Originally posted by onetruth

Who is the "STO Team" that is being interviewed in this article?

Is it an actual developer or some associate 'producer' / marketing intern that has been deputized to spread the company message to the press?

I think that besides Bill Roper not many people from Cryptic want to be known, there might be bounty hunters watching for new prey.

Jon you did an excellent representation of the community in your questions, thanks.

I do think the core design is flawed though, even with the 100% instancing they could have still given a massively feel to the universe. But when your gameplay is limited to a miniature universe map along with systems and planets that are cut to fit exclusively with the related episode tasks, this feeling is lost.

The STO gameplay is pretty much incomplete as mentioned, there will probably be a lot of changes in the future regarding bridge functions and mission variety, when it is done and trials are available I'll gladly try the game again.

I do not think that it is ready for release though even considering the fact it's a MMO and will never be complete.

While the excessive instancing can be relevant to the IP, it makes the full monthly fee questionable, "MMOs" with such a degree of instancing usually survive only with a reduced monthly fee, optional or non-existent combined with microtransactions and/or item malls, as in Guild Wars, DDO, CrimeCraft, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth, Global Agenda, etc.

 I see that STO has now entered the "Paid Beta" stage.

Seriously insightful, thought provoking post. Single player games are for the most part going the way of the Do Do bird. I was never a fan of instancing and uninstalled Guild Wars after I realized there was nothing massive about hanging out with the same 4 people for 5 hours without the ability to get killed by some random person hiding behind a tree (love uo). Instancing, on any level pretty much ensures its not a true mmorpg game...I play Madden and COD but I don't consider them mmo's for the same reasons you cited. Spot on.

It's fairly limited right now. It will include the Ferengi and Klingon races to be playable for the Federation side at launch. We want to get an idea of what players want before adding much more. But we're sticking to the notion that if it affects gameplay, there will be ways of attaining whatever is available in the store in-game.
 

Lol...this really is priceless.  I actually hope this company does keep churning out mmos because at this point their actions with CO and what appears to be their gameplan for STO is hilarious.

From the interview:

"But we're sticking to the notion that if it affects gameplay, there will be ways of attaining whatever is available in the store in-game."

So, the Federation Klingon and Ferengi captains are attainable in-game? How does one obtain them?

-----

"Also more fleet actions will be included."

Hmm, the ones I have played in were plenty repetitive. I thought fleet actions were going to be like Warhammer's PQ (and I aplauded Cryptic for putting them in), but they are very pale copies. PQs are far more diverse in gameplay.

----

"We did have a very ambitious target date, but we also knew we could do it. Bear in mind, much of the work that typically goes into an MMO's "five-year" development cycle is engine/tech creation, or in some cases, revenue generation. We made up for a lot of that time in two ways: We're using the same engine we'd been developing for five years for Champions, and when we merged with Atari, we no longer needed to shop a concept to a publisher for a year while we kept the staff small.

We've been fully staffed on this project since you first heard about its existence. So really, that two-year number is the meat and potatoes of what consumers see. It's the art; the living, breathing design; the content; and the gameplay changes we've made after getting the game into people's hands for real testing and feedback."

Yes, and they proved that two years of content development isn't enough. MMOs don't develop in a serial fashion, but in parallel. Having an engine already doesn't reduce time needed for content creation or testing of that content. It does reduce personel costs, but no one accused Cryptic of wasting money.

Anyone funding Cryptic by buying this game ought to have their head examined.  Only suckers support bad developers.

Why lemmings flock to bad unfinished games is beyond me.  If you are so desperate at throwing money away, why not at least do something constructive with it?

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Anyone funding Cryptic by buying this game ought to have their head examined.  Only suckers support bad developers.

Why lemmings flock to bad unfinished games is beyond me.  If you are so desperate at throwing money away, why not at least do something constructive with it?

Very well put.

As for me, I am going to wait six months at least and then try the gratuitous free trial. If I feel the game has reached the point of where it should have been on launch day with a proper development time, I'll pick it up. Otherwise I will shrug and move on; there are far too many MMMOs out or coming out (and some excellent single player games as well) to waste my time on a game I do not enjoy, no matter how well I like the IP.

I found the one answer concerning how much development time is used up on the game engine alone a bit comical; most of the big name Western MMOs were based off of pre-existing engines (I'm not sure about the Asian ones, other than the WoW or Lineage II clones), and as has been pointed out, other things generally get developed alongside the work on the engine. Hasn't Bioware been woking on the storylines and such for SW:TOR for most of their development time as well as working on the engine?

Overall, I enjoyed the questions asked; I wish more interviews had asked questions along these lines over the course of last year. You would have still recieved the same canned answers I'm sure, but it would have been nice to see some more pointed questions.

Originally posted by jonaylward

 

---

Originally posted by mrputts
Fix the <expletive deleted> vertical flying problem you <insult deleted>. That's the number one thing needs changed.

---

Of course - because barrel rolls and loop-de-loops are so common in the canon Star Trek Universe.

 

I'm sorry, but "vertical" flying is an expectation you have of the title that does not match with the limits of the original IP.
Go watch The Original Series - Enterprise vs. Klingon/Romulan were always "facing up".
Go watch Wrath of Khan...same thing, even in the dust cloud.
Go watch DS-9's huge battles...

Contrary to your personal preference, it's not 'broken', and can't be/shouldn't be 'fixed'. The Star Trek Universe has an "up" and a "down" to it.

 

I find it hilarious how the Cryptic/STO fanboys always say the IP doesn't matter, "it's just a game", "it wouldn't work in a game" "it wouldn't be fun in a game" when you mention things that are fundamental to Trek that are missing. But when you ask them to fix vertical flying they turn around and say "well it wasn't in the IP" as an excuse. I am speaking in general, not towards anyone particular but I have seen this flip flop many times now.

Originally posted by smut

I find it hilarious how the Cryptic/STO fanboys always say the IP doesn't matter, "it's just a game", "it wouldn't work in a game" "it wouldn't be fun in a game" when you mention things that are fundamental to Trek that are missing. But when you ask them to fix vertical flying they turn around and say "well it wasn't in the IP" as an excuse. I am speaking in general, not towards anyone particular but I have seen this flip flop many times now.

The pseudo-3D in the game isn't according to the IP, either, of course.

They should have either broken with the IP and gone for true 3D movement, or gone with totally 2D movement. I gather that the former isn't an option, due to the engine used.

No question asked about that in this 'hard-hitting' interview, or did I miss it?

---

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

---

Originally posted by smut

I find it hilarious how the Cryptic/STO fanboys always say the IP doesn't matter, "it's just a game", "it wouldn't work in a game" "it wouldn't be fun in a game" when you mention things that are fundamental to Trek that are missing. But when you ask them to fix vertical flying they turn around and say "well it wasn't in the IP" as an excuse. I am speaking in general, not towards anyone particular but I have seen this flip flop many times now.

---

The pseudo-3D in the game isn't according to the IP, either, of course.
They should have either broken with the IP and gone for true 3D movement, or gone with totally 2D movement. I gather that the former isn't an option, due to the engine used.
 
No question asked about that in this 'hard-hitting' interview, or did I miss it?

---

Thanks for the interview, Jon.

I'm not really understanding where this there was no 3-D movement in Star Trek idea came from; Wrath of Khan had it (remember the Enterprise coming up behind the Reliant, starting from from beneath it?), DS9's Defiant most certainly did loops, rolls, and other maneuvers such as the Immelman (especially during the Dominion War), and even the Enterprise E rolled during the big fight at the end of Nemesis (remember when their shield was getting pounded and Riker ordered them to roll the ship to bring a new shield to face the enemy?). Also, a lot of people seem to still get barrel rolls confused with just rolling.

STO's 45 degrees of up or down is rather limiting, unless you enjoy spiralling up or down to get to targets, and the game would have been better served with 60 - 90 degrees of up or down movement at least. All in all, it is one of many design choices that is leading to limited replayablity. A lot of the posts I see defending STO is from people having a blast playing the game for the first time (or still rather new to it); I enjoyed it as well at first, but it quickly becomes repetitive and stale much sooner than other MMOs. I also see a lot of posts defending the game, talking about how great it is going to be in six months or a year from now; what I don't see are valid reasons why people should spend money on the game until then.

Is there potential there? Of course there is! There is also potential in WAR, AoC, and Vanguard. In today's MMO market, potential isn't enough; you need a game that can keep your players subscribed long enough to realize that potential, or better yet realize at least some of that potential before the game ships.

So they basically admit that their release lacked content , but still put part of what is available in the item mall for their subs to pay extra for.

I guess thats one way of interpreting 'To boldly go where no MMO has gone before' . Meh.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by jotull

Talk about fucking yellow journalism.

 

MMORPG.com: All the beta testers think you game is fail are you looking for a new line of work now?

STO: Ummmm

MMORPG.com:: So would you say that your game sucks more or less than Diakatana?

Sto:uhhhh.less?

MMORPG.com: You heard it hear first folks STO devs admit that STO is the biggiest failure since Diakatana, stay tuned for or gushing fanboi praise of Aion and EveOnline next., back to you sparky.

 

Yep typical mmorpg.com

Normally, I at least understand when people start mindlessly bashing us... This, I don't understand. Can you clarify?

I think I can help claify this.. It's like you people are interviewing Obama or some other democrat, where the questions you get to ask must get approval from the company you are interviewing first.. You don't ask any tough questions, or when you do, you dont follow up. The question was asked about why its so heavily instanced and can they expain this to the pissed of fans.. The man says, sure! because space is vast! .. you let let that slide...any one of us would have spent the rest of the interview asking what type of mental problems all the staff at Cryptic has been diagnosed with.. The tone of the interview is all sunshine and roses and never varries with you guys.
 

So, Cryptic Studios sound like they are bringing the genre down to new lows by (i) releasing a game that is obviously and clearly lacking content, and (ii) playing both the P2P and item shop financial models from the very start.

And so we get to see another genuinely amazing IP trashed by an MMO developer for fast and easy profit. Yay.

I hope we see STO go the way of AoC and WAR, and perhaps players will see the pattern emerging and how they are being taken advantage of. You already see a lot more caution in many of the posts around these boards. Sooner or later people are going to stop falling for the same trick.

"The nice thing about this being an MMO is that we can constantly add in new content"

Ah the universall 'copy / paste' excuse for lack of content and repetative game-play....

"but it WILL GET BETTER".... oh ok, then I'll come and play when it does get better shall I? "but if you do that we wont have money to make it better"

¬.¬

I've played the game now for a week and enjoy it. Its' like any game, you're either going to like it or not

Very good interview with some prying questions.

I can't believe the cheek of Cryptic thinking its acceptable to ask for a subscription AND have a cash shop too - its disgraceful and should not be supported by anyone.

Famous IPs + MMOs = FAIL almost every time (just ask Mythic and FunCom).

Hey Jon,

Just wanted to say thank you for asking some good and tough questions in this interview.  If for no other reason than to maybe get in the developers minds what the actual feedback is for their game.  It isn't just a "vocal minority" who are having some issues with the game.  I loved his answer to the instancing question because it show just how full of shit these developers are.  Who does he think is reading this?  The reason for the multi shards is because that's how the engine is built.  It had nothing to do with Star Trek. LMAO  My follow up to him would have been, then why the **** did they the same thing in Champions Online?  I would loved to have heard the b.s. response.  Ah, anyway thank you for asking some tough questions bro.  /salute