PVP:Yes | Distribution:Retail | Retail Price:n/a | Pay Type:Hybrid | Monthly Fee:n/a
Desktop Client | System Req:
| Out of date info? Let us know!
Star Trek Online Review: The 2011 Re-Review - Edit
6.4
| Pros |
 Frequent updates Quality audio Stunning graphics |
| Cons |
 Lackluster avatar missions Persistent bugs Repititious game play |
Editor's Note: Lori's review was written before the Season 4 upgrade of the ground combat system. As such we will be revisiting the game for an Impressions article after Season 4 hits, and we will as always re-evaluate our review in 6-12 months.
Space: The final frontier. A place that, thanks to the highly successful Star Trek franchise, is less mysterious and far more familiar than it was fifty years ago. Before the iconic Star Trek (better known as Star Trek: The Original Series or TOS these days) took us there for each episode of this Sci-Fi television hit space was something left purely to our imagination. But has Cryptic’s Star Trek Online (STO) lived up to those famous roots, transporting us all into the world where no man has gone before in an enjoyable, authentic way that holds its own with other MMORPG titles currently on the market? Let’s take a closer look at STO, a pay-to-play (P2P) MMO which combines ship-based combat and ground activities to create a complex, elaborate MMO in a familiar way.
Aesthetics: 8/10
STO is a buffet for the senses, to be sure. This game is very impressive visually, and the graphics are realistic and definitely up to par with many of today’s MMO options. The voice acting features Leonard Nimoy (Spock from TOS) and Zachary Quinto, who portrayed young Spock in the alternate reality featured in the 2009 Star Trek film, among others. In fact, the opening cinema with Nimoy narrating the introduction to STO is a great example of the quality players can expect here as far as graphics, audio and style. And while many players seem to be disappointed with Quinto’s performance as narrator during the tutorial segment of STO, I found that his detached and slightly unenthusiastic tone fit well with the Spock character he portrayed in the films.
The user interface is decent, without the clunky elements present in many popular MMO titles, and it blends in well with the rest of the graphics which compose the STO world. All in all, the aesthetics of STO fit nicely with the Star Trek world fans of the series have come to love, doing justice to this elaborate setting. Players who aren’t fans of Star Trek should also be able to enjoy the impressive graphics and audio, even if they don’t appreciate the nostalgic—but modern—environment. Previous complaints from the player base about repetitious graphic effects seemed to reach the art team loud and clear, and recent updates to the STO world have added some much needed variety.
)
Gameplay: 7/10
Gameplay in STO is essentially divided into two main parts: Ship combat, where you literally control your vessel as the captain, and ground-based combat. During the latter, your avatar is a humanoid instead of a hulking, metal spaceship. These two systems are vastly different, both in mechanics and quality, as one might expect. The ship combat is a lot of fun with a definite Real-Time Strategy (RTS) feel to it, and it is very similar to titles like Homeworld. As you level up, you can pump up a wide variety of traits, and many players seem to spend a lot more time and experience enhancing the ship-based skills.
)
This is likely due, at least in part, to the sub-par quality of the ground missions. They feel awkward and poorly designed, and the characters seem far slower to respond to frantic button mashing than is acceptable at this stage of the MMO industry. You can use tactics like flanking, which does give players some bonuses for maneuvering with finesse instead of random flailing, but it isn’t enough to make ground combat an enjoyable experience. You get to choose between three primary classes: Science, Engineering and Tactical. The science route is the closest to a standard “healer” option, with buff-like abilities. Tactical offers some hardcore damage, whether in advanced weapon options, martial arts or even stealth techniques. Engineering, much like Science, focuses more on support rather than damage output, but with more emphasis on prevention methods rather than cures. The amount of races available is pretty impressive, with ten on the Federation side—including a wholly custom “alien” option—and five over on the Klingon side.
)
Innovation: 6/10
One feature of STO which few players can criticize is the incredibly elaborate character generation process. You can spend hours making a detailed, complex and original appearance for your avatar—though you won’t see the toon much, considering the split between ship-based and ground-based combat—and that’s just the physical appearance of the character, including the uniform. While the specifics of the character, from the traits and abilities to the “class” options, aren’t terribly diverse or outstanding compared to other P2P MMO titles available, Cryptic Studios really does a phenomenal job at taking “character customization” to a whole new level of specific.
As much as I would like to claim that there are some really innovative, original features implemented with STO, I really didn’t find anything spectacular enough to make me say “Wow.” The item mall in combination with a reoccurring subscription isn’t unusual these days, and I discussed the extensive amount of detail available in character creation above. The crafting system is sub-par, and more of hunt-and-gather-for-parts to upgrade your equipment system than true player crafting. Credit is due to Cryptic Studios for taking advantage of the renewed interest in the Star Trek franchise following the release of the 2009 Star Trek film.
)
Polish: 6/10
Cryptic Studios has a remarkable knack for paying attention to the “small things” as far as graphics and audio are concerned. STO is one MMO where some of the loudest complaints of the community seem to have been heard, and changes to the layout graphics, voice acting and general mechanics have been routinely visited and updated since the first few months after STO’s initial launch. The bugs and line-of-sight problems with ground combat are a few of the issues in the game which haven’t been repaired, which has made more than a few STO players gravitate entirely away from ground-based skills and benefits in lieu of enhanced ship-based features—myself, included. The game has seen a coat of wax applied and shined over its time since launch, but there’s still a lot to be desired in terms of polish.
)
Yeah was wondering the exact same thing.
We can hate Cryptic all we want for what they delivered at launch.
But even I have to admit the game has gotten a lot better over the past year.
Sector space looks much better now you can dissable the horrible grid.
The Episode storyline missions are plain awesome and great fun!
The crafting facility and options at Memory Alpha have been improved significantly and you can now actually craft useful items.
So eventho it's still not the real Trek experience we all wanted (altho the Episode series are really cool), the game really has improved a lot.
Yeah I have to agree with the two posters above, a game moving down in score, when the actual game has improved since the original score, makes no sense at all.
Perhaps the original score was too high? And the once you get over the hype, the game is shallow.
Why not just wait for season 4 to hit the live server before doing another review?
I agree with the posters above. Lowering the overall score??? Yet, the review admits that Cryptic is continually improving things???
One other thing, one of the major "complaints" was in regards to ground combat. Did the reviewer not realise that a MAJOR revamp of ground combat is coming in just TWO WEEKS? Could (or should) the reviewer not have waited at least that long to post this review? That comment alone makes me think the reviewer is not doing his job. Sorry but my opinion.
^^^ Seriously. Season 4 is scheduled to go live July 7th, so doing another review now(and rating it less than the last review at that) is pretty silly.
Bad reviewer. I agree with top posters. Makes no sense to do a re-review when the big patch is less then two weeks away and then on top of it all reviewing it with a lower score then original when the game has in fact improved. lol...GG!
Season4 will revamp multiple game systems so making re-review now is kinda waste.
I'd recommend deleting this and reposting after launch of Season4
Again, a meaningless score from a meaningless system from MMORPG.com. Remember that article that was asking about what could be done to fix reviews here? How does a game get a higher score during a bad launch and then a lower score when it makes a lot of improvements?
Either make some kind of meaningful system for reviews or stop giving things a score.
Scores are completely subjective, so why wouldn't they vary over time? Reviews such as these do not necessarily just evaluate a game on its own merit, they evaluate the features and other aspects in relationship with the current market. I read this to indicate that STO looks even worse now compared to other games in the current genre.
Besides, if you really do disagree on the review/score, why not point out that is better/worthwhile? Saying the game is "about" to get better with a new patch won't convince anyone as players are a bit jaded by the numerous "miracle" patches over the last few years that rarely delivery as much as anticipated/desired.
Saying a game has improved yet lowering its score is contradictory. Also, writing up a new review when you know a big update is coming out in 2 weeks and saying your going to do another review afterward is a waste of time.
In regards to the review score - the game may well have gotten better, but if you haven't noticed MMORPG.com is using a new scoring system. Where before it was largely arbitrary of the writing coming up with a number based on their impressions, now it is a matter of scoring 7 catergories, then getting an average. It may be lower than the last score but the new system will be fairer but you will probably expect to see more like this.
Plus reviews are writing with a lot of time in advance, the idea of waiting for an update would in all possibility bring a review schedule to a grinding halt
yeah, the last review was broken out into these categories as well. so what was your point again?We're in transition to a new system of reviewing games (we'll be announcing it soon) and each review has been done (and often has been done) by different writers. Scores will vary for this reason, a game's score isn't guaranteed to go up or stay the same with every re-review.
Also, let me add that the review was in progress long before Season 4 was set to hit live servers. We'll most certainly re-visit the game post-Season 4.
That explanation is fine...to a point. It still does not justify posting a review in which one of the MAJOR complaints is being addressed in two weeks hence. The review also looks a bit "rushed" in that it did mention "improvements" but barely speaks of them. Bad timing is one thing. Bad management is another (not a personsal reference to you MikeB).
"Long before"? How long exactly? A week? A month? How much playtime did the author have? Those would be some good things to include in your "new system" at the begining of every review.
Rather than throw out the reviewer's work we decided to publish the review. Again, you can be sure we'll check out the game again post-Season 4.
I'm a current subscriber and to tell the honest truth, I think the reviewer did get a very honest review of STO.
Even with S4 out next month, there is still no end-game in STO which makes the longevity of STO basicly non-existant. I have now leveled 2 V-Ads and I really have no wish to go thru the exact same content I have done twice before to level another one. The thought is almost painful. I no longer even log into my main toon as there is basicly nothing within the game mechanics to make me even want to. PVP is a constant NERF fest being driven by a very small amount of forum players that seem to dominate developer interest and time. It is simply not worth it to take the time to get a build that is able to compete when these few can complain and Cryptic will fall in lockstep with these few cryers to insure nothing more than the cryers sucess. With all that in mind, I think MMORPG.com even glassed over very large problems with STO.
All in all, I believe the score is a very optimistic view.
Second review in a row where this particular writer lowers the score from a previous review while praising the improvements to the game since the last review. What I've gathered from this: Ignore all future reviews by this writer.
Agree with alot of the above posts.
The logic that the reviewer uses; stating it's improved since release yet it's score has been reduced, is deeply flawed in my opinion.
Again MMORPG.com own rating system in flawed & more importantly, in my own opinion, unmemorable. A simple 5STAR rating system that the hotel industry uses would not only be more memorable, but also more credible. STO would most likely be rated a 2 or 3 Star MMO.
should have waited till Season 4 to hit the live server
30 out of 11 pickles for that review.
I too believe the score should of went up and not down. The reviewer couldn't find things that made STO stand out from the rest of the MMO's? How about player made missions? Bridge crews with trainable skills for starters. He also said the game plays more like a RTS and that grouping isn't a big factor in game play. All this could be said about most MMO's as most can be played solo. If you belong to a good fleet you would see that many missions require team work and the society/social aspect is very much alive if you chose it to be. PvP without belonging to an team/Fleet is certainly a bad experience in my opinion. As for the ground combat, it is much like any other MMO, you have skills to train up and use in the combat. The big difference in my opinion is if you don't train up any ground skills you just gimped your character and are useless to your group/fleet for such missions. Yes your bridge crews can make up for your lack of skills solo, but doesn't work at all when you group up.
Lets be honest in that STO wasn't designed as a game for those wanting detailed exploration instead of what it is, a game set in a time of open warfare. That has dissolutioned many to the point they can't stand the fact that STO exists and see only failings. to me the game is fun for what it was designed to be and hopefully they strengthen the end game. I would like to see meaningful realm verus Realm type conquests!
This , and besides im not realy a fan of the game since it still doesnt manage to keep me around for longer than a week BUT..
the last time i checked it has come long ways since startup (YUk!) and improved a fair bit.
Still not for me but this review was kinda bizzar.
It was an honest review, IMO. Personally, I don't think the previous review score needed to be used as the baseline for a new review. The reviewers gave their opinions based on what they played and scored the game to the best of their abilities; however, different people = different scores. Simple. Just because you don't agree with the review score, for any reason, doesn't invalidate the score.
BTW, I like the new review format direction you guys are taking.
Wow , nothing like an truthful article ( compared to the previous one that was more about Graphics, Sound, RPG , Value , Fun ( WTF ), Community , it was a real fluff peice and it still got only 7.4 ) to bring out the fury of the CDF. Truth hurts and the subscribers just don't plain like it. In my opinion she was dead on , and that's what bothers most of these posters. In fact I think she struggled not to bury this game. She seemed like she was struggling to give it a 6 on the value end, and a 7 on the gameplay score.
People need to be little more objective. While I agree the Ground combat will be an improvement , it's just an insignificant improvement that will not resurrect the fortunes of this game, no matter how much you yell and stamp your feet that the game has improved. It's improved too little to late. People are looking forward to new games not discredited old games. If it takes a Dev 1.5 to two years after release to get the game in an acceptable form or shape to play , it's forgotten.
Shouldnt this reviewer have waited until the ground combat revamp to do this?
I think STO is a good game, not great, but surely underscored in the re-review.
I've been a STO sub on and off since release (mostly off). The game was flawed from the beginning. It could have been great. Some of my complaints which will likely never change:
-You start the game as a Lt. and immediately have a ship command. I think you should start the game as a captain and stay a captain, advancing your skills (experience) within that rank.
-Its not viable to fly whatever ship you want. Say you like the original series Kirk Enterprise. You might say "screw it, I like and will fly it even if its weak, ill just put in the latest Mark XII equipement!" Nope, the gear actually scales down when you put it in a older ship.
I still play it occasionally because I think the space combat is actually fun, I just wish there was a reason to play it at max level.
Lol with all the other stuff that's went on with swg, and eve and now this rofl. This site is so interesting. It like a box full of chocolates, you never know what your going to get.
I love the score its dead on and should have been the first score they did.
I am still waiting for sto to go free to play.
So, are there any other examples here on MMORPG of current reviews being lower than the previous reviews, with the exception of SWG and the NGE? If this is just the result of the "new rating system" surely there would be other examples.
You guys all freaking out over the lowering of the score need to think about it realistically. With two different reviewers, you are going to get two different scores, if Lori had done the initial review, it probably would have scored a 5.0 and this new score of 6.5 would be an improvement.
I do agree it does not make much sense to have different people review then re-review games based on each person having different tastes and preferences, but this is the nature of review sites, people come and go. I like how Game Informer does it and actually has two people do the review so you can see the scores froming from two different people. Maybe MMORPG needs to start having a panel of three or 4 people review the games and each gives a score. This way, I can follow the score of the reviewer who best fits my play style.
THE REVIEWERS ARE DIFFERENT
Patrick Gerard
Lori May
I liked the "Repititious game play" thing in the "Cons" section. That is pretty much a given for any MMO you play.
Umm, what the hell? Ur saying that the game has improved and etc, but because of its failings it gets A LOWER SCORE THAN WHAT IT DID *ORIGINALLY* in the first review?
i mean U understad it fully well if you don't like this game, im for example a fervent hater of C-store myself. BUT to indicate that the game has gotten WORSE since release DESPITE all the updates and etc is just rubbish! Rubbish, I tells ya!
If that is truly the explanation, then what other games has this happened to?
No matter what site reviews STO, you will find Nagus defending it to the hilt. Wheres Armsman and the unoffical Dev Kitlor?
This review is spot on. The game is a single player game with Subsciption and a C-store that gets all the new ships and costumes. It uses the pretence of a foundry so you, the paying public, can do the content for the hame.
Whatever you say, These 3 people plus the other Cryptic fanbois will shout you down with the Devs backing them up and shutting down any threads on the offical site, if they don't like it.
The dye was cast when they stop the 100,000s of people from writing I quit threads.
Go to Cryptic other sites such as Co and the new Netherwinter and guess who's there defending Cryptic... Yep Nagus and his pals.
This review was spot on. The game is good. but shallow and is a good single player no sub scription game
I've got no issue with the score or the previous score. However, I do have an issue with doing the review TODAY when everyone knows that within 2 weeks the ground game is going to be drastically different enough to warrant another review.
Yes, I realize there is a disclaimer in the latest review stating they are aware of this and will review the game in 6 months or so. But still, this review today couldn't have waited another 2 weeks? I can't take today's review seriously, to be honest, knowing what is to come. Plus, the small fact that I personally was waiting for Season 4 to go live before resubbing to the game for a month to see the improvements. Even I am willing to wait, why shouldn't the reviewer? On top of that, the Season 4 patch is the first major patch after the selling of Cryptic and it seems to be turning into the best update to date? Coincidence? Probably, but it lends itself to contemplation and further enforces even more reason to wait to re-review after Season 4 goes live.
Anyway, that's my only beef.
To a varying degree. It's all about how it's hidden or incorporated into the game. If it were the same in every game, it would be the exact same complaint for every game.
Which made Ms. May's review totally worthless. It shouldn't matter how long the review was in progress - logic would dictate that the review should have been delayed, then modified once the new content (which addresses one of the game's major drawbacks) went live and tested by the reviewer. As it stands, this 're-review' is nothing more than filler.
Well said. By the way, I think your Sig is pretty cool.
"To a varying degree. It's all about how it's hidden or incorporated into the game. If it were the same in every game, it would be the exact same complaint for every game."
Exactly this. I find it laughable everytime someone uses the excuse that all MMOs are repetative. That is not the point at all. Game designers call it, "How do we make fun, fun again." STO fails miserably at this question.
To be fair Harryhausen, the next update is in only two weeks. Does it really seem like to much to ask to wait till then?
"Me thinks you need a new hobby."
Why? And what is your point?
"To be fair Harryhausen, the next update is in only two weeks. Does it really seem like to much to ask to wait till then?
"Why wait? I have seen most of what will be released in S4, it isn't going to change much. Yeah, again, some things will be prettier, but there is no content and the whole "ground revamp" is a let down.
The review is fair and honest. This whole, "the game will be better in the next patch" BS has been going on since launch. The only thing that seems to change is the next "it will get better when" date.
PS: Sorry to all, but I haven't figured out how to quote individual posts yet.
I think it is a well deserved rating. Even a bit too good.
Star Trek Online is nothing short than a BETRAYAL of EVERYTHING that made Star Trek! ST NEVER was about kill as many Klingons as you can! It was about personal stories! About interactions and personal development. I am not even sure it CAN be made into a MMO! STO is a slap in the face of every true Trekker. It's an ok one time run through to Admiral, and then forget it. Cryptic made this with minimal copy paste effort to demonstrate MMOs can be made in super fast time with little effort and maximal stockholder value. They used the IP to milk the fans.
Mediocre is still an euphemism!
The original score was too high. I think this is a fair review. When the game came out I would have given it a 4.0, but from the looks of things it has definitely improved since then. Personally I'm not willing to pay $15/month for a mediocre game when there are better ones out there.
This is great news Mike!
I'm a lifetime subscriber to Star Trek Online, and have been since launch.
I've played a number of other MMOs, and I do like STO, and the game has been significantly improved since it was launched. But it launched in such a poor state that mediocre is an apt description of STO.
I think that the final score given in this re-review was generous.
Agreed. I fail to understand how despite comments on the game improving considerably since launch, the score is lowered in the re-review. I understand that MAY be due to a new review system on mmorpg.com's part, as well as a different reviewer taking up the reigns on this one, but it still doesn't make much sense to me.
Also, the reference to RTS gameplay really throws me for a loop. The closest thing to RTS elements I see in STO are being able to set rally points for your bridge officers in ground combat, as well as being able to select their target(s), and set them to passive or aggressive modes. The space combat has no relation to RTS elements whatsoever. Has the reviewer played an RTS before?
STO is not perfect, but I've found it to be very enjoyable so far. It's a great Star Trek game & MMO, and I think the reviewer under scored it. It also would have been very wise to merely wait for the new ground combat revamp to take hold, as it's merely a week or two away at this point.
I cannot begin to fathom the rage these fanbois are basking in. Seriously, I know the ideal of different people having different opinions might be terrifying and evil to you guys, but that's the way the adult world works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and very rarely are any 2 opinions the exact same. Different reviewers, different opinions, different scores. Hopefully, you guys can get past this intolerance and learn a little bit of respect for the individuality of others.
Did you guys ever consider the simple notion that...
Even though STO may have improved since it's launch, but it's score has gone down is becuase expections, or the "standard" is always progressing and demanding more from games?
The standard is like inflation, and a game's improvement is it's dividends, if the inflation is growing faster then your investment is earning dividends then its a loss of money.
Same notion here -- While STO has improved the demands of the industry, consumer base, and overall gaming world has dramatic increased since STO launched, in thus its improvements are not keeping pace with demands.
When you "RE"-Review a game, you are reviewing the game based on it's CURRENT state based on the CURRENT state of comparable games.
There are games in the market now that were not around when STO launched, thus creating a new base of dynamics to compare STO on.
That's good advice. Perhaps you should heed it yourself?
I see no rage, ranting or raving. I see differing opinions exactly as you describe. I'll offer your own closing sentence to consider. See above. :)
Hope the same reviewer checks it out again with season 4. Even then it's just an opinion and anyone curious about the game should give the trial a go and see for themselves.
Link to any site where he is and I bet you\'ll also be bashing it.By that logic the rating of EVERY game would be going down, unless you are actually suggesting that EVERY other game is meeting the rising expectations?
I'm sorry you took my comment so personally and felt a need to respond so confusingly. I don't really care what the reviewer's opinion or score of a game is. If I like a game, I play it and enjoy it without feeling the need to be validated by others. If they want to rank something lower than their coworker, so be it. If you love the game, great, I'm not demonizing you or anyone else for liking it. I'm just suggesting that you stop attacking this woman simply because her review and opinion was different that her predecessors. I'm sorry you find that reasonable request so personally insulting that you felt the need to project on me so nonsensically.
well if you actually look at this reviewers track record anything thats not a fantasy mmo or of a genre she plays this is the review style she gives take it with a grain of salt hard for a walmart employee to sell ya a new car just like its hard for a non space mmo gamer to review a space game if you like it awesome if not ok too just dont read too much into this ones review
Social: 6/10
I am often curious about scores in these reviews. You write two paragraphs with hardly a good thing to say about this feature and yet you still give them a 6? What would a game need to lack to get a 5 or 4?
I did not review Star Trek Online. Patrick Gerard did, as the teaser of the article you linked clearly states. :)
I didn't take it personally. I just find it odd that you're telling those with a differing opinion to stop 'attacking' the reviewer by offering constructive criticism, and their own thoughts on the current state of STO, when the only attacks I see here so far are from posters who seem to resort to name calling and belittlement in the name of defending the review. I found your post on the intolerance of other's opinions ironic in this regard.
I agree with your viewpoint on reviews, and I've found a number of poorly rated games to be very enjoyable.
I'm not projecting anything on to you as you put it. I was merely replying to your comment. I'm not sure how else you would expect me to do so on a commenting system like this. If you have a better method, than please enlighten me. ;)
I fail to grasp the reason for this re-review at this point of time when it's known that somewhen in July the game will receive a major upgrade which will, among others, bring an overhaul to the ground combat system. Why not write this article then?
Anyway, i played through the open beta and left utterly disappointed. This was not the ST MMO i imagined. However, i must addmit that since release the devs worked on reshaping STO and today it looks quite better than 16 months ago. I'll wait for season 4 to settle and give it one more try.
This game is that bad............................
Its pretty simple. Sometimes people get so butthurt that a game isnt what they wanted it to be that they only thing that can ease the burning is to try their very best to make other people not like it too. I honestly feel sorry for them, because they must be pretty sore.Please , major upgrade is laughable. If you consider importing a function from CO and adding a reticle a major upgrade and rebalancing and restructuring ground skills , then fine. I suppose then the Crafting upgrade was a huge game chaging experience or Diplomacy ? How many players or how did that actually strenghten the game , how about bridges and their functionality ?
The core of the game is bad , it starts with the engine and the design choices , they aren't necessarily Dstahl's fault. The higher you build on a bad foundation the sooner the thing collapses .
STO clearly took advantage of hardcore collector fans with their microtransaction store.
Cryptic, an entity who wishes to go both the subscription+item shop method, will never get my dollar.
No respect at all for them
I tore this game up as much as any reviewer in the beginning but even I have to admit that this "re-review" is both ill-timed and possibly mis-informed.
As an on-off player since open beta, this review is mostly accurate (if ill timed). But to not mention the foundry or the innovative method of content updates, the weekly series, is just an injustice to this game. Makes me think the review was done at the start of september last year. Also the crafting section is really out of date, having received a major revamp in December.
To say nothing of the lack of content klingon side, shows just how a narrow view of this game the reviewer had.
I am curious what is exactly RTS like in this game? It keeps getting brought up but i fail to see it. I don't see people managing resources or building cities or units to attack their enemies with. Aren't games like Warcraft (1,2,3) starcraft, Age Of empires, etc RTS games? Maybe I'm blind but i just don't see it.
No endgame? We get 5ish new episode arcs (which will be ramped backup after S4) regularly, each with a well told engaging story. Is this not endgame content? Last i checked endgame contect was stuff you could do after hitting max level, correct? we have crafting, episode series, STF's, Tons of repeatable missions, PvP, The foundry (which is huge for us that like to tell our own stories too), etc. In my opinion i see some endgame there, maybe it's not a loot grind like WoW but it does seem to exist. Maybe i missed the boat on that one as well.
Personally i think this is a bad timed review and seems to not have played much of the game that i have. I can easily understand that this game is not for everyone and there is alot of things wrong with it, no doubt. However i just can't agree with this review.
I have no problem with the actual score, it's the scenario that erks me. It should be a reverse IMO lower to a higher score at least when we're talking improvements
With respect,
Are you saying that the review ratings only apply to the people reviewing the games? And not to the games as a standard template from 1 to 10? I think thats a VERY subjective review of any game and perhaps that should be illustrated more on each review.
Warning: This rating does not belong to a rating system, but is a number decided soley by the reviewer and can not be used in any way, shape or form to measure a prospective gamer's possible gaming intererests on any covered titles.
something like that... or am I mistaken? I hope so. I come to this site hoping the ratings are consistant across all titles, that a 3.2 to one game means its 3.2 compared to a 7.9 to another.
Thank you.
As an addition to my above post - concerning this review and STO...
... I shall be putting more weight on the up to date review when it is released, since this reflects a game's condition that will not be the case for more than a fortnight.
Thank you.
The genre and games move on - six months ago this was higher, by todays standard (post Rift, Cataclysm, any number of new releases) Star Trek is starting to look dated. I don't understand why such anger comes forth with a review score? It is a guideline for your consideration, if you read the review you will glean an opinion as to whether you will like this title or not. Lori is entitled to her opinion, and many will take it because she is a good writer, just because you don't personally agree doesn't mean you in anyway write or deserve the right to call BS and hate to someone who has toiled for weeks upon weeks creating something for you to read. Sometimes the community should look at some of the comments and realise the anger and nastiness that comes across to something as trivial as a review of Star Trek Online.
MMORPG.com is having an overhaul of the review system, and I suspect we will see a lot of lower scores, and some higher ones, than usual. And if you were to take a look objectively at the site; this is an operation run by a lot of people, reviews are pitched and completed month in advance, and a patch coming out sometime doesn't come to consideration 3 months before a proposed review. Yes the release of this review now looks a little ill-informed, but can the site really wait for every patch and update?
I thought STO was a horrible game, that said I don't think anyone really cares about the score itself, it's the backwards movement of what even the reviewer expresses as an improved experience.
"The game is better so I'm going to lower the score."-- this makes no sense
I understand that the reviewer is a different person, I also understand MMORPG.com is changing up how they review games. Still even being as anit-Crytic as I am, I can't help but scratch my head over this.
I don't even understand reviewing things if there is no balance in how things are being reviewed. No guidance in how a game stacks up in the greater scheme of the genre.
IMO it should be structured like this.
a low score 1-5 for games like MO, Alganon, etcc. basically games with glaring issues and not so stellar craftsmanship.
A medium score 5-7. Games like AOC, WAR, STO etc.. basically games that are playable and fun yet not exactly the best choices.
high scores 8-10. Games that stick out, have an excellent amount of polish, or truly unique features.
When a game is re-reviewed there should be a criteria that a score can't be lowered if it has been improved on. Instead it should move from a 7.5 to a 7.8 or something along those lines.
Awaiting for the real re-review.
A continuation of my thoughts.
It's evident MMORPG.com has rendered this review moot, as they are saying there's another already planned.
If they want to take STO down in score there is a better way to do it, that's when they upgrade to their new approach. I think the best way to do that is remove the score from all existing reviews, and have a group (with a criteria to follow) read each review and add a score based on that review as well as chosen criteria.
Sounds like an elegant solution, but I think that would require a large amount of man hours to accomplish. Would it really be worth it?
In the long run IMO yes, as it would create a balanced criteria for all furture reviews people view here.
Great review! Couldn't agree with it more.
The score of the past review was bought by Atari. If you read the review without looking at the score it reads like he was going to give the game 6.0. But in the end they jacked up the review score.
If you were at this site when STO was first released, they had STO ads all over the place. There was a background, a release timer, ads to pre-order in another place, etc. etc.
So now the CDF has resorted to shooting the messenger rather vthan attacking the arguments. Nice.
I dont think you understand that phrase, because "shooting the messenger" implies making personal attacks against someone. I havent done that.
Ah, so your saying MMORPG sells reviews. I guess thats why DCU has an 8 even though though hardly anyone is playing(on PC) anymore.This game is horrible. I bought it at the beginning and cancel my preorder and got my money back. Then I resub to get access the foundry last week. But here's what really irked me about this game. I wanted to be a human starfleet officer. The character tool stinks for humans.
Next, the game play was just at mmorpg said. This comment hit the hammer on the nail, "This is likely due, at least in part, to the sub-par quality of the ground missions. They feel awkward and poorly designed, and the characters seem far slower to respond to frantic button mashing than is acceptable at this stage of the MMO industry. You can use tactics like flanking, which does give players some bonuses for maneuvering with finesse instead of random flailing, but it isn’t enough to make ground combat an enjoyable experience. " I quite my sub after two days. 1 day for the download and the next day I created two characters and was so sorry this game couldn't be more.
STO still needs more work. The need to visit Elite Force and bring in those weapons.
They need to visit Elite Force I & II and bring in those weapons.
Hey all, just stepping in for some updates.
Firstly, we stand by Lori's score. It may not be fair to everyone, but reviews are equal parts opinion and objective criticism. In that much, Lori did very well.
Secondly, we are indeed instituting a new review process, and it has its share of growing pains. Namely, in terms of "Re-Reviews" we're also changing our process there. In short, going forward our Re-Reviews will basically be evaluations based upon the previous review. We'll still cover the game in the listed categories in this review, and as such our scores are generally going to skew lower than before. But, we'll try our damnedest next time to both a.) time the review better and b.) make sure we communicate why a score goes down or up.
Thanks for your patience and feedback. It's all being heard.
So what other games have you scored down recently? You realize your going to have to actually do this now to back up your statement above, right? So bring on your lower reviews for the other games and enjoy watching those communities rail the site.Yep, well aware that it's going to cause some noise, but we're not above hearing it. My goal as editor is to make sure our reviews objectively rate each of what we consider the core tennants of the MMO. The 7 categories within Lori's review reflect that. And they'll be scored in every review from here on out.
I have no problem with the score or how you got to it. It is your right to do so. What I don't understand is why this 're-review' was sent out on the eve of new content that addresses ground combat - one of the reviewer's main critcisms. Maybe it's me but I fail to understand why it was such a big deal to get this 're-review' on the site. But hey, if MMORPG.com wants to release a review shortly before a possible improvement is added to the game, only to come back later and review it again (thereby making the previous review a waste of time), once more it is your right to do so. I did tell a journalist buddy of mine about all this, however - and I thank you. I don't think I've ever heard him laugh so hard in my life.
Bottom line, it just seems that the powers that be here prefer to work harder, not smarter.
I think you missed my question so I ask again, what other games have you scored down recently? And do you plan on making each \"re-review\" a featured news article like you did with this one?If you really give it some thought and review Cryptic's track record on new content release , would you really like them to test it right after it releases ? May I call your attention to the fiasco, that was the welcome back weekend. Perhaps you were there ? If you weren't , I'll just say it didn't go well. So, I wouldn't be too quick to criticize, unless you want this game to sinking faster then it already is. They've already scaled back the content for S-4 , and the ground combat revamp will a minor uptick in the quality of the game.
The review isn't a waste of my time. I've followed this game for a while and have considered playing but, after LotRO and AoC, IP driven mmos have really failed to deliver for me. This review will be a good contrast for me when the next review comes around. I would actually like to see the next re-review by the same person to see how they feel the update has changed their opinion one way or another.
I realize if you're a fan of a game it's hard to hear that your game isn't scoring high, but your "journalist buddy" anecdote only really illustrates your biased agenda in feeding back your criticism of the review process. You want your game to get a better score and feel the upcoming content update will deliver that. Maybe it will, and another review will reflect that if it's true.
I too would like to see better game reviews within a more well defined framework and maybe we'll see that. This review certainly seemed to score more reasonably than many I've seen in the past. I feel that launch reviews, this game included, just scored the games too high. In all I think this was a decent review and an honest 6.4 score is pretty decent. I would rather play a game with an honest middling score than try a game with an 8.x score and be very disappointed at the over-hype.
I think you missed my question so I ask again, what other games have you scored down recently? And do you plan on making each \"re-review\" a featured news article like you did with this one?
I would like to hear the answer to this question as well.Just a quick click on the front page shows the Free Realms re-review and it dropped from an 8.x to a 6.5. Reviews are subjective. Just saying, there is a front page re-review and the score was lowered. I guess that answers the question, even though I'm not Bill Murphy. I just thought I'd throw some independent research out there for you.
Thanks, Torv. It's going to happen, like I said, and we'll try to make sure we give ample reason why in the future. ;)
Jeez there really is no pleasing or explaining to some people.
Why in the world does the first 2nd thrid or any number of previous reviews matter to this reviewer?
A reviewer joins a game, plays it for howecer long they have to get their impressions, and then publish the review in a timely manner. No matter how many others have done it or what they said or what may BE coming down the line. They can (if they are at all honest) give you THEIR opinion of the game at the time they played it.
Thats it, their opinion, at that time. And i for one sure as heck do not want them taking into account anyone elses opinions. Otherwise exactly what the heck is the point? If you want them to base the reviews off of other reviews.. that is just nuts:)
Now , if you have looked at this reviewers past work and do not agree, fine and dandy. But please, stop the nonsense about comparing this with ANY other reviews. Defeats the whole point of having multiple people/reviewers review games, if you expect them to go off of past reviews or even worse, OTHER peoples past reviews.
The new system began with Free-Realms (though not fully implemented yet), and was completely instituted with STO. All reviews, and re-reviews, going forward will adhere to this new scoring system.
Yes, I play the game but I am not a raving fanboi of it, nor am I biased. I came back to it recently after a 4-month hiatus. STO is a very casual mmo, one that can be played at your own pace. Granted that's not everyone's playstyle so I'm sure you know the drill - keep looking until you find one that does suit your style.
As for the review being a waste of time, I stand by my comment. The review was done with incomplete information which made the end score faulty. It has been stated earlier that the review was in progress long before Season 4 was set to go live. Nonetheless it was decided to upload the review as is. As for my 'journalist buddy' it wasn't bias at all - just one of the rules of reporting - make sure you have ALL the facts. If the review would have been held off until Season 4 went live, and the reviewer tested it and ended up giving the game an even lower score, I would have accepted it without question. I just think it was lazy to release the re-review in its current state without any sort of disclaimer...wait...wait...well, will you look at that? A disclaimer at the start of the review. Guess my buddy was right after all.
***********
"Editor's Note: Lori's review was written before the Season 4 upgrade of the ground combat system. As such we will be revisiting the game for an Impressions article after Season 4 hits, and we will as always re-evaluate our review in 6-12 months. " :)
I think the review that counts is the number of people who bought the game at release and just left because it was trash and because Cryptic pulled stunts like lying about what features would be in the game, lied about unique items being available for lifetime subs, implied that tLTS were going to be a one-time pre-release offer, and then when there were so many problems, told us that we don't "get it".
Those people leaving probably speaks louder to me about whether spending money with Cryptic is going give me something that I value in the future.
Not a review by professional staff, and certainly not all the feel-good comments from the 40 people still playing the game.
I note that her scores are almost spot-on with the 400ish people who have reviewed the game with the "ratings" feature.
Which to me means that in spite of any improvements that have been made to the game, it's still the same junk product. I think your new process nailed it.
I'm interested to see re-reviews of games that I've played or am actively playing, looking forward to it!
You may not be Bill Murphy, but he sure wrote out a nice full response within less than 2 mins of your post... I think he might be stalking you!!!
City of Heroes/Villains - Cryptic's 1st MMO
Champions Online - Cryptic's 2nd MMO
Star Trek Online - Cryptic's 3rd MMO
Fun fact: STO is built on the Champions Online game engine. They literally took the Champions Online engine and used it to build STO.
Stunning graphics ?
STO has increased since release in most part for C-Store stuff and federation players content. The Klingons and their players have been kicked to the ground by the developers time and again with failed promises for content and additions. The through the casual bone or lied promise at the KDF players base while hidden developing even more goodies and incentives for the Feds. So sorry, but the game IMO deserves an even worse rating.
Thanks for the honest review. Appreciate it.
The "new score" was right..
The old was flawed and to high..
But I guess this game is alright if you are a Star Trek fan, and that is all that reallly means something ..right ?
The games iright if one want to play federation. It's Bridge Commander made online with a monthly fee.
The Devs do not even pretend to favour faction equality as they had more the a year to bring the KDF on par with the Federation. They should have renamed or rereleased the game as FEDERATION ONLINE a long time ago.
Both good ideas.
On a different but kinda relevant point, I'd really like to see a re-review of WoW done using this new system. I've always found it odd that this site & members seem to hold WoW in such low regard when so many people actually play it, arguably the most played western mmo currently.
Hey Lori May!
you have been too kind in your review score. Star Trek Online is so buggy it is unplayable with 64BIT Win 7 install. The tech support for this game is non exsistant, I contacted support 14 times and not once did I receive a reply,. Oh! and it wasn't just me whom had the same problems, thousands of other wannie be players suffer the same fate. "Fatal file error!" The game just exits. (And I downloaded & reinstalled 3 times)
Really really annoying, I just gave uop and delted this waste of HD space rubbish.
Any time I got to play for 5 mins though the ground combat seemed ok, but space combat was dismal, I was expecting a star wars galaxies type experience in space, how let down I was.
Pros
= didn't find any!
Cons
= The most buggy game on the planet.
FINAL SCORE: 1
Total Crap!
Go Black Prophecy ---It is better and it's free
Really is bad timing, you've could've kept Lori's work and just amended references/scores relative to the ground combat update in two weeks, rather than put this up now.
For the people who think the score should have went up instead of down are forgetting the first review was way too high. It should have been a 4.5 - 5. So in that sense, it went up.
I realize it's just your opinion...BUT...If you're saying that STO offers more than other MMO's offer currently you have truly lost your mind...And you're coming off as a major shrill for this Game which everyone knows was a tremendous disappointment...And yes I played it...The Game sucked...It was a tremendous repetitive bore...Maybe it has improved some...And good for you that you're having a good time playing it...But not realizing it's not even close to comparing to a AAA title is a bit naive at this point...
The original score may have been too high to begin with. Some areas may have improved while others fell far short of expectation and worsened over time. The methods behind how a game is scored may change over time. There are any number of reasons a games overall score could drop from one review to the next.
Hope and dream all you want, the game is still not up to snuff for many. They don't need you coming here to try and make excuses for the game or try and sell it to them. People are perfectly capable of using their own judgement.
Ahh...so here is the problem....you said "you played it". When? Lately? I agree that STO was not ready at launch. There was much lacking at that time and I was vocal about it. However, I have stuck with it as I knew it would not remain static. Cryptic has gone to great lengths to add to the game that which was missing at launch. In fact, they have gone above and beyond. STO is now a far better game then it was. All the more surprising when it garners a lower score then it had previously. With S4 the last major "flaw" of the game will be addressed. While I have yet to have a chance to spend time with the changes being made to ground combat, from what I have seen it will be 100% better then what was offered at launch. So, what is different in my comments and yours....I have also played the game AND STILL DO.
If you actually take the time to read my post you\'ll see exactly what I mean, as I stated it plainly. STO\'s Foundry means that every single time I log in I have a new mission that I have never played before. I\'m not aware of any other game that does that.I have a life time subscription, I also thought the first review was to high. The game is poor on polish, social and value. They are slow to act on anything but c-store additions. The improvements to ground combat should have started in March of 2010, before many of the rage quits.
There is still almost no end game, many bugs still there from launch, and new ones. Pops ups durning game play are annoying. Many abilities like target exposed enemy, and your secondary attack stop working in combat. Buttons don't work and have to be pressed again sometimes. Space combat is overly repetitious and to easy on elite. All the mobs in space feel the same.
They didn't really add anything to PVP, except a couple of maps players don't use. The queues broke down and by the time they had them fixed many of the PVP players had quit. You will sit 30 to 45 minutes in a space PVP queue. You can't get a ground queue within a hour, I have waited three or more. Until I just gave up on PVP.
The prices in c-store are to high, like this review. I think it should be 5.0, up from a 4.0. The game will improve when the new ground combat goes live but there is still nothing to do. Except some single player quest from UGC. I didn't think the game needed more single player quest, and was bored with them in June of 2010.
I'm a big Star Trek fan and I played this game for one month. After about 2 weeks I was looking for a reason to log on. I've never seen so many options only available in a cash shop in a P2P game. I found costumes, character creation, etc. extremely limiting for someone with an active account.
The ground combat was ok, the space combat.... not so much. I could somewhat get behind the slower, more tactical combat, but it was overdone IMO. Many non-boss ships had to be hit 50 times or more before they'd blow up (die). Compare that to any other MMO.
Also, travel. Way too much long boring travel. Even with the few shortcuts that were available, I was often just staring at my ship for 10 minutes or more, slowing plodding my way towards some specific sector.
The only thing the game got right, IMO, was the sounds and graphics. It very much looks and sounds like Star Trek should.
If this game ever goes F2P (and, tbh, I'm absolutely amazed this hasn't happened yet), I might revisit it. No chance I will if it doesn't.
What I find horrifying about this the fact that MMORPG did this review right before a major update. It's like they didn't do any research before they picked up the game and went into the game completely biased. Bad form MMORPG.com.
We know Season 4 is right around the corner, as well as new sets of FEs (yea!). Season 4 will come with Borg Invasion, Ground Combat 2.0, and later on the Duty Officer System. This article is a continuation of the nay-sayer who said this game wouldn't last a year. Well it's still here, and its been going quite strongly. And planning to do a rereview of the game in the calm right before a major update isn't just bad form its the sign of a bad reporter. It's like reporting on how good the olympics was the week before it starts.
STO deserves at least an 8/10 if not higher.
You want to know what I find horrifying ? People coming on here complaining , about an article that predates a major content release from a company that has repeatedly released major content without proper testing and with major bugs. It's horrifying to see people put so much faith in a company that still can't release content without major bugs accompanying that release. So , with that said , you'd have them wait atleast until September to file the article . (since that's about the amount of time Cryptic spends getting the bugs ironed out ) MMORPG has a schedule which they obviously follow . Sorry, Cryptic schedule doesn't follow MMORPG's.
I've a long weekend coming up and since the content specifically S-4 isn't in it , this article is relavant for people deciding what to do with their gaming time over a long weekend.
PS : If I recall correctly, wasn't S-4 pushed back ? I was suppose to be out earlier. So who's really to blame ?
Been playing mmo's since ultima was released and can honestly say sto is the only game that kept my interest and I have been playing since beta.
It isn't for everyone. You can't be a night elf hunter and you can't kill 10 rats. Cryptic and atari as a company suck and their policies are the worst in the business. But sto is still a good growing game. Look at the difference since launch (which isn't hard to do and it hurts cryptics reliability in the eyes of the minimally observant)
Well, I will say that saying the game is far better than at launch and giving it a lower score is nothing new at MMORPG. They did that with AION. I dunno, maybe standards of what they use to evaluate games changes over time. With a game like Star Trek, the length of time since the initial review to the re-review might be pretty long. However, with AION it was re-reviewed in 1 year and got a lower score despite saying it was better than at launch.
Still, I often wonder if MMORGP is making a bigger effort to accurately score games. I'm shocked at a 6.4 score, since almost every game at MMORPG gets 7-9. Did some new policy of reviewing games become implemented at MMORPG? Most games should be 6-7 in range, with some really good ones at 7-8, great ones at 8-9 and the greatest at 9-10. I have no problem with 6.4 as a score, but just don't usually see it at this website.
I think the score is a bit too low and like many others in this thread, should have waited on the re-review. I would rate this game between 7 and 7.5 right now.
I'm surprised that player generated content was ignored. I've found a wealth of innovative player created missions which had both high quality stories and creative, interesting Ground Missions. Hopefully whoever handles the Season 4 review will take a look at some of those before bemoaning a lack of variety in the "avatar missions."
Actually, it makes a lot of sense: The last reviewer did everything possible to pad the numbers in STO's favor, including adding in a roleplaying category (with a high rating) that focused on player created roleplay instead of looking at what roleplaying tools (RP channels, RP rulesets, etc.) that the game may provide.
When compared to CO, which uses the same engine? Absolutely!
No, it's really not. In Bridge Commander you controlled your ship from the stations on the bridge, hence the name. STO's space combat is closer to the Starfleet Command series of games.
Not if she's not the one doing the next re-review. Mixing up two different reviews would be bad. Sure, the timing is a bit off, but I can't fault them for not wanting to just trash her work becuase of the next patch.
Player generated content shouldn't be used in generating the actual score of a game, only what the company has done. If a game has some really great player generated content though, then mention that as one of the pros, and not as an actual scored section. Likewise, if a game has terrible player generated content, that shouldn't be held against a game's score.
Gotta disagree with you there. If the shortage of a certain type of content is addressed by quality player content, it doesn't matter where it came from. Resources were spent desiging the engine for player content creation, review and release, so the devs get credit for making it available even if it was through "volunteer developers." Quality player content should affect both the "Longevity" and "Value" scores.
Unless they re-did the whole game since launch... this score is generous... Its still a 100 hour offline game that they jammed online
I'm curious about the Foundry. It is one of the most intriguing features of the game for me. Does the Foundry require the cash shop or extra expense to operate? Is their store connected in any way to the Foundry? I think it would be cool to generate content for a game, but I wouldn't like having to pay extra to do that or needing to buy things in their cash shop to make cool adventures.
I'm mostly interested in this because I'm watching Neverwinter and so I'm curious how the Foundry works in STO. This is one area where I do wish the reviewer had spent a little more time detailing because user generated content in online games is by far the exception to the rule.
The foundry is currently a free application in STO. That would probably change in some form if STO goes F2P. NwN will give you an idea of where Cryptic will probably go with the F2P model when the time comes with regards to the foundry.
The Foundry allows great and bad missions. Some time ago the devs said something about additions to the Foundry which would have to be bought from C-Store. Also you don't have the tools to create content comparable to Cryptics missions.
This smacks of a very lazy review, I fear that the reviewer is someone who thinks that the genre of 'MMO' is defined only by the very popular MMO titles. Cryptic offer orignality into a stale genre filled with Everquest clones. Reviewers such as this once labeled Ultima Online as 'mediocre' simply because it wasn't to their personal liking or outside of there personal understanding. I would really love to have seen a review which showed the improvements made, and gave a feeling of satisfaction to the person playing the game. STO is a diverse and expansive game, filled with the excitement of single player games and mixed within a MMO context. It is also strikingly similar to a very much loved Earth and Beyond (another game that reviewers didn't get, but communities loved). The Foundry is a fantastic idea, and should be applauded, it is a throw back to the paper and pen origins of our much beloved pass-time. User generated content is likely to be the one thing that can be different in a world of MMOs currently dominated by mediocre clones of WoW and Everquest. Come on MMORPG.COM re-do this review with somone else.. or hang up your boots as the voice of independance.
Here is an example of what a balanced re-review looked like:
http://www.geektown.co.uk/2011/06/19/star-trek-online-re-review-pc/
Oh and one final comment, I'm running 64bit Windows 7 on an Alienware Aurora R3 (so mid spec) only 4GB RAM, Intel5i (3.30Mhz overclocked) and a medium spec Gfx card (Geforce GTX460 1GB). Running everything set to max with 200% bloom. Played for 7-8 hours non-stop. Never had a glitch, not a bug, not a crash not so much as a frame drop.. and smooth frame rates of between 30 and 60fps.
By making NWN... yet another entry into the sword and sorcery MMO market ... Cryptic is being "original"? How do you figure?
"Diverse" and "expansive" in comparison to what? Even including the Foundry, STO is still far lighter on content than most every other MMO on the market. Heck, CoH had more content before the very first patch than STO has a year out of the gate.
Furthermore, what you call "exciting", other find mind-numbingly boring.
If you want to attack the reviewer and the review, stick to quantifiable facts and not subjective opinions.
City of Heroes has User generated Content. Cryptic isn't doing anything innovative on that front.
I would also ask if all those "new missions" you have each day are worth playing or are they mindless accolade farms or other nonsense missions?
If you want to hold up the Foundry as the shining jewel of STO, please be honest in your analysis and include all the negative points about it.
To be fair, they have offered a LTS since before launch. They need to have a cash shop in order to continue generating income from those who purchased a LTS. After a time, a person with a LTS is no longer paying for the game.
I don't really blame them for having one. I would agree they are dumping way too much into the store vs. adding more content to the game.
You're offering not one single example of this "Cryptic Brilliance", that you preach of. The only example even close to that is Foundry, but you have to remember, it's free content not made by developers. Fan made content is not official nor rewards the player like it.
How's Cryptic coming with games that offer 2 factions by the way? Current count seems to be 2 tries and 2 plunders.
You hold this article as shining example of what MMORPG's should be . I need to ask ? Did you actually read it ? It's not the feel good , touchy feely article you were hoping for that's pro-Cryptic.
Firstly 8/10 , really ? Based on what criteria ? Other then bashing the engine and the graphics , which incidently is the core of the game , what's good?
Foundry ? Okay he likes it. Whose doing the all the work , the player base.
Trekkiness ? Come on that's so arbitrary. The games set in 2409 , but you've ship uniforms etc that would have long ago been retired and scrapped , but I guess that irrelavant. It's the a couple of stories that make it Trek , huh ?
Interface is such A HUGE part of this game and makes or breaks it, please.
Combat , what can be said that hasn't already been said at some point.
The author gives it an 8/10 for what feel good ? he likes the foundry ? he likes Trek ? Honestly the rating system of the majority of gaming magizine/websites is based on 5/10 = 0/5, 6/10 = 2/5 , 7/10 = 3/5 etc... This article is more about an emotional expressof support of STO then a factual based narrative.
Far from being a 'Pro Cryptic Junkie' I'm the first to point out when things are wrong, and will vocally put that forward. From what I have seen on their forum, they seem to have listened to the people who love to play the game and have changed things. What I object to are reviews that don't factor in originality and real improvements to core gameplay as part of their assessment. This one did just that.
As for 'trekkieness' I think thats pretty damned important for a game titled "Star Trek'' thankfully the licence didn't go to a developer who thought that killing tribbles as part of some starting zone would be a good idea - no doubt Trion or Blizzard would have. Rift is an example of a WoW Clone with some pretty graphics.. and yet it is held aloft as the best thing since the last slice of Everquest v2000 - I got bored so fast I couldn't belive I spent money on it.
At least Crypic are TRYING to be different and get no bloody credit for doing so in the press, and like so many sheep in a raid in wow the haters and trolls follow suit, and before you know it you have good games being left on the shelves due to bad reviews. I'm not saying that STO doesn't have faults, it does.. are they big ones? no not really? is it fun to play, god yes.. I don't want a game the size of EvE Online that will take a lifetime to see most of the content.
I want a fun world within which to spend some time in a theme that I enjoy with friends. That is the heart of what makes an MMO a great thing. 'Professional' Raiders of MMO frankly have very nearly spoiled the whole genre, but thankfully there are a few developers out there, like cryptic, who now have Chinese money behind them who will (I hope) produce something orginal and for what is stupidly termed the 'casual' gamer.. I put in over 30 hours a week playing various MMO but am considered 'casual' - if your playing more than that boys and girls I'd suggest a meeting with my Pshychiarist.
On orignality 'theme' can be anything that doesn't make it orginal.. orginality comes from game dynamics not new fictions within which to house old game dynamics - thats formularic and lazy 'x-factor' games development, its very cost effective however.
Last point I did read the review before I linked it, it was clearly writen by someone who cared about the content of the game and liked what it offered for the fan of the franchise, but who also appreciated the content changes and the possiblities of user created content... given the name of the game.. isn't that pretty important damn important to be 'for the fans' ?? I say yes...
Oh and one final point, quantative assessment on games is utterly impossible, all reviews are subjective opinions.. thinking differently to that obvious fact is rather fatuous to say the least.
The Pros and Cons read like pretty much every MMORPG on my radar in the last 6 years.
I am an EVE refugee mainly I left eve because their core play system makes it unfun to continue to play, largly the eve developers highly favor a lawless hard core PVP univers that is very anti-casual player. not to mention they have a huge but largely repetitive universe that lacks inspiration.
I was really looking foward to the new star trek game,, before the first company folded the game descriptions and quality were very high and the universe and gameplay had alot of depth and diversity you could mine astroids, build space stations, explore a large and diverse universe and the ships a great and working LCARS type system also great socialization and fleets
after criptic took over all that was stripped away to the epic insult it is now. repetitive over instanced combat arcade game
they have an amazing charactor generation system why dont they have a way to input your image and create an avatar with your face?
i'm a builder and explorer of which there is only token examples
I like hauling cargos and trading I know its not specificly trek nor is mining but they would have been worthy additions
even scanning or sensor sweeps is a single button joke thus could have been very involved! players could go out on missons to survey a comet or astroid field or sun or even scan some alien entity to learn about it or to learn to kill it.
intra ship combat support was also very crude and almost none of the "star trek" tactics wre possible in the game
I think the bigest insult to me was when I went to SOL system and there was NO SOLAR SYSTEM!!! just a picture of the earth and moon and sun in a box like arena!! where is star fleet acadamy? mars saturn? titans turn? I might have been able to let it go about the outer planets but no mars or earth or moon locations???! unacceptable!
they need to retool STO and restructure the game to be a full blown MMO not just another franchise fan leach
I am not currently playing any MMOs I dont see any games in the works that have mature interesting content
realistic world and interesting deep content,, if anyone knows any please let me know
What is this "originality" you mention? What exactly is so "original" about STO? Also, what are the "real improvements to core gameplay"? The sector space toggle? Lastly to this point, Cryptic could have added numerous things to the game in the past year. If all those additions stunk, guess what? The game would still stink and get a poor review.
Originally posted by osawtell
Again, what is so "different" about Cryptic here? STO is a Star Trek game? There have been many of those. Their games are more "casual friendly"? Cryptic was not the first to do that either. Offering UGC? Nope. Cryptic did not do that first either. So what is so different about them?
To you the faults of STO are not a big deal. To others, they are. You find it fun, others do not. You want a shallow game with little content to blow through quickly. Others would like more value for their monthly subscription fee and play in an exapnsive universe. Nothing you have said here has done anything to disprove the review or the rating.
One could say the same to you.
Actually, this is not entirely true. Yes, reviews can be subjective and opinion based. However, you can do a quantitative assessment of a game in comparison to others. You just do not know how to, Instead you go the easy route to come here and footstomp and cry and whine about a fair review of a game you are a fan of.
Complain all you like, you still have not said anything worthwhile that would make the review incorrect or invalid.
C-Store Online
It did get better!!! Now the offer 3 types of Horta that you can purchase!!!
Finally, a fair and unbiased review of this game. Well done.
Personally I give this "review" a 4/10. The bugs you find aren't any more severe than what you'd find in any other MMO. And does it mention the new s4 stuff that's coming out? How about community relations? The people at STO really do listen and act accordingly to players. Where was the review of the Featured Episodes? I've played more than a few MMOs in the past few years and not one of them had crafted TV-like episodes. And for that matter, only one sentence on the Foundry? It lets players create and share original missions completely from scratch. Name me one other MMO that has that.
Honestly, this review reads like someone who did a 3 day trial version and spent their entire time in the newbie area (around the Sol system) looking for things to complain about. Yes STO launched too early in my opinion and it still has its issues but I saw no mention of any of the real improvements made in this review. I suggest the writer try again.
In my opinion this evaluation is too soon because their is a ground revamp coming around, set to released between 6th & 8th of July 2011 & the score of mediocre is their for unfair.
The game has come a long way in a very short time even I have to admit it was a disaster @ launch & released way to early, but since then is had been almost a non-stop monthly release of new features & content that has blown people away.
I can recommend to people who played @ launch & hated it to revisit STO in a week from know & you will be amazed.
This review is right on the money and exactly reflects my experience with STO. As much as I love Star Trek, STO failed to deliver on anything beyond giving me a space to geek out over the ship models.
Stuff that disappointed me, specifically:
Sector space. Hate it. Hate the idea of it, hate the implementation.
Ground missions. Clunky, buggy, boring, repetitive. No animus whatsoever.
Fleet actions. Boring, shallow, repetitive.
Exploration missions. Exploration is the essence of Trek, but these were a total failure. Pointless repetitive drivel. Infuriating lack of respect for the IP on full display.
Lack of ability to walk around ship interiors. I hear this has been fixed since launch.
Can't beam down to Earth or the Moon. Can't fly around the Sol system. What?
Can't fly a shuttlecraft to dock aboard other ships or to land on planets. What?
All solar systems are single-planet. What?
Entire game world feels like a repetitive series of tiny boxes that you fly or run around in.
Grindy questing. Kill 3 birds of prey, then another 3 birds of prey, then another 3 birds of prey, then a vorcha battlecruiser. Rinse & repeat all night to level. Dear God, when will it end? (Answer: When I cancel my account.)
The Foundry. This came along after I quit but confirmed my suspicions: nobody at Cryptic gives a flying fig about developing a large, immersive, meaningful world. Instead, they divert effort into allowing players to create petty content, thus absolving themselves of the need to approach development comprehensively. The Foundry is a shallow, cynical sham---and also the essence of Cryptic Studios. What bugs me is not that Cryptic makes half-assed non-social MMOs, but that they do it under the pretense of creating world-class AAA MMORPGs. Let's call a spade a spade, and a second-rate company a second-rate company.
Cryptic is overwatched by Atari. Atari's business plan is to pump out a new MMO every 6 months or so. They don't care about quality as much as quantity as they search for that one lucky break to cash in on like Blizzard did. Right place, right time, right theme. Keep digging, Atari. One day you will wake up and realize there is no light at the end of the tunnel and when you look back at the way you came, you can't see that light anymore either. Champions is garbage. Star Trek is garbage. Anything else they have and will pump out will most likely be garbage. It might look sweet and succulent on the outside, but the inside is riddled with worms.
/SWISH!
Guy that spends days reading forums = 1
Multi-million dollar corporation = 0
So we're going back to the "it was entirely Atari's fault, and Cryptic are the poor victims" line? Cryptic was the one who said they could mass produce quality, AAA MMOs before Atari bought them out. Atari merely held them to that promise. Atari pulled a lot of junk while they owned Cryptic (such as the digital download of the game with 60 extra free days, just a few weeks after launch), and they should be held accountable for that, but rushing MMOs out of the door was Cryptic's idea in the first place.
I didn't realize I had spoken these words publically before (I haven't), therefore I am confused how I could be "going back" to anything. With that said and therefore your cleverness debunked, the business plan I am referring to (released by Atari) is freely posted on the internet and but a simple google search away. It wasn't Cryptic's. Now, am I defending Cryptic or calling them the scapegoat? No. Because if I had, I would have said as much. Debunked, yet again. Nice try though. They're bad developers but they make a game that atleast interests /some/ people. Fine, let them cater to those people. No skin off my back. Doesn't change the facts.
City of Heroes introduced the Mission Architect (User created content) a couple of years ago. STO having the Foundry is nothing original or groundbreaking.
Also, let us all be honest here and admit that any UGC system is going to have both good and bad uses. The MA in CoH led to powerleveling farms and the like. Within an hour of the Foundry going live in STO, it was already polluted with accolade farms and other garbage. It is not much different than the MA in CoX... well crafted missions are the exception, not the rule.
These are largely my criticisms of STO as well. A year out and the game has made some nice cosmetic improvements, but it is mostly fluff with no substance IMO. Featured episodes are decent, yet suffered from showstopping bugs upon release.
A year out from launch and the universe is still quite small and boxed in. The content is still repetitious and tedious and there is no meaningful exploration whatsoever.
Personally, I give STO another 5 years before it begins to become "good" in my estimation. That is of course assuming it is still operating in that time.
Do you think you are the only person who has tried to shift the blame to Atari for the short development cycle? Trying to shift the blame entirely on Atari for Cryptic's shove them out of the door mentality has been going on since STO's open beta. Sure you may not have been defending Cryptic, but you were trying to drop the issue in Atari's lap. Also, a simple internet search, or just a search of interviews from this website, will show that Jack was talking about the fast turn around they could do with their amazing new Cryptic 2.0 engine before Atari bought them. Sure Atari held them to that promise, and apparently was going to continue to do so even after CO and STO launched, but once again Cryptic were the ones who were touting how quickly they could produce MMOs.
Well all those fanboys saying the review should have waited for Season 4, well its out now and guess what, its still not the best thing since slice bread. Even some of the fanboys are showing a few teeth.
Have you seen the amount of bugs and stealth nerfs/changes? Lots of these were even pointed out when it was in testing on tribble but they ignored them. Whats the point of point them out if they are not going to fix them?
And where is the masses of content? Cryptic like to use these "seasons" as a way to get people to come back or to stay, but what they don't tell you is that most of the stuff doesn't come out when it's launched and is released later (sometimes a lot later). Even then it comes with broken promises.
Where are these FE? Listening to "Judge me by my record Dstal says, they are only halfway through creating the next FE? What about the every 2 weeks malaky? 3 months since new content. Ahh but it doesn't matter cause your making your own.
You know what, most of the cryptic staff have moved on to the next project NWN and STO is going to go the same way as CO. Don't you see the pattern? Make a shallow game, milk as much as you can with a C-Store, move onto the next game and so on, rince and repeat.
When you only have a team less than the size of a Starbucks what do you expect.
From the looks of what they have made and are continuing to make, it look like they hired most of their staff from Starbucks...
Now, I've been out of the game for a while, and I can't ask in the forums whether or not the game has improved because you can't post if you're not paying a subscription fee.
But without knowing what's going on in "Season 4," when I left the game it was because of the lack of depth (a puddle in the desert during a drough is less shallow than STO), poor implementation, and unbelievably high repetitive nature of the game.
The reviewer is absolutely correct on all counts. The game looks great but plays horribly.
I've been saying that since Beta, but what do I know?
And it's true: if you like games that have meaningful story, depth, variety and a wow-factor that will keep you coming back for more, STO is not for you.
If you're looking for a casual game that a kid could play with no problems, then STO is precisely the game for you. If you're looking for a game that will have you doing the [b][i]exact same thing[/b][/i] over and over again, then STO is precisely the game for you. It requires no thought and no action apart from button-mashing. At least, it did. And this review doesn't make me think anything has changed in that respect.
Funnily enough, however, I'm willing to bet that much of the UGC is better than the dreck coming from Cryptic itself.
Season 4 and the FPS type of ground combat does make a big difference. I always enjoyed the space combat, but ground combat was like sticking needles in my eye. But after a few hours of the new shooter play. It has changed my view. That and some of the upgraded missions. As well as the episode missions and the UGC bringing large amounts of content.
When they upgrade sector space into one giant universe with no loading screens. That is when the game will finnaly be in a state that will be very Star Trek. The upgrade they have now is nice, but they are working on the tech to get rid of the boarders and open up space to complete free flight. But that could be quite a while before they get there.
I've played this game since beta and yeah, bugs, Season 4 is out and still no new content. It is a lot of graphics, art and skins. No content. The re-review is warranted.
It would be great if Cryptic actually worked on content and Trek specifics like: piloting your ship from the bridge? After all, that is where most of the action takes place.
I guess it is time to put this game on the shelf until next year and see if anything has improved.
IMO this sums up STO very well. It is truly a shame to see a game that has such rich and detailed graphics that Cryptic cannot get their act together and apply that same talent to the core mechanics of the game.
So now the highly touted Season 4 is here, I had a chance to give it a try on Live and can give my own personal impressions;
Ground Combat - shooter mode is good and the changes to weapon audio and graphics is well done. It is a decent update, but does nothing to make up for the shallow and repetitive ground combat. Ground missions are still beam down, fight 3 mobs then fight boss or scan 5 items or scan 3 items and fight NPCs.
Fleet Action Queques - a nice idea, but horribly implemented. When they did work, I saw many, many people in Sirius sector complaining of 30 to 45 minutes queques for SB24 and the like.
STFs - the changes to the Borg are interesting, but Cryptic (yet again) dropped the ball in terms of balancing abilities. If they would like to have healing classes, the healers in the game need to be able to keep up. Damage is so fast and so high now that single target heals cannot keep up. Also, it would seem some changes went in to these STFs that were not supposed to be there (ie. removal of Alcoves at the end of Infected, Armek assimilation power etc.) on "regular" difficulty.
At least to me, all of the good things about Season 4 are outweighed by the - yet again - sloppy implementation and game stopping bugs. A few that I and my friends/fleetmates discovered so far;
The list goes on for quite a bit. The most disappointing thing about Season 4 to me is the lack of any new content.
So to all those who complained about the reveiwer here "not waiting until Season 4" should be happy. Had the reviewer re-reviewed after Season 4 was released, the score would be even lower and IMO rightfully so. Season 4 yet again proves Cryptic simply does not care about quality work.
For all those that kept touting S-4 as the game changer , and how unfair the review was to not include it. Be thankful they didn't. As always their updates have been poorly tested and bug ridden. To cap it off, it's not going so well is it. It'll be atleast a month ( perhaps more ) before it's playable.
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=223276
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=222871
You won't seem them back now complaining about this score. Cryptic have let them down (again).
The usual crowd of fansboys who spend more time on the forums touting how great the game is or how great Cryptic is then they do actually playing the game (because of no content), are starting to realise that STO is not going to improve in any great leaps and bounds because the game design is fundementally flawed and the company who make it are a third rate company.
Here are a few other links to some of the more gamestopping bugs from Season 4:
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=222892
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=223688
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=223204
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=222602
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=222642
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=222630
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=223139
Truly a shame to see this level of sloppiness in Cryptic's work, but expected. It is not like this is the first update they have had that contained major gamestopping bugs. I almost feel sorry for the few, sad people on the STO forums who reply to these "well at least we can log in and play... the servers didn't die".
No doubt Cryptic will eventually get things patched up, but IMO this should never have been releasd in its current form. It just goes to show that Cryptic has no concerns about quality.
And I just have to add to the strength of this post by pointing out that its not just the games themselves that are garbage, its also the forum moderation teams and the general customer support that also reeks of immaturity and unprofessionalism.
Shaun Brody (aka Stormshade) and Gesine Fischer (aka WishStone) have got to absolutely be two of the worst community representatives I have ever had the misfortune of encountering in all the years I've been involved in MMORPG gaming, and I've got proof after proof detailing why (but it would take pages to post it all), but it would appear to me that their distasteful behavior only shows that the company could care less whether or not they lose paying customers.
Gesine likes to close out any thread with her magical stardust whenever it suits her, even if the thread itself was not in violation of the forum policy. She likes to edit people's signatures on a whim if she doesn't like them, and if you don't kiss her ass appropriately she'll end up giving you an infraction that doesn't make any sense (but will justify it by trying to wrap policy around it). So essentially, you can't be a part of her Rainbow Bright tea party unless she likes you. Smooch smooch smooch.
So you get banned from the forums just because you had an opinion that Shaun and his crack team of forum police didn't like...and this is supposed to be a professional and triple AAA MMO developer that cares about their customers? And I find it convenient that there is no telephone support to allow a paying customer to voice his/her concerns, and everything gets filtered into a shabby community support ticket system that is ran by the very people that you have a problem with. WishStone likes to remind everyone on the STO forums that if a customer has an issue, sumbit a ticket in private. There it will sit for weeks without a response, and if it is given a response, its usually Gesine that dismisses your case with the classical and cliche business atttitude which leads to lines like this, "We'll take your concerns under advisement. Thank you, and have a great day," or this, "Thank you for your feedback. The forums is a countinually evolving entity. Be well and have a nice day!"
It just sounds retarded. So my problem is with Gesine herself...and she gives me lines like this? How about REAL answers? Cryptic Studios and Atari are two companies made up of groups of children that have their own little club house...and if they don't like you, you're not invited in. Out of all the gaming companies I've encountered, Cryptic and Atari have got to be the worst in just about everything, from garbage games to garbage customer support. Never again will I ever give these people another dime, or play their games. In my opinion, both companies need to go out of business and get buried in the deepest grave in the financial cemetary. Someone amongst these posts said they'd crack open a bottle if it were to happen. I believe I'd like to have a glass of that. ;)
KDF is still garbage. Few PVE content, broken PvP.
The Company has really made itself a name for poor quality.
I returned after a longer brake and found the KDF in the same poor state as before, just the same grind through always the same missions over and over again.
Got a lifetime sub, I go in from time to time to see the changes.
Yes improvements have been made on the visuals and audio, an important improvement has been made in the ground combat now too, you can switch between FPS and RPG modes.
That being said, I never manage to play more than 1 day really, untill the next major expansion.
The gameplay overall lacks scope and depth in the grand scheme perspective. You get bogged down slowly repeating actions missions dailies etc just to get a few more Marks or Insignia for some additional gear...same old same old..repetitive and boring, and that is definitelly not Trek.
On the meta game aspect, I get very iritated with the combined Subscription + Store approach, I dislike it and it caused to me discust in several occasions.
On the mechanical side Ships do not behave as ships even if they look as Ships. The combat system is not like Homeworld at all actually, but I understand why the Author made such an analogy, due to the fact that it is full 3D environment in space, it looks like Homeworld Combat, but it doe snot play like homeworld combat.
It actually plays more like a Fantasy Character based Game, but with a spaceship instead. But that spaceship has Classes, it has Abilities, Offensive abilities, Crowd Control Abilities and Healing Abilities. Starships have a health bar, not actual Armor and Shield, Systems and Sub-Systems.
In fact that is one of the major dissapopintments for me, it simply doesn't feel like Starships are fighting in space, it feels like a Rogue fighting a Warrior or a Healer, or a Paladin etc...
When it looks like an apple but it tastes like an Orange..it loses all of its appeal.
Do not agree with the score the reviewer game STO at all. The score should be much higher. I am currently playing this along side Lotro and I am enjoying the game greatly.
Give it a day or two until you realize that;
Awesome necro job there.
The game scores thee rater gave are to generous. I would not rate it past 2. Art wise the game is pretty. That is where the good news ends. The game sucks and is becoming even wrose each patch they deliver on the Tribble test server.
This is going to be the next big game disaster since Star Wars Galaxies. It may even make SWG problem a forgotten memory. The only people that love these changes are Cryptic empoyees who like being paid every week. Unemployment is high in California.
1. Ability to deliver a quality patch - 0
2. Ability to respond to problems in game - 0 (The form letter generator is stuck on the same form from two years ago and still says Atari).
3. Community reps are jerks
4. Beta tester groupies who are paid Cryptic employees posing as players to antagonize paying customers need to go.
5. Anyone who suggested these changes need to never work for another game again. (Making the whole industry look like crooks).
6. Game has nothing to do with Star Trek. (Just a lore that use to get suckers to pay money to their cstore).
Interested to see what the new 6 month review wil be now.
This game is complete garbage. for a game that just went F2P and was a P2P only game it is full of bugs and glitches. i can`t even begin to understand how they got anyone to pay to play this roach motel.
I reached the level cap of level 50 in 1 week, after reaching the level cap there was NOTHING to do other than a handful of repeatable boring grindy quests that have no purpose. I quickly got bored with that so i figured i`ll go over to the community forums to talk to other players and find out if maybe i`m missing out on the end game content. imagine my surprise when i get to the community forums to discover that you have to pay real cash money in order to use the community forums. The game is free to play but the forums seem to be pay to post only.
Apparently cryptic and perfect world have no interest in anything the F2P players have to say since the forums are only open to paying players.
customer service is practically non existent., a support ticket that i opened sat unanswered for 2 weeks, i dont know if it was ever answered since i quit the game 2 weeks after i opened the ticket.
easy leveling, no end game content, poor customer service, and a never ending string of bugs and glitches seem to be the major features of this game. This game does not do justice to the Star Trek name.
Don`t waste your time with this clunker, this things needs to be towed back to the beta garage and given a complete overhaul before they put it on the road again.
Garbage game still. Patchs are buggy. Customer service is very bad. Game is starting to go pwi route with lucky box's that will win you that great item if your really lucky or spend a ton and are still lucky or just plain out thanks for spending your money and geting nothing. If i owned the ip i would sue and pull it.
Game is better now then at Release, but I guess.. hype plays a big part on Reviews these days.....
I'll say this first, I did not play this game till it went F2P(Start of Febuary 2012 time frame).
So, I don't know what it was like at launch, or the past two years of it's existance. With that said:
First off, the game does look really good. I do have to give it that. Not really as good as Eve Online Looks, but it's a good close runner up. The biggest beef I had with there graphics, is there shading. The team they had working on shaders, left some stuff out. I don't know if it was just not comatible with my ATI drivers ( I have the most up to date drivers too btw), or the game engine is just having trouble rendering the shaders, but the shaders are really "flickery". Shaders in Eve Online are far better.
Audio is really nice. Some of their Voice-Over/Acting in the Cut-Scenes could use a little work, mainly synchronization with the animations. The game has a Player you can listen to your own music, well, it has built in support for popular players like "Winamp". Which I thought was a really nice feature.
I think the game at first glance, the way it is now, is pretty cool. For the players that don't like "Grinding" you level up super fast (comparable to WoW Leveling). But the catch to that is there is almost nothing to do once you get max level. You have several choices at end game:
1.) You can get involved in the Elite STF's, which is basically the only way I've seen so far in Charactor Progression at level 50. With Elite STF's you stand the chance of getting some "Set" gear. These drops are very very very rare drops. You might get lucky and get the whole set in 2 weeks of playing them, or you might have to run one of the "Dungeons" 1000+ times to get your set. This in and of it self is wearing on the community pretty hard.
2.) You can grind daily missions in the effort to get dilithium to trade in on the dilithium exchange for C-Points to buy stuff from the C-Store.
3.) You can get involved with a guild/Fleet rather, to do the Fleet actions, which from what I can tell is just mainly for pure fun and braging rights. These Fleet Actions render no gear, or player progression. I think you get an achievement, and possibly some fringe benifits from getting certain achievements like a costume, or a Transwarp.
PvP is Instanced, there is no open PvP, which is what I personally prefer over Instanced PvP. Anyway, thats why I don't like it personally. But as far as the PvP goes that they do have, I've heard some of the "Old" players talking on voice and saying that there used to appearently be gear that you could get from PvP, but they took it out.
The worst part about this whole game, is the amount of bugs it has to be a 2 year old game. It is not just a couple, but a lot. This game is riddled with bugs.
As far as the F2P evaluation of it all goes. Well, I've played lots and lots of F2P games, I think I started playing F2P games with a game called Mu Online if that tells you anything. Before I get started I'll add that at present, I much perfer to play a subscription fee game over a F2P game, with the exception of Global Agenda.
Now, if you are going to play this game, I have one reccomendation. The first thing you need to buy from the cash shop is more charactor slots. Get you about 6 charactors refining 8k dilithium per day...once you start playing you'll see why.
This game went F2P under PWI. Any one that has played Perfect World knows who this is. PWI actually runs about 8 games I think now that are F2P. And, this one is no different than most other free to play games. They want you to spend money on the Cash Shop, and the more you spend the happier they are.
As with any other game that is F2P, they have everything itemized on the cash shop. If you want more inventory slots? C-Store, more bank slots? C-Store, more charactor slots? C-Store, want to respec? yep you guessed it ...C-Store! Just about any basic commidity you would want in the game ...C-Store.
I will say this. There are somethings like Ships, and outfits, etc etc, that can be bought from the C-Store, that once you buy them it unlocks them for all your charactors. With the exception, Klingon players can't use Federation ships, and Federation players can't use Klingon ships...so...yeah, you have to buy ships for both sides.
Now, you don't actually "Have" to buy anything to play. So, yeah, if your broke, F2P games are a nice thing to do when you don't have money for a Subscription fee on a better Tripple A game. But, If you want the good stuff, some might say cool stuff, but I tend to disagree, cause given you can buy a ship from the C-Store that has a device you can take off and put on any ship you have, to "Shadow Step"...I know a lot of you know what that is...lol Yeah, thats pretty much pay to win.
"Cosmetics" is buying graphics...not abilities. Graphics meaning a "Skin" for your ship to make it "Look" cooler then someone elses. Not buying an ability that you can not get from any where but the cash shop. Thats...pay to win...sorry folks, but it is. Sometimes the truth hurts. Yeah if you do like I said, and get 6 toons, and farm dilithium, it's not really all that hard to farm dilithium and get cpoints for free...but its a grind, and a boring one at that.
In closing, F2P games overall are just that...I like to think of them as Throw Away games. Back when they used to sell PC games at Game Stop, they would have games marked down to a couple dollars or even 1 cent sometimes....I'd buy them just to try out ...cause if I did not like them I could throw them away. Biggest thing with paying F2P games is you have to learn how to keep your credit card in your pocket. Else you'll wind up doing excatly what they want you to do, spend way more money on a trashy F2P game then you would on a good "polished" Subscription Based Game. And I hate to be the one to say it...But STO is far from a "Good Polished Triple A game".
It will provide you with a little bit of fun for a little while. Thats about it.
If you want something that is gonna rock your socks! I reccomend Planetside 2...coming soon to a server near you!
I played this game when it first launched. Stopped around Lt Commander level. Came back when it went F2P. Yes, very much improved, but really how could it not, but it still has a wall.
The lockboxes were too much for me(listen up NCsoft) because it was in your face every day. But even though I was enjoying the game in its new form, I hit a wall so fast and hard, I swear my Crusier had its airbags deploy. Thatwas a few weeks ago, haven't touched it since.