the people reviewing the games? And not to the games as a standard template from 1 to 10? I think thats a VERY subjective review of any game and perhaps that should be illustrated more on each review.
Warning: This rating does not belong to a rating system, but is a number decided soley by the reviewer and can not be used in any way, shape or form to measure a prospective gamer's possible gaming intererests on any covered titles.
something like that... or am I mistaken? I hope so. I come to this site hoping the ratings are consistant across all titles, that a 3.2 to one game means its 3.2 compared to a 7.9 to another.
Thank you.