Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
06-05-2010, 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The.Grand.Nagus View Post
If replying to someone else's argument somehow makes it your argument, then that would mean it it is now YOUR argument as well.



And as I said in my last post, if you want to use that reasoning, it would also mean the only enemy we could fight would be the Borg, since they were the only enemy in FC.

But silly arguments aside, lets recap the situation you and are I actually discussing. The person earlier made the argument that since FC was the most popular TNG movie, and FC was mainly combat, that it stands to reason that STO follow that same example. My reply to his argument was that FC was NOT mainly combat; in fact there was more non-combat than combat. So using HIS logic(that what was shown in FC should be represented in game), that would mean there would be more non-combat missions than combat missions. However, the idea of what was shown in FC being represented in game was his idea; not mine. I simply pointed out that his reasoning actually proved the opposite of what he thought it did.
Dude, chill.

I didn't say it was your original argument.

Responses to other people's posts are also arguments (more specifically you were writing a rebuttal to that poster's contention or argument).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
06-05-2010, 11:58 AM
Well, I agree that combat, and action are key to any game. And that STO should continue to develope and refine its combat systems, especially ground.

They could still do well to add more opportunities where it isn't always shoot first and ask questions later. Diplomacy system, UGC, and Ship Interiors will offer Cryptic the opportunity to solve this I hope.

Missions where you beam an away team over to fix a stranded ships warp core, tractor a disabled ship to safety, Scan a new entity and open dialoge with a new races are elements they should consider being part of these future features. Rescue Colonists, find a cure to some new disease, deliver Ambassadors etc can and should be added to the game.

Anything that adds depth and options to the Genisis system or Episodes offering a variety outside of combat action will always do good for the game. Concentrating 100% on Combat, not so much.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
06-05-2010, 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
Dude, chill.
Aw, your one of those people who takes people posting on a game forum seriously, arent you? That so cute
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
06-05-2010, 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMiracle View Post
No, I didn't, Nagus. Go back and read the post you were responding to. I replied to someone who said that the game has way more killing and violence than Star Trek. My response was that yes, it has more killing and violence than say, TOS by far, but if you look at FC, the most popular of the TNG movies, its actually far more violent (and graphically so) than this game is.
As a matter of fact, I did read your post. The fact that you put "re: the violence" at the end shows that you were not discussing violence at all in your previous statements, which were the ones that talked about TOS and the new movie. Everything in your post except for the last sentence was about the story, and which series people were fans of determining how they feel about this game.

The one sentence in your post that was about the violence brought up FC, and implied that it had some relation to what is portrayed in the game. My response is simply that as far as violence goes, there was more non-violence in FC than violence, which proves the opposite of the point you are trying to make. Thanks for playing though
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
06-05-2010, 12:12 PM
I think this game could feel alot like Star Trek, if Cryptic takes the right steps to make it so. Ability to disable engine trails is a good start, the engine trails werent in any film or TV shows...and even werent in JJ's film. Then, redoing the Sol system...removing the colourful starfield around Earth...and then adding starfleet academy in SF. Then, redo the entire interior of Earth Spacedock to be more impressive...right now it feels like a cold, huge...nasty base....it just doesnt feel like a 2409..comfortable starbase. Revamping ground combat to be more Trek like....Trek was never about shooting a guy 20 times and killing him...it was always one or two shots and the person was down.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
06-05-2010, 12:16 PM
I have an off-topic, on-topic question. Why do people ask questions, proffering an honest discussion of something about the game, only to have the thread turn into a back-and-forth over semantics and nonsense? The bickering turns people away from wanting to contribute. It doesn't help the original post at all. Read the question, formulate a response, post your response, move on.

As for the original question, no, I don't think they totally hit the mark. In terms of visible, tangible elements, they certainly got the image of Trek. But when it comes down to it, it's hollow, and it misses the very deep, moral and ethical questions, the fear and uncertainty of what's around the corner, the vastness of space and its problems - the things the characters we watched had to deal with and overcome. Those elements are lacking. They made a game that looks like Star Trek, but doesn't feel like Star Trek.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
06-05-2010, 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayfulDreamer View Post
I have an off-topic, on-topic question. Why do people ask questions, proffering an honest discussion of something about the game, only to have the thread turn into a back-and-forth over semantics and nonsense?
It is the nature of the internet/forums in general, sometimes referred to as "forum PvP" :p

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayfulDreamer View Post
IThey made a game that looks like Star Trek, but doesn't feel like Star Trek.
I think that statement sums things up quite nicely.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
06-05-2010, 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The.Grand.Nagus View Post
For a while I have been trying to find my old issue of GameInformer, and this morning I finally found it under my bed

Anyway, there were some interesting quotes from Craig Zinkievich that I thought were worthy of discussion:

"It's not about making an MMO that's Star Trek. It's about bringing Star Trek to a massively multiplayer arena"

"We dont want to focus on making an MMO so much as bringing the Star Trek universe to life"


Now obviously this was pretty soon after they aquired the title, and these statements were simply their goal. The question is simple: Do you think Cryptic achieved the goals stated above?

Personally, I think so parts of STO are very much Star Trek, while others are very much not. What do you think?
I can see that. Couple that with the quotes about them not trying as much to make a Star Trek game as they were trying to make a game and I think you have a nutshell view of the design philosophy and how you will probably react to it based on your personal views.

Game > Star Trek > MMO

Anywhere some people say, "This isn't an MMO" (for example, instancing, lack of crafting), the answer really is generally, "Because it's Star Trek." Trek trumps it being an MMO.

Anywhere some people say, "This isn't Star Trek" (for example, customization, violence, new elements), the answer really is generally, "Because it's a game." Being a game trumps being "true" to Star Trek.

I'd say most of the harsher critics would have preferred:

A) Trek > MMO > Game

OR

B) MMO > Trek > Game

I can see that.

At the same time, I think I probably would have sacrificed truth to Trek for gameplay and MMO qualities for Trek consistency, just not always in the same ways.

I think the biggest place they blew their priorities was Klingons. The only "need" for multiple factions comes from expectations of MMOs having factions. In general, I don't think that being Trek in any way demands multiple factions as the VAST, VAST majority of Trek is entirely Federation centric and I think the development time spent on Klingons could have been better applied to a better game and truer to Trek experience.

I think it would have been better to release a more polished single faction game and save Klingons for an expansion. I understand WHY this didn't happen. Jack Emmert looked back at City of Heroes and saw that City of Villains did more to retain subscribers than bring in any new ones. I think the feeling was that the game would have a broader initial base with two factions. The problem is that they didn't have the development assets necessary to retain that extra base.

I personally think it would have been a stronger choice to save Klingons for an expansion or a micro-expansion and then evaluate the ways City of Villains was put together to make this expansion something that would grow the playerbase.

If there had been a burning need to launch with two factions, I honestly think it would have been smarter to launch with a smaller, less popular second faction as a taste of what multiple factions will bring. Because that FIRST extra faction will always be the red headed stepchild to an extent. It's where the mistakes will be. The later factions will likely be better when they launch.

You have Ferengi as a second launch faction and botch it, you won't alienate the larger fanbases like Romulans, Borg, Cardassians or Klingons.

Also, making the first extra faction one that is occasionally but not necessarily generally hostile to the Federation means they can share missions/quests as well as PvP against the Federation. And it makes up for them being the red headed stepchild faction somewhat if they do get universal content access. Ferengi faction could theoretically run missions for any faction if the price is right. So what they'd lack in initial polish, they'd make up for in universality.

Beyond that, I think it would have more clearly established the design philosophy as being more like Chinese Checkers than Chess. This isn't an Alliance vs. Horde style game. This the Federation vs. multiple smaller but not quite equally sized or important factions. However, launching WITH Klingons made it easy for MMO players to see the factions as an Alliance vs. Horde thing. Yes, the developers said "equal" but I think what they meant was "not at a disadvantage in PvP". There's no way to do a Star Trek game that will grow to 5-10 factions and not emphasize the Federation more, without sacrificing the feel of the Trek TV shows and films.

I think they largely met their stated priorities, the decision to include Klingons at launch aside. I think many or even most prospective players may have had different priorities going in and that has been an adjustment for Cryptic.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
06-05-2010, 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
I can see that.
Wow, that was an amazingly well thought out post. And no, I'm not trying to be funny with what I quoted above, just doing it for convenience
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
06-05-2010, 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgomir View Post
I think this game could feel alot like Star Trek, if Cryptic takes the right steps to make it so. Ability to disable engine trails is a good start, the engine trails werent in any film or TV shows...and even werent in JJ's film. Then, redoing the Sol system...removing the colourful starfield around Earth...and then adding starfleet academy in SF. Then, redo the entire interior of Earth Spacedock to be more impressive...right now it feels like a cold, huge...nasty base....it just doesnt feel like a 2409..comfortable starbase. Revamping ground combat to be more Trek like....Trek was never about shooting a guy 20 times and killing him...it was always one or two shots and the person was down.
All great ideas to make this more like Starfleet Online.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:14 AM.