But over all Star Trek Online seems to have little of that special pixie dust that gets people to spend thousands of hours devoting themselves to the best online games. The good news for Cryptic and Atari is that the heart of a good game is still beating inside Star Trek Onlines unfinished shell.
But over all Star Trek Online seems to have little of that special pixie dust that gets people to spend thousands of hours devoting themselves to the best online games. The good news for Cryptic and Atari is that the heart of a good game is still beating inside Star Trek Onlines unfinished shell.
This is the sort of review that matters, coming from one of the top news sources in the English-speaking world.***
*** Before any Times haters or conservatives flame me for saying that, read: http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=2159199&postcount=10 ...I'm going based on readership (even though I'm on the other side of your camp, I'm just going by that here as my wording indicated--I said top, not "trusted" on which I'm sure we wildly disagree )
That's about on par with the median reviews out there.
Not really related at all, but I hate reviews that don't have a tangible scoring system of some sort. Must be from being a Car and Driver subscriber for as long as I have been, I like the drawn-out review, along side some cold, hard facts and a number rating.
In other words, he perfectly fits the narrow yet potentially deep demographic that Star Trek Online aims to appeal to. That is, Trekkies who are willing to overlook brain-lockingly repetitive gameplay, unvaried design, thin storytelling, buggy client software and an almost complete dearth of meaningful social interaction in favor of a mildly diverting, moderately attractive, cleverly episodic collection of simple combat encounters among spaceships and soldiers.
This is the sort of review that matters, coming from one of the top news sources in the English-speaking world.
You serious?! The New York Times is a TOP news source? Are you mad? That may as well be a toned down tabloid without all the Elvis and Alien sightings splashed on the front page. NYT is a joke, nothing they say can be taken seriously, or has any resemblance of news-worth to it. It's trash, plain and simple.
But over all Star Trek Online seems to have little of that special pixie dust that gets people to spend thousands of hours devoting themselves to the best online games. The good news for Cryptic and Atari is that the heart of a good game is still beating inside Star Trek Onlines unfinished shell.
You serious?! The New York Times is a TOP news source? Are you mad? That may as well be a toned down tabloid without all the Elvis and Alien sightings splashed on the front page. NYT is a joke, nothing they say can be taken seriously, or has any resemblance of news-worth to it. It's trash, plain and simple.
Here we go. Leave the politics at the door. It's the 3rd most subscribed to physical paper in the United States:
No politics. I can't stand politics. I am for myself and nothing more, no one else. Selfish? Don't care. NYT is still, and forever will be, toilet paper.
You serious?! The New York Times is a TOP news source? Are you mad? That may as well be a toned down tabloid without all the Elvis and Alien sightings splashed on the front page.
You serious?! The New York Times is a TOP news source? Are you mad? That may as well be a toned down tabloid without all the Elvis and Alien sightings splashed on the front page. NYT is a joke, nothing they say can be taken seriously, or has any resemblance of news-worth to it. It's trash, plain and simple.
I don't think you understand what Zilag is saying.
He is right that this is one of the first reviews which will get attention from a wider audience, compared to some tinpot mmo websites review.
It's nothing to do with your opinion of the paper, it's to do with the size of their audience.
Wait, you want to leave the politics at the door when discussing a newspaper with a blatantly obvious political agenda?
I mean, yeah, people go to them, but the paper has been floundering for years. To prove it, look at their cash flow. They literally had to take out a loan from a de-facto member of the Mexican Mafia in order to stay afloat, because they're losing subscribers.
That doesn't say "top news source" to me, or anyone I've ever known. That says garbage.
Which isn't saying a lot because most people don't subscribe to paper rag sheets anymore..other than to line bird cages or put under catboxes.
3rd most subscribed physical paper in the USA
And its electronically available.
It's not the death knell it would have been 20 years ago,but it's a sharp slap particularly for big companies with shareholders..and investors...who trade on the New York markets (re:all of them).
There isn't a real difference between the two, once you factor out the political stances. They're still crappy outfits, full of second-rate paparazzi claiming to be "journalists," just floundering about and drooling over their respective heroes and printing ANYTHING that may cast said hero in a better light, regardless of truth or integrity.
Which isn't saying a lot because most people don't subscribe to paper rag sheets anymore..other than to line bird cages or put under catboxes.
Most people on this forum. You ever been to New York City, the most populous city and region in America? Lots and lots of people buy it there, and again, it's site is the 96th most popular per Alexa.
Most people on this forum. You ever been to New York City, the most populous city and region in America? Lots and lots of people buy it there, and again, it's site is the 96th most popular per Alexa.
I checked your site saying it's the third-largest paper, and at the bottom, it said those numbers were accurate as of March 31, 2006, almost four years ago. Find some numbers that are a bit more recent.
And really, name me a single news source in America that's rolling in the cash today. That argument has zero legs; the Internet and Craigs List have decimated all of that. But this is ALL off topic.
The New York Times gets people's attention. It has millions of readers online and off. That's all that matters in the end of the day. It's opinion matters more than GameSpy or GameSpot or GameWhatever.
And really, name me a single news source in America that's rolling in the cash today. That argument has zero legs; the Internet and Craigs List have decimated all of that. But this is ALL off topic.
The New York Times gets people's attention. It has millions of readers online and off. That's all that matters in the end of the day. It's opinion matters more than GameSpy or GameSpot or GameWhatever.
No, it's "opinion" only matters as far as the reader lets it be taken. That's true for any 'review' or blog, or whatever. Subscription numbers mean nothing. It all boils down to a review like this is someone's opinion and nothing more. Some people will agree with it. Some will not. But it hardly makes it any more "right" than my opinion is over yours.
No, it's "opinion" only matters as far as the reader lets it be taken. That's true for any 'review' or blog, or whatever. Subscription numbers mean nothing. It all boils down to a review like this is someone's opinion and nothing more. Some people will agree with it. Some will not. But it hardly makes it any more "right" than my opinion is over yours.
No, of course not.
My point is still and has been since my first reply that a review that gets MORE eyes matters MORE regardless of who give it. It's about market reach.
If the NY Times says "Go buy/don't buy STO" it has a market reach of several million, and that will spill down to other news sites and blogs, hitting perhaps double that potentially.
If Simon Cowell on American Idol goes off and says "Go buy/don't buy STO" it will reach tens of millions and possibly double that in the end as a message.
If Barack Obama says this during a State of the Union address, quadruple that if not more.
Thats my only point. Audience size MATTERS. Thats it. Nothing on the quality of the source, just size.
Anyone denying the NY Times has a huger market exposure than any paltry gaming site is flat wrong and flat delusional.
I love how the attention has shifted to the validity of the publication, when really we want to keep this all hush hush because the review was more accurate than any of us would like to admit, unfortunately.
You serious?! The New York Times is a TOP news source? Are you mad? That may as well be a toned down tabloid without all the Elvis and Alien sightings splashed on the front page. NYT is a joke, nothing they say can be taken seriously, or has any resemblance of news-worth to it. It's trash, plain and simple.
I agree it's an almost worthless news source - on par with CNN and Fox News - but it is still one of the most widely read newspapers in the US.
My point is still and has been since my first reply that a review that gets MORE eyes matters MORE regardless of who give it. It's about market reach.
If the NY Times says "Go buy/don't buy STO" it has a market reach of several million, and that will spill down to other news sites and blogs, hitting perhaps double that potentially.
If Simon Cowell on American Idol goes off and says "Go buy/don't buy STO" it will reach tens of millions and possibly double that in the end as a message.
If Barack Obama says this during a State of the Union address, quadruple that if not more.
Thats my only point. Audience size MATTERS. Thats it. Nothing on the quality of the source, just size.
Anyone denying the NY Times has a huger market exposure than any paltry gaming site is flat wrong and flat delusional.
And you haven't addressed the fact that the "proof" you offer is almost four years old, so you don't actually have any RECENT data - as you'd need it to say said review is going to be seen by a TRIBBLE-ton of people - to back up said claim.
I love how the attention has shifted to the validity of the publication, when really we want to keep this all hush hush because the review was more accurate than any of us would like to admit, unfortunately.
Like it or not - the reviews are pretty much the same no matter what source is posted.
The problem with all these reviews is this is what a good portion of possible customers are reading.
Also, Speaking on behalf of myself I do understand one person or "reviewer" may not like the game so I will do a bit of research and read more reviews. But, the issue being all reviews on STO are pretty much the same.
I myself REALLY want this game to work but at the same time I'm not a blind fanboi. It simply doesn't offer any of the engaging have to play it moments that a lot of other mmo's offer.
I do agree it's a great shell of a game to build something on - but the problem is the time frame in which Cryptic decides to do that. If more then an another month or two - STO will desolve into a niche game with a very small populus and little development capital to produce the promised content.
Comments
Gaming reviews aren't read by the mainstream.
This is the sort of review that matters, coming from one of the top news sources in the English-speaking world.***
*** Before any Times haters or conservatives flame me for saying that, read: http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=2159199&postcount=10 ...I'm going based on readership (even though I'm on the other side of your camp, I'm just going by that here as my wording indicated--I said top, not "trusted" on which I'm sure we wildly disagree
Not really related at all, but I hate reviews that don't have a tangible scoring system of some sort. Must be from being a Car and Driver subscriber for as long as I have been, I like the drawn-out review, along side some cold, hard facts and a number rating.
I also hate the NYT with a passion.
I lol'ed, really really hard.
OUCH. Yay for sarcastic reviews.
Hate it or not, it's one of the most widely read and cited news sources in the English-speaking (Western) world. That counts for a lot.
You serious?! The New York Times is a TOP news source? Are you mad? That may as well be a toned down tabloid without all the Elvis and Alien sightings splashed on the front page. NYT is a joke, nothing they say can be taken seriously, or has any resemblance of news-worth to it. It's trash, plain and simple.
sounds like every other review to be honest.
Here we go. Leave the politics at the door. It's the 3rd most subscribed to physical paper in the United States:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html
And according to Alexa is the 96th most popular website:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nytimes.com?p=tgraph&r=home_home
No politics. I can't stand politics. I am for myself and nothing more, no one else. Selfish? Don't care. NYT is still, and forever will be, toilet paper.
I think you're thinking of the New York Post.
I don't think you understand what Zilag is saying.
He is right that this is one of the first reviews which will get attention from a wider audience, compared to some tinpot mmo websites review.
It's nothing to do with your opinion of the paper, it's to do with the size of their audience.
Which isn't saying a lot because most people don't subscribe to paper rag sheets anymore..other than to line bird cages or put under catboxes.
Wait, you want to leave the politics at the door when discussing a newspaper with a blatantly obvious political agenda?
I mean, yeah, people go to them, but the paper has been floundering for years. To prove it, look at their cash flow. They literally had to take out a loan from a de-facto member of the Mexican Mafia in order to stay afloat, because they're losing subscribers.
That doesn't say "top news source" to me, or anyone I've ever known. That says garbage.
That being said, they're crossword is top notch.
^^ Exactly.
3rd most subscribed physical paper in the USA
And its electronically available.
It's not the death knell it would have been 20 years ago,but it's a sharp slap particularly for big companies with shareholders..and investors...who trade on the New York markets (re:all of them).
There isn't a real difference between the two, once you factor out the political stances. They're still crappy outfits, full of second-rate paparazzi claiming to be "journalists," just floundering about and drooling over their respective heroes and printing ANYTHING that may cast said hero in a better light, regardless of truth or integrity.
Most people on this forum. You ever been to New York City, the most populous city and region in America? Lots and lots of people buy it there, and again, it's site is the 96th most popular per Alexa.
I checked your site saying it's the third-largest paper, and at the bottom, it said those numbers were accurate as of March 31, 2006, almost four years ago. Find some numbers that are a bit more recent.
The New York Times gets people's attention. It has millions of readers online and off. That's all that matters in the end of the day. It's opinion matters more than GameSpy or GameSpot or GameWhatever.
No, it's "opinion" only matters as far as the reader lets it be taken. That's true for any 'review' or blog, or whatever. Subscription numbers mean nothing. It all boils down to a review like this is someone's opinion and nothing more. Some people will agree with it. Some will not. But it hardly makes it any more "right" than my opinion is over yours.
No, of course not.
My point is still and has been since my first reply that a review that gets MORE eyes matters MORE regardless of who give it. It's about market reach.
If the NY Times says "Go buy/don't buy STO" it has a market reach of several million, and that will spill down to other news sites and blogs, hitting perhaps double that potentially.
If Simon Cowell on American Idol goes off and says "Go buy/don't buy STO" it will reach tens of millions and possibly double that in the end as a message.
If Barack Obama says this during a State of the Union address, quadruple that if not more.
Thats my only point. Audience size MATTERS. Thats it. Nothing on the quality of the source, just size.
Anyone denying the NY Times has a huger market exposure than any paltry gaming site is flat wrong and flat delusional.
I agree it's an almost worthless news source - on par with CNN and Fox News - but it is still one of the most widely read newspapers in the US.
And you haven't addressed the fact that the "proof" you offer is almost four years old, so you don't actually have any RECENT data - as you'd need it to say said review is going to be seen by a TRIBBLE-ton of people - to back up said claim.
Ummm, not really. Read my first post.
Edit:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS147719+27-Jan-2009+MW20090127
Reters places them at 18 million online viewers for the month of dec.
The problem with all these reviews is this is what a good portion of possible customers are reading.
Also, Speaking on behalf of myself I do understand one person or "reviewer" may not like the game so I will do a bit of research and read more reviews. But, the issue being all reviews on STO are pretty much the same.
I myself REALLY want this game to work but at the same time I'm not a blind fanboi. It simply doesn't offer any of the engaging have to play it moments that a lot of other mmo's offer.
I do agree it's a great shell of a game to build something on - but the problem is the time frame in which Cryptic decides to do that. If more then an another month or two - STO will desolve into a niche game with a very small populus and little development capital to produce the promised content.
Fox News and the New York Times both have something to say, deal with it.