I don't understand why StarTrek online has scored in the 60's with metacritic while Mass Effect 2 has scored in the 90's. Is mass effect 2 really 30% better than StarTrek online. I mean i know it has plenty of voice content but I imagine it has little space content and focuses solely on ground content like mass effect 1 did. Anyway if you have played Mass Effect 2 what did they do that makes it 30% better than STO?
The ME series are some of the best science fiction RPGs I've ever played. Yes, they are that good. And honestly, I'd rather have a ME mmo from Bioware than TOR.
I don't understand why StarTrek online has scored in the 60's with metacritic while Mass Effect 2 has scored in the 90's. Is mass effect 2 really 30% better than StarTrek online. I mean i know it has plenty of voice content but I imagine it has little space content and focuses solely on ground content like mass effect 1 did. Anyway if you have played Mass Effect 2 what did they do that makes it 30% better than STO?
Its not necessarily better, its that people don't understand the MMO life cycle. No MMO ever comes out, with everything implemented, with everything 100% work, with everyone happy etc. MMOs evolve as time goes on, it grows WITH the player community. Games like Mass Effect are static, you buy what you buy, and maybe something changes down the road, but it will prolly only be map packs or such. MMOs change daily.
Mass Effect 2 is an awesome game; good voice action, interesting story, neat use of save game import and it has some hilarious dialogue at times. Those are my opinions at least. STO on the other hand is a mostly copy-pasted MMORPG, and copy-pasted from another that is still rather new to boot. It just isn't as complete, content or mechanics-wise, as ME2 is. Of course that is to be expected from a recently released MMORPG. Regardless, if you personally think the game is better than what some critic has to say, then that's what matters.
Its not necessarily better, its that people don't understand the MMO life cycle. No MMO ever comes out, with everything implemented, with everything 100% work, with everyone happy etc. MMOs evolve as time goes on, it grows WITH the player community. Games like Mass Effect are static, you buy what you buy, and maybe something changes down the road, but it will prolly only be map packs or such. MMOs change daily.
********!
I'm very much aware of the MMO lifecycle having been playing them for a decade but regardless of cycle, it comes down to quality.
STO is a budget game that was released before it was ready, regardless of "MMO cycle" TRIBBLE becuase it dont matter if you add icing to the cake later if the base filling taste like ****.
Mass Effect 2 is an awesome game; good voice action, interesting story, neat use of save game import and it has some hilarious dialogue at times. Those are my opinions at least. STO on the other hand is a mostly copy-pasted MMORPG, and copy-pasted from another that is still rather new to boot. It just isn't as complete, content or mechanics-wise, as ME2 is. Of course that is to be expected from a recently released MMORPG. Regardless, if you personally think the game is better than what some critic has to say, then that's what matters.
You know except for some carniverous plants I haven't seen many jokes inside STO. I think some humor would greatly add to the game.
I'll take, as an example, the longest and biggest known MMO to date, WoW.
WoW first started with an amazingly long grind. Even the power levelers too 6-8 months to get to 60, and there was no end game content, no raids as we know them in fact.
Classes were unbalanced, contained broken talents, and some where just flat out useless (anyone remember when Hunters top tier talent was called Mangle?)
The "holy trinity" didn't play out nearly as well during normal WoW, threat was nonexistant, so was generation and CC was a joke.
Those are just a few. As time went on, these things changed. Broken abilities got fixed, or reworked. Instancing became smoother. More content was added to help leveling. End game. Etc.
Now is the point when the morons claim that if WoW already did that, then STO from the start should be like that.
Except STO is a different Engine, thus different bugs will occur. Except STO has a different scope of abilities. Except STO has (albeit no fully) 360 degree functionality. Except STO blends 2 very different play types. Except STO runs on a completely different advancement style. Should I go on? Or will you just ignore all this and continue to rant without any intelligent thing to say?
I don't understand why StarTrek online has scored in the 60's with metacritic while Mass Effect 2 has scored in the 90's. Is mass effect 2 really 30% better than StarTrek online. I mean i know it has plenty of voice content but I imagine it has little space content and focuses solely on ground content like mass effect 1 did. Anyway if you have played Mass Effect 2 what did they do that makes it 30% better than STO?
I'd give STO around 70% personally - having fun but for me less content / interesting / innovative than say LOTRO at launch (and that was hardly ground-breaking). Haven't played ME2 yet but having a ball with ME1 - which for me is a far more complete and enjoyable game than STO at the moment - would give it around 85%.
I have played a lot of MMOs and this one seems rushed - as others have noted - not bashing it but other games have been more polished at launch. I have hopes for this one though - which is why I am here. I also think this one got some bad publicity during beta - I almost passed on it until on of my LOTRO kin mates gave me a free buddy trial - glad I took them up on it.
Lack of space combat in ME is not an issue - it does what it is meant to with style.
Anyway if you have played Mass Effect 2 what did they do that makes it 30% better than STO?
Choices that affect outcomes. Voice acting. Compelling characters.
As opposed to STO where every mission ends the exact same way no matter what you do. Voice acting is limited to tutorial voiceovers. And the most compelling characters we meet have maybe ten dialogue boxes if that.
I don't understand why StarTrek online has scored in the 60's with metacritic while Mass Effect 2 has scored in the 90's. Is mass effect 2 really 30% better than StarTrek online. I mean i know it has plenty of voice content but I imagine it has little space content and focuses solely on ground content like mass effect 1 did. Anyway if you have played Mass Effect 2 what did they do that makes it 30% better than STO?
Mass effect had the semblance of soul put into it.
STO is a soulless husk, and yet another example of why ignoring previous good games is a cardinal sin.
They pretty much just needed to copy and refine upon bridge commander and its decent mods, and take a hint from Elite force for the ground part.
A infuse of a final unity for good measure and boom, instant star trek hit that shall last a decade.
But alas, they franken-steined the engine of their unsuccessful, bad mmo to the Star Trek license.
While the space part turned out to be barely passable - but still ridden with quality issues and bad game design - the ground part is an atrocity. The story telling tools available (shoot things, scan things) are quite limited and the engine limitations are painfully obvious to the point of "WE TOLD YOU IN CB, OB, AND HEADSTART!!!!!!!".
What could have been an epic journey towards money, fame and an awesome Star trek game turned into an invasion of troy, without the horse - and the troys packing assault rifles and tanks.
This is a prime example of "not getting their act together".
Choices that affect outcomes. Voice acting. Compelling characters.
As opposed to STO where every mission ends the exact same way no matter what you do. Voice acting is limited to tutorial voiceovers. And the most compelling characters we meet have maybe ten dialogue boxes if that.
Voice acting has become the holy grail of gaming for many in recent years... ME2's was fine, as was ME1's, but it is a bit like the icing on the cake (story-wise). What's better in ME2 for me was it felt like a challenge (once I turned it up to hardcore) and yes... what you did actually impacted you and the future choices that you'd have to make. Neither of those are present in STO in any way.
I would have scored ME2 with a 85, and a 50-55 for STO as of today.
6/10 to 7.5/10 are the norms for MMOs and with STO (depsite resusing engines and such) was still rushed out too quickly and lacked lots of basic necceities of MMOs that average MMOs have. I love STO, but I too would rate iit around the 6-7 range. Metacritic score is a fair score for this game.
Youll seldom find MMOs that get higher than an 8/10 (AOC and WOW are teh few i know that scored higher).
I'll take, as an example, the longest and biggest known MMO to date, WoW.
WoW first started with an amazingly long grind. Even the power levelers too 6-8 months to get to 60, and there was no end game content, no raids as we know them in fact.
Classes were unbalanced, contained broken talents, and some where just flat out useless (anyone remember when Hunters top tier talent was called Mangle?)
The "holy trinity" didn't play out nearly as well during normal WoW, threat was nonexistant, so was generation and CC was a joke.
Those are just a few. As time went on, these things changed. Broken abilities got fixed, or reworked. Instancing became smoother. More content was added to help leveling. End game. Etc.
Now is the point when the morons claim that if WoW already did that, then STO from the start should be like that.
Except STO is a different Engine, thus different bugs will occur. Except STO has a different scope of abilities. Except STO has (albeit no fully) 360 degree functionality. Except STO blends 2 very different play types. Except STO runs on a completely different advancement style. Should I go on? Or will you just ignore all this and continue to rant without any intelligent thing to say?
actually cryptic would have done well to follow wow's long lvl requirements it would have given them time to make end game content. Instead most hardcore mmorpg players are already at max cap and they have discovered there is no end game content and they have nothing to do but post on the forums and play other games.
The thing I loved about wow early on was how they actually tried to make it fun instead of just making it about the grind for +1 gear over yesterdays gear and everyone operate at max cap. Even the gear could be fun to collect early on. Now its all been so balanced that there are only predictable playstyles. I mean how much fun is it to play tic tac toe when your opponent shows you diagrams of every possible outcome.
Nah, I hated leveling in vanilla. It took TOO much time. STO though, is TOO short. There needs to be middle ground, but its hard to find between the power levelers and the casuals (Though I consider myself casual, I still level fast compared to them)
I'm very much aware of the MMO lifecycle having been playing them for a decade but regardless of cycle, it comes down to quality.
STO is a budget game that was released before it was ready, regardless of "MMO cycle" TRIBBLE becuase it dont matter if you add icing to the cake later if the base filling taste like ****.
I don't understand why StarTrek online has scored in the 60's with metacritic while Mass Effect 2 has scored in the 90's. Is mass effect 2 really 30% better than StarTrek online. I mean i know it has plenty of voice content but I imagine it has little space content and focuses solely on ground content like mass effect 1 did. Anyway if you have played Mass Effect 2 what did they do that makes it 30% better than STO?
MMOs always take a hit on release. LOTRO stayed in the 50s for a year.
I don't understand why StarTrek online has scored in the 60's with metacritic while Mass Effect 2 has scored in the 90's. Is mass effect 2 really 30% better than StarTrek online. I mean i know it has plenty of voice content but I imagine it has little space content and focuses solely on ground content like mass effect 1 did. Anyway if you have played Mass Effect 2 what did they do that makes it 30% better than STO?
Mass Effect 2 blows Star Trek Online out of the water. It has a much better story line, great voice acting, great ground combat and amazing graphics.
In it's current state STO should be lucky to get a metacritic score in the 60's. It's buggy, not finished and lacks content. The UI has a hard to registering mouse clicks FFS! I have to click an ability at least twice before the game activates it.
As far as "no MMOs are released finished" They are. You see, each game has a certain design document that the developers follow. The game is released unfinished when it's missing certain features which, as per the document, should have been there at launch. That is not the same as say developers adding features which, as per the design document, are slated for implementation after the game launches.
BTW, Mass Effect 2 is an amazing game and you should pick it up. However, if you haven't played Mass Effect 1, it's probably a good idea to play it first, as you'll probably be lost playing ME2.
The way I see it, Bioware learned from their previous games and previous mistakes in Mass Effect. Cryptic is on their third MMO and from what I've read, they haven't learned a thing. As one poster already said, a combination of Bridge Commander and Elite Force (two very accessible games that do not require you to be a fan of Star Trek) would have done well. Voice acting is not what's needed (TES III: Morrowind did fine without). What's needed is a little bit more effort put into content. We are probably stuck with the interface and engine as is
Mass Effect 1 was awesome and I hear ME2 is even better.
Ya know I remember a long time ago when IGN and other sites woudln't review MMOs as they came out. It made sense to wait a few months and see where the community went. I don't know rating a game as it comes out seems weird to me, because a lot can change in only a month.
Look at the open beta, a lot changed in OBT. The Entire GUI changed, and the game underwent countless other changes.
But I Guess when you're a business you gotta rush and review things ASAP
Mass Effect 1 was awesome and I hear ME2 is even better.
Ya know I remember a long time ago when IGN and other sites woudln't review MMOs as they came out. It made sense to wait a few months and see where the community went. I don't know rating a game as it comes out seems weird to me, because a lot can change in only a month.
Look at the open beta, a lot changed in OBT. The Entire GUI changed, and the game underwent countless other changes.
But I Guess when you're a business you gotta rush and review things ASAP
err.... major issues remain unresolved. heck, not even acknowledged.
MMOs always take a hit on release. LOTRO stayed in the 50s for a year.
Sorry - this is complete nonsense. LOTRO was stable at launch - heaps of content - and very favourable reviews.
I also disagree with the WoW comparison earlier - played it for 2 years after launch. The 'grind' bit had me laughing - the point is to enjoy the game experience surely - not get to the repetitive end-game? Many folks were upset to see faster levelling introduced.
If the journey is enjoyable you won't be in a hurry to get to the end (which is why ME1 and 2 are so good).
I like ME2 except it may have destroyed my video card. The writting in it is lacking at times as it makes no sense beyond let's do this because it's neat. I liked the first ME better though I hated that it played like a console port. Which is one reason it will get a higher score in and of itself, because of the console crowd.
The negative is it lasted about a week. There is no point in having a multiplayer ME2, it would destroy the story. It's like reading a "good" book but it isn't in anyway an MMO.
It is one of the best story driven RPGs to date. The first one was better though as this one was darker. Had some neat ideas they added of attempting to setup your team and kill you if you made some dumb choices.
You can't reallly compare the two. If you wanted to compare you could only compare ground combat. And actually I think the STO ground combat plays just as good as the ground combat in ME2.
You can't reallly compare the two. If you wanted to compare you could only compare ground combat. And actually I think the STO ground combat plays just as good as the ground combat in ME2.
You can compare them based upon if you enjoyed one or not... and to what degree. They are apple and oranges, but as fruit you can decide which is a better fruit.
Comments
But STO is certainly better than 60%. /shrug
Its not necessarily better, its that people don't understand the MMO life cycle. No MMO ever comes out, with everything implemented, with everything 100% work, with everyone happy etc. MMOs evolve as time goes on, it grows WITH the player community. Games like Mass Effect are static, you buy what you buy, and maybe something changes down the road, but it will prolly only be map packs or such. MMOs change daily.
********!
I'm very much aware of the MMO lifecycle having been playing them for a decade but regardless of cycle, it comes down to quality.
STO is a budget game that was released before it was ready, regardless of "MMO cycle" TRIBBLE becuase it dont matter if you add icing to the cake later if the base filling taste like ****.
one year from now I can imagine STO will be "more complete" than it is now. I hope it gets re-reviewed at that time.
its easily a 7/10 imho at this point, more content and endgame goodness would make it 8 or 9 /10.
As for ME2... I didn't even really like ME2 that much, but I'd go with 25-35% better than STO at this point.
You know except for some carniverous plants I haven't seen many jokes inside STO. I think some humor would greatly add to the game.
I'll take, as an example, the longest and biggest known MMO to date, WoW.
WoW first started with an amazingly long grind. Even the power levelers too 6-8 months to get to 60, and there was no end game content, no raids as we know them in fact.
Classes were unbalanced, contained broken talents, and some where just flat out useless (anyone remember when Hunters top tier talent was called Mangle?)
The "holy trinity" didn't play out nearly as well during normal WoW, threat was nonexistant, so was generation and CC was a joke.
Those are just a few. As time went on, these things changed. Broken abilities got fixed, or reworked. Instancing became smoother. More content was added to help leveling. End game. Etc.
Now is the point when the morons claim that if WoW already did that, then STO from the start should be like that.
Except STO is a different Engine, thus different bugs will occur. Except STO has a different scope of abilities. Except STO has (albeit no fully) 360 degree functionality. Except STO blends 2 very different play types. Except STO runs on a completely different advancement style. Should I go on? Or will you just ignore all this and continue to rant without any intelligent thing to say?
I'd give STO around 70% personally - having fun but for me less content / interesting / innovative than say LOTRO at launch (and that was hardly ground-breaking). Haven't played ME2 yet but having a ball with ME1 - which for me is a far more complete and enjoyable game than STO at the moment - would give it around 85%.
I have played a lot of MMOs and this one seems rushed - as others have noted - not bashing it but other games have been more polished at launch. I have hopes for this one though - which is why I am here. I also think this one got some bad publicity during beta - I almost passed on it until on of my LOTRO kin mates gave me a free buddy trial - glad I took them up on it.
Lack of space combat in ME is not an issue - it does what it is meant to with style.
As opposed to STO where every mission ends the exact same way no matter what you do. Voice acting is limited to tutorial voiceovers. And the most compelling characters we meet have maybe ten dialogue boxes if that.
Mass effect had the semblance of soul put into it.
STO is a soulless husk, and yet another example of why ignoring previous good games is a cardinal sin.
They pretty much just needed to copy and refine upon bridge commander and its decent mods, and take a hint from Elite force for the ground part.
A infuse of a final unity for good measure and boom, instant star trek hit that shall last a decade.
But alas, they franken-steined the engine of their unsuccessful, bad mmo to the Star Trek license.
While the space part turned out to be barely passable - but still ridden with quality issues and bad game design - the ground part is an atrocity. The story telling tools available (shoot things, scan things) are quite limited and the engine limitations are painfully obvious to the point of "WE TOLD YOU IN CB, OB, AND HEADSTART!!!!!!!".
What could have been an epic journey towards money, fame and an awesome Star trek game turned into an invasion of troy, without the horse - and the troys packing assault rifles and tanks.
This is a prime example of "not getting their act together".
what a trope.
This. This is what it boils down to.
It's a shame, really.
Voice acting has become the holy grail of gaming for many in recent years... ME2's was fine, as was ME1's, but it is a bit like the icing on the cake (story-wise). What's better in ME2 for me was it felt like a challenge (once I turned it up to hardcore) and yes... what you did actually impacted you and the future choices that you'd have to make. Neither of those are present in STO in any way.
I would have scored ME2 with a 85, and a 50-55 for STO as of today.
Youll seldom find MMOs that get higher than an 8/10 (AOC and WOW are teh few i know that scored higher).
actually cryptic would have done well to follow wow's long lvl requirements it would have given them time to make end game content. Instead most hardcore mmorpg players are already at max cap and they have discovered there is no end game content and they have nothing to do but post on the forums and play other games.
The thing I loved about wow early on was how they actually tried to make it fun instead of just making it about the grind for +1 gear over yesterdays gear and everyone operate at max cap. Even the gear could be fun to collect early on. Now its all been so balanced that there are only predictable playstyles. I mean how much fun is it to play tic tac toe when your opponent shows you diagrams of every possible outcome.
An example of not understand all MMOs.
MMOs always take a hit on release. LOTRO stayed in the 50s for a year.
Mass Effect 2 blows Star Trek Online out of the water. It has a much better story line, great voice acting, great ground combat and amazing graphics.
In it's current state STO should be lucky to get a metacritic score in the 60's. It's buggy, not finished and lacks content. The UI has a hard to registering mouse clicks FFS! I have to click an ability at least twice before the game activates it.
As far as "no MMOs are released finished" They are. You see, each game has a certain design document that the developers follow. The game is released unfinished when it's missing certain features which, as per the document, should have been there at launch. That is not the same as say developers adding features which, as per the design document, are slated for implementation after the game launches.
BTW, Mass Effect 2 is an amazing game and you should pick it up. However, if you haven't played Mass Effect 1, it's probably a good idea to play it first, as you'll probably be lost playing ME2.
Ya know I remember a long time ago when IGN and other sites woudln't review MMOs as they came out. It made sense to wait a few months and see where the community went. I don't know rating a game as it comes out seems weird to me, because a lot can change in only a month.
Look at the open beta, a lot changed in OBT. The Entire GUI changed, and the game underwent countless other changes.
But I Guess when you're a business you gotta rush and review things ASAP
err.... major issues remain unresolved. heck, not even acknowledged.
Sorry - this is complete nonsense. LOTRO was stable at launch - heaps of content - and very favourable reviews.
I also disagree with the WoW comparison earlier - played it for 2 years after launch. The 'grind' bit had me laughing - the point is to enjoy the game experience surely - not get to the repetitive end-game? Many folks were upset to see faster levelling introduced.
If the journey is enjoyable you won't be in a hurry to get to the end (which is why ME1 and 2 are so good).
The negative is it lasted about a week. There is no point in having a multiplayer ME2, it would destroy the story. It's like reading a "good" book but it isn't in anyway an MMO.
It is one of the best story driven RPGs to date. The first one was better though as this one was darker. Had some neat ideas they added of attempting to setup your team and kill you if you made some dumb choices.
You can't reallly compare the two. If you wanted to compare you could only compare ground combat. And actually I think the STO ground combat plays just as good as the ground combat in ME2.
Same in ME2 crashing my system.
You can compare them based upon if you enjoyed one or not... and to what degree. They are apple and oranges, but as fruit you can decide which is a better fruit.