Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1
# 1 So True and to the point...
10-21-2012, 12:58 AM
None of the cheerleader propaganda from Cryptic. A true review at last!

http://www.nowgamer.com/pc/pc-review...2p_review.html
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
# 2
10-21-2012, 01:20 AM
Whilst there's a lot I agree with it's mixed in with things I very much disagree with too.

Invoking the name of Gene Roddenberry like he's some sort of utopian god-figure who speaks through the reviewer ; check.

Him wanting what is essentially Eve online and thinking how that would turn out (knowing how players act in MMOGs) would somehow do the star trek license more justice is something I find outright laughable (Not that Cryptic does much better at doing the license justice, mind).

Stating that star trek has never been about ground combat, with the inference that it has been about ship combat, when to me it's always seemed to be more about attempting to avoid both, seems to be something that shows more what he prefers than what 'star trek is about'.
Joined August 2008
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 145
Blasphemy!!!


I do not hear the words of traitors, as Gowron would say...
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,304
# 4
10-21-2012, 01:22 AM
(1) A negative review from a site I have never heard of ...
(2) 8 and a half months old ...
(3) Submitted by a poster who in his post title takes pride in having been banned from the forums ...
(4) leaves me with but one question ...

If you hate this game so much, then why are you back ?

I will not use the word, but allow this description to sink in everyone ...
A large sized creature from the Dungeons and Dragons game, humanoid in shape, green nasty skin, large ugly nose, smelly, regenrates from any damage ... except fire (and with a kind DM acid) ...

If you know what the above creature is ...

<Insert name of creature> Post

Enjoy your next ban.

And to add some minor feedback to the original point.
I agree with some of what was said in the review, but I agree with Cormoran above.
The invocation of the sacred Roddenberry name was the first clue that I could not take this seriously as a review. Don't take that as anything against Gene Roddenberry, but at least I'm honest about people whose work I enjoy, and not lightly deiify them as the reviewer seems to do.

yes this game could be more Trek in feel.
believe it or not , rewards or not, the Foundry is the best reason to play this game if someone is looking for the "feel" and spirit of Trek.

Just sayin'

Last edited by hippiejon; 10-21-2012 at 01:27 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 92
# 5
10-21-2012, 04:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cormoran View Post
Whilst there's a lot I agree with it's mixed in with things I very much disagree with too.

Invoking the name of Gene Roddenberry like he's some sort of utopian god-figure who speaks through the reviewer ; check.

Him wanting what is essentially Eve online and thinking how that would turn out (knowing how players act in MMOGs) would somehow do the star trek license more justice is something I find outright laughable (Not that Cryptic does much better at doing the license justice, mind).

Stating that star trek has never been about ground combat, with the inference that it has been about ship combat, when to me it's always seemed to be more about attempting to avoid both, seems to be something that shows more what he prefers than what 'star trek is about'.
can't argue with this. TOS was never about combat, but it was there as a necessity, if it couldn't be avoided which the reviewer fails to realize, and Kirk was quite able to avoid it if possible or threaten to unleash hell which again would result in it's avoidance.

the one thing missing from STO is real exploration in regions no one has been to before.
I don't see exploring whatever cluster as the same thing, cuz we already know that something is there. I believe it's the unknown we want to explore. let's go somewhere and maybe find systems fighting it out for whatever reason and help settle thing for them, and not in the way "aid the planet" works. or perhaps an "aid the planet" where we have to actually land and solve whatever problem exists there, maybe something along the lines of what Picard did to help Draema IV or find out once and for all what happened to those Romulan outposts that just up and disappeared. was it the borg, chrystaline entity, or was it something else? no one really knows. there's more, but I think you get the idea
WE SURVIVE!

aut vincere aut mori pro imperio
either to conquer or to die for the Empire
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 150
# 6
10-21-2012, 04:38 AM
I wonder why would posting the link to that review be a bannable offense.

The article author shared his thoughts about the game, we may agree or disagree, comment on it and that's it.

But in the end it's devs who should read that article and try to improve the game aspects the author found "yucky". A better game means more players and more players means more money.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
# 7
10-21-2012, 04:45 AM
Reviews should not be taken as "the truth".
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,202
# 8
10-21-2012, 06:06 AM
Quote:
To do the license real justice Star Trek Online should be a living, breathing economy-led sandbox game where the players themselves have the scope to become captains of legend and, by extension, an intrinsic part of game lore. Factions and alliances should rise and fall and great battles should be fought to the dying breath.

Instead we have what essentially amounts to MMO-lite ? quick access to meaningless PVP and PVE events, unwanted ground combat (beyond the odd phaser fight, Star Trek has never been about ground combat) and underwhelming and unfulfilling space-battles. Sure, you can tweak your starship to within an inch of a warp core breach, but its appeal to the Star Trek faithful is shallow at best.
Couldn't agree more.

For sure it's not "the truth" but most of the time reviewing games is the author's job, so he should know what he's talking about.

Last edited by diogene0; 10-21-2012 at 06:08 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,049
# 9
10-21-2012, 12:57 PM
I keep on hearing this. Well, let's see.

#1. Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek was Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Everyone else's Star Trek was Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan. Which do most people like more? I'm pretty sure it was the second.

#2. Roddenberry's ideals are fine for a Federation which has people who lack most qualities of individuality and are starting from the pre-determined point that everything is paradise. It does not work so well when you actually dissect how things actually have to work, in that people have faults and butt heads with each other. And it REALLY does not work when you realize Cryptic is a real company in a capitalistic society that has to feed its workers and pay its corporate overlords for the right to exist, not an altruistic not-for-profit organization dedicated to espousing a fictional ideal. Roddenberry himself wrote Star Trek for cash, and considering some of the stuff he did, such as adding lyrics to the Star Trek theme song so he'd get part of the royalties, I'm pretty certain that he'd insist the main thing Cryptic was doing wrong was not grossly overcharging enough. It's odd, but I think some Star Trek fans have an illusion on top of an illusion - Roddenberry's view of utopia, and a utopic vision of Roddenberry and his view of utopia.

#3. This is a video game, not a moralistic play. If you want moral plays, pick up some of the Star Trek episodes from any series that center more on that sort of thing. In a video game you're looking for wish fulfillment, among other things. I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I wasn't postulating the socialistic quandaries of Picard leaving a race to die to fulfill the Prime Directive. I was wondering if Picard could somehow trash three full-powered Romulan Warbirds with the Enterprise.

#4. A lot of the things that are asked for, re: exploration, would likely end up being either a) terribly generic, or b) require AI that just doesn't exist yet. People here can manage to grind from level 1 to 50 in 20 hours (took me a month) - if you're going through things at that rapid fire of a rate I don't see how you're absorbing story anyway, let alone how it's expected that you do a lot of exploration missions that the devs have to somehow write, design, and code. Also, this is not Sim City Trek, so micromanaging colonies is a bit much to expect from it (as some have indicated)

#5. Almost every other Star Trek video game has focused on combat. Heck, the VERY FIRST Star Trek video game produced by bored programmers for mainframes was a war simulator where you commanded the Enterprise via text-based commands against a Klingon fleet.

STO is far from perfect. It has problems. A lot of them. But this kind of criticism is pretty well overblown.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 117
# 10
10-21-2012, 02:56 PM
I concur with Red. MMO limitations aside, that reviewer attempts to impose his views on the hapless reviewer. Its not a review, its an opinion piece from someone who likely hoped for a Star Trek Sim, wanted to play from the bottom ranks, and have relationships with npc crew.
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 06:24 PM.