Ensign
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7
# 11
06-29-2012, 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boglejam73 View Post
Sorry OP, but this is a computer based game that has a different set of challenges then those faced by TV and movies.

Think of it as the difference between passive entertainment and interactive entertainment. Thats why we get the pew-pew and not the exploration/diplomacy game. You should maybe try Civ 5.

And a lot of your complaints fail to consider that there are technological limitations faced by video games that TV shows and movies don't have to deal with. Thats why we get sector space chunked.

I call guys like you the Trek Prophets. You talk about how the game isn't true to Trek as if you have some personal claim over what that means. You liked the exploration/shoot-to-stun stuff. I liked watching ships get blown up and people getting kicked to the head. Both happened in Trek. Both are equally valid.
Ok, so what you're doing there is saying a video game that provides exploration and diplomacy won't work, and then giving an example of one where it does. Good job.

I don't accept ur remark about technological limitations either. There have been Star Trek games since the 1980s that were a lot truer to the franchise than this example.

I also don't accept your remarks that exploration/blowing stuff up are equally valid. They're both elements of Star Trek, but if you treat them as equal elements then you end up with Babylon 5.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 155
# 12
06-29-2012, 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jester2186 View Post
Ok, so what you're doing there is saying a video game that provides exploration and diplomacy won't work, and then giving an example of one where it does. Good job.

I don't accept ur remark about technological limitations either. There have been Star Trek games since the 1980s that were a lot truer to the franchise than this example.

I also don't accept your remarks that exploration/blowing stuff up are equally valid. They're both elements of Star Trek, but if you treat them as equal elements then you end up with Babylon 5.
Whats wrong with Babylon 5?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 236
# 13
06-29-2012, 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jester2186 View Post
Ok, so what you're doing there is saying a video game that provides exploration and diplomacy won't work, and then giving an example of one where it does. Good job.

I don't accept ur remark about technological limitations either. There have been Star Trek games since the 1980s that were a lot truer to the franchise than this example.

I also don't accept your remarks that exploration/blowing stuff up are equally valid. They're both elements of Star Trek, but if you treat them as equal elements then you end up with Babylon 5.
1. No he didn't. He just said that this is a video game that is part of a genre that panders to the "blow stuff up nice and big" crowd, and that as an MMO, it would fail if there wasn't any action/explosions. The Civ 5 comment was meant to tell you that if you don't like Star Trek Online for the reasons that you stated, you should play a game like Civ 5.

2. Define "truer", since last I checked, there have been no Star Trek games that were able to make space infinite despite software limitations. While you are at it, tell me how making the size of space in a Star Trek game closer to the size of space in the Star Trek shows/movies make it "truer"?

3. Actually, the show you are looking for is Andromeda, another TV show that took place in outer space that featured equal parts exploration and action.

P.S. Andromeda was created by Gene Roddenberry.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 891
# 14
06-29-2012, 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jester2186 View Post
Ok, so what you're doing there is saying a video game that provides exploration and diplomacy won't work, and then giving an example of one where it does. Good job.

I don't accept ur remark about technological limitations either. There have been Star Trek games since the 1980s that were a lot truer to the franchise than this example.

I also don't accept your remarks that exploration/blowing stuff up are equally valid. They're both elements of Star Trek, but if you treat them as equal elements then you end up with Babylon 5.
Tharkan responded on my behalf and nailed it. Thanks, T.

You don't have to accept my remarks - they weren't made for your approval. They were made to point out that just because you don't feel like this game is true to Trek doesn't neccessarily make that true. There is more to Trek then just the elements you mentioned in your OP. Until someone makes a game called "ST:O-Jesters Personal Flavor" you're not going to be satisfied.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 278
# 15
06-29-2012, 01:29 PM
wait......worf is an enemy of the federation? that blows, i didnt know that

what mission says this?/ how did u come to this conclusion?

join date: Jan. 2012
Ensign
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7
# 16
06-29-2012, 05:10 PM
Hahaha, ok thanks for your input fanboys.

There's really no need to try to correct me or tell me I'm wrong. I don't expect my remarks to make any difference to anything really, and I suppose making them on the STO forum might have been a mistake, since most of the people who would agree with me have either left already, or been banned.

I'm not oblivious to the pressure on Cryptic to make STO a success. For that reason alone I realise they're not going to take it down for 5 years while they make a better game. I know the story of the development of STO well enough to realise that this was a rare opportunity to redress a fairly successful MMO (Champions Online) as something else and sell it again to a massive new target audience (anyone who likes Star Trek video games even a bit). And businesses being businesses that makes sense.

I'm also not saying STO should be canned. It's not a basket-case, and I've had some fun with it. What I am saying is, if this was a new project starting from the ground up, it would have resulted in a far more successful and worthy product with a few tweaks and a better sense of what makes Star Trek what it is. Using such a huge brand with such an enormous fanbase does require a little sensitivity towards the expectations of quality and integrity to what has gone before. This is what I mean by 'truer' - having more of the truth of Star Trek (yes I know it's a work of fiction). However in many senses, this product has sought to recreate Star Trek in what some would argue is a more MMORPG-friendly style.

Since making the remark about 'Mirror Universe Star Trek Online', I have been struck by the thought that this concept would actually have resulted in a much better Star Trek MMORPG, which would not only have met with higher approval among Trek fans but would have added to the accepted lore rather than trying to remould it.

Perhaps my expectations for STO were too high, but that doesn't mean that this criticism is any less valid. This forum is for community feedback - this is my feedback. Please don't shoot me down.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,395
# 17
06-29-2012, 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tharkan View Post
Space is theoretically infinite, and programming is finite.
Looks like you haven't been trying to "explore" Ker'rat hard enough, bro.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 891
# 18
06-30-2012, 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jester2186 View Post
Hahaha, ok thanks for your input fanboys.
And thats as far as I got in your post.

You post something, people disagree with you, and you resort to namecalling? Tells me two things - your OP really was as weak as I thought and that you need to grow up.

You post on a forum for a discussion, not to have a bunch of people line up to tell you how awesomely right and unchallenable your opinion is. If your respose to people disagreeing with you is to call them fanboys, then whatever rebuttal you had after that isn't worth the effort to read.

fail thread. Moving on. Nothing to see here.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 150
# 19
06-30-2012, 05:03 AM
This is a Star Trek game, not a Star Trek simulator.
Ensign
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7
# 20
06-30-2012, 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boglejam73 View Post
And thats as far as I got in your post.

You post something, people disagree with you, and you resort to namecalling? Tells me two things - your OP really was as weak as I thought and that you need to grow up.

You post on a forum for a discussion, not to have a bunch of people line up to tell you how awesomely right and unchallenable your opinion is. If your respose to people disagreeing with you is to call them fanboys, then whatever rebuttal you had after that isn't worth the effort to read.

fail thread. Moving on. Nothing to see here.
Thank God for that - goodbye. Seriously, if you can't get over reading a single sentence you don't like your input is really not required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by obiwanjabroni View Post
This is a Star Trek game, not a Star Trek simulator.
Precisely! If you're going to call a game something as broad as 'Star Trek Online' it should be a true representation of every facet of that name and not just a few token bits and pieces. An MMO of STO, conceptually, should be as close to a ST Sim as you can get.
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 01:17 PM.