test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Star Trek Online 5.5 Score?

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Does the Gamespot review for Start Trek Online (Feb 2, 2010) reflect what you're playing as of today March, 23, 2010?

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/startrekonline/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I think ,for me at least, 5.5 is a fair score. It's somewhere in the middle which is about right for STO currently. With more varied content, or just more content I think that score will go up.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    GbeHlpnU wrote: »
    Does the Gamespot review for Start Trek Online (Feb 2, 2010) reflect what you're playing as of today March, 23, 2010?

    http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/startrekonline/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review

    I'm not one of the whiners, and I think it should be higher. I think it deserves a 7.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I never take gamespot seriously as a review so for me the answer would be no.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    GbeHlpnU wrote: »
    Does the Gamespot review for Start Trek Online (Feb 2, 2010) reflect what you're playing as of today March, 23, 2010?

    Well... yes. Season 1 hasn't even come out yet. And Season 1 won't be doing much for me. I hear that Season 2 will be content heavy, so we'll see if there are some good improvements by then.

    (Disclaimer: I'd rate the game higher for my personal enjoyment, but I think a 6/10 is appropriate for the general public. 5.5 might be slightly low, but I wouldn't argue against it.)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Personally 6.5, but as above, to the general public, a 5.5 is about right. Lets hope it goes up.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Game is fun but shallow. Space combat is fun, but ground combat is clunky and forgettable. The list goes on and on, so 5.5 seems just about right.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines ~Seadgir
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Question for you guys: Why does the score drop for the general public? I think I saw two people knock a point off their personal scores. Back when I was reviewing games I avoided using scores like the plague, but any time I had to, I don't remember dropping a score a point based on my thoughts of how other people would view the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Rekhan wrote:
    Question for you guys: Why does the score drop for the general public? I think I saw two people knock a point off their personal scores. Back when I was reviewing games I avoided using scores like the plague, but any time I had to, I don't remember dropping a score a point based on my thoughts of how other people would view the game.

    Likely a reflection of an opinion that didn't start from a star trek fan's perspective.

    More simply: "I, a trek fan, would give this game an X.X while a random person would likely give it an X.X"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Rekhan wrote:
    Question for you guys: Why does the score drop for the general public? I think I saw two people knock a point off their personal scores. Back when I was reviewing games I avoided using scores like the plague, but any time I had to, I don't remember dropping a score a point based on my thoughts of how other people would view the game.

    The instancing is rather excessive. Personally, I like the instancing, but I'm weird that way. It's actually a plus for my personal enjoyment, but I count it as a minus for the general public. I can see how it would be very annoying for many people, especially when double zoning to space stations.

    Also, I like the ground combat, but I can see how many people wouldn't care for it.

    The crafting, as I'm sure you're aware, is a joke. I don't care about crafting though.

    I still take off points for the cryptic skill descriptions and the tiny number of character slots. (The number of slots might be sufficient for some MMOs, and I realize you have to track a lot of data, but the relatively short length of this game and the few character slots just don't go together.)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I haven't taken a gamespot review to heart in years. The 5.5 score means Cryptic had the integrity not to pay them off. Gamespot reviews directly correlate to the amount of swag you send their way.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    the only mag i read is pc gamer and they gave it 74% which i agree with
    honestly these 5/10 scores are a joke. maybe im easy to please but i must be playing a different game to them
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    When asked what I would rate the game in the poll, I gave it a 7. It was the hardest question to answer because I was torn between 6 and 7 then I realized that 6.5 was what I truly felt and I had no way of giving a .5. So I did the rounding numbers thing and gave it a 7. But when I see reviews +/- 1 point from what I feel, I can't argue it to be honest because 1 point in a 10 point scale is not too far off.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    GbeHlpnU wrote: »
    Does the Gamespot review for Start Trek Online (Feb 2, 2010) reflect what you're playing as of today March, 23, 2010?

    http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/startrekonline/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review



    How you view the game will decide mostly how you enjoy it. If you come into it expecting WoW (like the, sadly, Vast majority of the media and consumers do these days) then you will be disappointed. STO has been out less than 2 months and can in NO WAY be compared to an MMO that has years under its belt.

    If however you have the ability to come into a game and see it for what it is, what it brings to the table, and see what is being done to improve what is and what is coming... well then you will likely be surprised with STO. The Dev team is some of the most viable and communicative I have seen in ages... since maybe even UO. They area not only on the forums regularly but they seem to listen (just look at the FBP, SNB, VM thread for proof of that) to what the players want (not everyone no, but no one can please everyone can they?)

    In the end its up to you and how you perceive MMOs, they are not BF:BC2 or DA:O style of games, they can not be summed up in a 2 or 3 page article on some crappy website or magazine. Read up, see if it might be something you would like and if so, give it a try.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Mirai wrote: »
    The instancing is rather excessive. Personally, I like the instancing, but I'm weird that way. It's actually a plus for my personal enjoyment, but I count it as a minus for the general public. I can see how it would be very annoying for many people, especially when double zoning to space stations.

    Also, I like the ground combat, but I can see how many people wouldn't care for it.

    The crafting, as I'm sure you're aware, is a joke. I don't care about crafting though.

    I still take off points for the cryptic skill descriptions and the tiny number of character slots. (The number of slots might be sufficient for some MMOs, and I realize you have to track a lot of data, but the relatively short length of this game and the few character slots just don't go together.)

    All I can say is WOW. You hit a lot of things right on the head that I took points away for too.

    I too like ground stuff basically because that was a big part of Star Trek. TOS and TNG had away teams in most episodes. DS9 was a different animal since it was based on a station. You don't explore strange new worlds just sitting on the ship all 60 minutes of the shows. We went through the customization of making a character and rarely see the character. We see more of the ship avatar. Which brings me to another short coming...

    Ship customization is not that extensive when compared to other Cryptic creations. In previous games, I could spend so long in customizing that I had to send out an AFK type message to friends while in the screen. When I go to the ship part, I don't waste my time telling them anything because it's done in no time flat. Cryptic spoiled us with customizations. Ship customizations fail due to Cryptic's own previous success in this area. Now if this ship customization was in a game like WoW, then I'd probably love it because WoW has pure POS customization. Cryptic, customizations from you I truly expected better.

    Cryptic and crafting has always been a laughing matter IMHO. Champions crafting is bad but even that crafting is better than STO's. The crafting seems to be very poor to the point I think they throw crafting in a game just to say they have crafting. Problem is the crafting is more of a PITA that I don't even bother with it since drops are just as well or in CO's case even better than what you can craft. If I am going to take time to craft, it should at least be worth it.

    I didn't take off points for content back at launch though. If I score it again at the 6 month mark, I would if the content is where it's at now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I think the reviews are a overly harsh. Either as a result of bias or the gamer/reviewer looking for new mmos to innovate what previously garnered good reviews. I've wondered out loud about whether Star Trek itself generates some sort of bias.

    Meaning, they cite repetition and generic quest writing and quest tasks as the reason for why STO is mediocre. Even though you can watch or read reviews from the same sites that rate other mmos higher, utilizing a somewhat "blind eye" in failing to realize that the games they rate higher have the same elements that they cite as reasons why STO is mediocre.

    Why is this? Well, I don't know. I suspect it's because STO has such a different setting than other mainstream mmo's and that difference tends to make what was previously acceptable and "good" seem shallow and repetitive. (Space combat. You can't transplant the same quest but change the scenery to snow or fall foliage or fantasy mushrooms in the environment of space.) So, without that eye candy misdirection everything seems the same.

    The quest text (which is a hot point for GS) is hardly worse than anything in other mmos with rare exception, and the criticism on this front is even laughable. Some of STO's mission text is as well writen or better than others and the main missions are decent story-wise.

    Then you have the "mash spacebar" complaint. Which to me is no different than complaining about having to mash the same rotation of skills in other games. In other games, you mash the same attacks, in STO you decide when to fire the weapons that aren't on auto fire (since damage is based on power levels). meh.

    I do agree that it can be better and I personaly give it an 8.0. If Cryptic introduces a crafting system with real rewards and refines what they already have then it will be among the top mmos.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Rekhan wrote:
    Question for you guys: Why does the score drop for the general public? I think I saw two people knock a point off their personal scores. Back when I was reviewing games I avoided using scores like the plague, but any time I had to, I don't remember dropping a score a point based on my thoughts of how other people would view the game.

    I would give it a 5-6 at launch and a 6-7 now and the way that the engineering reports read its tilting towards a solid 7 with some leanings towards 8 for the future.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Problem is the crafting is more of a PITA that I don't even bother with it since drops are just as well or in CO's case even better than what you can craft.

    Yes, I tried to give crafting a chance with my science character (because it fits nicely into the character concept), but I gave up. I need to fill up a lot of inventory space with data samples and travel all the way to Memory Alpha to craft minor upgrades to very limited existing items that I may not be able to use, with no indication of how much crafting I need to do to unlock the next crafting contact. I outleveled the equipment before I unlocked the next contact, even though I was visiting Memory Alpha frequently. The equipment I did craft didn't last long before I replaced it. As far as I can tell, the effort far exceeds the gain, making the system utterly worthless at the moment.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Gamespot's review has never reflected my take on Star Trek Online. At the start, I would give it a solid 7. Now, after enjoying the first Special Task Force and realizing that many more are on their way I would give it an 8.

    And all in under 2 years? Outstanding work Cryptic. Don't let the press bring you down. The credibility of most of the bad reviews out there is questionable at best. Eurogamer's review takes the cake (even though it isn't the lowest). It blows my mind that their score gets counted to STO's Metascore. I strongly believe in a reviewer actually playing the game through and capping before passing judgement. Lieutenant Commander doesn't cut it. You can say the same for a number of other reviews too. But hey, who's counting :)

    There's no doubt that the game could use some improvements, but I'm enjoying the hell out of it. My favorite MMO to date, hands down.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Well, Ive always given STO a score of 6/10.

    But I usually dont buy games that get scores lower than 9/10. And even some of those games I dont like too much after buying them. I like to have a decent gaming collection I can be proud off. I dont like populating it with mediocre titles.

    Which is what STO is pretty much. A mediocre title. Thats not something to be proud off.

    Games that are half broken get 5/10 all the time. Anything above 8/10 is a pretty good score. That means the game is good.

    STO is not exactly that.

    If this werent Star Trek I would have never bought the thing in the first place. Im now regretting I ever did. I chose this over Mass Effect 2. Should have gone with Mass Effect 2. :(
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    But I usually dont buy games that get scores lower than 9/10. And even some of those games I dont like too much after buying them. I like to have a decent gaming collection I can be proud off. I dont like populating it with mediocre titles.

    So you base your gaming purchases soley on other peoples opinions? How sad. You must be missing out on a great deal of fantastic titles. Oh well, have fun with that. :cool:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Oh and as a separate note, the release calendar is a 10. If you keep it going and keep it somewhat accurate (+/- a week from posted dates) then you, frankly, deserve an award for that alone. Most mmo's wouldn't even do that on a triple dog dare.

    You've really pile-drived the notion that mmo's need to adhere to the "keep everything a secret" approach. I hope you make it work. That alone is a change to the genre that deserves kudos up the poo poo.

    But, you won't get it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    thefrayl wrote: »
    So you base your gaming purchases soley on other peoples opinions? How sad. You must be missing out on a great deal of fantastic titles. Oh well, have fun with that. :cool:

    Yea I dont go see TRIBBLE movies that get horrible reviews either. I dont read crappy books. I dont eat at restaurants that get violations by the Health Department. I dont play crappy games. Except maybe STO. This one time.

    Also please name one horribly reviewed game thats a FANTASTIC title. Please. Do.

    I carefully research the games I buy.

    You can throw your money away on garbage all you want. I'll be a little more educated and wiser in my buying decisions thanks. Thats not sad. Thats just smart.

    Enjoy your trash. You can have fun with that Mr. :cool: guy.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Yea I dont go see TRIBBLE movies that get horrible reviews either. I dont read crappy books. I dont eat at restaurants that get violations by the Health Department. I dont play crappy games. Except maybe STO. This one time.

    Also please name one horribly reviewed game thats a FANTASTIC title. Please. Do.

    I carefully research the games I buy.

    You can throw your money away on garbage all you want. I'll be a little more educated and wiser in my buying decisions thanks. Thats not sad. Thats just smart.

    Enjoy your trash. You can have fun with that Mr. :cool: guy.

    I remember some critic ate his words when he gave Raiders of the Lost Ark a bad review when I was a kid. From that point on, I learned a valuable lesson: Make up my own mind because I could have seen it on the big screen if I didn't listen to that POS.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Yea I dont go see TRIBBLE movies that get horrible reviews either. I dont read crappy books. I dont eat at restaurants that get violations by the Health Department. I dont play crappy games. Except maybe STO. This one time.

    Also please name one horribly reviewed game thats a FANTASTIC title. Please. Do.

    I carefully research the games I buy.

    You can throw your money away on garbage all you want. I'll be a little more educated and wiser in my buying decisions thanks. Thats not sad. Thats just smart.

    Enjoy your trash.

    I have no need or desire to do so. It comes down to personal preference, which so many people throw out the window these days to think exactly what they are told to think.

    I just don't immediately trust what the media says on much of anything. Particularly when it comes to 'professional' reviewers who are paid to do what they do. Movie critics are the worst IMO. Perhaps that just means I have differing tastes. But I like to have a mind of my own, thank you.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    This review was an ok read till the reviewer stated that Bridge commander was Excellent... then i stoped reading, thus his review is being based off of other ST games.

    He played the game for maybe an hour tops, Ground combat too fast? try it at admiral where you spend 2-5 minutes shooting at one target over and over again, while trien to stay awake... I noticed a huge difference in ground combat as an admiral and a lt, at LT iti is a little fast but it feels right, never in st do you see Kirk hiting one person over and over again with a phaser... Ground combat scales way too much as you level up.

    Is STO the best? no, Is it good enough? for now. I think certain area's need to be tweaked, Right now the game feels like it's trien to be ST, but also trien to be not as realistic in terms of what it could be.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Generally, unless you know the history of the reviwer, their likes dislikes etc... reviews are worthless since most reviewers can't separate the two and if you do the history you'll find that out. I do read them out of curiosity but unless it is a reviewer that I have been reading for a bit and have gotten a feel for what they generally like and dislike, then I will take it with a mine of salt and I certainly wouldn't take a new reviewer's (to me) opinion over my own interest in the subject.

    Reviews are nothing more than a persons opinion. Of course we hope that the reviewer was hired because of their ability to objectively evaluate a product, but that's more often not the case .
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    thefrayl wrote: »
    I have no need or desire to do so. It comes down to personal preference, which so many people throw out the window these days to think exactly what they are told to think.

    I just don't immediately trust what the media says on much of anything. Particularly when it comes to 'professional' reviewers who are paid to do what they do. Movie critics are the worst IMO. Perhaps that just means I have differing tastes. But I like to have a mind of my own, thank you.



    Look, if I went by reviews I wouldnt be playing STO now would I??? So you're whole " Im an independent thinker and you're not " doesnt really fly. You dont know me. I dont know you.

    But I do research the games I buy. In advance mostly. It just so happens a lot of the ones I buy I preordered long before reviews. And guess what? They usually just so happen to get really good reviews after release.

    My next game Im looking intensely forward too and have also preordered and will buy? Red Dead Redemption. No reviews yet. But I'll be playing it.

    But I would bet the bank it gets mega good reviews as well. Call it a hunch.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I remember some critic ate his words when he gave Raiders of the Lost Ark a bad review when I was a kid. From that point on, I learned a valuable lesson: Make up my own mind because I could have seen it on the big screen if I didn't listen to that POS.

    Yeah, but its not 1981 anymore man. I can turn on my computer and read hundreds of reviews of a game in a few minutes and get a pretty good idea of what it is about. To say that internet reviews are worthless is kind of silly.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I've found some enjoyment from STO. Some of the missions are good. The later ships you can get are awesome. Some of the music is really good.

    But...

    There just isnt enough in the game for me to really give it an awesome score. Ive seen the same interior map (memory alpha map) used for many, many, many exploration missions. Ive recieved the same exploration mission over and over again in a row. Example... Ive recieved the "Scan Anomalies" mission 3 times in a row, thus completing the exploration mission.

    Memory alpha and crafting... in my own opinion.... blows. Its not crafting really at all. Its upgrading something you already have. Not creating something new from all the materials you collect. It takes no skill at all. There is no sence of reward or satisfaction from upgrading an item. Yay... i turned a white item to a blue one. Woo hoo.

    Anyway... thats my opinion.... sorry it was a little bleak. Perhaps in the future, STO will have grown immensly and many problems will have been worked out.
Sign In or Register to comment.