Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
STO - Euro Gamer Review
JeroKane
Member EpicPosts: 7,096
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/star-trek-online-review
A true fan that wrote it an for a change, especially for EG sakes, this is actually a well written review that sums up pretty much every issue with thorough explanation.
Especially this part was spot on (very well formulated):
It's an extremely bitty game. Content comes in chunks that last anything from five minutes to an hour, but chunks is the operative word - they're discrete missions in small instanced locations, each existing in its own bubble with little or nothing to connect it to the big picture. Even that big picture - "sector space", the abstract star map that connects one system or deep space encounter to another, that you crawl across at warp speed - is broken up into tight little squares. Loading screens are everywhere, and the use of instancing is extreme, relentless.
I think he was pretty generous for giving it a 6/10. But I guess it sums it about right.
Comments
A good read, valid points for all, however I do have a question for you if I may.
What do 'You' like about the game?
You seem to have had a bad experience with the community as I've seen several posts where you refer to the community as at each others throats and constantly arguing, yet I've played daily and failed to encounter a problem. However, there was some bickering at the Open Beta stage definately, but yeah, I'm just curious. I know what Cryptic have done wrong, everyone is quick to say, just from someones point of view who loathes the game, whats good about it?
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
Honestly?
What Cryptic is good in, is delivering one of the best Character Customization tools. That is definetely something Cryptic is unrivaled in.
They also pretty good in skillbased systems. At least, so far with City of Heroes and Champions Online.
Unfortunately with STO they screwed up misserably with the Skill system, as it doesn't make any sense.
This was not such a big deal, as till the end of Open Beta there was no CAP on the Skill System. So you could end up with skills you'd like in the end anyway.
That is no longer the case, the current CAP is way way too low (only able to CAP 1 out of 16 in Admiral tree is a complete joke), plus you are forced to dump precious skill points in skills you don't want, just to rank up!
If they want to keep the CAP in place, they really need to revamp the entire Skill System A.S.A.P.
Unfortunately, that's about it, when it comes to positives with this game. All the rest is just "Meh"
Wich I have explained enough already, and the writer of the article has explained it even better then me, with all the stuff that's wrong with the game.
The things that bugged me the most, are the horrific amount of loading screens, tiny zones and instances and the boring, generic, repetitive missions wich give you an insta DeJaVu with City of Heroes. From the horrible mob AI, the animations, etc.
People had their pet peeves with some of Eurogamers reviews in the past. But this review is really spot on! And very very well written. He explained everything with enough depth.
Very accurate review.. with some help and ALOT of patching and working.. it might make it to another review and make it to 7.. but I wouldn't hold your breath
Decent review, without being a huge rant.
The score of 6/10 they gave seems okay, but with so much missing content and game-play freedom and staples that I've come to look forward to in a mmorpg, the best I would have given is a 5/10; I dont bet on futures.
I'm no fan of STO, but i am even less of a EG one. Their reviews are usually trash, based on minimum experience with a the game in question. I have no respect for their opinion.
Havent read this one, and I don't see the need to. I know the game isnt for me already.
Completely agree, why people even read that site is beyond me.
Expresso gave me a Hearthstone beta key.....I'm so happy
I think others said the same in this thread,anyway...I played the open beta,and HATED the game. But i wouldn't trust EG review of the sky being blue.Honest.
"The space MMO itself has warped in unprepared, jury-rigged, piecemeal and scatterbrained."
Wow, it's a pretty damning review. I agree that 6/10 seems generous just based on the review alone.
While I agree with some of the review's complaints, anyone else feel that it's wrong to publish a review of an MMOG the same week it's released? Honestly, that doesn't seem like enough time to review your average single player game, much less an MMO.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Seeing as people has hit the level cap in three days then that is plenty of time to review this game.
Eve in three days? No.
World of Warcraft in three days? No
Champions Online and Star Trek Online? Yes.
Doesnt take many hours to see what 99% of the games content will be like as Cryptic seem to use some kind of generator to create their content as they are usually very alike each other. Kinda remind me of the autogenerated Diablo maps.
My gaming blog
But to be fair it also says:
Despite all of these complaints, those hordes of starship captains are quite happy. They may not have many different things to do, and the missions and UI may be rather buggy, but there does seem to be enough content to sustain them - at least until the endgame - and even at its worst that content is knockabout fun with more instant appeal, and more suitability for casual, short-session, low-commitment play than most MMOs.
So not a game for everybody but a game for some people.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Not really; most reviewers wait until a couple of days after a MMO launch to review. Generally I would consider a launch day review a bit too soon, though some games have needed that (AO, WWIIOnline). In this case, as with CO, you don't really need to wait all that long to see what the games all about; in two or three days you should have a very good idea what the gameplay is going to consist of and how things handle. It is not that deep of a game.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
The game has also been in open beta for the past month, and closed beta for the past 3(?) months. The reviewer could have easily obtained an open beta key.
As far as I can tell, the game hasn't changed significantly since open beta.
Ehmm why? All because of that Darkfall article? Give me a break.
Every site and magazine has it's good and bad articles. As you know, articles are written by human beings. And reviews are the opinion of the reviewer. Thatæs just how it is.
In this case of the STO review. This guys is a true Star Trek fan, went head in into the game with his guild full of ST fans and actually played the game!
His review is one of the better review articles I have read lately. And he really tried to stay unbiashed (altho he couldn't deny he was a ST fan) and gave it a fair score.
But I know that Rabid fanboys trash every review article that doesn't give their HOLY game less then 10/10. That's nothing new either.
Nope.
EG has a history of writing reviews based on a few hours game time, they did this with FE as well.
I have read half a dozen biased, skewed and often, downright inaccurate reviews on that site. I actually read the STO one, god knows why i did it, but it was very poor. Some of it rang true, but not all of it. It's just a badly written review with little inherant worth.
For what it's worth, i am a STO fan, i play, i enjoy it, but i don't care if EG gave it 11/10 or 0/10, their reviewers are terrible and they state opinion as fact, often based on limited experience.
Many MMO gamers consider this site to be the toilet of review sites, which is usually why, when someone posts an EG review thread on any subject, it recieves the same treatment.
Expresso gave me a Hearthstone beta key.....I'm so happy
The game has also been in open beta for the past month, and closed beta for the past 3(?) months. The reviewer could have easily obtained an open beta key.
As far as I can tell, the game hasn't changed significantly since open beta.
Actually, one reviewer a few months back posted an interesting article about how much time is enough to review a game? He mentioned they are paid small fees based frequently on word count, so he normally only spent about 20-30 hours playing any game and of course, had to limit the length of what he wrote which makes reviews seem incomplete.
Its the nature of the beast, they are never going to play to end game before they write, you'll always get a look based on the early stages of the game and it will never seem as fully fleshed out as it should be.
And how much you agree with the reviewer will be strongly dependent on how similar your gaming preferences are to theirs.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The game has also been in open beta for the past month, and closed beta for the past 3(?) months. The reviewer could have easily obtained an open beta key.
As far as I can tell, the game hasn't changed significantly since open beta.
Actually, one reviewer a few months back posted an interesting article about how much time is enough to review a game? He mentioned they are paid small fees based frequently on word count, so he normally only spent about 20-30 hours playing any game and of course, had to limit the length of what he wrote which makes reviews seem incomplete.
Its the nature of the beast, they are never going to play to end game before they write, you'll always get a look based on the early stages of the game and it will never seem as fully fleshed out as it should be.
And how much you agree with the reviewer will be strongly dependent on how similar your gaming preferences are to theirs.
That's assuming that reviewers don't, you know, play video games for fun. But that would be unheard of, wouldn't it?
Ehmm why? All because of that Darkfall article? Give me a break.
Every site and magazine has it's good and bad articles. As you know, articles are written by human beings. And reviews are the opinion of the reviewer. Thatæs just how it is.
In this case of the STO review. This guys is a true Star Trek fan, went head in into the game with his guild full of ST fans and actually played the game!
His review is one of the better review articles I have read lately. And he really tried to stay unbiashed (altho he couldn't deny he was a ST fan) and gave it a fair score.
But I know that Rabid fanboys trash every review article that doesn't give their HOLY game less then 10/10. That's nothing new either.
Nope.
EG has a history of writing reviews based on a few hours game time, they did this with FE as well.
I have read half a dozen biased, skewed and often, downright inaccurate reviews on that site. I actually read the STO one, god knows why i did it, but it was very poor. Some of it rang true, but not all of it. It's just a badly written review with little inherant worth.
For what it's worth, i am a STO fan, i play, i enjoy it, but i don't care if EG gave it 11/10 or 0/10, their reviewers are terrible and they state opinion as fact, often based on limited experience.
Many MMO gamers consider this site to be the toilet of review sites, which is usually why, when someone posts an EG review thread on any subject, it recieves the same treatment.
The EG review is pretty much saying what everyone else is saying about the game. I think your love for the game is affecting your view of the article.
On the one hand, I'm hoping that the game actually fosters exploration and discovery over "shoot the [ship/NPC], take stuff, repeat" missions on which it's currently based.
On the other hand, I also thought that with Champions Online, and five months later, that's turned out to be an abject failure. Seeing that STO is built on the Champions Online engine, and seeing how little Cryptic has done with Champions Online, I'm rapidly losing hope.
The review is generous. The eye candy's great, and the game has interesting possibilities - they're using the alternate history timeline from the J.J. Abrams movie, so there's a good degree of latitude here. But, they seem dead set on not exploiting what is one of the most lucrative pieces of intellectual property around, and they've instead fast-tracked a game that is anything but what Star Trek fans would expect.
Agreed, the game could be scored 2/10 by them, nobody cares or listens to their reviews anymore.
Why has nobody posted a link for the you tube video of all the nerd ragers declaring war on Euro Gamer In STO??
Please post it at once!
i find EG the best site for reviews, i mainly check IGN for PC related news, and EG reviews are being posted here more often then reviews of other sites (thought IGN and GameSpot come close) which is a good indicator that a lot of ppl find it a credible source (as far as reviews can go there)
each person has his own preferences i guess