What I find horrifying about this the fact that MMORPG did this review right before a major update. It's like they didn't do any research before they picked up the game and went into the game completely biased. Bad form MMORPG.com.
We know Season 4 is right around the corner, as well as new sets of FEs (yea!). Season 4 will come with Borg Invasion, Ground Combat 2.0, and later on the Duty Officer System. This article is a continuation of the nay-sayer who said this game wouldn't last a year. Well it's still here, and its been going quite strongly. And planning to do a rereview of the game in the calm right before a major update isn't just bad form its the sign of a bad reporter. It's like reporting on how good the olympics was the week before it starts.
STO deserves at least an 8/10 if not higher.
You want to know what I find horrifying ? People coming on here complaining , about an article that predates a major content release from a company that has repeatedly released major content without proper testing and with major bugs. It's horrifying to see people put so much faith in a company that still can't release content without major bugs accompanying that release. So , with that said , you'd have them wait atleast until September to file the article . (since that's about the amount of time Cryptic spends getting the bugs ironed out ) MMORPG has a schedule which they obviously follow . Sorry, Cryptic schedule doesn't follow MMORPG's.
I've a long weekend coming up and since the content specifically S-4 isn't in it , this article is relavant for people deciding what to do with their gaming time over a long weekend.
PS : If I recall correctly, wasn't S-4 pushed back ? I was suppose to be out earlier. So who's really to blame ?
The only date cryptic gave season 4 was July 7 and shockingly they kept that date since it was announced early march. Been playing mmo's since ultima was released and can honestly say sto is the only game that kept my interest and I have been playing since beta. It isn't for everyone. You can't be a night elf hunter and you can't kill 10 rats. Cryptic and atari as a company suck and their policies are the worst in the business. But sto is still a good growing game. Look at the difference since launch (which isn't hard to do and it hurts cryptics reliability in the eyes of the minimally observant)
Well, I will say that saying the game is far better than at launch and giving it a lower score is nothing new at MMORPG. They did that with AION. I dunno, maybe standards of what they use to evaluate games changes over time. With a game like Star Trek, the length of time since the initial review to the re-review might be pretty long. However, with AION it was re-reviewed in 1 year and got a lower score despite saying it was better than at launch.
Still, I often wonder if MMORGP is making a bigger effort to accurately score games. I'm shocked at a 6.4 score, since almost every game at MMORPG gets 7-9. Did some new policy of reviewing games become implemented at MMORPG? Most games should be 6-7 in range, with some really good ones at 7-8, great ones at 8-9 and the greatest at 9-10. I have no problem with 6.4 as a score, but just don't usually see it at this website.
I think the score is a bit too low and like many others in this thread, should have waited on the re-review. I would rate this game between 7 and 7.5 right now.
I'm surprised that player generated content was ignored. I've found a wealth of innovative player created missions which had both high quality stories and creative, interesting Ground Missions. Hopefully whoever handles the Season 4 review will take a look at some of those before bemoaning a lack of variety in the "avatar missions."
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.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense: The last reviewer did everything possible to pad the numbers in STO's favor, including adding in a roleplaying category (with a high rating) that focused on player created roleplay instead of looking at what roleplaying tools (RP channels, RP rulesets, etc.) that the game may provide.
"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
When compared to CO, which uses the same engine? Absolutely!
"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
It's Bridge Commander made online with a monthly fee.
No, it's really not. In Bridge Commander you controlled your ship from the stations on the bridge, hence the name. STO's space combat is closer to the Starfleet Command series of games.
"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
Really is bad timing, you've could've kept Lori's work and just amended references/scores relative to the ground combat update in two weeks, rather than put this up now.
Not if she's not the one doing the next re-review. Mixing up two different reviews would be bad. Sure, the timing is a bit off, but I can't fault them for not wanting to just trash her work becuase of the next patch.
"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
I'm surprised that player generated content was ignored. I've found a wealth of innovative player created missions which had both high quality stories and creative, interesting Ground Missions. Hopefully whoever handles the Season 4 review will take a look at some of those before bemoaning a lack of variety in the "avatar missions."
Player generated content shouldn't be used in generating the actual score of a game, only what the company has done. If a game has some really great player generated content though, then mention that as one of the pros, and not as an actual scored section. Likewise, if a game has terrible player generated content, that shouldn't be held against a game's score.
"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
I'm surprised that player generated content was ignored. I've found a wealth of innovative player created missions which had both high quality stories and creative, interesting Ground Missions. Hopefully whoever handles the Season 4 review will take a look at some of those before bemoaning a lack of variety in the "avatar missions."
Player generated content shouldn't be used in generating the actual score of a game, only what the company has done. If a game has some really great player generated content though, then mention that as one of the pros, and not as an actual scored section. Likewise, if a game has terrible player generated content, that shouldn't be held against a game's score.
Gotta disagree with you there. If the shortage of a certain type of content is addressed by quality player content, it doesn't matter where it came from. Resources were spent desiging the engine for player content creation, review and release, so the devs get credit for making it available even if it was through "volunteer developers." Quality player content should affect both the "Longevity" and "Value" scores.
The foundry is currently a free application in STO. That would probably change in some form if STO goes F2P. NwN will give you an idea of where Cryptic will probably go with the F2P model when the time comes with regards to the foundry.
The Foundry allows great and bad missions. Some time ago the devs said something about additions to the Foundry which would have to be bought from C-Store. Also you don't have the tools to create content comparable to Cryptics missions.
This smacks of a very lazy review, I fear that the reviewer is someone who thinks that the genre of 'MMO' is defined only by the very popular MMO titles. Cryptic offer orignality into a stale genre filled with Everquest clones. Reviewers such as this once labeled Ultima Online as 'mediocre' simply because it wasn't to their personal liking or outside of there personal understanding. I would really love to have seen a review which showed the improvements made, and gave a feeling of satisfaction to the person playing the game. STO is a diverse and expansive game, filled with the excitement of single player games and mixed within a MMO context. It is also strikingly similar to a very much loved Earth and Beyond (another game that reviewers didn't get, but communities loved). The Foundry is a fantastic idea, and should be applauded, it is a throw back to the paper and pen origins of our much beloved pass-time. User generated content is likely to be the one thing that can be different in a world of MMOs currently dominated by mediocre clones of WoW and Everquest. Come on MMORPG.COM re-do this review with somone else.. or hang up your boots as the voice of independance.
Oh and one final comment, I'm running 64bit Windows 7 on an Alienware Aurora R3 (so mid spec) only 4GB RAM, Intel5i (3.30Mhz overclocked) and a medium spec Gfx card (Geforce GTX460 1GB). Running everything set to max with 200% bloom. Played for 7-8 hours non-stop. Never had a glitch, not a bug, not a crash not so much as a frame drop.. and smooth frame rates of between 30 and 60fps.
Cryptic offer orignality into a stale genre filled with Everquest clones.
By making NWN... yet another entry into the sword and sorcery MMO market ... Cryptic is being "original"? How do you figure?
Originally posted by osawtell
STO is a diverse and expansive game, filled with the excitement of single player games and mixed within a MMO context.
"Diverse" and "expansive" in comparison to what? Even including the Foundry, STO is still far lighter on content than most every other MMO on the market. Heck, CoH had more content before the very first patch than STO has a year out of the gate.
Furthermore, what you call "exciting", other find mind-numbingly boring.
If you want to attack the reviewer and the review, stick to quantifiable facts and not subjective opinions.
STO's Foundry means that every single time I log in I have a new mission that I have never played before. I'm not aware of any other game that does that.
City of Heroes has User generated Content. Cryptic isn't doing anything innovative on that front.
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.
To be fair, they have offered a LTS since before launch. They need to have a cash shop in order to continue generating income from those who purchased a LTS. After a time, a person with a LTS is no longer paying for the game.
I don't really blame them for having one. I would agree they are dumping way too much into the store vs. adding more content to the game.
This smacks of a very lazy review, I fear that the reviewer is someone who thinks that the genre of 'MMO' is defined only by the very popular MMO titles. Cryptic offer orignality into a stale genre filled with Everquest clones. Reviewers such as this once labeled Ultima Online as 'mediocre' simply because it wasn't to their personal liking or outside of there personal understanding. I would really love to have seen a review which showed the improvements made, and gave a feeling of satisfaction to the person playing the game. STO is a diverse and expansive game, filled with the excitement of single player games and mixed within a MMO context. It is also strikingly similar to a very much loved Earth and Beyond (another game that reviewers didn't get, but communities loved). The Foundry is a fantastic idea, and should be applauded, it is a throw back to the paper and pen origins of our much beloved pass-time. User generated content is likely to be the one thing that can be different in a world of MMOs currently dominated by mediocre clones of WoW and Everquest. Come on MMORPG.COM re-do this review with somone else.. or hang up your boots as the voice of independance.
You're offering not one single example of this "Cryptic Brilliance", that you preach of. The only example even close to that is Foundry, but you have to remember, it's free content not made by developers. Fan made content is not official nor rewards the player like it.
How's Cryptic coming with games that offer 2 factions by the way? Current count seems to be 2 tries and 2 plunders.
You hold this article as shining example of what MMORPG's should be . I need to ask ? Did you actually read it ? It's not the feel good , touchy feely article you were hoping for that's pro-Cryptic.
Firstly 8/10 , really ? Based on what criteria ? Other then bashing the engine and the graphics , which incidently is the core of the game , what's good?
Foundry ? Okay he likes it. Whose doing the all the work , the player base.
Trekkiness ? Come on that's so arbitrary. The games set in 2409 , but you've ship uniforms etc that would have long ago been retired and scrapped , but I guess that irrelavant. It's the a couple of stories that make it Trek , huh ?
Interface is such A HUGE part of this game and makes or breaks it, please.
Combat , what can be said that hasn't already been said at some point.
The author gives it an 8/10 for what feel good ? he likes the foundry ? he likes Trek ? Honestly the rating system of the majority of gaming magizine/websites is based on 5/10 = 0/5, 6/10 = 2/5 , 7/10 = 3/5 etc... This article is more about an emotional expressof support of STO then a factual based narrative.
Far from being a 'Pro Cryptic Junkie' I'm the first to point out when things are wrong, and will vocally put that forward. From what I have seen on their forum, they seem to have listened to the people who love to play the game and have changed things. What I object to are reviews that don't factor in originality and real improvements to core gameplay as part of their assessment. This one did just that.
As for 'trekkieness' I think thats pretty damned important for a game titled "Star Trek'' thankfully the licence didn't go to a developer who thought that killing tribbles as part of some starting zone would be a good idea - no doubt Trion or Blizzard would have. Rift is an example of a WoW Clone with some pretty graphics.. and yet it is held aloft as the best thing since the last slice of Everquest v2000 - I got bored so fast I couldn't belive I spent money on it.
At least Crypic are TRYING to be different and get no bloody credit for doing so in the press, and like so many sheep in a raid in wow the haters and trolls follow suit, and before you know it you have good games being left on the shelves due to bad reviews. I'm not saying that STO doesn't have faults, it does.. are they big ones? no not really? is it fun to play, god yes.. I don't want a game the size of EvE Online that will take a lifetime to see most of the content.
I want a fun world within which to spend some time in a theme that I enjoy with friends. That is the heart of what makes an MMO a great thing. 'Professional' Raiders of MMO frankly have very nearly spoiled the whole genre, but thankfully there are a few developers out there, like cryptic, who now have Chinese money behind them who will (I hope) produce something orginal and for what is stupidly termed the 'casual' gamer.. I put in over 30 hours a week playing various MMO but am considered 'casual' - if your playing more than that boys and girls I'd suggest a meeting with my Pshychiarist.
On orignality 'theme' can be anything that doesn't make it orginal.. orginality comes from game dynamics not new fictions within which to house old game dynamics - thats formularic and lazy 'x-factor' games development, its very cost effective however.
Last point I did read the review before I linked it, it was clearly writen by someone who cared about the content of the game and liked what it offered for the fan of the franchise, but who also appreciated the content changes and the possiblities of user created content... given the name of the game.. isn't that pretty important damn important to be 'for the fans' ?? I say yes...
Oh and one final point, quantative assessment on games is utterly impossible, all reviews are subjective opinions.. thinking differently to that obvious fact is rather fatuous to say the least.
Comments
You want to know what I find horrifying ? People coming on here complaining , about an article that predates a major content release from a company that has repeatedly released major content without proper testing and with major bugs. It's horrifying to see people put so much faith in a company that still can't release content without major bugs accompanying that release. So , with that said , you'd have them wait atleast until September to file the article . (since that's about the amount of time Cryptic spends getting the bugs ironed out ) MMORPG has a schedule which they obviously follow . Sorry, Cryptic schedule doesn't follow MMORPG's.
I've a long weekend coming up and since the content specifically S-4 isn't in it , this article is relavant for people deciding what to do with their gaming time over a long weekend.
PS : If I recall correctly, wasn't S-4 pushed back ? I was suppose to be out earlier. So who's really to blame ?
Been playing mmo's since ultima was released and can honestly say sto is the only game that kept my interest and I have been playing since beta.
It isn't for everyone. You can't be a night elf hunter and you can't kill 10 rats. Cryptic and atari as a company suck and their policies are the worst in the business. But sto is still a good growing game. Look at the difference since launch (which isn't hard to do and it hurts cryptics reliability in the eyes of the minimally observant)
Well, I will say that saying the game is far better than at launch and giving it a lower score is nothing new at MMORPG. They did that with AION. I dunno, maybe standards of what they use to evaluate games changes over time. With a game like Star Trek, the length of time since the initial review to the re-review might be pretty long. However, with AION it was re-reviewed in 1 year and got a lower score despite saying it was better than at launch.
Still, I often wonder if MMORGP is making a bigger effort to accurately score games. I'm shocked at a 6.4 score, since almost every game at MMORPG gets 7-9. Did some new policy of reviewing games become implemented at MMORPG? Most games should be 6-7 in range, with some really good ones at 7-8, great ones at 8-9 and the greatest at 9-10. I have no problem with 6.4 as a score, but just don't usually see it at this website.
I think the score is a bit too low and like many others in this thread, should have waited on the re-review. I would rate this game between 7 and 7.5 right now.
I'm surprised that player generated content was ignored. I've found a wealth of innovative player created missions which had both high quality stories and creative, interesting Ground Missions. Hopefully whoever handles the Season 4 review will take a look at some of those before bemoaning a lack of variety in the "avatar missions."
Actually, it makes a lot of sense: The last reviewer did everything possible to pad the numbers in STO's favor, including adding in a roleplaying category (with a high rating) that focused on player created roleplay instead of looking at what roleplaying tools (RP channels, RP rulesets, etc.) that the game may provide.
"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
When compared to CO, which uses the same engine? Absolutely!
"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
No, it's really not. In Bridge Commander you controlled your ship from the stations on the bridge, hence the name. STO's space combat is closer to the Starfleet Command series of games.
"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
Not if she's not the one doing the next re-review. Mixing up two different reviews would be bad. Sure, the timing is a bit off, but I can't fault them for not wanting to just trash her work becuase of the next patch.
"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
Player generated content shouldn't be used in generating the actual score of a game, only what the company has done. If a game has some really great player generated content though, then mention that as one of the pros, and not as an actual scored section. Likewise, if a game has terrible player generated content, that shouldn't be held against a game's score.
"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
Gotta disagree with you there. If the shortage of a certain type of content is addressed by quality player content, it doesn't matter where it came from. Resources were spent desiging the engine for player content creation, review and release, so the devs get credit for making it available even if it was through "volunteer developers." Quality player content should affect both the "Longevity" and "Value" scores.
Unless they re-did the whole game since launch... this score is generous... Its still a 100 hour offline game that they jammed online
The foundry is currently a free application in STO. That would probably change in some form if STO goes F2P. NwN will give you an idea of where Cryptic will probably go with the F2P model when the time comes with regards to the foundry.
The Foundry allows great and bad missions. Some time ago the devs said something about additions to the Foundry which would have to be bought from C-Store. Also you don't have the tools to create content comparable to Cryptics missions.
This smacks of a very lazy review, I fear that the reviewer is someone who thinks that the genre of 'MMO' is defined only by the very popular MMO titles. Cryptic offer orignality into a stale genre filled with Everquest clones. Reviewers such as this once labeled Ultima Online as 'mediocre' simply because it wasn't to their personal liking or outside of there personal understanding. I would really love to have seen a review which showed the improvements made, and gave a feeling of satisfaction to the person playing the game. STO is a diverse and expansive game, filled with the excitement of single player games and mixed within a MMO context. It is also strikingly similar to a very much loved Earth and Beyond (another game that reviewers didn't get, but communities loved). The Foundry is a fantastic idea, and should be applauded, it is a throw back to the paper and pen origins of our much beloved pass-time. User generated content is likely to be the one thing that can be different in a world of MMOs currently dominated by mediocre clones of WoW and Everquest. Come on MMORPG.COM re-do this review with somone else.. or hang up your boots as the voice of independance.
Here is an example of what a balanced re-review looked like:
http://www.geektown.co.uk/2011/06/19/star-trek-online-re-review-pc/
Oh and one final comment, I'm running 64bit Windows 7 on an Alienware Aurora R3 (so mid spec) only 4GB RAM, Intel5i (3.30Mhz overclocked) and a medium spec Gfx card (Geforce GTX460 1GB). Running everything set to max with 200% bloom. Played for 7-8 hours non-stop. Never had a glitch, not a bug, not a crash not so much as a frame drop.. and smooth frame rates of between 30 and 60fps.
By making NWN... yet another entry into the sword and sorcery MMO market ... Cryptic is being "original"? How do you figure?
"Diverse" and "expansive" in comparison to what? Even including the Foundry, STO is still far lighter on content than most every other MMO on the market. Heck, CoH had more content before the very first patch than STO has a year out of the gate.
Furthermore, what you call "exciting", other find mind-numbingly boring.
If you want to attack the reviewer and the review, stick to quantifiable facts and not subjective opinions.
City of Heroes has User generated Content. Cryptic isn't doing anything innovative on that front.
I would also ask if all those "new missions" you have each day are worth playing or are they mindless accolade farms or other nonsense missions?
If you want to hold up the Foundry as the shining jewel of STO, please be honest in your analysis and include all the negative points about it.
To be fair, they have offered a LTS since before launch. They need to have a cash shop in order to continue generating income from those who purchased a LTS. After a time, a person with a LTS is no longer paying for the game.
I don't really blame them for having one. I would agree they are dumping way too much into the store vs. adding more content to the game.
You're offering not one single example of this "Cryptic Brilliance", that you preach of. The only example even close to that is Foundry, but you have to remember, it's free content not made by developers. Fan made content is not official nor rewards the player like it.
How's Cryptic coming with games that offer 2 factions by the way? Current count seems to be 2 tries and 2 plunders.
You hold this article as shining example of what MMORPG's should be . I need to ask ? Did you actually read it ? It's not the feel good , touchy feely article you were hoping for that's pro-Cryptic.
Firstly 8/10 , really ? Based on what criteria ? Other then bashing the engine and the graphics , which incidently is the core of the game , what's good?
Foundry ? Okay he likes it. Whose doing the all the work , the player base.
Trekkiness ? Come on that's so arbitrary. The games set in 2409 , but you've ship uniforms etc that would have long ago been retired and scrapped , but I guess that irrelavant. It's the a couple of stories that make it Trek , huh ?
Interface is such A HUGE part of this game and makes or breaks it, please.
Combat , what can be said that hasn't already been said at some point.
The author gives it an 8/10 for what feel good ? he likes the foundry ? he likes Trek ? Honestly the rating system of the majority of gaming magizine/websites is based on 5/10 = 0/5, 6/10 = 2/5 , 7/10 = 3/5 etc... This article is more about an emotional expressof support of STO then a factual based narrative.
Far from being a 'Pro Cryptic Junkie' I'm the first to point out when things are wrong, and will vocally put that forward. From what I have seen on their forum, they seem to have listened to the people who love to play the game and have changed things. What I object to are reviews that don't factor in originality and real improvements to core gameplay as part of their assessment. This one did just that.
As for 'trekkieness' I think thats pretty damned important for a game titled "Star Trek'' thankfully the licence didn't go to a developer who thought that killing tribbles as part of some starting zone would be a good idea - no doubt Trion or Blizzard would have. Rift is an example of a WoW Clone with some pretty graphics.. and yet it is held aloft as the best thing since the last slice of Everquest v2000 - I got bored so fast I couldn't belive I spent money on it.
At least Crypic are TRYING to be different and get no bloody credit for doing so in the press, and like so many sheep in a raid in wow the haters and trolls follow suit, and before you know it you have good games being left on the shelves due to bad reviews. I'm not saying that STO doesn't have faults, it does.. are they big ones? no not really? is it fun to play, god yes.. I don't want a game the size of EvE Online that will take a lifetime to see most of the content.
I want a fun world within which to spend some time in a theme that I enjoy with friends. That is the heart of what makes an MMO a great thing. 'Professional' Raiders of MMO frankly have very nearly spoiled the whole genre, but thankfully there are a few developers out there, like cryptic, who now have Chinese money behind them who will (I hope) produce something orginal and for what is stupidly termed the 'casual' gamer.. I put in over 30 hours a week playing various MMO but am considered 'casual' - if your playing more than that boys and girls I'd suggest a meeting with my Pshychiarist.
On orignality 'theme' can be anything that doesn't make it orginal.. orginality comes from game dynamics not new fictions within which to house old game dynamics - thats formularic and lazy 'x-factor' games development, its very cost effective however.
Last point I did read the review before I linked it, it was clearly writen by someone who cared about the content of the game and liked what it offered for the fan of the franchise, but who also appreciated the content changes and the possiblities of user created content... given the name of the game.. isn't that pretty important damn important to be 'for the fans' ?? I say yes...
Oh and one final point, quantative assessment on games is utterly impossible, all reviews are subjective opinions.. thinking differently to that obvious fact is rather fatuous to say the least.