The whiners in this thread may have lost more subs for Cryptic than any decision made by Cryptic.
Cryptic is going to lose plenty of subs after the game is released. This is CO all over again. I'm just trying to save people some money (and I don't particularly like companies taking advantage of people).
The whiners in this thread may have lost more subs for Cryptic than any decision made by Cryptic.
This is different from a whine - how, exactly?
Do you know the saying "Don't kill the messenger"?
Most of the negative posts are just pointing out the flaws in the game Cryptic is going to be releasing. Cryptic is responsible for the flaws, themselves.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Originally posted by Scrogdog The lack of multi-player ships and a fuly fleshed out second faction say nothing about the amount of content that will be available. That's a whole seperate argument in my opinion.
Let's talk about that separate argument.
I haven't heard much good about the content that is available from Beta Testers I've talked to. Seems pretty shallow, overall. That said, how can you really expect depth from Cryptic? All their MMOs have been pretty shallow and like CO, STO is rushed. Do people somehow think the exploration is anything but the standard Cryptic random and instanced fair they have always done? Yeah, this time it is random planets, but that's about it. They've been talking about the Genesis system for a while, but they don't actually show any play examples of it, now do they? In fact, for all their "talk" it really is rather hard to pick out many details other than it randomly generates planets and is used for mission generation. Contrast this to the combat system, where a lot more is known, but they've talked about both about as much (just the former they talk about a lot in vague terms). They were vague about the Klingons too and look how they are turning out. And again before anyone asks me if I play Beta, know that I've talked with people who have, and they say the game is pretty shallow overall.
Cryptic is doing the same thing with STO they did with CO. Preorder goodies and trying to get as many people to initially buy a rushed game as possible. STO is even more rushed than CO and look how CO turned out! Why does anyone expect STO to magically have more depth than CO does when it had even less development time? Why does anyone expect STO to magically have content depth when the Devs speak of the content only in vague terms? That's a standard tactic for making content light games look more rich. Games with real content depth have marketing that goes into detail about that depth, because there lots of details to share and it is a big selling point.
Of course, we also have a PvP faction where there is going to essentially be no PvP testing. Yeah, that's going to work out great in terms of game balance, especially when Cryptic is well-known for totally crappy balance. There are other problems with the Klingons being PvP only, but the fact is that Cryptic won't be able to even get THAT right -- even a semblance of PvP balance does not just happen on its own.
The ships will look Star Trek-esque, but everyone carrying around weapons (even on a Starbase), and lots of different weapons at that, everyone wearing different uniforms, non-combat missions being paper-thin at best, along with Cryptic's classic problems combined with the problems of a rushed game...how can anyone think this game is going to be any good at all? But yeah, let's all buy it because buying even crappy Star Trek games tells the industry that we want good Star Trek games! Oh wait, no it doesn't. It tells the Industry any garbage they make with "Star Trek" on it will make them lots of money.
I do not necessarily disagree. History is not on our side here.
I think that we may play these games for different reasons. I don't solo much. I love to group and meet new people.
In fact, my favorite guy in all of mmo-land may have been my EQ Druid, by all accounts, the "easy" character to play. I really didn't care about impressing anyone, but the friends I made just by being a helping kind of guy was amazing. I was like Kwai Chang Caine - the wanderer. I'd come over a hill and someone would be in trouble and I could help them without KSing with buffs and heals.
Which is why I hated EQ2 and its locked encounters. Ruined everything.
Can you imagine a more boring premise than EQ1? Grind mobs in a zone and then move to the next. That's almost WHY role play and social things were required. Sometimes simply getting to somewhere that you needed to be was half the challenge.
I had a lot of fun with COH. I had a mind controller who was outfitted sort of like a black uniformed green arrow with a hood. If you soloed, the game sucked. It is the same old story with newer mmos. They are judged on things that have nothing to do with adventuring, role playing, and having fun with your friends. I'm sorry, COH was just cool from that perspective.
And that's exactly what has been lost in recent years. The REAL fun. In my humble opinion, of course.
Same thing in STO. We are getting a setting. What we make of it is up to us. Just like in the old PnP days of gaming.
Originally posted by Scrogdog And that's exactly what has been lost in recent years. The REAL fun. In my humble opinion, of course. Same thing in STO. We are getting a setting. What we make of it is up to us. Just like in the old PnP days of gaming.
Well, the biggest problem is the forced soloing.
I love grouping. All of my best times in MMOs have been in groups. A Star Trek game where a few friends could run together in the same ship, with assigned duties, would be freaking AMAZING. That is the #1 reason I am so disappointed in what Cryptic is offering.
God, it could have been GREAT!
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I do not necessarily disagree. History is not on our side here. I think that we may play these games for different reasons. I don't solo much. I love to group and meet new people. In fact, my favorite guy in all of mmo-land may have been my EQ Druid, by all accounts, the "easy" character to play. I really didn't care about impressing anyone, but the friends I made just by being a helping kind of guy was amazing. I was like Kwai Chang Caine - the wanderer. I'd come ovcer a hill and someone would be in trouble and I could help them without KSing with buffs and heals. Which is why I hated EQ2 and its locked encounters. Ruined everything. Can you imagine a more boring premise than EQ1? Grind mobs in a zone and then move to the next. That's almost WHY role play and social things were required. Sometimes simply getting to somewhere that you needed to be was half the challenge. I had a lot of fun with COH. I had a mind controller who was outfitted sort of like a black uniformed green arrow with a Hood. If you soloed, the game sucked. It is the same old story with newer mmos. They are judges on things that have nothing to do with adventuring, role playing, and having fun with your friends. I'm sorry, COH was just cool from that perspective. And that's exactly what has been lost in recent years. The REAL fun. In my humble opinion, of course. Same thing in STO. We are getting a setting. What we make of it is up to us. Just like in the old PnP days of gaming.
You can use that line of thinking with ANY MMO. That doesn't mean a particular MMO doesn't suck. Forming a group of good people is a big part of what any MMO is about. Even the much-maligned WoW is all about that. Might as well pick an MMO that actually has good content and good mechanics to play with friends than one that looks like it lacks both.
CoH had the benefit of a long development time and another company taking over later. STO is more like the worst things about CoH, or to be more precise it is far more comparable to CO. There are going to be lots of bugs, balance problems, etc.
Anyhow, what's the big deal with STO's "setting?" It isn't a Star Trek setting, it isn't a sandbox, and you can't go around randomly helping other players because everything is instanced. Yeah, you might be able to have fun roleplaying with friends, but why not just buy a pen and paper RPG and roleplay with that then? There's no monthly fee involved that way. There are even lots of tolls out there to play PnP for free over the internet. Or, if the MMO playstyle suits you so, just get a good MMO, there are enough of them out there.
Originally posted by Scrogdog And that's exactly what has been lost in recent years. The REAL fun. In my humble opinion, of course. Same thing in STO. We are getting a setting. What we make of it is up to us. Just like in the old PnP days of gaming.
Well, the biggest problem is the forced soloing.
Or penalized grouping (though that might be another way of saying "forced" grouping). WoW suffers from this a lot, but it is far, far from unique in this respect. Yeah, there is group-only content, but for a good portion of the game you are leveling, and when you do that you get punished for less experience and particularly boring play if you group (and also sometimes running out of quests to even do or having to travel a lot to try to track some down).
You can use that line of thinking with ANY MMO. That doesn't mean a particular MMO doesn't suck. Forming a group of good people is a big part of what any MMO is about. Even the much-maligned WoW is all about that. Might as well pick an MMO that actually has good content and good mechanics to play with friends than one that looks like it lacks both.
CoH had the benefit of a long development time and another company taking over later. STO is more like the worst things about CoH, or to be more precise it is far more comparable to CO. There are going to be lots of bugs, balance problems, etc. Anyhow, what's the big deal with STO's "setting?" It isn't a Star Trek setting, it isn't a sandbox, and you can't go around randomly helping other players because everything is instanced. Yeah, you might be able to have fun roleplaying with friends, but why not just buy a pen and paper RPG and roleplay with that then? There's no monthly fee involved that way. There are even lots of tolls out there to play PnP for free over the internet. Or, if the MMO playstyle suits you so, just get a good MMO, there are enough of them out there.
There is a very real difference playing MMO and PnP.
First, PnP you already pretty much know everyone. Even if someone new comes aboard, they are from around the same place that you are.
Now take your average MMO. People (portentially) from all over the world. And just like RL, you get the entire range of the human condition from good to bad. Those that are helpers... those that are griefers, and everything in between.
I think that "suck" for me isn't about setting per se, it's about playstyle. I said that EQ2 "sucked". I'm sure others loved it. But it sucked on the merit of mechanics, not content, factions or setting.
A "good" mmo? I see no reason to believe that STO will not be exactly that. At least, as far as *I* define things.
Besides, PnP lacks a certain pizazz, or maybe my imagination has gotten a little lazy with the advent of technology. There's going to be something cool about using phasers and beaming down. Sure, that can't be the only draw since it will get old after a time.
The players make the game. We've even seen that here on the forums when people say "I left because the community sucked".
There is a great love for this IP and I am an admitted fanboi. It's going to take much more than what is being crapped on here to ruin things for me. However, ultimately, if the game dies, it won't much matter how fun I think it is, because there will be no pop.
Originally posted by Scrogdog And that's exactly what has been lost in recent years. The REAL fun. In my humble opinion, of course. Same thing in STO. We are getting a setting. What we make of it is up to us. Just like in the old PnP days of gaming.
Well, the biggest problem is the forced soloing.
I love grouping. All of my best times in MMOs have been in groups. A Star Trek game where a few friends could run together in the same ship, with assigned duties, would be freaking AMAZING. That is the #1 reason I am so disappointed in what Cryptic is offering.
God, it could have been GREAT!
There's nothing that says that won't happen. It may. SWG didn't have multi-player ships at launch.
Maybe we'll get interiors and other stuff along the way.
But I must preorder through D2D just to get the "KAAAAAHHHHHNNNNN!!!!" emote. Just in case the game survives. lol
Originally posted by Scrogdog There is a great love for this IP and I am an admitted fanboi. It's going to take much more than what is being crapped on here to ruin things for me. However, unltimately, if the game dies, it won't much matter how fun I think it is, because there will be no pop.
Cryptic has no love for the IP. They have shown that in all the changes they have made. The ships, sound effects, and names are the same. Virtually everything else is changed. Ground combat looks nothing like Trek. Trek was all about using cover in combat. In this, players just stand around draining each others' 'personal shields'
You claim to be a fan of the IP, but have no great objection to the lack of player crews? Those two things don't go together, frankly. Even TOS wasn't all about Kirk.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Originally posted by Scrogdog There is a great love for this IP and I am an admitted fanboi. It's going to take much more than what is being crapped on here to ruin things for me. However, unltimately, if the game dies, it won't much matter how fun I think it is, because there will be no pop.
Cryptic has no love for the IP. They have shown that in all the changes they have made. The ships, sound effects, and names are the same. Virtually everything else is changed. Ground combat looks nothing like Trek. Trek was all about using cover in combat. In this, players just stand around draining each others' 'personal shields'
You claim to be a fan of the IP, but have no great objection to the lack of player crews? Those two things don't go together, frankly. Even TOS wasn't all about Kirk.
Just because there aren't player crews does not mean that I cannot have fun with my friends, in a group, in a ST setting.
We may even get them down line. But, I think Cryptic made th correct decision. I mean, I'm a fan of SWG pre-CU as well. If you think that pre-CU SWG had *anything* at all like feeling like you were actually in one of the movies, well, then I'll just have to disagree with you there. Playing SWG was simply an mmo with Star Wars trappings, and didn't really have anything at all to do with the visual experience of watching one of the movies in my opinion.
Like it or not, I have a feeling this game is going to make history.... Sadly not good history. It's going to be the first f many mass produced mmo games like the ones that have been around on consoles since the Atari.
You know what I'm talking about. All those games that have 0 unique aspects and are just reskinned generic games based on whatever the flavor of the moment is. If STO is like this, I hope it makes AutoAssualt look like an amazing success. I'm not a fan of Star Trek, but I am a scifi fan and I was definitely looking forward to this game until I started looking into it a little more. Sad, Star Trek is a massive and well developed IP and could have made for an amazing game for all fans of the scifi genre.
Well said. It sadly looks like they are only interested in milking the cash cow that is the Star Trek fan base.
chaH DIchDaq Hegh!!
What a surprise hey:P
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Originally posted by Scrogdog Just because there aren't player crews does not mean that I cannot have fun with my friends, in a group, in a ST setting. We may even get them down line. But, I think Cryptic made th correct decision. I mean, I'm a fan of SWG pre-CU as well. If you think that pre-CU SWG had *anything* at all like feeling like you were actually in one of the movies, well, then I'll just have to disagree with you there. Playing SWG was simply an mmo with Star Wars trappings, and didn't really have anything at all to do with the visual experience of watching one of the movies in my opinion.
Indeed. I never played SWG, but I don't think I would have enjoyed it much. Perhaps as a sandbox experience (I have heard the crafting was great, and I like a good crafting game), but not as a Star Wars simulation.
STO isn't even going to give you that, from what I have heard so far. Are you actually expecting anything like SWG's sandbox?
STO is not Trek. it's another concept in a Trek skin.
Everything that is pointed out as lacking from STO, you excuse with 'it may be put in later'. Well maybe it will, but MMOs don't usually go that way. Cryptic is going fast and cheap on this game, and major content and gameplay additions don't fit that model.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Let me parse this through the Universal Game Developer Translater..... SPIN, SPIN, SPIN We are trying to make a quick buck off a well known IP. SPIN, SPIN, SPIN Since our goal is to make a quick buck off a well known IP. We can't afford to put much in the way of features or content in the game at launch... as that would increase our development costs/time and mean we'd actually have to make a rich/deep game that you would want to play for many years, in order to see a good return on investment. We DON'T know how to make that kind of game. We DO know how to make quickly released, feature/content light games that are cheap to build and realize a small but quick ROI from initial box sales based off the IP and Marketing. SPIN, SPIN, SPIN We WANT your money. We will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to get you to give us your money. SPIN, SPIN, SPIN Great news.....promising you that we will build the features you want in future costs us ZERO dollars. We can afford to give you as many promises as you want! It's only BUILDING those features that costs us money. SPIN, SPIN, SPIN We want your money. In the unlikely event that you decide to give us tons of money for this game, we MAY be able to actually afford to build SOME of those features we will promise you. SPIN, SPIN, SPIN We want your money. Give us your money please.
Yep, you're Grumpy all right.
Almost anything can be regarded as "spin" of some sort. Even your post.
Some of us are less cynical. That's not to say that you are incorrect, only that I love Trek so I'll likely cut slack easier than some others. The game might suck, we'll just have to see.
Again, I had a lot of fun in SWG multi-player ships. They were not available at launch and somehow the game went on. It was CU and NGE the sounded the death knell. SWG launched without a space component whatsoever.
The lack of multi-player ships and a fuly fleshed out second faction say nothing about the amount of content that will be available. That's a whole seperate argument in my opinion.
Well, almost every company...including the very successful ones do SPIN in their communications......especialy when they have news to deliver that they know will be somewhat disappointing. I'm actualy not bashing Cryptic for that...it's pretty par for the course (even though I personaly loathe spin). I'm just trying to deflate the balloon that some-how spin offered by the Developer should somehow be taken as evidence that the news should be taken as less dissapointing for those that are dissapointed by it..... I mean really... what would you expect them to say regarding this...."Sorry Klingon players we just kicked your puppy" ??
Certainly I have my opinion of the game...... and I have my personal preferences of how I would have liked to seen it done..... that doesn't mean it MIGHT not be very fun for people who have different tastes then I (or it might such rotten eggs....who really knows until access to it is opened up).
The one thing that is BLEEDING OBVIOUS to me at least is that it IS a content/feature lite game designed for quick development/release and quick ROI. There is nothing particularly wrong with that type of game..... I've bought and played some of that type and they can be very fun while they last and well worth the initial purchase price. It's just that they tend not to have that much staying power. As long as you are going in with the proper set of expectations there is nothing wrong with. It's like going to McDonalds.... it's a perfectly good, tastey fast food experience....perfectly worth the money that you invest in it.....as long as you know what to expect from the experience. However, if your going to McDonalds expecting a 7 course gourmet meal experience....that you take your wife to for your 10th Anniversary... be prepaired to be bitterly disappointed. Unfortunately, alot of fans were hopping more for the Ritz experience then the McDonalds one.....
Note, if you have any doubt about the TYPE of game being made here.... consider some things.
- It's a 2 year development cycle. That's VERY short for MMO's where 4-5+ years is alot closer to the standard.
- It's CRYPTIC. This is the standard type of game that they produce. It's what they KNOW how to do.
- They were doing this development project WHILE they were gearing up for CO release and handling the initial post launch work for CO (which typicaly is a pretty busy time anyways). Even if it's an entirely seperate team....it's still the same Development House. Maybe Blizzard could handle juggling multiple projects at once without feeling any resource pinches...but Cryptic isn't Blizzard.
- If you read between lines, almost every design decision they made was approached from the effect of minimizing development time/costs and reuse existing assets...right from the repurposing of the CO engine. Nothing particulary wrong with that approach.... there is some sound business logic there..... but it does speak volumes about the type of product you are intending to produce.
- They now appear to be scaling back on some important features that they did have planned in thier initial design. Completely understandable decision if they need to stay on a production/release schedule. Far better then releasing something half-baked and buggy..... but not exactly code words for...we've got tons of content in our product right now.
Originally posted by Scrogdog Just because there aren't player crews does not mean that I cannot have fun with my friends, in a group, in a ST setting. We may even get them down line. But, I think Cryptic made th correct decision. I mean, I'm a fan of SWG pre-CU as well. If you think that pre-CU SWG had *anything* at all like feeling like you were actually in one of the movies, well, then I'll just have to disagree with you there. Playing SWG was simply an mmo with Star Wars trappings, and didn't really have anything at all to do with the visual experience of watching one of the movies in my opinion.
Indeed. I never played SWG, but I don't think I would have enjoyed it much. Perhaps as a sandbox experience (I have heard the crafting was great, and I like a good crafting game), but not as a Star Wars simulation.
STO isn't even going to give you that, from what I have heard so far. Are you actually expecting anything like SWG's sandbox?
STO is not Trek. it's another concept in a Trek skin.
Everything that is pointed out as lacking from STO, you excuse with 'it may be put in later'. Well maybe it will, but MMOs don't usually go that way. Cryptic is going fast and cheap on this game, and major content and gameplay additions don't fit that model.
I don't play mmos based on whether they are themeparks or sandboxes. In fact, the "sandbox" that was SWG was actually a bunch of "themeparks" in an open setting.
I don't know what I'm expecting except a Star Trek game. That alone means that I'll play it.
And, I'm not really excusing anything. I'm just saying, for example, lack of multi-player ships most certainly did not kill SWG and they came in later.
The fact is, as I said, each of us will have a differing idea of what makes a game good or bad. The things that you state as "bad" are bad for you, but will have very little to do with how I personally judge the game.
Note, if you have any doubt about the TYPE of game being made here.... consider some things. - It's a 2 year development cycle. That's VERY short for MMO's where 4-5+ years is alot closer to the standard. - It's CRYPTIC. This is the standard type of game that they produce. It's what they KNOW how to do.
I'll focus on this part just to cut down on the walls of text.
Well, as I said earlier, I liked COH. A lot.
Secondly, even though I've played around with engines (google realmcrafter) myself I cannot say I'm any sort of expert in dev cycles.
Still, it seems to me that this game would need a heck of a lot less art than a ground based game. I mean, space is space. And if I've heard correctly on the exploration front, systems and worlds will be randomly generated for missions? Is that correct?
How much time would one need for that exactly? I don't know; I'm asking.
Originally posted by Scrogdog A "good" mmo? I see no reason to believe that STO will not be exactly that. At least, as far as *I* define things.
I am curious as to how you define that.
I thought that's exactly what I've been doing!
A "good" mmo suits my playstyle and has a good setting.
You haven't really been defining your playstyle very clearly though. You said you liked things in EQ1 that can't happen in STO for instance. The only thing you've been clear on are things that can apply to pretty much any MMO.
Originally posted by Scrogdog A "good" mmo? I see no reason to believe that STO will not be exactly that. At least, as far as *I* define things.
I am curious as to how you define that.
I thought that's exactly what I've been doing!
A "good" mmo suits my playstyle and has a good setting.
You haven't really been defining your playstyle very clearly though. You said you liked things in EQ1 that can't happen in STO for instance. The only thing you've been clear on are things that can apply to pretty much any MMO.
For the most part, RP is king to me. I prefer combat that requires some cooperative tactics, but if I don't get that, other elements of the game can hold me. Take SWG, the combat amounted to FFA zerg rushes. But, I've never seen a greater arena for roleplay and being social ever, including EQ1. The concept of entertainers was fantastic! Cantinas were alive with RP. They even had a sort of "social director" NPC where you could buy things like bots that could help you set up bike races. On the server that I played, Kauri, we even had a sort of social director on the server (god love ya Goldie wherever you are) and we'd go to parties and just have fun.
EQ1's naked newbie races, player weddings, etc. None of these things shipped with the game. We made the world in to what WE wanted using imagination and ingenuity.
I don't really care about PvP so the Klingon thing is meaningless. I don't really care about multi-player ships because that will not prevent me from having fun with my friends (one would think, anyway).
Just like SWG, this will be a game that has the trappings of Star Trek. That is all.
Star Trek was about a lot of things. Characters, stories, social commentary. None of those things are going to translate in to an mmog I'm afraid. Just like playing SWG had nothing to do with the experience of watching the movies.
EQ1 had no social aspects, so we made them up. I look forward to doing so once again.
That said, it would take only one killer mechanic to destroy it all. Just like in EQ2 when I determined that locked encounters would severely hamper my wandering and helping style overall.
Way to overreact guys. Check these threads where Devs confirm they haven't spoken about all the Klingon stuff yet, and more info is coming. Perhaps some of you could do with a quote from one of the devs to get your head straight: "If it's STO, the news or something your political parties promise you on your next walk to the voting booth; one thing is common in all three. Please keep an open mind and inform yourselves if you are truly interested in a topic. And don't fill in any blanks you find by making a guessed claim. The wider open your mind, the more you can find out in the end." -WishStone
Just to throw this out there, like I'm sure others have too, shouldn't Klingon gameplay consist primarily of pvp? Not always so cutthroat or what not, but I mean it's not exactly damaging the image created by the IP by doing so.
Do you even know what PvE stands for?
Heck, here's another question, why are the Klingons and Federation not on good terms according to Cryptic's IP? The Klingons went to war with the Romulans! The Romulans aren't wiped out, but being PvP only that means Klingons can really only fight the Feds and themselves. PvP doesn't really suit the Klingons at all, honestly. Infighting while they are at war with multiple other civs doesn't really make that much sense. Not being able to add more planets and races to the Empire (the Klingons did do this, you know) doesn't make a lot of sense. Heck, you can't even display their honorable side or many other cultural issues with them being PvP.
I am not sure why people keep saying the fact they are PvP makes sense. I've lost count on the number of people that have done so in this thread alone.
I do actually. PvP doesn't have to mean what you're insinuating either.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
Originally posted by Scrogdog The lack of multi-player ships and a fuly fleshed out second faction say nothing about the amount of content that will be available. That's a whole seperate argument in my opinion.
Let's talk about that separate argument.
I haven't heard much good about the content that is available from Beta Testers I've talked to. Seems pretty shallow, overall. That said, how can you really expect depth from Cryptic? All their MMOs have been pretty shallow and like CO, STO is rushed. Do people somehow think the exploration is anything but the standard Cryptic random and instanced fair they have always done? Yeah, this time it is random planets, but that's about it. They've been talking about the Genesis system for a while, but they don't actually show any play examples of it, now do they? In fact, for all their "talk" it really is rather hard to pick out many details other than it randomly generates planets and is used for mission generation. Contrast this to the combat system, where a lot more is known, but they've talked about both about as much (just the former they talk about a lot in vague terms). They were vague about the Klingons too and look how they are turning out. And again before anyone asks me if I play Beta, know that I've talked with people who have, and they say the game is pretty shallow overall.
Cryptic is doing the same thing with STO they did with CO. Preorder goodies and trying to get as many people to initially buy a rushed game as possible. STO is even more rushed than CO and look how CO turned out! Why does anyone expect STO to magically have more depth than CO does when it had even less development time? Why does anyone expect STO to magically have content depth when the Devs speak of the content only in vague terms? That's a standard tactic for making content light games look more rich. Games with real content depth have marketing that goes into detail about that depth, because there lots of details to share and it is a big selling point.
Of course, we also have a PvP faction where there is going to essentially be no PvP testing. Yeah, that's going to work out great in terms of game balance, especially when Cryptic is well-known for totally crappy balance. There are other problems with the Klingons being PvP only, but the fact is that Cryptic won't be able to even get THAT right -- even a semblance of PvP balance does not just happen on its own.
The ships will look Star Trek-esque, but everyone carrying around weapons (even on a Starbase), and lots of different weapons at that, everyone wearing different uniforms, non-combat missions being paper-thin at best, along with Cryptic's classic problems combined with the problems of a rushed game...how can anyone think this game is going to be any good at all? But yeah, let's all buy it because buying even crappy Star Trek games tells the industry that we want good Star Trek games! Oh wait, no it doesn't. It tells the Industry any garbage they make with "Star Trek" on it will make them lots of money.
I do not necessarily disagree. History is not on our side here.
I think that we may play these games for different reasons. I don't solo much. I love to group and meet new people.
In fact, my favorite guy in all of mmo-land may have been my EQ Druid, by all accounts, the "easy" character to play. I really didn't care about impressing anyone, but the friends I made just by being a helping kind of guy was amazing. I was like Kwai Chang Caine - the wanderer. I'd come over a hill and someone would be in trouble and I could help them without KSing with buffs and heals.
Which is why I hated EQ2 and its locked encounters. Ruined everything.
Can you imagine a more boring premise than EQ1? Grind mobs in a zone and then move to the next. That's almost WHY role play and social things were required. Sometimes simply getting to somewhere that you needed to be was half the challenge.
I had a lot of fun with COH. I had a mind controller who was outfitted sort of like a black uniformed green arrow with a hood. If you soloed, the game sucked. It is the same old story with newer mmos. They are judged on things that have nothing to do with adventuring, role playing, and having fun with your friends. I'm sorry, COH was just cool from that perspective.
And that's exactly what has been lost in recent years. The REAL fun. In my humble opinion, of course.
Same thing in STO. We are getting a setting. What we make of it is up to us. Just like in the old PnP days of gaming.
I absolutely love CoH too, it's the one MMO I return to regularly. But lets be honest: that game has gotten way, way better since Cryptic sold it to NCSoft.
Just to throw this out there, like I'm sure others have too, shouldn't Klingon gameplay consist primarily of pvp? Not always so cutthroat or what not, but I mean it's not exactly damaging the image created by the IP by doing so.
Do you even know what PvE stands for?
Heck, here's another question, why are the Klingons and Federation not on good terms according to Cryptic's IP? The Klingons went to war with the Romulans! The Romulans aren't wiped out, but being PvP only that means Klingons can really only fight the Feds and themselves. PvP doesn't really suit the Klingons at all, honestly. Infighting while they are at war with multiple other civs doesn't really make that much sense. Not being able to add more planets and races to the Empire (the Klingons did do this, you know) doesn't make a lot of sense. Heck, you can't even display their honorable side or many other cultural issues with them being PvP.
I am not sure why people keep saying the fact they are PvP makes sense. I've lost count on the number of people that have done so in this thread alone.
I do actually. PvP doesn't have to mean what you're insinuating either.
Really? Care to explain that assertion? How can a war with the Romulans be represented in PvP when there are no players who control Romulans? How can the exploration and conquest/assimilation/vassalage/etc of more primitive cultures be shown if no players control such groups? While there is some sense of honor among SOME PvPers, one doesn't see it as a general feature of PvPers, and so the idea that a Klingon's word of honor means something in a strict PvP environment is ridiculous. Do you have anything to answer this beyond a so far baseless claim that it isn't true?
Just to throw this out there, like I'm sure others have too, shouldn't Klingon gameplay consist primarily of pvp? Not always so cutthroat or what not, but I mean it's not exactly damaging the image created by the IP by doing so.
Do you even know what PvE stands for?
Heck, here's another question, why are the Klingons and Federation not on good terms according to Cryptic's IP? The Klingons went to war with the Romulans! The Romulans aren't wiped out, but being PvP only that means Klingons can really only fight the Feds and themselves. PvP doesn't really suit the Klingons at all, honestly. Infighting while they are at war with multiple other civs doesn't really make that much sense. Not being able to add more planets and races to the Empire (the Klingons did do this, you know) doesn't make a lot of sense. Heck, you can't even display their honorable side or many other cultural issues with them being PvP.
I am not sure why people keep saying the fact they are PvP makes sense. I've lost count on the number of people that have done so in this thread alone.
I do actually. PvP doesn't have to mean what you're insinuating either.
Really? Care to explain that assertion? How can a war with the Romulans be represented in PvP when there are no players who control Romulans? How can the exploration and conquest/assimilation/vassalage/etc of more primitive cultures be shown if no players control such groups? While there is some sense of honor among SOME PvPers, one doesn't see it as a general feature of PvPers, and so the idea that a Klingon's word of honor means something in a strict PvP environment is ridiculous. Do you have anything to answer this beyond a so far baseless claim that it isn't true?
Err, perhaps you should actually read up on the storyline. The Romulan homeworld was destroyed, their power structure fractured, their rightful leader disappeared, they are a broken people. They aren't in any position to be fighting a proper war, they're too busy trying to survive and figure out what to do next. Heck, the Federation even stepped in to help them.
Also, Klingon "infighting" is pretty true to the IP. Fights between Klingons on a ship, fights between Houses, fights between different factions. The Klingons fight eachother all the time. House of Duras anyone?
Do you really need more evidence? The IP supports it pretty well, or are we not caring about that anymore?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Just to throw this out there, like I'm sure others have too, shouldn't Klingon gameplay consist primarily of pvp? Not always so cutthroat or what not, but I mean it's not exactly damaging the image created by the IP by doing so.
Do you even know what PvE stands for?
Heck, here's another question, why are the Klingons and Federation not on good terms according to Cryptic's IP? The Klingons went to war with the Romulans! The Romulans aren't wiped out, but being PvP only that means Klingons can really only fight the Feds and themselves. PvP doesn't really suit the Klingons at all, honestly. Infighting while they are at war with multiple other civs doesn't really make that much sense. Not being able to add more planets and races to the Empire (the Klingons did do this, you know) doesn't make a lot of sense. Heck, you can't even display their honorable side or many other cultural issues with them being PvP.
I am not sure why people keep saying the fact they are PvP makes sense. I've lost count on the number of people that have done so in this thread alone.
I do actually. PvP doesn't have to mean what you're insinuating either.
Really? Care to explain that assertion? How can a war with the Romulans be represented in PvP when there are no players who control Romulans? How can the exploration and conquest/assimilation/vassalage/etc of more primitive cultures be shown if no players control such groups? While there is some sense of honor among SOME PvPers, one doesn't see it as a general feature of PvPers, and so the idea that a Klingon's word of honor means something in a strict PvP environment is ridiculous. Do you have anything to answer this beyond a so far baseless claim that it isn't true?
Err, perhaps you should actually read up on the storyline. The Romulan homeworld was destroyed, their power structure fractured, their rightful leader disappeared, they are a broken people. They aren't in any position to be fighting a proper war, they're too busy trying to survive and figure out what to do next. Heck, the Federation even stepped in to help them.
Also, Klingon "infighting" is pretty true to the IP. Fights between Klingons on a ship, fights between Houses, fights between different factions. The Klingons fight eachother all the time. House of Duras anyone?
Do you really need more evidence? The IP supports it pretty well, or are we not caring about that anymore?
Do you like leaving out facts you dislike? The Klingons are AT WAR with the Romulans. This can't be represented in the game. They Romulans are disorganized a bit, but they have ships and a civilization. Whatever the state of the Romulan empire, this game can't represent the Klingon-Romulan conflict AT ALL because Romulans are not played, they are NPCs, and Klingons are PvP ONLY.
Klingon infighting on a massive scale never happened when they had someone else to focus their attention on. The Duras thing only lead to massive fighting because the leader of they poisoned the Klingon leader and fought over who'd rule next (though the outright war is said to be not the standard sequence of events). I'm not saying house to house fighting is something that shouldn't be in the game, but limiting the Klingon content to house to house fighting and fighting the Federations IS a major failure and the Klingons are not REPRESENTED well by being PvP-only. They have a lot of stuff going on that requires a PvE experience, and this game isn't delivering that.
In any case, you really didn't nothing to answer my long list of things that can't be represented with PvP-content only. The one thing you did talk about was the Romulan war, and what's your excuse there? That they shouldn't bother doing it? That there should be no missions or content involving the Romulans because their empire is devastated...hence let's leave the fundamental reason why the Federation and Klingons aren't friends out of the game? Please.
Comments
Cryptic is going to lose plenty of subs after the game is released. This is CO all over again. I'm just trying to save people some money (and I don't particularly like companies taking advantage of people).
This is different from a whine - how, exactly?
Do you know the saying "Don't kill the messenger"?
Most of the negative posts are just pointing out the flaws in the game Cryptic is going to be releasing. Cryptic is responsible for the flaws, themselves.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Let's talk about that separate argument.
I haven't heard much good about the content that is available from Beta Testers I've talked to. Seems pretty shallow, overall. That said, how can you really expect depth from Cryptic? All their MMOs have been pretty shallow and like CO, STO is rushed. Do people somehow think the exploration is anything but the standard Cryptic random and instanced fair they have always done? Yeah, this time it is random planets, but that's about it. They've been talking about the Genesis system for a while, but they don't actually show any play examples of it, now do they? In fact, for all their "talk" it really is rather hard to pick out many details other than it randomly generates planets and is used for mission generation. Contrast this to the combat system, where a lot more is known, but they've talked about both about as much (just the former they talk about a lot in vague terms). They were vague about the Klingons too and look how they are turning out. And again before anyone asks me if I play Beta, know that I've talked with people who have, and they say the game is pretty shallow overall.
Cryptic is doing the same thing with STO they did with CO. Preorder goodies and trying to get as many people to initially buy a rushed game as possible. STO is even more rushed than CO and look how CO turned out! Why does anyone expect STO to magically have more depth than CO does when it had even less development time? Why does anyone expect STO to magically have content depth when the Devs speak of the content only in vague terms? That's a standard tactic for making content light games look more rich. Games with real content depth have marketing that goes into detail about that depth, because there lots of details to share and it is a big selling point.
Of course, we also have a PvP faction where there is going to essentially be no PvP testing. Yeah, that's going to work out great in terms of game balance, especially when Cryptic is well-known for totally crappy balance. There are other problems with the Klingons being PvP only, but the fact is that Cryptic won't be able to even get THAT right -- even a semblance of PvP balance does not just happen on its own.
The ships will look Star Trek-esque, but everyone carrying around weapons (even on a Starbase), and lots of different weapons at that, everyone wearing different uniforms, non-combat missions being paper-thin at best, along with Cryptic's classic problems combined with the problems of a rushed game...how can anyone think this game is going to be any good at all? But yeah, let's all buy it because buying even crappy Star Trek games tells the industry that we want good Star Trek games! Oh wait, no it doesn't. It tells the Industry any garbage they make with "Star Trek" on it will make them lots of money.
I do not necessarily disagree. History is not on our side here.
I think that we may play these games for different reasons. I don't solo much. I love to group and meet new people.
In fact, my favorite guy in all of mmo-land may have been my EQ Druid, by all accounts, the "easy" character to play. I really didn't care about impressing anyone, but the friends I made just by being a helping kind of guy was amazing. I was like Kwai Chang Caine - the wanderer. I'd come over a hill and someone would be in trouble and I could help them without KSing with buffs and heals.
Which is why I hated EQ2 and its locked encounters. Ruined everything.
Can you imagine a more boring premise than EQ1? Grind mobs in a zone and then move to the next. That's almost WHY role play and social things were required. Sometimes simply getting to somewhere that you needed to be was half the challenge.
I had a lot of fun with COH. I had a mind controller who was outfitted sort of like a black uniformed green arrow with a hood. If you soloed, the game sucked. It is the same old story with newer mmos. They are judged on things that have nothing to do with adventuring, role playing, and having fun with your friends. I'm sorry, COH was just cool from that perspective.
And that's exactly what has been lost in recent years. The REAL fun. In my humble opinion, of course.
Same thing in STO. We are getting a setting. What we make of it is up to us. Just like in the old PnP days of gaming.
Well, the biggest problem is the forced soloing.
I love grouping. All of my best times in MMOs have been in groups. A Star Trek game where a few friends could run together in the same ship, with assigned duties, would be freaking AMAZING. That is the #1 reason I am so disappointed in what Cryptic is offering.
God, it could have been GREAT!
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
You can use that line of thinking with ANY MMO. That doesn't mean a particular MMO doesn't suck. Forming a group of good people is a big part of what any MMO is about. Even the much-maligned WoW is all about that. Might as well pick an MMO that actually has good content and good mechanics to play with friends than one that looks like it lacks both.
CoH had the benefit of a long development time and another company taking over later. STO is more like the worst things about CoH, or to be more precise it is far more comparable to CO. There are going to be lots of bugs, balance problems, etc.
Anyhow, what's the big deal with STO's "setting?" It isn't a Star Trek setting, it isn't a sandbox, and you can't go around randomly helping other players because everything is instanced. Yeah, you might be able to have fun roleplaying with friends, but why not just buy a pen and paper RPG and roleplay with that then? There's no monthly fee involved that way. There are even lots of tolls out there to play PnP for free over the internet. Or, if the MMO playstyle suits you so, just get a good MMO, there are enough of them out there.
Well, the biggest problem is the forced soloing.
Or penalized grouping (though that might be another way of saying "forced" grouping). WoW suffers from this a lot, but it is far, far from unique in this respect. Yeah, there is group-only content, but for a good portion of the game you are leveling, and when you do that you get punished for less experience and particularly boring play if you group (and also sometimes running out of quests to even do or having to travel a lot to try to track some down).
There is a very real difference playing MMO and PnP.
First, PnP you already pretty much know everyone. Even if someone new comes aboard, they are from around the same place that you are.
Now take your average MMO. People (portentially) from all over the world. And just like RL, you get the entire range of the human condition from good to bad. Those that are helpers... those that are griefers, and everything in between.
I think that "suck" for me isn't about setting per se, it's about playstyle. I said that EQ2 "sucked". I'm sure others loved it. But it sucked on the merit of mechanics, not content, factions or setting.
A "good" mmo? I see no reason to believe that STO will not be exactly that. At least, as far as *I* define things.
Besides, PnP lacks a certain pizazz, or maybe my imagination has gotten a little lazy with the advent of technology. There's going to be something cool about using phasers and beaming down. Sure, that can't be the only draw since it will get old after a time.
The players make the game. We've even seen that here on the forums when people say "I left because the community sucked".
There is a great love for this IP and I am an admitted fanboi. It's going to take much more than what is being crapped on here to ruin things for me. However, ultimately, if the game dies, it won't much matter how fun I think it is, because there will be no pop.
Well, the biggest problem is the forced soloing.
I love grouping. All of my best times in MMOs have been in groups. A Star Trek game where a few friends could run together in the same ship, with assigned duties, would be freaking AMAZING. That is the #1 reason I am so disappointed in what Cryptic is offering.
God, it could have been GREAT!
There's nothing that says that won't happen. It may. SWG didn't have multi-player ships at launch.
Maybe we'll get interiors and other stuff along the way.
But I must preorder through D2D just to get the "KAAAAAHHHHHNNNNN!!!!" emote. Just in case the game survives. lol
Cryptic has no love for the IP. They have shown that in all the changes they have made. The ships, sound effects, and names are the same. Virtually everything else is changed. Ground combat looks nothing like Trek. Trek was all about using cover in combat. In this, players just stand around draining each others' 'personal shields'
You claim to be a fan of the IP, but have no great objection to the lack of player crews? Those two things don't go together, frankly. Even TOS wasn't all about Kirk.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I am curious as to how you define that.
Cryptic has no love for the IP. They have shown that in all the changes they have made. The ships, sound effects, and names are the same. Virtually everything else is changed. Ground combat looks nothing like Trek. Trek was all about using cover in combat. In this, players just stand around draining each others' 'personal shields'
You claim to be a fan of the IP, but have no great objection to the lack of player crews? Those two things don't go together, frankly. Even TOS wasn't all about Kirk.
Just because there aren't player crews does not mean that I cannot have fun with my friends, in a group, in a ST setting.
We may even get them down line. But, I think Cryptic made th correct decision. I mean, I'm a fan of SWG pre-CU as well. If you think that pre-CU SWG had *anything* at all like feeling like you were actually in one of the movies, well, then I'll just have to disagree with you there. Playing SWG was simply an mmo with Star Wars trappings, and didn't really have anything at all to do with the visual experience of watching one of the movies in my opinion.
I am curious as to how you define that.
I thought that's exactly what I've been doing!
A "good" mmo suits my playstyle and has a good setting.
Therefore, there is no "absolute" definition of good. As your "good" will be different.
Honestly, I have not played WoW for some time, but I've read about this new cross-server LFG feature. GAH!
How anyone can view THAT as fun is completely beyond me! Not that there is any right or wrong about it.
Is WoW a "good" mmo? Depends on one's perspective.
Well said. It sadly looks like they are only interested in milking the cash cow that is the Star Trek fan base.
chaH DIchDaq Hegh!!
What a surprise hey:P
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Indeed. I never played SWG, but I don't think I would have enjoyed it much. Perhaps as a sandbox experience (I have heard the crafting was great, and I like a good crafting game), but not as a Star Wars simulation.
STO isn't even going to give you that, from what I have heard so far. Are you actually expecting anything like SWG's sandbox?
STO is not Trek. it's another concept in a Trek skin.
Everything that is pointed out as lacking from STO, you excuse with 'it may be put in later'. Well maybe it will, but MMOs don't usually go that way. Cryptic is going fast and cheap on this game, and major content and gameplay additions don't fit that model.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yep, you're Grumpy all right.
Almost anything can be regarded as "spin" of some sort. Even your post.
Some of us are less cynical. That's not to say that you are incorrect, only that I love Trek so I'll likely cut slack easier than some others. The game might suck, we'll just have to see.
Again, I had a lot of fun in SWG multi-player ships. They were not available at launch and somehow the game went on. It was CU and NGE the sounded the death knell. SWG launched without a space component whatsoever.
The lack of multi-player ships and a fuly fleshed out second faction say nothing about the amount of content that will be available. That's a whole seperate argument in my opinion.
Well, almost every company...including the very successful ones do SPIN in their communications......especialy when they have news to deliver that they know will be somewhat disappointing. I'm actualy not bashing Cryptic for that...it's pretty par for the course (even though I personaly loathe spin). I'm just trying to deflate the balloon that some-how spin offered by the Developer should somehow be taken as evidence that the news should be taken as less dissapointing for those that are dissapointed by it..... I mean really... what would you expect them to say regarding this...."Sorry Klingon players we just kicked your puppy" ??
Certainly I have my opinion of the game...... and I have my personal preferences of how I would have liked to seen it done..... that doesn't mean it MIGHT not be very fun for people who have different tastes then I (or it might such rotten eggs....who really knows until access to it is opened up).
The one thing that is BLEEDING OBVIOUS to me at least is that it IS a content/feature lite game designed for quick development/release and quick ROI. There is nothing particularly wrong with that type of game..... I've bought and played some of that type and they can be very fun while they last and well worth the initial purchase price. It's just that they tend not to have that much staying power. As long as you are going in with the proper set of expectations there is nothing wrong with. It's like going to McDonalds.... it's a perfectly good, tastey fast food experience....perfectly worth the money that you invest in it.....as long as you know what to expect from the experience. However, if your going to McDonalds expecting a 7 course gourmet meal experience....that you take your wife to for your 10th Anniversary... be prepaired to be bitterly disappointed. Unfortunately, alot of fans were hopping more for the Ritz experience then the McDonalds one.....
Note, if you have any doubt about the TYPE of game being made here.... consider some things.
- It's a 2 year development cycle. That's VERY short for MMO's where 4-5+ years is alot closer to the standard.
- It's CRYPTIC. This is the standard type of game that they produce. It's what they KNOW how to do.
- They were doing this development project WHILE they were gearing up for CO release and handling the initial post launch work for CO (which typicaly is a pretty busy time anyways). Even if it's an entirely seperate team....it's still the same Development House. Maybe Blizzard could handle juggling multiple projects at once without feeling any resource pinches...but Cryptic isn't Blizzard.
- If you read between lines, almost every design decision they made was approached from the effect of minimizing development time/costs and reuse existing assets...right from the repurposing of the CO engine. Nothing particulary wrong with that approach.... there is some sound business logic there..... but it does speak volumes about the type of product you are intending to produce.
- They now appear to be scaling back on some important features that they did have planned in thier initial design. Completely understandable decision if they need to stay on a production/release schedule. Far better then releasing something half-baked and buggy..... but not exactly code words for...we've got tons of content in our product right now.
Indeed. I never played SWG, but I don't think I would have enjoyed it much. Perhaps as a sandbox experience (I have heard the crafting was great, and I like a good crafting game), but not as a Star Wars simulation.
STO isn't even going to give you that, from what I have heard so far. Are you actually expecting anything like SWG's sandbox?
STO is not Trek. it's another concept in a Trek skin.
Everything that is pointed out as lacking from STO, you excuse with 'it may be put in later'. Well maybe it will, but MMOs don't usually go that way. Cryptic is going fast and cheap on this game, and major content and gameplay additions don't fit that model.
I don't play mmos based on whether they are themeparks or sandboxes. In fact, the "sandbox" that was SWG was actually a bunch of "themeparks" in an open setting.
I don't know what I'm expecting except a Star Trek game. That alone means that I'll play it.
And, I'm not really excusing anything. I'm just saying, for example, lack of multi-player ships most certainly did not kill SWG and they came in later.
The fact is, as I said, each of us will have a differing idea of what makes a game good or bad. The things that you state as "bad" are bad for you, but will have very little to do with how I personally judge the game.
I'll focus on this part just to cut down on the walls of text.
Well, as I said earlier, I liked COH. A lot.
Secondly, even though I've played around with engines (google realmcrafter) myself I cannot say I'm any sort of expert in dev cycles.
Still, it seems to me that this game would need a heck of a lot less art than a ground based game. I mean, space is space. And if I've heard correctly on the exploration front, systems and worlds will be randomly generated for missions? Is that correct?
How much time would one need for that exactly? I don't know; I'm asking.
I am curious as to how you define that.
I thought that's exactly what I've been doing!
A "good" mmo suits my playstyle and has a good setting.
You haven't really been defining your playstyle very clearly though. You said you liked things in EQ1 that can't happen in STO for instance. The only thing you've been clear on are things that can apply to pretty much any MMO.
I am curious as to how you define that.
I thought that's exactly what I've been doing!
A "good" mmo suits my playstyle and has a good setting.
You haven't really been defining your playstyle very clearly though. You said you liked things in EQ1 that can't happen in STO for instance. The only thing you've been clear on are things that can apply to pretty much any MMO.
For the most part, RP is king to me. I prefer combat that requires some cooperative tactics, but if I don't get that, other elements of the game can hold me. Take SWG, the combat amounted to FFA zerg rushes. But, I've never seen a greater arena for roleplay and being social ever, including EQ1. The concept of entertainers was fantastic! Cantinas were alive with RP. They even had a sort of "social director" NPC where you could buy things like bots that could help you set up bike races. On the server that I played, Kauri, we even had a sort of social director on the server (god love ya Goldie wherever you are) and we'd go to parties and just have fun.
EQ1's naked newbie races, player weddings, etc. None of these things shipped with the game. We made the world in to what WE wanted using imagination and ingenuity.
I don't really care about PvP so the Klingon thing is meaningless. I don't really care about multi-player ships because that will not prevent me from having fun with my friends (one would think, anyway).
Just like SWG, this will be a game that has the trappings of Star Trek. That is all.
Star Trek was about a lot of things. Characters, stories, social commentary. None of those things are going to translate in to an mmog I'm afraid. Just like playing SWG had nothing to do with the experience of watching the movies.
EQ1 had no social aspects, so we made them up. I look forward to doing so once again.
That said, it would take only one killer mechanic to destroy it all. Just like in EQ2 when I determined that locked encounters would severely hamper my wandering and helping style overall.
Way to ignore reality guys: www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/263006/page/1
Do you even know what PvE stands for?
Heck, here's another question, why are the Klingons and Federation not on good terms according to Cryptic's IP? The Klingons went to war with the Romulans! The Romulans aren't wiped out, but being PvP only that means Klingons can really only fight the Feds and themselves. PvP doesn't really suit the Klingons at all, honestly. Infighting while they are at war with multiple other civs doesn't really make that much sense. Not being able to add more planets and races to the Empire (the Klingons did do this, you know) doesn't make a lot of sense. Heck, you can't even display their honorable side or many other cultural issues with them being PvP.
I am not sure why people keep saying the fact they are PvP makes sense. I've lost count on the number of people that have done so in this thread alone.
I do actually. PvP doesn't have to mean what you're insinuating either.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
Let's talk about that separate argument.
I haven't heard much good about the content that is available from Beta Testers I've talked to. Seems pretty shallow, overall. That said, how can you really expect depth from Cryptic? All their MMOs have been pretty shallow and like CO, STO is rushed. Do people somehow think the exploration is anything but the standard Cryptic random and instanced fair they have always done? Yeah, this time it is random planets, but that's about it. They've been talking about the Genesis system for a while, but they don't actually show any play examples of it, now do they? In fact, for all their "talk" it really is rather hard to pick out many details other than it randomly generates planets and is used for mission generation. Contrast this to the combat system, where a lot more is known, but they've talked about both about as much (just the former they talk about a lot in vague terms). They were vague about the Klingons too and look how they are turning out. And again before anyone asks me if I play Beta, know that I've talked with people who have, and they say the game is pretty shallow overall.
Cryptic is doing the same thing with STO they did with CO. Preorder goodies and trying to get as many people to initially buy a rushed game as possible. STO is even more rushed than CO and look how CO turned out! Why does anyone expect STO to magically have more depth than CO does when it had even less development time? Why does anyone expect STO to magically have content depth when the Devs speak of the content only in vague terms? That's a standard tactic for making content light games look more rich. Games with real content depth have marketing that goes into detail about that depth, because there lots of details to share and it is a big selling point.
Of course, we also have a PvP faction where there is going to essentially be no PvP testing. Yeah, that's going to work out great in terms of game balance, especially when Cryptic is well-known for totally crappy balance. There are other problems with the Klingons being PvP only, but the fact is that Cryptic won't be able to even get THAT right -- even a semblance of PvP balance does not just happen on its own.
The ships will look Star Trek-esque, but everyone carrying around weapons (even on a Starbase), and lots of different weapons at that, everyone wearing different uniforms, non-combat missions being paper-thin at best, along with Cryptic's classic problems combined with the problems of a rushed game...how can anyone think this game is going to be any good at all? But yeah, let's all buy it because buying even crappy Star Trek games tells the industry that we want good Star Trek games! Oh wait, no it doesn't. It tells the Industry any garbage they make with "Star Trek" on it will make them lots of money.
I do not necessarily disagree. History is not on our side here.
I think that we may play these games for different reasons. I don't solo much. I love to group and meet new people.
In fact, my favorite guy in all of mmo-land may have been my EQ Druid, by all accounts, the "easy" character to play. I really didn't care about impressing anyone, but the friends I made just by being a helping kind of guy was amazing. I was like Kwai Chang Caine - the wanderer. I'd come over a hill and someone would be in trouble and I could help them without KSing with buffs and heals.
Which is why I hated EQ2 and its locked encounters. Ruined everything.
Can you imagine a more boring premise than EQ1? Grind mobs in a zone and then move to the next. That's almost WHY role play and social things were required. Sometimes simply getting to somewhere that you needed to be was half the challenge.
I had a lot of fun with COH. I had a mind controller who was outfitted sort of like a black uniformed green arrow with a hood. If you soloed, the game sucked. It is the same old story with newer mmos. They are judged on things that have nothing to do with adventuring, role playing, and having fun with your friends. I'm sorry, COH was just cool from that perspective.
And that's exactly what has been lost in recent years. The REAL fun. In my humble opinion, of course.
Same thing in STO. We are getting a setting. What we make of it is up to us. Just like in the old PnP days of gaming.
I absolutely love CoH too, it's the one MMO I return to regularly. But lets be honest: that game has gotten way, way better since Cryptic sold it to NCSoft.
Do you even know what PvE stands for?
Heck, here's another question, why are the Klingons and Federation not on good terms according to Cryptic's IP? The Klingons went to war with the Romulans! The Romulans aren't wiped out, but being PvP only that means Klingons can really only fight the Feds and themselves. PvP doesn't really suit the Klingons at all, honestly. Infighting while they are at war with multiple other civs doesn't really make that much sense. Not being able to add more planets and races to the Empire (the Klingons did do this, you know) doesn't make a lot of sense. Heck, you can't even display their honorable side or many other cultural issues with them being PvP.
I am not sure why people keep saying the fact they are PvP makes sense. I've lost count on the number of people that have done so in this thread alone.
I do actually. PvP doesn't have to mean what you're insinuating either.
Really? Care to explain that assertion? How can a war with the Romulans be represented in PvP when there are no players who control Romulans? How can the exploration and conquest/assimilation/vassalage/etc of more primitive cultures be shown if no players control such groups? While there is some sense of honor among SOME PvPers, one doesn't see it as a general feature of PvPers, and so the idea that a Klingon's word of honor means something in a strict PvP environment is ridiculous. Do you have anything to answer this beyond a so far baseless claim that it isn't true?
Do you even know what PvE stands for?
Heck, here's another question, why are the Klingons and Federation not on good terms according to Cryptic's IP? The Klingons went to war with the Romulans! The Romulans aren't wiped out, but being PvP only that means Klingons can really only fight the Feds and themselves. PvP doesn't really suit the Klingons at all, honestly. Infighting while they are at war with multiple other civs doesn't really make that much sense. Not being able to add more planets and races to the Empire (the Klingons did do this, you know) doesn't make a lot of sense. Heck, you can't even display their honorable side or many other cultural issues with them being PvP.
I am not sure why people keep saying the fact they are PvP makes sense. I've lost count on the number of people that have done so in this thread alone.
I do actually. PvP doesn't have to mean what you're insinuating either.
Really? Care to explain that assertion? How can a war with the Romulans be represented in PvP when there are no players who control Romulans? How can the exploration and conquest/assimilation/vassalage/etc of more primitive cultures be shown if no players control such groups? While there is some sense of honor among SOME PvPers, one doesn't see it as a general feature of PvPers, and so the idea that a Klingon's word of honor means something in a strict PvP environment is ridiculous. Do you have anything to answer this beyond a so far baseless claim that it isn't true?
Err, perhaps you should actually read up on the storyline. The Romulan homeworld was destroyed, their power structure fractured, their rightful leader disappeared, they are a broken people. They aren't in any position to be fighting a proper war, they're too busy trying to survive and figure out what to do next. Heck, the Federation even stepped in to help them.
Also, Klingon "infighting" is pretty true to the IP. Fights between Klingons on a ship, fights between Houses, fights between different factions. The Klingons fight eachother all the time. House of Duras anyone?
Do you really need more evidence? The IP supports it pretty well, or are we not caring about that anymore?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Do you even know what PvE stands for?
Heck, here's another question, why are the Klingons and Federation not on good terms according to Cryptic's IP? The Klingons went to war with the Romulans! The Romulans aren't wiped out, but being PvP only that means Klingons can really only fight the Feds and themselves. PvP doesn't really suit the Klingons at all, honestly. Infighting while they are at war with multiple other civs doesn't really make that much sense. Not being able to add more planets and races to the Empire (the Klingons did do this, you know) doesn't make a lot of sense. Heck, you can't even display their honorable side or many other cultural issues with them being PvP.
I am not sure why people keep saying the fact they are PvP makes sense. I've lost count on the number of people that have done so in this thread alone.
I do actually. PvP doesn't have to mean what you're insinuating either.
Really? Care to explain that assertion? How can a war with the Romulans be represented in PvP when there are no players who control Romulans? How can the exploration and conquest/assimilation/vassalage/etc of more primitive cultures be shown if no players control such groups? While there is some sense of honor among SOME PvPers, one doesn't see it as a general feature of PvPers, and so the idea that a Klingon's word of honor means something in a strict PvP environment is ridiculous. Do you have anything to answer this beyond a so far baseless claim that it isn't true?
Err, perhaps you should actually read up on the storyline. The Romulan homeworld was destroyed, their power structure fractured, their rightful leader disappeared, they are a broken people. They aren't in any position to be fighting a proper war, they're too busy trying to survive and figure out what to do next. Heck, the Federation even stepped in to help them.
Also, Klingon "infighting" is pretty true to the IP. Fights between Klingons on a ship, fights between Houses, fights between different factions. The Klingons fight eachother all the time. House of Duras anyone?
Do you really need more evidence? The IP supports it pretty well, or are we not caring about that anymore?
Do you like leaving out facts you dislike? The Klingons are AT WAR with the Romulans. This can't be represented in the game. They Romulans are disorganized a bit, but they have ships and a civilization. Whatever the state of the Romulan empire, this game can't represent the Klingon-Romulan conflict AT ALL because Romulans are not played, they are NPCs, and Klingons are PvP ONLY.
Klingon infighting on a massive scale never happened when they had someone else to focus their attention on. The Duras thing only lead to massive fighting because the leader of they poisoned the Klingon leader and fought over who'd rule next (though the outright war is said to be not the standard sequence of events). I'm not saying house to house fighting is something that shouldn't be in the game, but limiting the Klingon content to house to house fighting and fighting the Federations IS a major failure and the Klingons are not REPRESENTED well by being PvP-only. They have a lot of stuff going on that requires a PvE experience, and this game isn't delivering that.
In any case, you really didn't nothing to answer my long list of things that can't be represented with PvP-content only. The one thing you did talk about was the Romulan war, and what's your excuse there? That they shouldn't bother doing it? That there should be no missions or content involving the Romulans because their empire is devastated...hence let's leave the fundamental reason why the Federation and Klingons aren't friends out of the game? Please.