ZAM's "Another Look at Star Trek Online"
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
10-02-2009, 11:29 AM
Originally Posted by
Sincere thanks for taking the time to comment, Kirby.
My impression is that you didn't really disagree with the bottom-line points I offered, but rather that you disliked the style in which they were presented, or felt I was bullying the ZAM author or Cryptic, and decided that someone ought to try to spank me for it. Most of your responses were mere quibbles.
My main disagreement was simply that the impression I had was that you had minor grievances and that those directed your final opinion, instead of the article as a whole. The internet doesn't convey tone very well. But I would not try to spank you for it, or anyone... unless that "anyone" is a nubile... ah, never mind. (Never understood the entertainment with that kind of spanking anyway.)
Actually, I very clearly said: "This article presents absolutely nothing to back up the claim of 'epic exploration.'" I don't mind a previewer telling gamers that some feature will be part of a game if evidence is given to support that claim. But stating that something "epic" will be part of a game without showing readers some evidence for that statement is simply a journalistic mistake -- it would be better either to give some evidence of that epic feature or not make the claim.
Is there some part of that perspective you actually disagree with?
Vaguely, no; however, rereading his article, he did provide a taste of the exploration in the second to last paragraph. "
Settings and characters from the series will definitely be making an appearance in the game,
as our PAX demo confirmed
. During the course of our preview we landed on a strange desert world that was home to an entity of considerable power and wisdom, yanked straight from one of my favorite episodes of the original series, 'The City on the Edge of Forever.'
" It may seem a paucity of information to extrapolate from, but it was there (even if we weren't given a plethora of examples).
They have, hence some of my admitted twitchiness on this subject. If you feel like searching, you'll find that I've commented several times when Craig has used the term "strategic" in various interviews to describe ship combat when "tactical" is the factually more correct descriptor.
Hmm. I'm relatively new to the forums (I knew there were here last year, but just signed up recently), but I'll keep an eye out for that.
I would say you're making quite a few assumptions there yourself.
Now, now, I never assume. I may presume, since there's no maxim to go with that.
But just general knowledge deductions allow me to speculate. :Looks at straws. Contemplates grasping.:
They did appear to me to be saying that ships in STO have been designed to fill DPS and tank and support roles, and that's all I objected to.
Ah. Put that way, I will have to agree with you.
Just one thumb?
Well, it's essentially the same good news we've been hearing about the same previews.
At any rate, long back-and-forth exchanges are boring for everyone else on a public forum, so I hope this note suffices to answer your objections to my criticisms of the ZAM article. If not, please feel free to PM me; if I have time, I'll do my best to respond to any civil questions or comments.
No worries. This is good enough for me. Besides, if you don't respond here, I can feel like I've gotten the last word in and relish in my (sleepy) hollow victory.