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 isnt good enough for me to be able to recommend Star Trek Online to MMO fans. Its quite a gorgeous game, but that novelty evaporates, and whats 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.)
Comments
One or two more year in development and this game could have rivalled WoW.
Thats how much potential this game have/had.
Greed... :mad:
yes frontpage really shows only positive reviews....
Also this is what... the 10th thread with the ign review?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Game = Fun
6 actually means average. So 6.8 is above average, but not anything outstanding.
BF:BC2 will likely be vying for my playtime soon though.
-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.
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
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?
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.
Because the same guy is in charge.
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.
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.
Wooo a D
Mom will be so Proud!!!
I busted my TRIBBLE for this D ....:mad:
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....
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.
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.
No, MMOs are dying.