test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

The difference between...

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Casual and Hardcore...

Star Trek Online's game play is one of ease and doesn't take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon to figure it out, and with that some people are mad and some are happy.

I think we can all agree that STO is a cookie cutter casual MMO, nothing more, nothing less. If I am wrong please prove it to me. I just keep reading these posts on the forum and half of them disgust me. No the game has not failed, but it surely is not a success either. It is just a standard run of the mill MMO with just the bare minimum upon release. Will it get better over time, most likely. The people who are upset are upset with the game engine, yes? The people who are happy are happy with the ease of play and the shoot em up style, yes? So why don't we just end those types of threads, all MMO's are roughly 2 types:

1. Casual MMO's - City of Heroes, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, to name a few
2. Hardcore MMORPG's - Star Wars Galaxies, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Fallen Earth, to name a few

The casual MMO is designed to be easy and fun with little to no learning curve whereas the hardcore MMO take a lot of time learning the steep curve, and in the end provides the same fun, for a different type of player. We cannot even debate this any longer.

The thing that saddens me is that I remember a time where MMORPG's used to be about the adventure and progression in a living breathing world, which has been lost over time with the 1 server, and multiple Instancing, which IMHO is a death knell to the hardcore MMORPG's. It doesn't mean they are dead all together it just means that we will see more of the casual MMO's then the Hardcore ones.

Now please refute or add your opinions on the matter.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I guess we have to look at it from the standpoint of which games can meet in the middle, but will STO ever be able to do this is the question?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I will give it one more try...anyone care to comment?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I will give it one more try...anyone care to comment?
    Most of what you said was criticism of the the way most of us have criticized the game - not necessarily much substantively against the game itself.

    I wouldn't label this as a "casual" MMO anymore than CoH/Cov are: this is a grind-intensive game with a lot of moving pieces building on each other at later levels (power management, ship facing, shield management, ability management, equipment management).

    Sure, the beginning levels are a breeze (as well as virtually all ground combat) but toss in the eventual death penalty and we'll see players realizing how much different mechanics matter (once they get bug-fixed too).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    ultimately, an MMO needs to cater to both audiences in order to flourish. too much casual and there is no real incentive to play the endgame content. too much hardcore and there is just about no one TO play the endgame content. Many games need to find that gentle balance to succeed.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Most of what you said was criticism of the the way most of us have criticized the game - not necessarily much substantively against the game itself.

    I wouldn't label this as a "casual" MMO anymore than CoH/Cov are: this is a grind-intensive game with a lot of moving pieces building on each other at later levels (power management, ship facing, shield management, ability management, equipment management).

    Sure, the beginning levels are a breeze (as well as virtually all ground combat) but toss in the eventual death penalty and we'll see players realizing how much different mechanics matter (once they get bug-fixed too).

    But they are casual games, the DEVS have even said this about their games.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    faithborn wrote:
    ultimately, an MMO needs to cater to both audiences in order to flourish. too much casual and there is no real incentive to play the endgame content. too much hardcore and there is just about no one TO play the endgame content. Many games need to find that gentle balance to succeed.

    Some games do meet that criteria, but the only one that comes to my mind instantly is LOTRO, any others?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    But they are casual games, the DEVS have even said this about their games.
    Well, we'll have to disagree. Those are subjective terms and the time investments and grinding point toward "hardcore" more than a casual MMO like Maple Story or Free Realms.

    I think STO and CoH are far more middle of the road (or leaning toward hardcore) than you give them credit.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Well, we'll have to disagree. Those are subjective terms and the time investments and grinding point toward "hardcore" more than a casual MMO like Maple Story or Free Realms.

    I think STO and CoH are far more middle of the road (or leaning toward hardcore) than you give them credit.

    Oh not at all, I breezed through to RA 5 in 14 days, and my /played time was not even 72 hours total. The simplistic nature of this game was not middle of the road and certainly not by any means hard core, there was virtually no learning curve for anything about this game. In fact Free Realms had more of a learning curve then this game does. While I do not discount your opinions I just feel that the Developers were exactly right when they said this game was a casual game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    The thing that saddens me is that I remember a time where MMORPG's used to be about the adventure and progression in a living breathing world, which has been lost over time with the 1 server, and multiple Instancing, which IMHO is a death knell to the hardcore MMORPG's. It doesn't mean they are dead all together it just means that we will see more of the casual MMO's then the Hardcore ones.

    Completely agree with this but this is a bigger issue than just STO. Like you said it is a trend, a very sad trend. Instead of having open, dynamic, ever-changing, always new worlds we are getting mashed into cookie cutter instance gaming.
    This one of my problems with STO. This is supposed to be space, wide-open, unexplored, etc. Instead we got a bunch of connected boxes that are connected by loading screen delays... but that is what instanced MMORPG gaming is all about. :(
    Instead of using technology to move forward and create bigger, better, more expansive worlds it seems companies are instead using it to make cheaper, more generic games to maximize their profits. :mad:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Completely agree with this but this is a bigger issue than just STO. Like you said it is a trend, a very sad trend. Instead of having open, dynamic, ever-changing, always new worlds we are getting mashed into cookie cutter instance gaming.
    This one of my problems with STO. This is supposed to be space, wide-open, unexplored, etc. Instead we got a bunch of connected boxes that are connected by loading screen delays... but that is what instanced MMORPG gaming is all about. :(
    Instead of using technology to move forward and create bigger, better, more expansive worlds it seems companies are instead using it to make cheaper, more generic games to maximize their profits. :mad:

    This is agreed, but what is weird is why they choose to do it this way, it stands to reason that they would make more of a profit if they were to use the latest technology to advance MMORPG's to the next level, but instead they are digressing. Is it money, that just does not seem probable, so why?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    This is agreed, but what is weird is why they choose to do it this way, it stands to reason that they would make more of a profit if they were to use the latest technology to advance MMORPG's to the next level, but instead they are digressing. Is it money, that just does not seem probably, so why?

    Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think that you underestimate the power of greed.

    Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that all people or companies are like this. However I've never known any company that won't do things as cheap as they can in some way or other. It also seems that the bigger the company the cheaper the product. (yet they will still say that it's a good product :rolleyes: )
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    This game could improve in leaps and bounds if they make ground combat fps style, or 3rd person shooter style. I hate the fact that there's absolutely no skill involved in ground pvp. The only way to win is to have a group that roams together and that's it. There is no way at all for one person to be able to fend off a squad of klingons or feds because of the way it's designed right now.

    If Cryptic would seriously consider making that aspect of the game a true fps style game, then I guarantee that most players who enjoy that aspect and I suspect there would be a lot, would flock to this game because of that possibility alone.

    With a feature like that you could go through the "grind" or dogfights in space and then beam to the ground to enjoy some team pvp like you do in CoD for example. Not a terrible idea really and most likely not something that would be terribly difficult for Cryptic to accomplish.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Opaserv wrote: »
    This game could improve in leaps and bounds if they make ground combat fps style, or 3rd person shooter style. I hate the fact that there's absolutely no skill involved in ground pvp. The only way to win is to have a group that roams together and that's it. There is no way at all for one person to be able to fend off a squad of klingons or feds because of the way it's designed right now.

    If Cryptic would seriously consider making that aspect of the game a true fps style game, then I guarantee that most players who enjoy that aspect and I suspect there would be a lot, would flock to this game because of that possibility alone.

    With a feature like that you could go through the "grind" or dogfights in space and then beam to the ground to enjoy some team pvp like you do in CoD for example. Not a terrible idea really and most likely not something that would be terribly difficult for Cryptic to accomplish.

    I wouldn't mind seeing this in-game either, it would definitely add something lacking to the game-play.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    To the OP, I think you are hitting on something very close to the truth. I know this is a matter of semantics... but it should be clarified for better understanding amongst the community and may be helpful in terms of feedback to those who intend to make this game better.

    STO is not really a Casual game. By its very intention, a Casual game is meant to be accessible and generally simple, although they are not exclusive to one another.

    However, I think a lot of us can agree (I think) that STO is far from accessible. Simple yes... but not accessible. What with the massive amounts of stats, modifiers, and "skills" which have very poor explanations... figuring out good set ups is by far no easy task. But STO is simple. There is no depth, to the store or gameplay. It is very linear, and directed gameplay, and unfortunately.... there is little to do besides questing and PvP. Some may say "what more do you expect"... well that is hard to say. For certain, the social aspects are missing from this game... but even in WoW I had a sense of... being able to do a great many other things. I could digress in this further, but I dont want to threadjack :)

    STO is not accessible, but instead it is overly simplistic, absent of any real depth or challenge to the point that victory is pretty much guaranteed. Even in the face of what we would normally think are insurmountable odds... I emerge from a fight victorious... even if I had to die a few times (we all know death is meaningless in STO). This builds the unfortunate slight that any victory at all... has no meaning or sense of accomplishment. Tactics and strategy are not really necessary and even so are simplistic (even Star Trek 25th Anniversary, a game over 15 years old had more depth to its starship combat in some sense).

    Accessibility is one thing, but this game is shallow, and that is entirely different.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Opaserv wrote: »
    This game could improve in leaps and bounds if they make ground combat fps style, or 3rd person shooter style. I hate the fact that there's absolutely no skill involved in ground pvp. The only way to win is to have a group that roams together and that's it. There is no way at all for one person to be able to fend off a squad of klingons or feds because of the way it's designed right now.

    If Cryptic would seriously consider making that aspect of the game a true fps style game, then I guarantee that most players who enjoy that aspect and I suspect there would be a lot, would flock to this game because of that possibility alone.

    With a feature like that you could go through the "grind" or dogfights in space and then beam to the ground to enjoy some team pvp like you do in CoD for example. Not a terrible idea really and most likely not something that would be terribly difficult for Cryptic to accomplish.

    The only problem is that there are more lag issues than meet the eye. With a targeting system it isn't a huge deal. Have you ever noticed in ground pvp how you might run around a corner 10 feet or so then find yourself dead over 10 feet back?

    When you are actually doing the aiming yourself, this is no good. Just look at CoD:MW2. Just over 200ms or so can be a complete game breaker.

    I don't know about you but if I'm host (and get awesome ping) I can pull out a sniper and have a 10:1 ratio no problem.

    Can't really have high capacity and phenomenal pings on MMO servers. I'll be curious to see how the EVE based MMOFPS deals with this.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I dunno.

    I used to be a dedicated MMO guy. Things changed (my tastes) and playing a game where I can get into the meat without long waits or long training is refreshing. I like STO for this...

    As a 5 year EVE vet my comments should point out the extremes. EVE was a job with social aspects. STO is is lighter fare which allows you into the meat of the game without much barrier.

    As an example:

    In EVE I might sit at a gate camp for 8 hours on a Saturday for three kills. Or I might decide to go mining (a risk anytime). It required a lot of waiting. Waiting for things to happen, waiting for teams to come together.

    In STO, I hit an instance, am inserted into a team, and I'm simply fighting. The only wait factor is a five minute cool down timer for encounters, or travel through sector space. I can even get a quest without travelling to a quest giver.

    I often wonder if anyone else appreciates the differences?

    Personally speaking, I think most current MMOs are basically XP grind fests. All of them. There's nothing really new in any of them. Oh sure in AION you can fly... WoW has nice animation.... EVE has unique training.... Warhammer is simply a bust fest.....

    So I often wonder why "hardcore gamers" aren't more interested in games that are truly unique. And most of the really compelling ones are *single player* with some kind of online component. When did playing with 10000 people you don't know, and probably do not want to know, become so important?

    It seems, these days, because of the MMO cash grab, the the most important component of any of these games seems to be "online". With no compelling reason for being "online".

    So just for the sake of conversations, here's a list of games that I find truly compelling. Only a few of them are MMOs:

    Sins of a Solar Empire

    Homeworld/Homeworld 2

    Command and Conquer (Original)

    Starfleet Command IIII

    Earth and Beyond (Gone but not forgotten, and playable through the EaB Server Emulator)

    Diablo/Diablo II/Torchlight/Titan Quest

    Rome Total War

    Myth II

    Masters of Orion

    Pathways into Darkness

    Unreal

    Grand Theft Auto San Andreas

    Everquest

    Lemmings

    Glider

    Doom/Wolfenstein series

    To name but a handful... which either present original IP or extensions of such.

    But the point is that MMOs in general are cookie cutter.

    As a person who blew a midterm in 1985 playing a Trek game on a amber screened Compaq portable- I find the definition of "hardcore gamer" way too tied to MMOs these days. MMOs are the basement of computer gaming. MMO's are all the same (with some exceptions). They are cash grabs by companies unwilling or unable to make a one shot investment in a product that stand on it's own. They are constantly revised, poorly tested, and sadly lacking in anything "new" as far as game play is concerned. The XP/Time grind exists in all of them in some form.

    It's amazing to me, that as a priori, a game has to be socially "massive" and "online" before today's gamer feels it is worthy of a hardcore gamer's praise.

    Maybe I got old. But ten years ago I was running LAN parties where people flew in from other countries for the chance to play Quake III Arena with 2 ping and 12 pizzas. When the original Unreal was released we peeled bandwidth off our company's "massive" 768k fractional T1 and ran a large server. We practiced (you had to) or got owned. There was skill involved.

    And the CPL was founded....

    God I'm old. But most of the grind and wait MMOs out there aren't hardcore at all. They allow marginally skilled gamers, to play a game with no win condition other than the dreaded "e-peen" factor. Sandbox games aside (what the three of them?).

    So really... the definition of "hard core gamer" isn't tied to MMOs at all. And without a win condition, MMOs probably are more prone to being an addiction, than a game in the first place. Unless of course you are looking for *experience* rather than a game.

    Yes I play MMOs and have liked a bunch of them. But MMOs = hardcore? I don't think so.

    If you load up Homeworld II for a multiplayer match against *me*, you'll find out what hardcore is. But gate camping me in EVE? Very marginal.... PVP in WoW? Total joke..... I could go on.....

    Without a win condition and equal resources- there is no measure of hardcore. There is only e-peen.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Karstedt wrote:
    The only problem is that there are more lag issues than meet the eye. With a targeting system it isn't a huge deal. Have you ever noticed in ground pvp how you might run around a corner 10 feet or so then find yourself dead over 10 feet back?

    No, I don't experience that at all, like ever in this game.

    Targeting system in ground missions = the suck - Talk about brainless drivel that takes absolutely no forethought or skill what so ever in order to win. The only thing you must do is ensure that the group you're in travels together, that's it, nothing more, nothing less.

    Turning ground pve/pvp into a true fps format would not only greatly enhance this game and capture more players, it would simply be THE smart thing to do.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Opaserv wrote: »
    No, I don't experience that at all, like ever in this game.

    Targeting system in ground missions = the suck - Talk about brainless drivel that takes absolutely no forethought or skill what so ever in order to win. The only thing you must do is ensure that the group you're in travels together, that's it, nothing more, nothing less.

    Turning ground pve/pvp into a true fps format would not only greatly enhance this game and capture more players, it would simply be THE smart thing to do.

    I completely agree, but latency would be an issue for the precision required for an fps.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Casual and Hardcore...

    Star Trek Online's game play is one of ease and doesn't take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon to figure it out, and with that some people are mad and some are happy.

    I think we can all agree that STO is a cookie cutter casual MMO, nothing more, nothing less. If I am wrong please prove it to me. I just keep reading these posts on the forum and half of them disgust me. No the game has not failed, but it surely is not a success either. It is just a standard run of the mill MMO with just the bare minimum upon release. Will it get better over time, most likely. The people who are upset are upset with the game engine, yes? The people who are happy are happy with the ease of play and the shoot em up style, yes? So why don't we just end those types of threads, all MMO's are roughly 2 types:

    1. Casual MMO's - City of Heroes, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, to name a few
    2. Hardcore MMORPG's - Star Wars Galaxies, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Fallen Earth, to name a few

    The casual MMO is designed to be easy and fun with little to no learning curve whereas the hardcore MMO take a lot of time learning the steep curve, and in the end provides the same fun, for a different type of player. We cannot even debate this any longer.

    The thing that saddens me is that I remember a time where MMORPG's used to be about the adventure and progression in a living breathing world, which has been lost over time with the 1 server, and multiple Instancing, which IMHO is a death knell to the hardcore MMORPG's. It doesn't mean they are dead all together it just means that we will see more of the casual MMO's then the Hardcore ones.

    Now please refute or add your opinions on the matter.

    I tend to disagree with your notion of what is casual or hardcore, which is where I will start.

    The games you have mentioned as casual have the issue of lack of things to do, not ways to do it. What seperates casual play and hardcore play is not things that are simplistic, but what you do what the content. Take everquest for example. Plenty of people were casual players. Never really reached cap, or took a very long time to do so. The reasoning behind this was because there was so much content, that you could really take your time to experience it all. Where in contradiction to that approach, hardcore meant yields and consumption.

    What you place as casual, I place more as lack of content. The more content you have, even simplistic in nature, the more ways to approach. If STO had indeed the content that they said it would at launch, then you wouldnt see nearly as many negative user feedback. There really is no branching out. There is no micromanagement beyond a few aspects of power settings, and bridge officer perfection.

    A casual gamer is not ignorant, stupid, or void of seeing a wide view of the gameplay. To try and make the statement that lack of content means it is casual, is almost insultive to those who consider themselves casual gamers. I think you will find before these labels, the issues are lack of content with STO. As it was with CoH which i played at launch as well and many months into release.

    A casual approaches what is fun, and that can be anything
    A hardcore approaches what yields the best, and micromanages much as they can.

    The lack of content effects both. Perhaps, even moreso the casual gamer, who shall be left with less things to choose for fun. The time factor does not equate, and anyone who has said different fails to realize how this all was long before we had this horrible slang going around.


    STO does not need to be complicated. All it needs, is variety. Things to do. More ways than One. That will help everyone, across the entire playerbase, regardless of approach. If the developers have tried to label it a casual game, then it is just the mask of lack of content, via the limited resources to otherwise prevent the issue during the development phase.
Sign In or Register to comment.