test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Looking at the news page, you would think all the reviews are positive. Not true.

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Heres IGN's review. And so far its the most honest one I've seen.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/106/1069985p1.html



Closing quote. "Closing Comments
A smattering of memorable moments in 50+ hours of game time simply isn’t good enough for me to be able to recommend Star Trek Online to MMO fans. It’s quite a gorgeous game, but that novelty evaporates, and what’s left is repetitive, and simple in all the wrong parts. Hardcore Star Trek fans will probably find and enjoy countless in-jokes and references to their beloved series, but people who came looking for a new hobby will likely find themselves wanting."

And a whopping 6.8 out of 10.

This article does an excellent job of demonstrating why I cancelled my sub last week. (A before you fan boys cry "why you posting then if you quit", because I spent $50 on this piece of ****, I'm gonna get my pound of flesh.)
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Its really sad this game is failing so hard. Because the space combat is very fun. I love that part. The rest of the game is, as we all know, extremely repetitive, shallow, stupid, too easy and boring.

    One or two more year in development and this game could have rivalled WoW.
    Thats how much potential this game have/had.

    Greed... :mad:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    *cough* http://www.startrekonline.com/reviews *cough*


    yes frontpage really shows only positive reviews....

    Also this is what... the 10th thread with the ign review?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Well lets be realistic, as great as it might sound for a company to fall on its sword its not happening. Of course it is there own website and they are not exactly going to announce how poorly they are doing in the overall press.

    They are doing what is right and proper in their best interest. What they need to do is have a post addressing the biggest problems the community has with the game and give us some assurance they are #1, listening and can at least in some minor detail tell us whats going to be done.

    right now the community is wandering in the dark angry and confused and that NEVER has brought out the best in people. Cryptic can alleviate that if they said more.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Hornet331 wrote: »
    *cough* http://www.startrekonline.com/reviews *cough*


    yes frontpage really shows only positive reviews....

    Also this is what... the 10th thread with the ign review?

    1. You link isnt to the front page. Try the news ticker genius.
    2. I went back 5 pages and dont see one thread about IGN.
    3. You fail. Epicly.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Hornet331 wrote: »
    *cough* http://www.startrekonline.com/reviews *cough*


    yes frontpage really shows only positive reviews....

    Also this is what... the 10th thread with the ign review?

    Also for the record the majority of those reviewers are not even true reviews of the game. Here is a list of credited review sites, if thats even possible:

    IGN.com 6.8/10
    Gamespot.com 5.5/10
    GameSpy.com 2/5
    Game Observer 60/100
    1UP.com C+/A+
    G4 / Tech TV 3/5
    No Fuss Reviews 6/10
    Eurogamer 6/10
    Strategy Informer 8/10
    MMORPG.com 6.6/10
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    pierrat wrote: »
    Well lets be realistic, as great as it might sound for a company to fall on its sword its not happening. Of course it is there own website and they are not exactly going to announce how poorly they are doing in the overall press.

    They are doing what is right and proper in their best interest. What they need to do is have a post addressing the biggest problems the community has with the game and give us some assurance they are #1, listening and can at least in some minor detail tell us whats going to be done.

    right now the community is wandering in the dark angry and confused and that NEVER has brought out the best in people. Cryptic can alleviate that if they said more.

    No, what they need to do is not release games 6 months before they are ready. They may also want to consider putting a little thought and experience into designing the game as well.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Give it time... even WoW was a steaming pile of TRIBBLE when it first released. Nothing worked right, tons of exploits, glitches and crash bugs. People just don't remember it because, well... it's Blizzard... friggin Diablo, man!

    Sure the game could have used some more dev time, but that can be said of every game that's ever been released.

    The guys at Cryptic have a lot of experience in the MMO genre, and although their track record is spotty I have faith that a year down the road this will be a very fleshed-out, immersive game.

    That being said, I love it already... the trick is to limit your playtime. Don't play for 50 hours straight and then complain there's no end-game content. Take your time, discover new worlds and new civilizations... you know... boldly go and all that jazz.

    I know all of this has been said before, but that's okay. :)

    See you in battle.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Wow, a company only promoting positive reviews of their products? What's that about?!? It's like they're trying to run a business or something.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Those who are ignorant, apathetic and weak allow others to judge what is worthy of their attention.

    As you might have guessed from my above statement, I have little regard for all these so called gaming review sites -- who make their income from advertising the very thing they are supposedly reviewing.

    Conflict of interest, I say. As for the front page, you can't possibly be so naive to think a company doesn't try to present a good image.

    Then again, maybe you could be.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    What exactly does 6.8 mean? The reviewer said he can't recommend the game but he gave it a better than average score? I'm confused. See a on a scale of 1 to 10, a 5 is average. That would be most games that are released. So it's playable and some what entertaining at 5. Anything below you really don't want to touch. Anything above is something that is defiantly worth perusing.

    Can some one explain this?

    BTW I give this game a 5. Worth the free month. After that we'll have to see, but I doubt it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Also for the record the majority of those reviewers are not even true reviews of the game. Here is a list of credited review sites, if thats even possible:

    IGN.com 6.8/10
    Gamespot.com 5.5/10
    GameSpy.com 2/5
    Game Observer 60/100
    1UP.com C+/A+
    G4 / Tech TV 3/5
    No Fuss Reviews 6/10
    Eurogamer 6/10
    Strategy Informer 8/10
    MMORPG.com 6.6/10

    What makes one "dude" more creditable then another "dude", cause he only works for a certain company?

    Also what SFade said.
    I give a flying **** about software reviews, espeical about game reviews. There is no metric how you can judge a game, its pure 100% subjective rating and can't be measured with hard numbers.

    If im note sure about a game, i rent it. If i like it i buy it. If not, nothing lost.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    OP is right.. The game sucks big time, i love star trek and really wanted this game to success. Even Voyager not gonna keep me playing this game, its just way too repeative. Good luck to you all TRIBBLE ! :DD
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    can i have your stuff.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Thanos007 wrote: »
    What exactly does 6.8 mean? The reviewer said he can't recommend the game but he gave it a better than average score? I'm confused. See a on a scale of 1 to 10, a 5 is average. That would be most games that are released. So it's playable and some what entertaining at 5. Anything below you really don't want to touch. Anything above is something that is defiantly worth perusing.

    Can some one explain this?

    BTW I give this game a 5. Worth the free month. After that we'll have to see, but I doubt it.

    4 = it's a movie tie-in, but even the movie sucks.
    5 = haha, wow this sucks.
    6 = it's not good.
    7 = decent game with serious issues.
    8 = a good solid game, but nothing new (or a brilliant game with big problems).
    9 = a brilliant game, producer pays a lot of advertising or it's a sequel to a big game.

    6 is a pretty bad score, and I'm not sure that STO deserves a 6 - I'd put it in the 7s. Although it's possible that releasing so soon after CO has rather dented cryptic's reputation?

    I'd agree about the free month though :(.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    hear is my review, Been playing since open beta

    Game = Fun
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    The gameSpy one isn't credible. They've just had to withdraw a review of Global Agenda and appologise on its offical forums, due to it not being truthful in its representation. The STO one was again, just a rant not a review. The rest, while I may not agree with all the comments are at least reviews.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Splutter wrote:
    4 = it's a movie tie-in, but even the movie sucks.
    5 = haha, wow this sucks.
    6 = it's not good.
    7 = decent game with serious issues.
    8 = a good solid game, but nothing new (or a brilliant game with big problems).
    9 = a brilliant game, producer pays a lot of advertising or it's a sequel to a big game.

    6 is a pretty bad score, and I'm not sure that STO deserves a 6 - I'd put it in the 7s. Although it's possible that releasing so soon after CO has rather dented cryptic's reputation?

    I'd agree about the free month though :(.

    6 actually means average. So 6.8 is above average, but not anything outstanding.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I'd also add that, so far, the game has provided me more entertainment for my buck then the equivalent spent going to movie theaters.

    BF:BC2 will likely be vying for my playtime soon though. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    To be honestly I see big problems coming through for Cryptic. Champions Online failed and now Sto is going to fail if Cryptic does not work hard and quickly. Reality is that most gamers who left a game never return and if 950000 of the 1 Million who bought STO left the game most of them will never return. A bunch of lifetimers and one year subscribers will not keep a game alive. When I look at my own fleet for example we are 65 Federations and 35 Klingons there. Atm there 15 Federations playing this game and about 10 Klingons it' s 20 from 100 or 20% of my fleet and I think other big fleets will not do better. Cryptic should give us
    -much more fleet options
    - much more unique missions based on Star Trek Episodes
    -bigger and more interesting surfaces where you like to explore
    - more PvP options (Open PvP in the NZ)
    - a more attractive Klingon gameplay incl. pve, costumization, vesesls for Orions Gorn and Nausicaans
    - a better crafting system not that TRIBBLE what is called crafting here
    - good designed fleet actions with story and sense and the option to open an instance for fleets
    - raids for more than 5 players

    In wonder why Cryptic is not able to learn out of their mistakes. MMO players want to act within their fleets, they want interesting missions and senseful crafting. That' s why players are playing MMORPGs
    StO feels like a Single Player Game. Good for newbies to play this game for one or two month but not good for the majority of MMO players. Cryptic should really start to listen to the community or this game will die within the next year as CO will die in my op.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    SFade wrote:
    Those who are ignorant, apathetic and weak allow others to judge what is worthy of their attention.

    As you might have guessed from my above statement, I have little regard for all these so called gaming review sites -- who make their income from advertising the very thing they are supposedly reviewing.

    Conflict of interest, I say. As for the front page, you can't possibly be so naive to think a company doesn't try to present a good image.

    Then again, maybe you could be.

    Couldn't agree more. I avoid these self-serving "review" sites like the plague generally. Apart from anything what does one individuals personal opinion even tell me about what I, myself, will like or dislike about a game?

    I'll tell ya.

    Nothing. Nada. Zip.

    I read this IGN review out of curiosity (as everywhere you turn someone is waving it around :rolleyes:) and yep... just as I thought. Completely useless to me. Why? Because I agree with many of the points its raises, and yet - I still love the game.

    And this review doesn't read as balanced or impartial. It just reads as "I personally hated it and here all the reasons I hated it" Journalistically speaking a "professional" reviewer needs to remain at least impartial enough to say "Here's the bad, here's the OK, here's the good, here is my overal opinion" even if at the end of the day it wasn't their cup of tea.

    If I wanted pure opinion and single-minded hate on a game, I could get that here.

    For example. he mentions nothing of some of the aspects that many people find to be loads of fun (things like the Character creator and ship customisation for example). Some of these things could have been highlighted, even just to stop the whole review sounding like a long winded rant. But no.

    He mentions Episodic content but does so apparently just so he could say how TRIBBLE he thought it was - saying very little about the frankly excellent storylines some of those missions have.

    Then he mentions Fleet actions - again, apparently just so he could talk about one he happened to hate (Crystal Entity) . What about some of the others that are actually really good fun? No? Just the one you didn't like? OK then :o

    So there are some dud missions, some dud powers, some mechanics that need work.... there are also some brilliant missions, some really fun powers and some mechanics that work great.

    And at the end of the day, if its possible to agree with most of what they say and still end up with a completely different overall opinion to the reviewer - whats the point?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Splutter wrote:
    4 = it's a movie tie-in, but even the movie sucks.
    5 = haha, wow this sucks.
    6 = it's not good.
    7 = decent game with serious issues.
    8 = a good solid game, but nothing new (or a brilliant game with big problems).
    9 = a brilliant game, producer pays a lot of advertising or it's a sequel to a big game.

    6 is a pretty bad score, and I'm not sure that STO deserves a 6 - I'd put it in the 7s. Although it's possible that releasing so soon after CO has rather dented cryptic's reputation?

    I'd agree about the free month though :(.

    If that's correct then 4 would be "poor game mechanics barely playable" and 3 would be "I bought an empty box" This is not 1-10 it more like 1-5. Who ever came up with that system needs to go back to school and take a math class or two.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Lt.Renak wrote: »
    In wonder why Cryptic is not able to learn out of their mistakes.

    Because the same guy is in charge.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Thanos007 wrote: »
    Because the same guy is in charge.

    Different development teams, actually.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Different development teams, actually.

    No. Jack was in charge of (in order) City of Heroes, Campions Online, and (wait for it) Star Trek Online.

    I'm not sure but he may have had a hand in Tabla Rasa or what ever it was called. Oh and their Car Wars ripoff.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    No, he had nothing to do with Tabula Rasa nor Auto Assault. He's been with Cryptic all the way. They simply shared the same publisher for CoH (i.e. NCSoft).

    Jack is an exec, so yeah at some point things link up. But being an exec myself it doesn't mean complete control. Well unless one is into micro management. You have teams managing and reporting on progression. They define and drive the main deliverables. Execs define the high level goal.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Hornet331 wrote: »
    *cough* http://www.startrekonline.com/reviews *cough*


    yes frontpage really shows only positive reviews....

    Also this is what... the 10th thread with the ign review?

    Wooo a D

    Mom will be so Proud!!!

    I busted my TRIBBLE for this D ....:mad:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Thanos007 wrote: »
    No. Jack was in charge of (in order) City of Heroes, Campions Online, and (wait for it) Star Trek Online.

    I'm not sure but he may have had a hand in Tabla Rasa or what ever it was called. Oh and their Car Wars ripoff.

    Auto Assault was a Net Devil game..not cryptic... it was pretty ok too...but very shallow just like this one...

    It at least had OPEN pvp warfare....
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Heres IGN's review. And so far its the most honest one I've seen.

    http://pc.ign.com/articles/106/1069985p1.html



    Closing quote. "Closing Comments
    A smattering of memorable moments in 50+ hours of game time simply isn’t good enough for me to be able to recommend Star Trek Online to MMO fans. It’s quite a gorgeous game, but that novelty evaporates, and what’s left is repetitive, and simple in all the wrong parts. Hardcore Star Trek fans will probably find and enjoy countless in-jokes and references to their beloved series, but people who came looking for a new hobby will likely find themselves wanting."

    And a whopping 6.8 out of 10.

    This article does an excellent job of demonstrating why I cancelled my sub last week. (A before you fan boys cry "why you posting then if you quit", because I spent $50 on this piece of ****, I'm gonna get my pound of flesh.)

    I find reviews for games are for people who just copied what everyone else did throughout life, like wearing those clothes because the in-group in school says its the fashion.

    I personally think reviews for games are 1 of the most pointless things in existence. People can vary so much in tastes and likes where games are concerned it is truely stupid to try and review for others, you can only review based of the person who is doing the reviews personal taste.

    Really try judging for yourself, if you play the game and don't like it then ok, sod off somewhere else. You can state why you don't like it if you want, but don't be a total TRIBBLE about it. Try to be constructive in saying what you don't like. Yes people will disagree with you, but thats the way it goes.

    Quoting some review will get you no where.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    No, he had nothing to do with Tabula Rasa nor Auto Assault. He's been with Cryptic all the way. They simply shared the same publisher for CoH (i.e. NCSoft).

    Jack is an exec, so yeah at some point things link up. But being an exec myself it doesn't mean complete control. Well unless one is into micro management. You have teams managing and reporting on progression. They define and drive the main deliverables. Execs define the high level goal.

    That may be true now, I'll have to check as I don't really know much about STO's development but he was the lead developer on both CoH and CO. That to me means every one on the team is following his orders and his vision on what the game should be.

    Having said that CoH is still a good game. It got a lot better after Jack left.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Securion wrote: »
    Its really sad this game is failing so hard. Because the space combat is very fun. I love that part. The rest of the game is, as we all know, extremely repetitive, shallow, stupid, too easy and boring.

    One or two more year in development and this game could have rivalled WoW.
    Thats how much potential this game have/had.

    Greed... :mad:

    No, MMOs are dying.
Sign In or Register to comment.