Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Star Trek Online: Star Trek Online Review

245

Comments

  • nate1980nate1980 Member UncommonPosts: 1,951
    Originally posted by phluux


    Jon, why didn't you comment on anything about ships other than combat? How about customization?
    I don't play STO and don't intend to, but its something I would've liked to know more about.



     

    Aside from your starter ship, ships come in three categories: Escort, Cruiser, and Science.

    http://suricatasblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/stoshiptierchart2.png

    The above link shows you what I'm about to explain. The difference between an Escort, Cruiser, and Science ship are in the hull, bridge officer stations, weapon stations, and what consoles are available. The mixture of these make each ship a natural at fulfilling a certain role in the game, however, the game is highly customizable when it comes to this. Meaning, that while a Cruiser is built to be natural at taking damage, you can pick bridge officer skills, and consoles that make you more of a damage  dealer or support.

    At any rate, each "class of ship" (ie. escort, cruiser, science) has 5 tiers worth of ships. In each tier, each class of ship has 3 different models to choose from, such as a Galaxy Class, Envoy Class, and Celestial Class. Each of those models look different. A ship is composed of the saucer, hull, neck, nacelles, and those things that connect the nacelles to the hull. You can mix and match the look of all of those things to create a unique looking ship. For example, you can have a Cellestial Saucer, Envoy hull, and Galaxy nacelles. You can also pick what you want your bridge to look like, the color of your ship, the type of windows on your ship, and if you want patterns (like tattoos) on your ship and their color.

    I hope this helps.

  • GhostSeverGhostSever Member Posts: 23

    I love how because the reviewer said it is an MMORPG that it is magically an MMORPG. The reviewers opinion is no more valid then mine is.  Once STO tries to become even a little bit massive give me a call.

    Playing: Fallen Earth
    Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2 and Secret World

    "Whats a Canadian? He's like an American, but he doesn't use alot of dangerous adjectives"

    "Part of loving a woman is accepting Sting"

    "They never find a dead person on Antique Road Show"

    "Isn't Unix made by fat people?"

  • AOCtesterAOCtester Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 431

    Basicly - what the reviewer is saying... Wait for the trial and see what YOU will think.

    Trial will be out in 6 months or so... Until then you will not miss much other than the normal bug fixing and "polishing"

    See you then !

  • CujoSWAoACujoSWAoA Member UncommonPosts: 1,781

    I said it while the game was in Developement.

    I'll say it again now that the Word is In.

    ...

    There, has, never, been, a, good, Star Trek, video game.

  • solarinesolarine Member Posts: 1,203
    Originally posted by GhostSever


    I love how because the reviewer said it is an MMORPG that it is magically an MMORPG. The reviewers opinion is no more valid then mine is.  Once STO tries to become even a little bit massive give me a call.



     

    I hate to break it to you, but yes, it is. 

    Just as a newspaper columnist's is more valid. 

    There are people out there who coin terms, define genres and trends. Like defining what "science fiction" is. Their opinions are always more valid than the man on the street. They have established a competency for knowing what they're talking about and convinced popular vote or people who affect popular vote of said competency. We use their definitions versus my grandfather's uncle's.

    How the world works. Welcome to it.

     

  • vickter420vickter420 Member UncommonPosts: 37

    I actually agree with this review I played the game to max level and canceled as there is nothing to do atm, and even if they do add raids etc. I dont think itll be very fun (tho I could be wrong) I played the game cause I was bored and it wasnt horrible it was just way too fast to get max level didn't feel like I really earned it, but hey least Cryptic didn't cut the xp gained for missions and make it so you ran outta content before you were ready to move to the next area like they did in CO.

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 37,004
    Originally posted by Paragus1


    Well written and the multiple scoring at the end was a great idea from one writer to another.

    it certainly was a good idea, glad I thought of it.  (should have given me credit though)

    "Perhaps what you really need is the perspective of three sorts of players, the person who despises PVP (so they can rate the game strictly from a PVE perspective), Joe average reviewer who likes PVP when its fair and balanced, and only when he wants to PVP, and the FFA PVP lover, who distains PVE with his heart and soul and wonders why he can't gank people in the tutorial.

    Then you could have a truly balanced review of the game which would really cover all the bases and people would understand the game bettter."

    www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3402736#3402736

    Reviewer twisted it a bit, but same concept overall.

    Oh yeah, back on topic.  I did enjoy the review, very fair though to me it seemed like most of the commentary was more  positive side than his final score reflected.  Didn't really seen enough negative comments to rank the game just a hair above DFO at release.

     

     

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • EricDanieEricDanie Member UncommonPosts: 2,238

    The hardcore gamer is aware of Cryptic's earlier release Champions Online, and would give a grade far lower than 5 considering what Cryptic has done before and what they have done now, they shot themselves in the foot with that engine if they ever tried hitting this market, the massively multiplayer aspect of the game is too weak to be considered worth the monthly fee to anyone that compares this to other MMOs (you don't need to be hardcore to think about that, you just have to think MMOs are, well... MMOs with two "M"s).

    Sorry, sector space zone chats with different instances and non-combat avatars, plus social areas again with no combat and restricted to walking around and chatting don't really make it look like a MMO for me, and the rest of the game are done either solo or through something similar to a matchmaking system seen in non-MMOs, done in a transparent way.

  • SimsuSimsu Member UncommonPosts: 386

    Multiple scoring was a good idea.

  • PunisherXPunisherX Member Posts: 231

    Firstly, I would like to say that I liked the game. It was fun to play, it didn't feel repetitive and I got a lot of joy out of it. When I finally get the money, I will buy it and play it, for I need something to replace my time after giving up WoW.

    Secondly, I would like to comment on your point about Zachary Quinto's performance as the EMH. If you take a real close look, you'll see that the EMH is modeled after a Vulcan, pointy ears and all, which is befitting considering that's what he played in the movie.

  •  

    I want this game to FAIL financially. I want it to lose money because I want publishing companies to have real incentive to aim far higher than cryptic has.

    Cryptic should have said NO to the conditions of being able to use the IP (have it out in 2 years) because they knew then they would be making a mediocre game. Mediocre games - and the overwhelming consensus is that STO is mediocre at best - that are made financially successful with marketing tricks (offering lifetime subs only before launch, hype, adding a cash shop to a subscription game) is the worst thing that can happen to the MMO genre.

    Why? Because we will get more of it, and we will not get genuinely high quality games.

    I am playing a neat little F2P game (and not spending a cent) until someone produces something worth paying for.

    I had hoped, after the series of disappointments over recent years (like Champions Online, AoC and WAR) that people would have learnt to be more cautious. Waited longer before they spent money. Perhaps they have. I certainly have.

    I think we need a publisher with the balls to say they are going to charge $40 per month and produce a quality, polished game with depth that will succeed because it is value for money.

  • solarinesolarine Member Posts: 1,203
    Originally posted by Kyleran

    Originally posted by Paragus1


    Well written and the multiple scoring at the end was a great idea from one writer to another.

    it certainly was a good idea, glad I thought of it.  (should have given me credit though)

    "Perhaps what you really need is the perspective of three sorts of players, the person who despises PVP (so they can rate the game strictly from a PVE perspective), Joe average reviewer who likes PVP when its fair and balanced, and only when he wants to PVP, and the FFA PVP lover, who distains PVE with his heart and soul and wonders why he can't gank people in the tutorial.

    Then you could have a truly balanced review of the game which would really cover all the bases and people would understand the game bettter."

    www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3402736#3402736

    Reviewer twisted it a bit, but same concept overall.

    Oh yeah, back on topic.  I did enjoy the review, very fair though to me it seemed like most of the commentary was more  positive side than his final score reflected.  Didn't really seen enough negative comments to rank the game just a hair above DFO at release.

     

     



     

    In all honesty Kyleran, granting different ratings for different sorts of people is pretty old and well-known, even in the gaming industry....

    Though you did suggest it on this site, and I even remember you do it, so yeah, go ahead and have some :)

    Myself, I don't like such ratings. It's a pretense to objectivity, which any self-respecting reviewer should know he / she cannot ever have. You have to accept any review will be subjective and just go on what you feel. Honesty is the name of the game, not applicability.

    If you feel it's a 6.8, I say go ahead and give it a 6.8! :) 

     

  • camp11111camp11111 Member Posts: 602
    Originally posted by Simsu


    Multiple scoring was a good idea.



     

    It was a terrible idea and will make for some fine precedents.

    A game is a game is a game and should be rated as such.

    A game is not rated "better" or "worse" when it uses a known IP or Lore. Period.

    That's the problem on this site: games have to be evaluated and commented on their gaming value.

    Not on their "potential", "Lore origine", "promisses", "casual like" gameplay.

    The last 3 years all newly published MMo's had "fantastic IP's, Lores, potential, ideas, ...". Are we going to give higher scores now because "some ST fans" (whatever they may be) could play in their IP ?? and some Cryptic haters will hate it ?

    What's next? Giving a 9 to please the lovers of a game and a 4 for the haters of that same game?

    In the end you'll come up indeed with that dreadful "in my opinion", which btw on this site stands for ... so I like shit too, and I love it.

     

    Want a real mmorpg? Play WOW with experience turned off mode and be Pve_Pvp King at any level without a rat race.

  • Cik_AsalinCik_Asalin Member Posts: 3,033

    Im more of a casual balanced player and really do disagree with the casual score completely. It's a suggestion that the inaccurately self-defined hardcore player-type by Jon are the only ones that would find the game mediocre.  It's a scoring cop-out and lacks honesty imho. Casual players, from what I've experienced and read, find the game just as glaringly mediocre.

     

    I believe with others that if one wants to be generous, this game ranks much closer to 6 for most player-types, including casual, though that even hinting at a score of 6, rather than closer to a 5, leaves an implication that this game has more things right to offer in a mmorpg market, than it has more things poorly implemented.  That assertion that this game has done more things right than poorly is not only wrong imho, but leaves one wondering what the motivation of any score within the 7 ranking is.  Advertising perhaps?  Who knows, but it doesnt seem in-line with the norm.

     

    In short, the review is a spin-zone review and this game does clearly lack and semblance  of a 2010 mmorpg; lacking breadth, depth, and mmorpg game-play staples that suits a game being in that category.

     

    STO is a Its a shallow third-person space shooter.  The reality is:

     

    - There doesn't seem to be much respect for the Star Trek IP.



     

    - Space is space-less. Each map is nothing more than a confining shoe-box, a small space of nothing to interact with.

     

    - There is no game-play freedom of exploration. No exploration to other planets or discovery; again, your confined to your shoe-box instance. There's nothing dynamically to do in this game that would be reminiscent of Star Trek.

     

    - If you do see a planet on an instanced map, there is no "away-team" capability to freely explore its surface. Its nothing more than a static inactive marble that you bounce off of in your confined instance.

     

    - Space flight is confining and lacks freedom. There's a limited z-axis that prevents looping or gaining weapons locks on ships that are above or below, yet in front of you in many cases. It just adds to the unnecessary maneuvering of your ship.

     

    - Space is life-less, other than the instance nodes that you bump into to enter for a ship pve encounter, or to wait in a long line of trying to perform pvp with other players; its esentially a single-player lobby system game that your forced to pay $15 a month for. If you see an opposing faction player on a system map, there is absolutely no engagement.

     

    - Content is sorely lacking to the point where very very early on in this game, the 'instanced' pve quests are nothing more than similar repeatable maps and mobs of previous quests done; the static nature of pve and its' redundancy is astounding.

     

    - Quest copywriting seems very week that leads to weak story engagement or sense of draw that your actually contributing to a story-arc or meaningfully contributing to federation or klingon game-play.

     

    - Space and ground game-play combat has the most limiting, redundant, Quake 3rd-person shooter type feel of any game in the mmorpg market; its shallow.

     

    - There is no physics to ground combat as there is no physics to space combat that factor into game-play.

     

    - Ground and Space pvp combat amounts to a frag-fest of limited players and non-tactical or strategic importance in any respect to story or game-play in this faction vs. faction environment.

     

    - Like a 3rd-person or first-person shooter, the player-vs-player stuff is without any game-play contributory value, other than winning a small confining map, it amounts to run, gun, die, or run,gun, win, limp, die. But your rewarded as much for being a loser as a winner; no mmoprg game-play distinction. I havent found the game-play nutrition in this yet.

     

    - There is no reasonable complimentary opposite to winning. You win in space and on ground, you get a battery or such (a weak reward), you lose on space or on ground, you miraculously reappear next to the fight to battle like a button mashing mindless drone without consequences again. Lack of consequences to death has turned this title into a series of suicide runs for the same exact reward I get for battling tactically and strategically. The grossly equivalent rewards for those that die often is enough to leave this game.

     

    The lack of any penalty for being a suicide player is astounding. So, as a Klingon that must rely on pvp matches to level, when these suicide players enter a match just to roll into klingons without putting up any fight, but just to died repeatedly and quickly to get the match over so they can rinse and repeat, thats considered good game-design and fauir play at my game-play expense?

    There are several things missing, underwelming and poorly implemented in STO, and this has got to rank at the top of the list. . .they, those that die purposely and repeatedly without consequence, advance their own rush for experience at others game-play and immersion expense are exasperating a real problem; they are rewarded handsomely for being losers; figuratively and literally by Cryptic.

     

    - The community (massively multiplayer) element of this mmorpg is very fragmented (as opposed to expanded and cooperative) due to the great number of single-player feel instances. Community feels fragmented to one of those several small instanced zones that does nothing to encourage the feel of massively multiplayer entertainment.

     

    - No alternative industry, aka, no resource gathering towards community crafting, enterprise, or merchandising elements for the federation or klingons. Would be nice if this mmorpg staple were available to players, rather than being non-existant.



    The rants even on the Star Trek Online site have been very frequent and persistent from players about how this product not only falls way short of being an appealing Star Trek Game franchise, but how weak its game-play is to a vet mmorpg garner (not a hardcore gamer, but across the board) for any type of lasting fun.

     

  • StraddenStradden Managing EditorMember CommonPosts: 6,696
    Originally posted by solarine



    In all honesty Kyleran, granting different ratings for different sorts of people is pretty old and well-known, even in the gaming industry....
    Though you did suggest it on this site, and I even remember you do it, so yeah, go ahead and have some :)
    Myself, I don't like such ratings. It's a pretense to objectivity, which any self-respecting reviewer should know he / she cannot ever have. You have to accept any review will be subjective and just go on what you feel. Honesty is the name of the game, not applicability.
    If you feel it's a 6.8, I say go ahead and give it a 6.8! :) 
     

    I didn't go out and get "man off the street" opinions. I looked at the game as objectively as I could, and from those three particular viewpoints. I recognize that different people have different opinions and rather than try to asset my own, with no thought to anyone else, I was trying to add different perspectives. There's nothing wrong with that approach, and since people have been asking for more transparency in our reviews, I thought I'd provide some insight into my thought process.

    Cheers,
    Jon Wood
    Managing Editor
    MMORPG.com

  • camp11111camp11111 Member Posts: 602
    Originally posted by Stradden

    Originally posted by solarine



    In all honesty Kyleran, granting different ratings for different sorts of people is pretty old and well-known, even in the gaming industry....
    Though you did suggest it on this site, and I even remember you do it, so yeah, go ahead and have some :)
    Myself, I don't like such ratings. It's a pretense to objectivity, which any self-respecting reviewer should know he / she cannot ever have. You have to accept any review will be subjective and just go on what you feel. Honesty is the name of the game, not applicability.
    If you feel it's a 6.8, I say go ahead and give it a 6.8! :) 
     

    I didn't go out and get "man off the street" opinions. I looked at the game as objectively as I could, and from those three particular viewpoints. I recognize that different people have different opinions and rather than try to asset my own, with no thought to anyone else, I was trying to add different perspectives. There's nothing wrong with that approach, and since people have been asking for more transparency in our reviews, I thought I'd provide some insight into my thought process.

    A good game reviewer can pinpoint exactly the strong and the lesser points of a game.

     

    There are still universal laws for video games around, no matter how much some people try to spin things around.

    No need to play the role of Mr Jackle and Hyde to try to please everyone.

    And that reviewer is exactly on top with the medium range of what's found on the internet if he is a talented reviewer.

     

    Want a real mmorpg? Play WOW with experience turned off mode and be Pve_Pvp King at any level without a rat race.

  • NewtNewt Member Posts: 69
    Originally posted by Death1942


    great review.
     
    As for the score, i think it speaks a lot for this game when you give it under 7 and yet you still having fun.  That does not bode well for it's future.

    I wonder if  that's a side effect of the reviewer(s) playing the game FOR FREE.  The score says 'this isn't AAA quality', but he says 'I'm having fun'.  Would the review have been as 'glowing' if he had to pay for it?  I seem to recall another recent review on this site that had a low score but a flowery review...

    I would accept alot less in a free (totally free, not item shop) game than I would from something I paid for.

  • Mopar63Mopar63 Member UncommonPosts: 298
    Originally posted by Stradden


    I didn't go out and get "man off the street" opinions. I looked at the game as objectively as I could, and from those three particular viewpoints. I recognize that different people have different opinions and rather than try to asset my own, with no thought to anyone else, I was trying to add different perspectives. There's nothing wrong with that approach, and since people have been asking for more transparency in our reviews, I thought I'd provide some insight into my thought process.



     

    I personally thought it was a well done review. I might disagree with parts but that is all matters of opinion as is with every game. Thank for the three style look because I do think it is important. Hard core gamers want something very different from casual gamers and IP fans.

    The base of STO works well for the casual gamer and gives them a fun experiencew. Not great mind you but far from bad. As for the people claiming trek fans would not like it, as a long time old school Trekkie I am enjoying it. Sure the UFP is not about combat but you forget there is this little issue going on called a war, kind of changes the perspective.

    Plus lets get real this is a game first and foremost so it needs to be fun. Which is more fun spending hours waiting for scanners to gether data that will have to be actually evaluated back at the starbase or kicking Klinogn butt? Come on Star Trek exploration is BORING. You always hear them talking about all the time they have spent waiting while one officer ran a bunch of tests.

    From a game perspective exploration is hard because it is hard to make it real exploration and fun at the same time. I saw someone say more diplomacy and I wanted to scream. Explain how you can do diplomacy with either knee jerk AI responses or pure PvP where the other guy knows it is just a game and so does not want to deal with real diplomacy?

    It is easy for people to arm chair quarterback how this game should be made but seriously how many of you could make it? Lets get real most have no clue about game development and programming.

    At the end of the day it is simple, you like the game play it, you do not like then do not play.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,321

    It is funny but I find 'heavy' instancing in STO quite enjoyable.

    Some pros as I see them:

    ¤ I do not have to run back and forth

    Did you ever tried to measure time in other MMO you need to walk to quest location and then back to quest giver?

    This is what annoys me very much and STO is like a bliss.

    ¤ Star Trek feel

    1) You make the world open and persistant but you lose some of the 'Star Trek feel'. Having hundreds of ships flying around does not feel right.

    2) You make the world instanced to keep the feeling of place where 'no man has gone before' but you lose some 'size' and the 'believability' of the world.

    Neither way you do it is right. This is a design choice with pros and cons no matter the actual implementation.

    To me, Star Trek as it is, is a single player game. Enterprise was always lone and lonely adventure.


    As for the beef with IP, I am not getting it at all.

    ¤ IP is the world and lore. No more no less.

    In no way it binds you to reproduce anything from other IP based creations.

  • TerranahTerranah Member UncommonPosts: 3,575

    A fair review with a bit of constructive criticism.  I think Cryptic would do well to listen closely to reviews and STO gamers alike, and work hard on their game to make it better.

     

    As it is, I am enjoying it at the moment, but I do like meat with my potatoes.

  • nikoliathnikoliath Member UncommonPosts: 1,154
    Originally posted by Gdemami


    It is funny but I find 'heavy' instancing in STO quite enjoyable.
    Some pros as I see them:
     
    ¤ I do not have to run back and forth
    Did you ever tried to measure time in other MMO you need to walk to quest location and then back to quest giver?
    This is what annoys me very much and STO is like a bliss.
     
    ¤ Star Trek feel
    1) You make the world open and persistant but you lose some of the 'Star Trek feel'. Having hundreds of ships flying around does not feel right.
    2) You make the world instanced to keep the feeling of place where 'no man has gone before' but you lose some 'size' and the 'believability' of the world.
    Neither way you do it is right. This is a design choice with pros and cons no matter the actual implementation.
    To me, Star Trek as it is, is a single player game. Enterprise was always lone and lonely adventure.
     


    As for the beef with IP, I am not getting it at all.
    ¤ IP is the world and lore. No more no less.
    In no way it binds you to reproduce anything from other IP based creations.

    Shoooo.. your logic is unwelcome in these threads!   

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,321


    Originally posted by camp11111

    A good game reviewer can pinpoint exactly the strong and the lesser points of a game.
     
    There are still universal laws for video games around, no matter how much some people try to spin things around.
    No need to play the role of Mr Jackle and Hyde to try to please everyone.
    And that reviewer is exactly on top with the medium range of what's found on the internet if he is a talented reviewer.
     

    As I see it, review and ratings have different principles and purpose.


    Review can be very unbiased and pretty objective with zero subjective opinion. It basicaly tells you how the game works and what's inside.

    Rating on the other hand has no objective measurements, it is purely subjective.


    Reading a review can be sometimes very difficult to 'extract' how the game feels.
    Rating kind of represents that so when you score for different udience, it is you telling them - you will like/dislike the game about 'that' much.


    Neither way is wrong, it is just different approach.

    Personaly I do find different scoring a bit silly since then you would need to assume that the every single reader you make the scoring for can be objectively defined into a category. If not, such scoring is no better than single rating :)

  • weslubowweslubow Member UncommonPosts: 163

    Great review! Not only was it right on the mark, but the reviewer didn't try to be soft on anything.

    The game is suffering from a lack of depth. A few of the missions are quite good, but they are in short supply. The ground combat could use an upgrade to make it more fun. Can't say much about the crafting because I haven't done any.

    The gathering of the raw materials for crafting is just odd. Finding alien artifacts and devices, then doing nothing with them seems strange. Can we examine them? How about reverse engineer something? Find parts of a device that when put together causes or gives something fun? Or even something silly? (an I-pod or equally useless something)  Or a free respec of looks or skills. More skill points? Better engines, shields, or weapons? A ground weapon, shield, or whatever? Meet a new race? Why don't some of the artifacts or devices lead us to a new civilization? 

    I still enjoy the space combat. Trying a science type. Quite different from the others. The tactical based was a bit boring. Engineering was pretty fun.

    The ship customization didn't seem to do much. Granted my vision isn't the best anymore. (don't get older)

    Character options are very good. Have made several types of aliens.

    The game is for those easy going types. Hard core people will hate it.

    In my opinion this game is a bit shallow. Still it is a decent base to build from. Better thought out missions would go a long way towards keeping interest.

    Ground combat could use some cover advantages as an option. Try to use cover and the enemy can hit you anyway?

    PVP is funny. Obviously young people just charge you. Sort of like waving your hands and yelling "Kill me first!" Some are quite skilled and tough to kill.

  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,597
    Originally posted by Yamota


    Trek fans would score this game as 7.5?
    I am a Trek fan and I am insulted by that. Star Trek is so much more than combat, which this game is almost only about. So to say that Trek fans would score this game 7.5 is ridicilous. Star Trek is full of depth, exploration, diplomacy, technology for which this game has almost none.
    Also you failed to mention the zero death penalty. A Galaxy class starship, with thousands of crew, being destroyed and respawned in 10 seconds with no consequences, at all, alone would make most Star Trek fans puke.

     

    Hmmm.  Despite that we're probably not far off on our views of this game, I have to respond.

    I'm a Trek fan and I'm NOT offended.  I'm also an MMO fan, and I continue to not be offended.

    But then, I have never seen Star Trek as a "deep" franchise.  But then, I come from mostly ToS and TNG; maybe in ds9 or Voyager or Enterprise they get deep into the specifics of Schroedingers Cat as a metaphoric plotline, or something. 

    In my experience, episodes in STO fit that level of depth pretty well.  They just don't involve you in it, which in an MMO format shouldn't come as a surprise.  And that depth is pretty weak compared to most MMO's I've played.

    You and I probably agree that STO is shallow, but to be honest, the only thing that makes Star Trek(as a franchise) seem deep is most other popular sci-fi shows of the 50's-80's.  Compared to books and actual science, Star Trek was barely in line with even the fiction of it.  Geordi's techspeak, for example, was absolutely nonsensical, or at best, a word salad of a process that fit right at home in 60-80's technology.  He says something about an issue with isolinear circuits being sealed, or something like that, in "The Booby Trap", for example.

    An ambitious 9th grader coulda come up with that stuff.  Come to think of it, I did(despite not being ambitious).  Even had the problem... on an '85 Daytona Turbo.  Fixed it with electrical tape.

    Again, heavy for a 80's TV show.  But that doesn't say much, or demand much from an MMO.

  • GhostSeverGhostSever Member Posts: 23
    Originally posted by solarine

    Originally posted by GhostSever


    I love how because the reviewer said it is an MMORPG that it is magically an MMORPG. The reviewers opinion is no more valid then mine is.  Once STO tries to become even a little bit massive give me a call.



     

    I hate to break it to you, but yes, it is. 

    Just as a newspaper columnist's is more valid. 

    There are people out there who coin terms, define genres and trends. Like defining what "science fiction" is. Their opinions are always more valid than the man on the street. They have established a competency for knowing what they're talking about and convinced popular vote or people who affect popular vote of said competency. We use their definitions versus my grandfather's uncle's.

    How the world works. Welcome to it.

     

    Alright i guess you take Ann Coulters opinions as more valid then most peoples because she sell millions of books. Your comment makes me laugh. It is so irrational in so many ways i dont even know where to start.

    Playing: Fallen Earth
    Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2 and Secret World

    "Whats a Canadian? He's like an American, but he doesn't use alot of dangerous adjectives"

    "Part of loving a woman is accepting Sting"

    "They never find a dead person on Antique Road Show"

    "Isn't Unix made by fat people?"

Sign In or Register to comment.