test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What STO 'would' have been like...

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
This is an interesting find. For those of you who don't know, Cryptic Studios did not begin STO all on their own. It was a project original started by the now defunct Perpetual Entertainment. Unfortunately, it seems, all coding on the game was scrapped before it landed in Cryptic's hands. What's sad is PE was on the right track and Cryptic has simply gone...someplace else with it.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Online_(Perpetual_Entertainment)

This labels sources and references to what would've been a truly epic game. Not everyone started off as their own captain, players could join other players' starships and there were even designs for ship interiors already completed. It turns out PE was slated to start Beta on the game back in 2006! With a tentative release in late '07. Why did no one fund 'this' Star Trek Online? Instead Atari buys it and hands it to Cryptic to COMPLETELY redo.

Here's Memory Alpha's listing for the Cryptic version of STO:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Online
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    This subject has actually come across very often in these boards. From what I understand, Perpetual was ALL talk and no results. It's really easy to say that PE was on the right track, but all they really had was ideas and no concrete proof.

    I don't care for Cryptic, but I don't think that STO by Perpetual would really be that much better.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    some of those early screen shots look amazing. Well see what cryptic does....I'll give it a year or so until its really polished
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    and people wonder why we complain so much...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    It's hard to tell what PE 'really' had. I remember signing up for these forums while PE still held the reigns. I also remember when they went under, Cryptic took over, and all they had was some Photo Art. I didn't understand why that was until just now with that article. I can't even guess as to why the original code was scrapped because it seemed PE had some really interesting stuff going on. As it states in Memory Alpha's (Cryptic) version of STO; Cryptic started from scratch.

    Why? Why start from Scratch? If they truly started from Scratch and didn't pick up the game until late 2008, then that's saying Cryptic only spent 1 year developing this game. 1 f*cking year in development. Board Games have been in development longer than that! Hell, I remember eagerly waiting almost 18 months for Electronic Battleship!

    No wonder the game is so lop-sided and half-assed. 1 year... You have got to be kidding me. If I had all the disposable income in the world I don't think I could develop a decent MMO in a year.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Whoo, concept art and no results. Who cares.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Camoron wrote: »
    Whoo, concept art and no results. Who cares.

    OFT

    ......
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    mickeyx wrote:
    OFT

    ......

    OFT? ........
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Camoron wrote: »
    Whoo, concept art and no results. Who cares.

    you are such a tard... Anyone that says ANYthing bad about STO and you jump down there throts.. And god forbid someone says the word EVE.... WELL


    EVE
    EVE
    EVE
    EVE
    EVE
    EVE
    EVE
    EVE
    EVE!!!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Lyniaer wrote: »
    OFT? ........

    Stands for quoted for truth.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    There were definite results back in December '06 when I originally signed up for the forums. I lost track of it for a long time and happened across the startrekonline.com link in my plethora of bookmarks. When I came back the front page was completely different, there was something about PE going out of business, a forums link which I had to sign up for again and an FAQ page.

    Which reminds me; in the FAQ page in May 2009: "Q: Will there be a monthly fee? A: At this time we do not plan to have a monthly fee."

    Also, at that time, there was no mention of ATARI being the Publisher.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    There is a lot of stuff Cryptic had said would be in the game that has never been mentioned again. in the Vegas 08 conference, they mentioned so many awsome things that they were gonng to put in this game that I have not even seem mentioned in the forums in the past few months. If they had made this game like it was described, I bet it would be one of the best MMOs to date......we got the watered down quick release I guess.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    bherr wrote:
    There is a lot of stuff Cryptic had said would be in the game that has never been mentioned again. in the Vegas 08 conference, they mentioned so many awsome things that they were gonng to put in this game that I have not even seem mentioned in the forums in the past few months. If they had made this game like it was described, I bet it would be one of the best MMOs to date......we got the watered down quick release I guess.

    That's mostly to blame on Publisher Atari. It's their decision when a game should be launched and developers take financial cuts in the way of a "fine" for not being ready on the deadline set by the publisher. It's a vicious corporate game and I can be 100% certain Cryptic is not to blame here. Though they did develop the game in it's current state, now that they've met deadline they can catch their breaths and release the additional content we were expecting.

    Cryptic goes to Atari for money to build the game and 'we' pay Atari, not Cryptic.

    People need to look at the true culprit and stop dissing Cryptic because what they've managed to pitch out in only 14 months of development time isn't all that bad. Imagine how poorly WOW would be received if they only had 1 year to develop something original from scratch. (Excerpt from Wikipedia: World of Warcraft was first announced by Blizzard at the ECTS trade show in September 2001.[44] Development of the game took roughly 4–5 years, and included extensive testing.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Lyniaer wrote: »
    That's mostly to blame on Publisher Atari. It's their decision when a game should be launched and developers take financial cuts in the way of a "fine" for not being ready on the deadline set by the publisher. It's a vicious corporate game and I can be 100% certain Cryptic is not to blame here. Though they did develop the game in it's current state, now that they've met deadline they can catch their breaths and release the additional content we were expecting.

    Cryptic goes to Atari for money to build the game and 'we' pay Atari, not Cryptic.

    People need to look at the true culprit and stop dissing Cryptic because what they've managed to pitch out in only 14 months of development time isn't all that bad. Imagine how poorly WOW would be received if they only had 1 year to develop something original from scratch. (Excerpt from Wikipedia: World of Warcraft was first announced by Blizzard at the ECTS trade show in September 2001.[44] Development of the game took roughly 4–5 years, and included extensive testing.

    I agree though developers with a certain degree of reputation, such as Bioware, can negotiate more reasonable development times with their publishers/owners. Cryptic probably didn't have that much clout.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    AidenPryde wrote: »
    I agree though developers with a certain degree of reputation, such as Bioware, can negotiate more reasonable development times with their publishers/owners. Cryptic probably didn't have that much clout.

    That's a good point. Atari dropped the ball on this one and the negative feedback of the game by the players is going to cause them to bail out.

    That brings to mind; has anyone read the 'official' reviews on the game? They're so overwhelmingly positive I'm wondering if Atari has paid them off in lieu of the bad responses on the forums.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Lyniaer wrote: »
    That's a good point. Atari dropped the ball on this one and the negative feedback of the game by the players is going to cause them to bail out.

    That brings to mind; has anyone read the 'official' reviews on the game? They're so overwhelmingly positive I'm wondering if Atari has paid them off in lieu of the bad responses on the forums.

    Links please... All the reviews I've seen so far from like IGN, 1up.com have been negative, giving it around a 6/10.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Lyniaer wrote: »
    This is an interesting find. For those of you who don't know, Cryptic Studios did not begin STO all on their own. It was a project original started by the now defunct Perpetual Entertainment. Unfortunately, it seems, all coding on the game was scrapped before it landed in Cryptic's hands. What's sad is PE was on the right track and Cryptic has simply gone...someplace else with it.

    http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Online_(Perpetual_Entertainment)

    This labels sources and references to what would've been a truly epic game. Not everyone started off as their own captain, players could join other players' starships and there were even designs for ship interiors already completed. It turns out PE was slated to start Beta on the game back in 2006! With a tentative release in late '07. Why did no one fund 'this' Star Trek Online? Instead Atari buys it and hands it to Cryptic to COMPLETELY redo.

    Here's Memory Alpha's listing for the Cryptic version of STO:

    http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Online

    You may have just discovered this information, but actually many of us who have followed the game were already well aware of this bit of trivia. Like a lot of people, I had the original Perpetual web site bookmarked from the beginning. Perpetual had lots of ideas but they never had more than some concept art to show for it. They even cancelled a nearly-complete game, and the title now escapes me - Gods and Heroes maybe? The game was close to starting beta testing, then it was cancelled, and the company line was that it was cancelled so that the company could devote most of its resources to the Star Trek project. Shortly after that, Perpetual went bankrupt.

    They definitely postulated a great game idea, but they never did anything with it. Cryptic on the other hand actually managed to build and ship a game, one that many of us happen to enjoy playing. You asked why no one funded PE's game. Maybe potential backers looked at the project and saw that PE had managed to produce almost nothing in 2 years. I wouldn't have funded them either. If you are going to compare Perpetual's theoretical STO to Cryptic's, well...sorry but I have to vote for Cryptic on that one.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    First; I f*cked up. I meant to say Previews but had Reviews stuck in my fingers after looking around for, well, Reviews.

    First Preview I was able to see was in GameInformer Issue 203. There was no # rating but the author praised it and only made a small side note that the graphics could be better.

    X-Play had given it a Thumbs-Up Preview and the Review was only a 3/5; better than I would've expected.

    Same thing goes for Gamespot gave a happy-go-lucky preview (on-hands as well) and now review it with despair.

    Eurogamer gave a positive Preview.

    I could definitely go on.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Bitaku wrote: »
    Stands for quoted for truth.

    It also stands for "Quite ****ing True" as in:
    "At least the starship combat is fun in Star Trek Online!"
    "That's quite ****ing true!"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    DrArcanus wrote: »
    You may have just discovered this information, but actually many of us who have followed the game were already well aware of this bit of trivia. Like a lot of people, I had the original Perpetual web site bookmarked from the beginning. Perpetual had lots of ideas but they never had more than some concept art to show for it. They even cancelled a nearly-complete game, and the title now escapes me - Gods and Heroes maybe? The game was close to starting beta testing, then it was cancelled, and the company line was that it was cancelled so that the company could devote most of its resources to the Star Trek project. Shortly after that, Perpetual went bankrupt.

    They definitely postulated a great game idea, but they never did anything with it. Cryptic on the other hand actually managed to build and ship a game, one that many of us happen to enjoy playing. You asked why no one funded PE's game. Maybe potential backers looked at the project and saw that PE had managed to produce almost nothing in 2 years. I wouldn't have funded them either. If you are going to compare Perpetual's theoretical STO to Cryptic's, well...sorry but I have to vote for Cryptic on that one.

    It helps to read stuff before you comment on it.

    PE 'had' plenty of coded material and was taking their time to do it 'right'; something any MMOer would respect and something that a Brandwashed Trekster wouldn't care to think about. I could print STAR TREK on a clock from the dollar store and sell it to people like you for 25x the price.

    You enjoy STO while it lasts; the rest of us will be looking for a 'real' game. -.-



    ****er...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Here, let me bring some inconvenient facts to your fantasy of what this would have been like:

    http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=108456

    I swear, every week there is some person who posts some pie-eyed idea of what STO would have been like, but has not actually looked at what Perpetual was going to produce.

    Don't kid yourself, STO was ALWAYS going to be a more or less generic MMO.


    TLDR of that link I placed: Not really any different than what we have now, and perhaps worse in several specific ways.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Perpetual STO=vaporware

    Comparing an actual game to concept art and what a defunct company's management had "planned for the game" is pointless.

    Need I say more.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Here, let me bring some inconvenient facts to your fantasy of what this would have been like:

    http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=108456

    I swear, every week there is some person who posts some pie-eyed idea of what STO would have been like, but has not actually looked at what Perpetual was going to produce.

    Don't kid yourself, STO was ALWAYS going to be a more or less generic MMO.


    TLDR of that link I placed: Not really any different than what we have now, and perhaps worse in several specific ways.

    Without people like you the world would've ended long ago, I'm sure.

    Thank you for your constant vigilance against our ignorance and stupidity, for we, the huddled masses, know not what we want nor what we need.

    Continue to provide for us so that we may thrive as a society.



    There's a reason sub-par developers get the canonized TRIBBLE and elitists like Blizzard and Square do better with their 'original' material.
    They 'know' they won't make you f*ckers happy and therefor they're not even going to try. PE was only trying and Atari manipulating Cryptic is only a money-making wheel designed to spin for so long and fall off. I would rather have something that looks clumbsy but holds true to canon than something that's all glit and glamor with no substance that supports it's origin.

    Want a comparison? Ever watch the Bourne movies? Play the Bourne game. It's not pretty, but they caught it's essence to a T.

    Stop being so damn shallow and realize Cryptic was successful in making a "Stereotypical Blonde". Doable, yet, stupid-beyond-stupid.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    It is beautiful...and they sounded like they had a broader concept from what I hear... But c'mon, that was a concept...have you ever seen the "concept" cars at a car show? Concepts are the "in a perfect world" idea...they don't actually happen....pretty much ever...

    Also while drooling at the screenshots, maybe keep in mind that Cryptic got *all* non-code assets from PE...

    So.... that means Cryptic got PE's artwork.... So you're drooling over Cryptic's art now =)

    (and it is nice looking)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    The pessimist: "That glass is half empty"
    The optimist: "That glass is half full!"
    The pragmatist: *drinks the water* "who gives a TRIBBLE it's gone so lets just get past it..."
Sign In or Register to comment.