test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Gamespot has started it's STO Review...Check it.
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Gamespot has started it's review process of STO. When reviewing a MMO they do a initial review, then finish it after the first few months. Check out Gamespots starting review Here .
Here's a quote from the review:
"Our initial thoughts? Star Trek Online is underwhelming"
Here's a quote from the review:
"Our initial thoughts? Star Trek Online is underwhelming"
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The review is dead on.
Nice.
They all have the same problems lol
A Ferengi trusts no one, and that wasn't a captain - it was a Quark-like figure, owner and operator of the bar on that seedy space-station. He was being un-cooperative, and so you do a "safety inspection" (Starfleet are like the galaxy's cops or by-law officers after all) which (naturally) finds so many violations the Ferengi suddenly becomes cooperative. Whoever paid that Ferengi to keep a secret didn't pay him enough to see his bar closed down by the Health and Safety Board!
As for the bar patrons attacking you? They are bar patrons. Nuff said? No? Ok. Let's assume then that this seedy space station serves not fake synthale but the real deal. Then you, the boy/girl scout Starfleet officer waltz in and turn off their holodeck and ruin their fun. They react in much the same way as some forum posters do when Cryptic pulls down the server.
I thought that episode was original and kinda fun. Bar fights in space!
The reviewer makes some good points but he seems, like many reviewers of STO, to have only played a few hours of it. With much of the great episodic content back-loaded, such reviewers are naturally left with a "meh" feeling. Same reason he finds the space combat kinda "meh" after a while - "Because for now, combat is exceptionally easy". The reviewer seems to understand the first few levels are a giant tutorial which is easy by design, but goes ahead and qq's about it anyway.
Definitely one of the weaker articles I've read so far on STO post-release.
The reviewer took the same amount of time to read quests as 99% of players do, zero.
[Sorry to snip your post, I did read all of it, I just didn't want to quote a long post to make a quick reply.]
http://kotaku.com/328244/gamespot-editor-fired-over-kane--lynch-review
Well, there you go then. All Cryptic has to do then is advertise on their website and bully them into writing a positive review.
And yes, looks like buddy didn't read his mission text - a common enough mistake from the average gamer but from a professional reviewer? No wonder missions don't make sense to him, and no wonder he feels as Captain Picard did in that episode where they lost their memories, where he says something like "I feel I've been lead into a room, given a gun and told to shoot a complete stranger".
Yeah, Gamespot is a sell out, anyone who offers them enough green can get whatever scores they like.
Oh they are, it's just those would be in gamespots forum, not on the comment page.
what are you trying to prove? that gamespot cant review games? all reviews on this game so far say it pretty much sucks so whats your point?
It does attract a lot of kids. However it's still considered one of the mainstream gaming sites so they still have some say in things despite the Gerstman incident. I hope the reviewer takes his time to READ the missions in an RPG next time he decides to make fun of the logic in a mission.
Kotaku likes it so far, Joystiq has also posted some positive previews. On gametrailers it's ranked as the 19 (as of now) most viewed PC game media and 47 overall with a avg user rating of 8.6
Strategy Informer gave it 8/10
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/startrekonline/review.html
MMORPG Realm gave it 7/10
http://www.mmorpgrealm.com/star-trek-online-review/
IGN gave a mid ground preview.
The point is that smart people make up their own mind and do not rely on someone else to decide what is good or bad for them.
is that a joke? theres like 3 different kinds of mission types in this game and they all use the same rehashed text content. This games story content is a joke. If this stuff passes off as story content then world of warcraft's quests must be like a lord of the rings trilogy.
You got SO screwed out of your money dude. It will last for a year TOPS and then this game is history.
what stupid logic. In that case who needs review systems. Go tell amazon to get rid of there review system and tell them that everyone should make up there own mind and not rely on someone else to decide whats good or bad.
I can't argue with people too lazy/impatient to read a small paragraph of text.
That review tells it EXACTLY as it is.
Who said get rid of it? critics and reviewers need to make money too. But doesn't mean what they tell us is always right. Critic is also a person just like us and his opinion is of his own. All my life i have never depended on critics or reviewers to decide what movie i should watch, what music i should hear and what book i should read.
Like i said i decide for myself what i want to enjoy and spend my money on and i am sure there are many others who do the same.
The question you should be asking yourself is this.
If it didn't have the Star Trek name would you have given this game a first glance or second look?
That will determine if the game is good to you or not. Doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks your the one that is paying the subscription!
The answer for me is no. I think its medicore at best.
You said it, but it wont be having the high scores that a game based on Star Trek deserves.
I'm assuming most of the people on this forum have actually played the game, so not sure how this review would be usefull to any of us.
Maybe for somone who is considering buying the game, but not for us.
Well my prediction is 7/10 average. We'll see what averages out on metacritic
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/startrekonline?q=star%20trek%20online
That said, it would be nice if a given publication had a standard set of rules by which all of their Raters operated. That way there would be some sort of uniformity and people could frequent a publication that meets their game / play style.