OP I think you are being a little over the top. you dont agree with the moral reason for a quest which is fair enough you made the point well. However its the whole qutting part over you virtually killing someone. You do know this is just a game right nobody really died.
I don't fully agree with the OP, but I can't agree with this either. I don't play evil classes or species in games because I have no desire to pretend to do evil any more than I want to do it in real life. Quitting over one poorly written quest making you do something you would not choose to do is "over the top," but I could not play a game that continually forced me to make choices I would not make in real life just because "nobody really died" either.
Trek has not "ALWAYS been about finding morality." Take the Prime Directive. A third of the time, they are trying to find ways to justify violating it simply because it is convenient to do so. A third of the time, they are trying to find ways to justify to themselves why they are doing what they clearly feel is immoral simply because the Prime Directive tells them they can't do what they know to be right, and the remaining third of the time they are hiding behind it because it allows them to avoid making tough decisions, which is really what the Prime Directive is about, avoiding making moral choices.
The biggest laugh I ever got out of the series was listening to Picard (a character I generally admire, by the way), actually trying to justify letting entire peoples die rather than risk helping them and violating the Prime Directive because it might result in the same thing.
I love Trek. But, please. It isn't the bastion of moral thinking you are making it to be.
Actually. That's the entire point. It makes you think. It makes you wonder. It makes you feel something, at best, at least it dwells into something bigger than point and shoot. It's storytelling with a moral hypothesis and a big grey area as a guideline. I could also name a whole bunch of other TNG episodes which did just that. They were intriguing, or dramatic in some way.
What the hell does blatant "pew pew" make you do other than react? A bunch of one key number combinations which lead innevitably to the death of your target. /yawn. Go here kill 5 things and come back, here's your treat, good dog, now rollover.
I recently sent the following post in private message straight to the EP. I post it here un-edited in the hopes that it will generate some thoughtful commentary, or perhaps bring about a very necessary change, one that may bring me back.
I intend to lurk the forums after my time is up, because I do hope that things get better. I honestly want to play this game and enjoy it. It's why I bought it. I don't make it my routine to go buy things I think I'll hate. (Penny Arcade readers will know what comic I'm referencing.) Having said that, no you can't have my stuff, I may return if things improve.
The message, for your consideration -
You sir, get my applause. Ignore the fan-boys, their broken record is useless anyway.
You said it in a very mature and effective way, including the pertinent examples.
Excellent letter. I wish mine to Cryptic had been as eloquent, but how many ways can one say "you guys really Effed up this game" over and over?
Again, good job!
I said I wasn't a "big fan" I don't go to conventions dressed in uniform, I don't speak Klingon, and I've never trained in the art of the Vulcan Nerve Pinch.
I know enough about the subject, about the shows, about the series, the books and the story to know that Starfleet does not make it their mission to shoot everything that moves. You don't need to be so angry about this, just open your eyes and take a good look.
As for Section 31, it's the "black ops" branch of the operations, right? The things that don't normally get published in research journals. I was not aware that I was a member of that group. I thought I was a Starfleet officer, you know, dress in a uniform and do the works that are publicly acknowledged? Maybe you and I are playing different games entirely.
My Starfleet makes it their mission to shoot everything that moves.
i am pretty sure a massacare is when one group completely destroys/wipes out another group. Like Custer's last stand is known aa the Massacar at Wounded Knee.
Anyway that is debatabe, the point is that I dont understand why every group of bad guys you come across is Suicidal. Ok so maybe the Jem Hadar are pretty Kamikazi like, and Klingons are happy to die in battle, even if there was no chance of them winning. Granted those types are probobly going to have to be killed. But every one else I come across wants to fight to the death?
All Im saying is in Star Trek sometimes the bad guy run away. Sometimes they give up.
I beam down to a planet to scan some plants. There are Orions there hanging around. My only responce is to waste them all?
On the other hand, I agree with your recomendation that imagination is the key. In order to make this game fit into the Star Trek universe, I have to pretend, imagine, or otherwise change what I see on my screen.
I have been doing this, but it becomes tiresome after mission after mission of "kill 5 squads of super weak enemies"
All I ask for is a stun setting. Dont change anything exept make it so I can stun my hundreds of victims.
Kirk stunned a couple city blocks worth of Gangster Planet innocent bystanders from space! I have no problem doing the missions exactly as they are, without HAVING to pretend Im not making widows and orphans cry.
A massacre is when a large number destroys a smaller number, or a heavily armed number destroy a much weaker group. Custer was heavily outnumbered, for instance. Don't take my word for it, just look it up in the dictionary. A small force that defeats a heavier force in fair combat hasn't massacred them. In the game you are not more powerful then the foes; you just happen to be a better captain. There are other players who, it turns out, find the game HARD. You just happen to be better then most. Hail to the Kirk!
In what way do you have to "...pretend, imagine or otherwise change what you see..." on your screen to stop ASSUMING that you have KILLED every person you've met and instead ASSUME that you have stunned them?
That is the point I keep TRYING to make, and yet some of ya'll resist it with such a great strength I am flabbergasted. In most of the missions it does not say that you killed the people. The Bar? NO WHERE does it say you killed the patrons. If you had, don't you think the bar owner would have said something about the rampant slaughter? Or be more fearful of you when he caved in to your demands for info? Instead he seems more irritated that you've found so many problems. It's like, there MUST be a dialogue window that says, "Captain, you have stunned this opponent! He is still ALIVE...but he is JUST STUNNED CAPTAIN! DO YOU HEAR ME? HE IS STUNNED!" Without this device, then the ONLY possible alternative that is possible...is you murdered them!
All I am offering is a different way to look at things. After all, in most of the missions the game does NOT say you KILLED anyone. So why assume you did? Other then the fact it gives you a reason to complain about how 'badly' Cryptic has 'ruined' the game. Which, I think, is the ultimate reason some people keep insisting that it's all death. Otherwise they are left without something to complain.
As far as the Romulan Scientist mission, you didn't set forth to murder innocent doctors. You went forth to kill enemy scientists working on a weapon so terrible every galactic society had banned them. Heavily armed scientist, it turns out, carrying weapons comparable to your crew's. You can ONLY judge a mission based on what you know at hand.
Is this, or any other mission, perfect? Heck no. They need a lot of work. But again, you are not told you are killing the people in most of the missions so why assume that is so? Unless, it's because you want to be killing them so you can complain about being 'forced' to kill them? It takes the exact SAME effort to assume you have killed them as it does to assume you have stunned them.
A small force that defeats a heavier force in fair combat hasn't massacred them. In the game you are not more powerful then the foes; you just happen to be a better captain.
I would definatly dissagree with this. I have had to leave my away team around a corner to go fight alone just to make it more of a challenge. Most foes I come across are VERY easy to "defeat"
Not always of course, sometimes its a fair fight, or Im even outnumbered. In those cases I can understand turning my phaser all the way up and letting my BOs fire at will.
Whatever the definition of massacar is, the point is I FEEL like the baddies stand no chance, and are helpless against me. After a while it doesnt feel like Im doing the right thing by "defeating" them so completely.
In most of the missions it does not say that you killed the people. The Bar? NO WHERE does it say you killed the patrons. If you had, don't you think the bar owner would have said something about the rampant slaughter?
Yeah actually I vaporized one of the angry drunks, not that a Ferengi would care, as long as his bill was paid.... he said nothing about it. But I didn't really expect him to go off script anyway. Also I have no proof that "defeated" foes are not dead.
It's like, there MUST be a dialogue window that says, "Captain, you have stunned this opponent! He is still ALIVE...but he is JUST STUNNED CAPTAIN! DO YOU HEAR ME? HE IS STUNNED!" Without this device, then the ONLY possible alternative that is possible...is you murdered them!
Agreed, point taken. Currently there is no distinction between killing, defeating, and incinerating your enemies. How to relieve the Picards out there while keeping the Siscos happy? I dont know. I have suggested a stun setting on phasers that actually stuns. Most weapons besides phasers do not have a widely known STUN setting, most people getting shot by disrupters end up dead. "Defeating" your foe with a Bat'leth, disruptor or phaser all look the same. So logically they all seem to have same deadly result.
So why assume you did? Other then the fact it gives you a reason to complain about how 'badly' Cryptic has 'ruined' the game. Which, I think, is the ultimate reason some people keep insisting that it's all death. Otherwise they are left without something to complain.
It is Cryptic's game, I dont think they ruined it. I think they are ruining Star Trek. But that is my personal opinion and I dont expect everyone to feel that way. Really though I have no complaints other than this.
If this was addressed I really wouldnt have anything to complain about.
That is the goal of posting all this, to get the Devs to take a look and make some (minor) changes.
I apreciate your position, and thank you for responding with sound arguements. I just dissagree.
your wasting your time- this is afterall a compnay in a landwe shall not mention that thrives on corportate greed over anything else- they got to keep there garages stocked with ferrari's and hummers.
all your posts are meaningless.
just quit and dont give this sham of a company another penny!
This.
Thankfully, I wasnt one of the suckers born yesterday to buy into a lifetime subscription for nothing more than a content-less, single-player-esque, rudimentary third-person shooter.
Just let the bafoons have their forum, and the game die a peaceful death. . .its more than cryptic did for us.
Yeah you'd be right if not TRIBBLE... IF you hadnt noticed teh opening scenario pretty much all of Starfleet is wiped out and they all but declared total war on 3 giant factions/races. So stop being stupid and good luck in being able to understand the next game you flail around in.
i just made a episode Captain rank 1, where you really only stun the people and not kill them. okie you dont set stun on weapon, just beat them until they have low hp, but you still dont kill them. it is the one where section 31 pass you they test.
About the writing, it is pretty good for the episode, i think you mostly skip it and surely not read it. It is very Trek, the actions it is not mush Trekie explorer. We are not Picard time, mostly doing exploration story, it is more Sisco style. Federation is in middle of Galaxy War 1, going stun mode whit your battle, i dont think ours brigue of us ship will be enough big. In Eploration mode, sure it need more stuff, and dev already know and working on it. I think it is better they fix bug in the game first that they add more stuff who risk bug more the game.
About some side info, the game has be make in 2 years from scratch, and 15 millions dollard cost (that price was before open beta launch). Most other MMO whit more time under-development for example Tabula Rasa, 5 year work and was far less complete at launch that STO. Sending/make a topic saying you leaving for not good reason, other that the game it not your playstyle is childish. It is like buy Myth, playing it, dont like the style of gameplay and sending a email asking they make it first-person shooter or a RTS.
Answer that question, say me a other MMO, at launch time where you got multiple option for how complete the Quest. I know none. The only one will be Star wars old republic, and it is mostly because it is Bioware making it. But will still be a ground game, for has the dev said, they dont think they will add space battle.
Finaly, may i have your stuff? and good luck in your next MMO.
Is it just me or is it fun to just kill stuff? I mean I love this game because underneath it is a semi-mindless pew pew type game. I do not want to negotiate etc I want to go up against enemies with my ship. How boring would it be if we had to constantly do these fed ex missions (go here talk to x go there talk to x etc etc). I want to kill things and see explosions.
I completely understand where you're coming from and agree with your perspective as a Star Trek fan.
However, please consider this. What type of game can you make an MMORPG out of purely exploring space and to conduct diplomatic missions where your sole purpose is to negotiate a trade agreement? Can you make a game that will keep people interested in that context?
Look at the other Star Trek games that are in existence. What do they concentrate on? Battle and wars. Look at the Card Game. etc. etc.
Such games are based on conflict where matters are resolved in battle. Mass of people will enjoy flying a ship and blowing things up, rather than to run around and identify a new species of plants.
There's no way this game will survive if it takes on the context you're proposing. This is reality. You're not likely to have as big of an audience for a MMO Puzzle solving game.
So what I'm suggesting is for you to take a practical look at what will bring in the majority of players. As much as this is a game, it's also a business. If your business isn't making profit, there's really no point in continuing the product. And being that this is one of it's kind on the market, I'd hate to see it pulled off the shelves.
So while I can sympathize with you, I'm afraid you're not going to get what you want out of this game.
This is quite frankly the most offensive statement I've read yet. Because it denotes exactly how dumbed down this game has become, but it's not just the game, but a great many of the players playing it, whom do not care about story or elements which allow you to get any meaning out of it.
The OP made a resounding, well thought out and critical statement about the total lack of any thought that has been placed into the storylines behind this game. There are no choices, there are no options. There are no paths to follow, or puzzles to figure out. In short there are zero lessons of morality or anything else that Trek was supposed to represent.
This is not WoW in space. This is Trek. The rest of you trolls and mouthbreathers that enjoy bashing things to death with clubs can head on back over to Azeroth, because you're not welcome here, and you're not needed.
This game has amazing potential to fulfill many roles, especially by challenging you to think about something more than vaporizing everything you come across. Trek is different, Trek has ALWAYS been about finding morality, and the greater inward understanding of self, while outwardly exploring the universe around us. That is the meaning of Trek. Which this game is sorely missing.
This is not Trek. This is Trek lite with a large portion of first person shooter.
-avery
Is this the First ever Star Trek based game you've ever played? Please research back in the past on the successful (albeit few) Star Trek based games and understand what they're about. WAR, Ship battles, etc. This is not the first of it's type... it's just the first MMORPG.
So while Star Trek does stand for a mix of solving puzzles and the greater good of mankind, the games are not. All the good ones are based on Battles and that's proven to be the majority interest. This is not a new idea... please stop looking at this is "OMG, how can you ruin Star Trek like this...". If you're going to say that, then you might as well boycott every other Star Trek game ever made, rather than make this sound like Cryptic is the only company to butcher your dreams. Then it's just best to read Star Trek books and rewatch all the episodes, because you're not going to get a game that's 100% Star Trek universe.
do none of these "quitters" realize that a state of war exists? and that, in war, atrocities exist? and also, that as soldiers in that war, ones duty must be done, for "ours is not to reason why; ours is to do and die"? if you "quitters" cannot stomach war, then find a game that has no conflict of any kind in it, and leave those of us who remain to do our duty.
All the visuals and sounds to 'almost' make it feel like Star Trek. But its like the Matrix in that we keep trying to wake up from it all saying "this isn't real."
Every time I irradicate a station full of Klingons or Gorn I think to myself even in the greatest of Star Trek fire fights it didn't go down like this.
countless mission make me think of this but in the end I am not a killer, yet I am being forced to play as such.
THIS IS YOUR MISTAKE CRYPTIC
With no focus on diplomacy, scientific research (crafting), meaningful decisions, peaceful solutions, any real FEELING of being at war (I feel just as much at war with Klingons as I do with the Romulans, Cardassians, Dominion) You have forced us to focus on the fact that it is all about combat and the mindless senseless non-fed feeling slaughter of anyone that stands before us.
IF WE HAD CHOICES IN THE END RESULT
we wouldn't feel this way...
QFT. This.
This is how I feel about STO. Cryptic/Atari/CBS... whoever is responsible for what STO has become... you gave us that which we did not want.
I recently sent the following post in private message straight to the EP. I post it here un-edited in the hopes that it will generate some thoughtful commentary, or perhaps bring about a very necessary change, one that may bring me back.
I intend to lurk the forums after my time is up, because I do hope that things get better. I honestly want to play this game and enjoy it. It's why I bought it. I don't make it my routine to go buy things I think I'll hate. (Penny Arcade readers will know what comic I'm referencing.) Having said that, no you can't have my stuff, I may return if things improve.
The message, for your consideration -
Excellent letter. I hope it brings some excellent change.
to me this is the DS9 universe gomne wild..and while I love rodenberry and the utopian dream..I also love gaming and cant see how saving whales would fit into this game no matter how apt it may be.
The OP isn't so wrong, I am just inclined to treat this as a game AND an mmo rather than a canon bananza..having said that there is still merit in wjhat he says even if not to copmpletely re-write things..it's certainly worth taking on board the OP's post's. The cool thing about SCI-FI has always been you can change the rules for one episode or a game etc etc..and the fans will buy it AS LONG as you dopnt hide away from it. Often I have seen a one line explanation pacify trek fans easily..because i guess maybe we feel it wasa at least better thought out and there is an "excuse".
So OP has a BIG point concerning the writing, dont think he was fair to say these guys had never watched trek..cause OBviously they have! But yeah ok they have mkissed the point to some degree.
But violence is always gonna be a big part of this game, if thats not a concept that can grwo on tyou then this game will never deliver. But from the first day i played this game i felt like i was FINALLY getting a chance to play trek in that "diminion war" fashion I had always hoped...season 4 the way of the warrior kicked alot of it off..thats the universe this strikes me as the most..so im not totally bummed out.
But if the OP's points are considered then it would without doubt go from being a great game with some silly flaws..to just a great game
First, I am all for having different options and diplomatic choices. But the OP and many others who keep trying to argue for these changes instantly lose any credibility as far as I am concerned when they use hyperbole and misinformation to justify their case.
For instance, yes, Star Trek had a lot of episodes devoted to following one's conscience, and it would be nice if they could incorporate options other than battle in the game (more than they already do, that is). I have not done the mission where you apparently kill innocent doctors, and if that is what happens without there being some repercussions as a result, I would agree that this mission is poorly written and forces you to make a wrong choice. But please, take off the rose-colored glasses and quit acting like nothing like that could ever happen in the series.
Ironically, just last night, I was watching a TNG episode. In that episode, the crew lost some of its memory and the computer core had some records erased. This was done by an alien race who planted a fake first officer on Enterprise to convince them that they were at war with that race's enemy so they could use the Enterprise to destroy their enemy's command and control base. Even though they knew something did not seem right, they accepted what they were told. Even when they blasted through the outer automated defenses without a scratch and discussed the fact that "that was too easy," they continued on. What happens when they finally encounter a manned vessel that tries to hail them. Even though they can see it is clearly no threat to them, they continue to accept the mole's assertions that they are at risk, refusing to answer the hail and causing the ship to fire on them, Picard then orders them to fire back and, with one phaser blast, turns the vessel and all its crew into an expanding debris cloud even though the attack didn't even cause discoloration of the Enterprise's exterior paint job.
So don't act like the scenario in question is that far fetched. Yes, they did eventually stop before destroying the command post, but only after they made it into firing range and were seconds from pushing the button even though every instinct to that point told them them something was wrong and every thing they encountered to that point confirmed it. And don't tell me, "Yeah, but they stopped," because the corollary is not what happened at the command post but, rather, what happened back at the disassociate molecules that used to be the crew of the vessel they encountered. What happened when they encountered a vessel that could not possibly hurt them: they pwned the noob faster than a PvP gank squad in a starter zone.
Is it poor writing to force players to kill innocents, especially if there is no option to avoid it? Yes. But people need to quit acting like this could never happen in Star Trek.
Similarly, I am growing weary of the propaganda being used to describe the ambush at the bar. People, again, don rose-colored glasses to see only what suits their outlook. See, it is much more convenient to describe that action as Federation Officers "murdering drunken bar patrons" over "safety violations" than describe what really happened. In reality, this was not a bar-fight over safety regulations. You were investigating a kidnapping related to the war. You knew the person you were looking for was likely on that station, and you knew the bar owner knew where this person, whose life was in danger, was. But rather than pulling out a phaser and shooting off minor appendages until he talked, you legally pointed out safety violations that could cost him money until he decided it was better to give you the information. At that point, smugglers and other criminals in the bar ambushed you, not with fists and barstools, but with deadly weapons. You and your crew legally and morally returned fire killing them. And, yes, they are identified as smugglers even if you choose to ignore the fact that the mission tells you the area is a smuggling den.
Referring to that as a mere "bar fight" is disingenuous, and saying you "murdered" those people is pure propaganda.
Argue if you will that there should be more options. I will stand behind you as long as they are options and not a replacement for alternative ways to do the missions. But continue to paint over the episodes as if nothing like this could happen in Star Trek or falsely portray the reality of what is happening in the missions, and I can't.
This is an excellent post that sums up my reaction to alot of what has been said about the game regarding the combat heavy nature of it and how alot has been blown out of proportion for the sake of bolstering a particular viewpoint. You can't really have a legitimate discussion about quests and the storylines in general by misrepresenting what's actually in the game.
do none of these "quitters" realize that a state of war exists? and that, in war, atrocities exist? and also, that as soldiers in that war, ones duty must be done, for "ours is not to reason why; ours is to do and die"? if you "quitters" cannot stomach war, then find a game that has no conflict of any kind in it, and leave those of us who remain to do our duty.
Krenn, I take it you don't understand what war is. And that's okay, not everyone does.
War is a controlled, directed use of force, one wherein each side is trying to bring about a result from the other side. -VERY RARELY- is war about completely destroying the other nation. It is exceptionally rare that a war A: is conducted with genocide in mind. B: accomplishes that mission.
In a war, you have many things going on at the same time. You have the obvious "Soldiers fighting", we've seen a hundred random missions reflecting this... but in terms of tactics and strategy? It would actually be more effective to disable an enemy ship and leave it adrift in some cluster or another than it would be to destroy it. From a historical perspective you could do some research on the tactics used by in the Vietnam war if you wanted to understand more about how and why this works the way it works.
You have the subtle and careful manipulation of politics, negotiations, deals, even a truce or cease-fire in the face of a bigger threat. In fact, most wars aren't solved by bullets, but with words. Is it exciting? Depends on how you write it. There is in fact at least one mission where the Klingons and the Federation put aside their differences for a few minutes to deal with a bigger threat, so those of you saying it would be boring, you're just not being very imaginative. You're closing yourself off to a lot of good possibilities because you can't see the forest for the trees.
You have the hidden espionage, the poking and prodding and intelligence gathering the gathering of information about the capabilities of the enemy, and what projects they're working on that could upset the balance. The "Scan four computers" quests could get a new bit of story behind it, something that gives the quest a little diversity, at least in the flavor.
So for everyone wanting to throw down the "it's war, it's justified" gauntlet... My response to you is this -
It's war, a convenient excuse for the writers to let their brains go AWOL rather than deliver a compelling and exciting story. And could they even make it feel like a war? Could they even deliver a -proper- bucket of slop?
Is this the First ever Star Trek based game you've ever played? Please research back in the past on the successful (albeit few) Star Trek based games and understand what they're about. WAR, Ship battles, etc. This is not the first of it's type... it's just the first MMORPG.
So while Star Trek does stand for a mix of solving puzzles and the greater good of mankind, the games are not. All the good ones are based on Battles and that's proven to be the majority interest. This is not a new idea... please stop looking at this is "OMG, how can you ruin Star Trek like this...". If you're going to say that, then you might as well boycott every other Star Trek game ever made, rather than make this sound like Cryptic is the only company to butcher your dreams. Then it's just best to read Star Trek books and rewatch all the episodes, because you're not going to get a game that's 100% Star Trek universe.
Actually, the first Star Trek game I ever played was on the Sega Genesis, back in the mid 90s. Echoes from the Past.
Puzzle and story driven -very well constructed on both counts, except I seem to recall this one section that just felt like it took forever, a mine or some such. Good gameplay, fun and interesting combat, even more so if you take into account the tools they had to work with in its construction, but still it can stand on its own without that crutch being stated. Not exactly a lot of replay value but hey, that's a 16-bit cart for you.
So I challenge your statement that "all the good ones are based on battles".
I'd like to edit this to add that I wish I hadn't loaned that game out to a trekkie friend of mine in the late 90s. I'd have had an easier time getting a date with his sister than I did getting it back.
I must say , for an "I quit" statement, this was quite dignified and logical. No histrionics, no omgusux...just quiet reasoning and a hope for better things.
Very disturbing, if you think about it. Losing your average troll -- hardly a loss. Another one will spring up and fill his slot.
As to the OP he is quite right to point out the glaring fact that Star Fleet seem to shoot everything that moves in this game.
My impression was that there was general hostilities between the Federation and Klingons but we seem to have open warfare across the galaxy.
It's not very Trek at all...
First off let me state that I am an avid fan of the series and the game...
IMO the problem lies with the way the storyline is presented to us...Instead of getting a Klingon on screen in our bridge we get this lame pop up window with terrible graphics that happens to be at the same time some ships are attacking us... making me frantically close the pop up before I can even read it so that I can save my hide...Not that it matters because there is no penalty for death..."less immersion"
I mean come on! At least give us a bridge with a screen and some decent cut scenes how cheap can they be!! These pop ups have the quality of the first ever metal gear...
They need to take some lessons from the devs of Mass effect 2...Those beginning cut scenes are first class...
I don't mind the endless carnage so much but for the love! At least mix in some good diplomacy and cut scenes!
Is this the First ever Star Trek based game you've ever played? Please research back in the past on the successful (albeit few) Star Trek based games and understand what they're about. WAR, Ship battles, etc. This is not the first of it's type... it's just the first MMORPG.
So while Star Trek does stand for a mix of solving puzzles and the greater good of mankind, the games are not. All the good ones are based on Battles and that's proven to be the majority interest. This is not a new idea... please stop looking at this is "OMG, how can you ruin Star Trek like this...". If you're going to say that, then you might as well boycott every other Star Trek game ever made, rather than make this sound like Cryptic is the only company to butcher your dreams. Then it's just best to read Star Trek books and rewatch all the episodes, because you're not going to get a game that's 100% Star Trek universe.
Look dude, I don't know what the heck you're talking about? I've probably been playing games longer than you've been alive, first off. So take your fail response and go somewhere else with it.
Both of these games had a hell of a lot more to them, and they were LESS than 100 (MB), that's Megabytes. This game is over 10 GIGABYTES, and has about as much intellectual depth as a puddle of mud. They had thrilling content, space battles, ship board navigational control (from the bridge), exploration in a NON-instanced universe, and a whole heck of a lot of diplomatic and other intringueing content more so than this 10 GIGABYTE game has.
So seriously, if you tell me this game cannot offer this, then I already know you're full of it, and so is anyone else that claims that building unique content that is more "Trek-like" is not possible.
Sorry, OP. It's clear that you have a rather shallow and tentative knowledge of the Star Trek universe, or are deliberately ignoring elements of all series that included such hard moral choices as are made in this game.
It's also quite obvious that the writers and designers of the game have watched the show, and watched a lot of it. I absolutely loved going through the "Ghost Ship" mission an hour or so ago because of some excellent writing work and some awesome series references.
The rest of your outrage here is pointless, as is your attempted skewering of the Cryptic writing staff. At least they have the dignity of doing their homework and learning about the series. What's your excuse?
As a genuine Star Trek fan, who has watched the series and knows both about the lauded ideals of Starfleet along with its seedy shadowy side, your criticism is hereby rejected as flawed and incomplete.
meh. I don't mind the idea of killing doctors, or clubbing baby tribbles, but I would like to see more missions or episodes where the player has to choose which path to take. Like some true dialogue between enemies. instead of getting the pop up with the options to just ask a few questions, before you kill each other, maybe have a conversation with them. you pick the correct responses, and you get to continue without fighting. Unless you really want to. That's just a small example. I just feel you don't get to play a captain in the game, just a grunt that follows orders. Captains have to make tough decisions, which sometimes go against what the superior officers orders are, but that is why they are starship captains, because they can make the critical decisions in the critical moments.
What are you talking about?? The 'missions' are simply beaming down and mashing one of 3 attacks until everyone is dead. There NEEDS to be character involvement like other games have...
A lot of people seem to assume I have a problem with the game being combat-oriented...
Let me see if I can say this monosyllabically enough for them to understand it.
I. Do. Not. Mind. The. Fights.
My. Beef. Comes. From. A. Lack. Of. A. True. To. Trek. Script.
Got it?
My problem, the one that finally convinced me to quit wasn't any of the -several- game issues I had posted about. No, in game problems? Coding problems? Execution problems? These can be fixed. Can, and I expect will. I would definitely wager my money and time that this became a functional game on the technical levels.
My problem is one that I don't think can be fixed without starting from scratch. If there is an alternative, I'd -love- to hear it. I'd love even more to -see it-.
The writers expect us to play a Star Trek game - one that carries the Star Trek name. One that should reasonably be expected to live up to a forty year old set of traditions [wherein -even the most chaotic series- adhered to a certain set of methods for plot and style, things got destroyed, people got blown up, but there was -cause-.] doesn't even acknowledge that there is any kind of history there. They take an artistic license and expect everyone to just fall in line and start killing everything.. .. .. without ever taking pause to give us a good reason to do so. Other than "You're at war, shoot everything that moves, including doctors, civilians, and that guy in the blue shirt, I don't like him."
LOl at that.People with guns shooting at you are NOT innocent.Got it?
Comments
I don't fully agree with the OP, but I can't agree with this either. I don't play evil classes or species in games because I have no desire to pretend to do evil any more than I want to do it in real life. Quitting over one poorly written quest making you do something you would not choose to do is "over the top," but I could not play a game that continually forced me to make choices I would not make in real life just because "nobody really died" either.
Actually. That's the entire point. It makes you think. It makes you wonder. It makes you feel something, at best, at least it dwells into something bigger than point and shoot. It's storytelling with a moral hypothesis and a big grey area as a guideline. I could also name a whole bunch of other TNG episodes which did just that. They were intriguing, or dramatic in some way.
What the hell does blatant "pew pew" make you do other than react? A bunch of one key number combinations which lead innevitably to the death of your target. /yawn. Go here kill 5 things and come back, here's your treat, good dog, now rollover.
-avery
-avery
You sir, get my applause. Ignore the fan-boys, their broken record is useless anyway.
You said it in a very mature and effective way, including the pertinent examples.
Excellent letter. I wish mine to Cryptic had been as eloquent, but how many ways can one say "you guys really Effed up this game" over and over?
Again, good job!
My Starfleet makes it their mission to shoot everything that moves.
A massacre is when a large number destroys a smaller number, or a heavily armed number destroy a much weaker group. Custer was heavily outnumbered, for instance. Don't take my word for it, just look it up in the dictionary. A small force that defeats a heavier force in fair combat hasn't massacred them. In the game you are not more powerful then the foes; you just happen to be a better captain. There are other players who, it turns out, find the game HARD. You just happen to be better then most. Hail to the Kirk!
In what way do you have to "...pretend, imagine or otherwise change what you see..." on your screen to stop ASSUMING that you have KILLED every person you've met and instead ASSUME that you have stunned them?
That is the point I keep TRYING to make, and yet some of ya'll resist it with such a great strength I am flabbergasted. In most of the missions it does not say that you killed the people. The Bar? NO WHERE does it say you killed the patrons. If you had, don't you think the bar owner would have said something about the rampant slaughter? Or be more fearful of you when he caved in to your demands for info? Instead he seems more irritated that you've found so many problems. It's like, there MUST be a dialogue window that says, "Captain, you have stunned this opponent! He is still ALIVE...but he is JUST STUNNED CAPTAIN! DO YOU HEAR ME? HE IS STUNNED!" Without this device, then the ONLY possible alternative that is possible...is you murdered them!
All I am offering is a different way to look at things. After all, in most of the missions the game does NOT say you KILLED anyone. So why assume you did? Other then the fact it gives you a reason to complain about how 'badly' Cryptic has 'ruined' the game. Which, I think, is the ultimate reason some people keep insisting that it's all death. Otherwise they are left without something to complain.
As far as the Romulan Scientist mission, you didn't set forth to murder innocent doctors. You went forth to kill enemy scientists working on a weapon so terrible every galactic society had banned them. Heavily armed scientist, it turns out, carrying weapons comparable to your crew's. You can ONLY judge a mission based on what you know at hand.
Is this, or any other mission, perfect? Heck no. They need a lot of work. But again, you are not told you are killing the people in most of the missions so why assume that is so? Unless, it's because you want to be killing them so you can complain about being 'forced' to kill them? It takes the exact SAME effort to assume you have killed them as it does to assume you have stunned them.
I would definatly dissagree with this. I have had to leave my away team around a corner to go fight alone just to make it more of a challenge. Most foes I come across are VERY easy to "defeat"
Not always of course, sometimes its a fair fight, or Im even outnumbered. In those cases I can understand turning my phaser all the way up and letting my BOs fire at will.
Whatever the definition of massacar is, the point is I FEEL like the baddies stand no chance, and are helpless against me. After a while it doesnt feel like Im doing the right thing by "defeating" them so completely.
Yeah actually I vaporized one of the angry drunks, not that a Ferengi would care, as long as his bill was paid.... he said nothing about it. But I didn't really expect him to go off script anyway. Also I have no proof that "defeated" foes are not dead.
Agreed, point taken. Currently there is no distinction between killing, defeating, and incinerating your enemies. How to relieve the Picards out there while keeping the Siscos happy? I dont know. I have suggested a stun setting on phasers that actually stuns. Most weapons besides phasers do not have a widely known STUN setting, most people getting shot by disrupters end up dead. "Defeating" your foe with a Bat'leth, disruptor or phaser all look the same. So logically they all seem to have same deadly result.
It is Cryptic's game, I dont think they ruined it. I think they are ruining Star Trek. But that is my personal opinion and I dont expect everyone to feel that way. Really though I have no complaints other than this.
If this was addressed I really wouldnt have anything to complain about.
That is the goal of posting all this, to get the Devs to take a look and make some (minor) changes.
I apreciate your position, and thank you for responding with sound arguements. I just dissagree.
This.
Thankfully, I wasnt one of the suckers born yesterday to buy into a lifetime subscription for nothing more than a content-less, single-player-esque, rudimentary third-person shooter.
Just let the bafoons have their forum, and the game die a peaceful death. . .its more than cryptic did for us.
About the writing, it is pretty good for the episode, i think you mostly skip it and surely not read it. It is very Trek, the actions it is not mush Trekie explorer. We are not Picard time, mostly doing exploration story, it is more Sisco style. Federation is in middle of Galaxy War 1, going stun mode whit your battle, i dont think ours brigue of us ship will be enough big. In Eploration mode, sure it need more stuff, and dev already know and working on it. I think it is better they fix bug in the game first that they add more stuff who risk bug more the game.
About some side info, the game has be make in 2 years from scratch, and 15 millions dollard cost (that price was before open beta launch). Most other MMO whit more time under-development for example Tabula Rasa, 5 year work and was far less complete at launch that STO. Sending/make a topic saying you leaving for not good reason, other that the game it not your playstyle is childish. It is like buy Myth, playing it, dont like the style of gameplay and sending a email asking they make it first-person shooter or a RTS.
Answer that question, say me a other MMO, at launch time where you got multiple option for how complete the Quest. I know none. The only one will be Star wars old republic, and it is mostly because it is Bioware making it. But will still be a ground game, for has the dev said, they dont think they will add space battle.
Finaly, may i have your stuff?
I completely understand where you're coming from and agree with your perspective as a Star Trek fan.
However, please consider this. What type of game can you make an MMORPG out of purely exploring space and to conduct diplomatic missions where your sole purpose is to negotiate a trade agreement? Can you make a game that will keep people interested in that context?
Look at the other Star Trek games that are in existence. What do they concentrate on? Battle and wars. Look at the Card Game. etc. etc.
Such games are based on conflict where matters are resolved in battle. Mass of people will enjoy flying a ship and blowing things up, rather than to run around and identify a new species of plants.
There's no way this game will survive if it takes on the context you're proposing. This is reality. You're not likely to have as big of an audience for a MMO Puzzle solving game.
So what I'm suggesting is for you to take a practical look at what will bring in the majority of players. As much as this is a game, it's also a business. If your business isn't making profit, there's really no point in continuing the product. And being that this is one of it's kind on the market, I'd hate to see it pulled off the shelves.
So while I can sympathize with you, I'm afraid you're not going to get what you want out of this game.
Is this the First ever Star Trek based game you've ever played? Please research back in the past on the successful (albeit few) Star Trek based games and understand what they're about. WAR, Ship battles, etc. This is not the first of it's type... it's just the first MMORPG.
So while Star Trek does stand for a mix of solving puzzles and the greater good of mankind, the games are not. All the good ones are based on Battles and that's proven to be the majority interest. This is not a new idea... please stop looking at this is "OMG, how can you ruin Star Trek like this...". If you're going to say that, then you might as well boycott every other Star Trek game ever made, rather than make this sound like Cryptic is the only company to butcher your dreams. Then it's just best to read Star Trek books and rewatch all the episodes, because you're not going to get a game that's 100% Star Trek universe.
QFT. This.
This is how I feel about STO. Cryptic/Atari/CBS... whoever is responsible for what STO has become... you gave us that which we did not want.
Excellent letter. I hope it brings some excellent change.
The OP isn't so wrong, I am just inclined to treat this as a game AND an mmo rather than a canon bananza..having said that there is still merit in wjhat he says even if not to copmpletely re-write things..it's certainly worth taking on board the OP's post's. The cool thing about SCI-FI has always been you can change the rules for one episode or a game etc etc..and the fans will buy it AS LONG as you dopnt hide away from it. Often I have seen a one line explanation pacify trek fans easily..because i guess maybe we feel it wasa at least better thought out and there is an "excuse".
So OP has a BIG point concerning the writing, dont think he was fair to say these guys had never watched trek..cause OBviously they have! But yeah ok they have mkissed the point to some degree.
But violence is always gonna be a big part of this game, if thats not a concept that can grwo on tyou then this game will never deliver. But from the first day i played this game i felt like i was FINALLY getting a chance to play trek in that "diminion war" fashion I had always hoped...season 4 the way of the warrior kicked alot of it off..thats the universe this strikes me as the most..so im not totally bummed out.
But if the OP's points are considered then it would without doubt go from being a great game with some silly flaws..to just a great game
This is an excellent post that sums up my reaction to alot of what has been said about the game regarding the combat heavy nature of it and how alot has been blown out of proportion for the sake of bolstering a particular viewpoint. You can't really have a legitimate discussion about quests and the storylines in general by misrepresenting what's actually in the game.
Krenn, I take it you don't understand what war is. And that's okay, not everyone does.
War is a controlled, directed use of force, one wherein each side is trying to bring about a result from the other side. -VERY RARELY- is war about completely destroying the other nation. It is exceptionally rare that a war A: is conducted with genocide in mind. B: accomplishes that mission.
In a war, you have many things going on at the same time. You have the obvious "Soldiers fighting", we've seen a hundred random missions reflecting this... but in terms of tactics and strategy? It would actually be more effective to disable an enemy ship and leave it adrift in some cluster or another than it would be to destroy it. From a historical perspective you could do some research on the tactics used by in the Vietnam war if you wanted to understand more about how and why this works the way it works.
You have the subtle and careful manipulation of politics, negotiations, deals, even a truce or cease-fire in the face of a bigger threat. In fact, most wars aren't solved by bullets, but with words. Is it exciting? Depends on how you write it. There is in fact at least one mission where the Klingons and the Federation put aside their differences for a few minutes to deal with a bigger threat, so those of you saying it would be boring, you're just not being very imaginative. You're closing yourself off to a lot of good possibilities because you can't see the forest for the trees.
You have the hidden espionage, the poking and prodding and intelligence gathering the gathering of information about the capabilities of the enemy, and what projects they're working on that could upset the balance. The "Scan four computers" quests could get a new bit of story behind it, something that gives the quest a little diversity, at least in the flavor.
So for everyone wanting to throw down the "it's war, it's justified" gauntlet... My response to you is this -
It's war, a convenient excuse for the writers to let their brains go AWOL rather than deliver a compelling and exciting story. And could they even make it feel like a war? Could they even deliver a -proper- bucket of slop?
I for one say nay!
Actually, the first Star Trek game I ever played was on the Sega Genesis, back in the mid 90s. Echoes from the Past.
Puzzle and story driven -very well constructed on both counts, except I seem to recall this one section that just felt like it took forever, a mine or some such. Good gameplay, fun and interesting combat, even more so if you take into account the tools they had to work with in its construction, but still it can stand on its own without that crutch being stated. Not exactly a lot of replay value but hey, that's a 16-bit cart for you.
So I challenge your statement that "all the good ones are based on battles".
I'd like to edit this to add that I wish I hadn't loaned that game out to a trekkie friend of mine in the late 90s. I'd have had an easier time getting a date with his sister than I did getting it back.
Very disturbing, if you think about it. Losing your average troll -- hardly a loss. Another one will spring up and fill his slot.
My impression was that there was general hostilities between the Federation and Klingons but we seem to have open warfare across the galaxy.
It's not very Trek at all...
IMO the problem lies with the way the storyline is presented to us...Instead of getting a Klingon on screen in our bridge we get this lame pop up window with terrible graphics that happens to be at the same time some ships are attacking us... making me frantically close the pop up before I can even read it so that I can save my hide...Not that it matters because there is no penalty for death..."less immersion"
I mean come on! At least give us a bridge with a screen and some decent cut scenes how cheap can they be!! These pop ups have the quality of the first ever metal gear...
They need to take some lessons from the devs of Mass effect 2...Those beginning cut scenes are first class...
I don't mind the endless carnage so much but for the love! At least mix in some good diplomacy and cut scenes!
Look dude, I don't know what the heck you're talking about? I've probably been playing games longer than you've been alive, first off. So take your fail response and go somewhere else with it.
Second, go check out two old dos games, one: Star Trek, A Final Unity, and two: Star Trek, the 25th Anniversary Edition. I've linked both of them here for your convenience.
Both of these games had a hell of a lot more to them, and they were LESS than 100 (MB), that's Megabytes. This game is over 10 GIGABYTES, and has about as much intellectual depth as a puddle of mud. They had thrilling content, space battles, ship board navigational control (from the bridge), exploration in a NON-instanced universe, and a whole heck of a lot of diplomatic and other intringueing content more so than this 10 GIGABYTE game has.
So seriously, if you tell me this game cannot offer this, then I already know you're full of it, and so is anyone else that claims that building unique content that is more "Trek-like" is not possible.
-avery
It's also quite obvious that the writers and designers of the game have watched the show, and watched a lot of it. I absolutely loved going through the "Ghost Ship" mission an hour or so ago because of some excellent writing work and some awesome series references.
The rest of your outrage here is pointless, as is your attempted skewering of the Cryptic writing staff. At least they have the dignity of doing their homework and learning about the series. What's your excuse?
As a genuine Star Trek fan, who has watched the series and knows both about the lauded ideals of Starfleet along with its seedy shadowy side, your criticism is hereby rejected as flawed and incomplete.
What are you talking about?? The 'missions' are simply beaming down and mashing one of 3 attacks until everyone is dead. There NEEDS to be character involvement like other games have...
LOl at that.People with guns shooting at you are NOT innocent.Got it?