Well, as you see on yourself, people play different games for different reasons, reasons which may not be completely obvious and simple as "instances" :)

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Beatnik59

You know, it's interesting.

I came to this form from single player, action-adventure titles on console.

The reason I came to here was because I could, in one game, do the same things as it would take many games to do.

I didn't need a building game.  I got a building game in my MMO.

I didn't need a roleplaying game.  I got a roleplaying game in my MMO.

I didn't need an economic simulator, a flight simulator, a player-versus-player shooter, a virtual model maker, a chat service, or any of these things.  I had all of these games for the price of one MMO.

Sadly, these days, I find exactly the opposite to be true.  I spend a lot more for one MMO with rather limited gameplay, when for the same money, I could get a variety of single player games that allow me to do a wider variety of things.

I totally agree with your first part of the post. In fact, i find usually there are more gameplay options in a MMO than any other category of games. I can choose from single player missions, MP dungeons, and usually multiple ways of pvp. And also in addition to customization, collecting and other stuff.

But why is that the case when you get more from a single player game than MMOs? SP game costs like $60 a pop (at least the new and AAA ones). Most MMOs are free, and even if you talk about subs ... it is only $15 a month.

 

Well, they're cheaper than ever (maybe not "right off the shelf," but in a month or two), more accessable than ever, don't require a maitenance fee, mod-able, and they don't go *poof* whenever the developer wants them to.

Besides, a lot of the variety I mentioned before has been taken out.  Character customization isn't what it used to be.  Building is out of style, the worlds are small and cheaply done, and the economy isn't really appealing or immersive.  Basically, I just get an action-adventure title I have to maintain or get nickel and dimed in.  And if that's the case, why not just get an action-adventure title on console, like I used to do?

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Originally posted by nariusseldon
 

Well, they're cheaper than ever (maybe not "right off the shelf," but in a month or two), more accessable than ever, don't require a maitenance fee, mod-able, and they don't go *poof* whenever the developer wants them to.

Besides, a lot of the variety I mentioned before has been taken out.  Character customization isn't what it used to be.  Building is out of style, the worlds are small and cheaply done, and the economy isn't really appealing or immersive.  Basically, I just get an action-adventure title I have to maintain or get nickel and dimed in.  And if that's the case, why not just get an action-adventure title on console, like I used to do?

This one caught my eye. When has worlds been done "not cheaply"? Making content like it is in modern MMOs takes a lot of resources. In other words, it is expensive. More expensive than ever. And why they're small? First, are they really? And second, making a huge world with such detail worlds are made now would be too expensive and too impractical.

Churn out a generic world with generic mobs and generic quests Vanguard-style? -What a mess that was.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Beatnik59
 

Well, they're cheaper than ever (maybe not "right off the shelf," but in a month or two), more accessable than ever, don't require a maitenance fee, mod-able, and they don't go *poof* whenever the developer wants them to.

Besides, a lot of the variety I mentioned before has been taken out.  Character customization isn't what it used to be.  Building is out of style, the worlds are small and cheaply done, and the economy isn't really appealing or immersive.  Basically, I just get an action-adventure title I have to maintain or get nickel and dimed in.  And if that's the case, why not just get an action-adventure title on console, like I used to do?

This one caught my eye. When has worlds been done "not cheaply"? Making content like it is in modern MMOs takes a lot of resources. In other words, it is expensive. More expensive than ever. And why they're small? First, are they really? And second, making a huge world with such detail worlds are made now would be too expensive and too impractical.

Churn out a generic world with generic mobs and generic quests Vanguard-style? -What a mess that was.

You can say what you want about Aventurine and Darkfall, but they sure as hell made an incredibly amazing huge world for a little indie developer. If they can do it...

Originally posted by Cecropia

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Beatnik59  

You can say what you want about Aventurine and Darkfall, but they sure as hell made an incredibly amazing huge world for a little indie developer. If they can do it...

"Incredibly amazing huge world" ... Is it though?

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Cecropia

You can say what you want about Aventurine and Darkfall, but they sure as hell made an incredibly amazing huge world for a little indie developer. If they can do it...

"Incredibly amazing huge world" ... Is it though?

Without a doubt, yes.

Apparently Vanguard is the only game that tops the world of Agon. Although, I couldn't get it to run on my machine when I wanted to give it a go, so I can't give my opinion on that.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Quirhid

I wouldn't say so. There are usually some huge concessions in order to accomodate the high player numbers. Often the gameplay suffers too much. So much so that the MMO is little more than a chatroom with graphics.

SP games will always be ahead in gameplay. MMOs need to hide that fact as much as possible or find something else to draw the crowd.

Also, the biggest immersion breaker in MMOs is the other players.

But isn't what i say true at least in some settings?

Tell me where i can find a better SP star trek RPG that is better than STO. If that exists, i probably would be playing that instead.

I heard one of the few "captain simulator" type games set in Star Trek universe was quite good. Haven't tested it myself though. But I don't care much about the setting or milieu anyway. The paint job doesn't make your car go faster if you get my meaning.

However, i would still want some "paint" on my games. I can live with probably 2005 and onwards graphics, but really don't want to play the really old games because the graphics was so bad that it is distracting.

Originally posted by Beatnik59

 

Well, they're cheaper than ever (maybe not "right off the shelf," but in a month or two), more accessable than ever, don't require a maitenance fee, mod-able, and they don't go *poof* whenever the developer wants them to.

Besides, a lot of the variety I mentioned before has been taken out.  Character customization isn't what it used to be.  Building is out of style, the worlds are small and cheaply done, and the economy isn't really appealing or immersive.  Basically, I just get an action-adventure title I have to maintain or get nickel and dimed in.  And if that's the case, why not just get an action-adventure title on console, like I used to do?

have you read my post? Because you can't get a star trek action-adventure on the console. Or a super hero one .. at least not a recent one.

And if you compare STO with other SP star trek games made before, it has much more customization. Whether it is mroe than previous MMO is relevant if i am playing it as a SP game, and compare to such.

Originally posted by Banaghran

Well, as you see on yourself, people play different games for different reasons, reasons which may not be completely obvious and simple as "instances" :)

Flame on!

:)

yes. And this thread is showing that one way of playing a MMO is to treat it (or part of it) as a SP game.

Originally posted by Scottgun
Recalling my days as a game store seller, I saw many a Star Trek franchise product ballyhooed and prompty go to the dustbin of history, often in shame. So much so I think the franchise has some kind of billy-goat curse on it like the Chicago Cubs. They just can't win, and I think alot of game companies believe it too. The advantage of course is you have a corner of the market. The disadvantage is that it is Star Trek.

Not all of them. I recall the ST Elite Force game was pretty successful and had a sequal.

And this STO is successful enough to have more content added.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Quirhid

 

I heard one of the few "captain simulator" type games set in Star Trek universe was quite good. Haven't tested it myself though. But I don't care much about the setting or milieu anyway. The paint job doesn't make your car go faster if you get my meaning.

However, i would still want some "paint" on my games. I can live with probably 2005 and onwards graphics, but really don't want to play the really old games because the graphics was so bad that it is distracting.

I'm sorry. By "paint job" I mean the setting. Star Trek, Star Wars, Nexus Jupiter Incident, Eve Online, Freelancer, Darkstar One, Homeworld... They all have their fiction. I'm much more interested about the game, I don't care what fiction is wrapped around it. I don't care if I don't get a good Forgotten Realms RPG, I only care if I get a good RPG.

---

Originally posted by Cecropia
STO (at least when I played during beta/launch) doesn't work that way. The original developer (Perpetual Entertainment) had plans on having bridges with multiple players, though.

I do remember many people on the forums had huge issues with the concept. What if the player at the helm has to use the bathroom/walk the dog? Or how fun would it actually be to be the communication officer?

It was a cool concept that I think would compliment a Star Trek MMO in a big way. Oh well, what's done is done I guess.

---

Pirates of the burning sea suffered the same mentality. Initially players were to be part of a crew on a ship. Then the suits had the bright idea that oh nos can't do that; everyone will want to be the captain. Perhaps (most likely) they never played sports and learned that being part of a team is what counts.

---

Originally posted by Cecropia
STO (at least when I played during beta/launch) doesn't work that way. The original developer (Perpetual Entertainment) had plans on having bridges with multiple players, though.

I do remember many people on the forums had huge issues with the concept. What if the player at the helm has to use the bathroom/walk the dog? Or how fun would it actually be to be the communication officer?

It was a cool concept that I think would compliment a Star Trek MMO in a big way. Oh well, what's done is done I guess.

---

Pirates of the burning sea suffered the same mentality. Initially players were to be part of a crew on a ship. Then the suits had the bright idea that oh nos can't do that; everyone will want to be the captain. Perhaps (most likely) they never played sports and learned that being part of a team is what counts.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon
...this STO is successful enough to have more content added.

---

If they ever get rid of the sanctioned gambling (lock boxes), I might download the game.

---

Originally posted by Cecropia
STO (at least when I played during beta/launch) doesn't work that way. The original developer (Perpetual Entertainment) had plans on having bridges with multiple players, though.

I do remember many people on the forums had huge issues with the concept. What if the player at the helm has to use the bathroom/walk the dog? Or how fun would it actually be to be the communication officer?

It was a cool concept that I think would compliment a Star Trek MMO in a big way. Oh well, what's done is done I guess.

---

Pirates of the burning sea suffered the same mentality. Initially players were to be part of a crew on a ship. Then the suits had the bright idea that oh nos can't do that; everyone will want to be the captain. Perhaps (most likely) they never played sports and learned that being part of a team is what counts.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon
...this STO is successful enough to have more content added.

---

If they ever get rid of the sanctioned gambling (lock boxes), I might download the game.

Originally posted by Quirhid

 

I'm sorry. By "paint job" I mean the setting. Star Trek, Star Wars, Nexus Jupiter Incident, Eve Online, Freelancer, Darkstar One, Homeworld... They all have their fiction. I'm much more interested about the game, I don't care what fiction is wrapped around it. I don't care if I don't get a good Forgotten Realms RPG, I only care if I get a good RPG.

ah ... but you surely understand others want their "paint" job. Many play STO because it is star trek. You know the trekkies, right? THey will give their right arm to be the captain of a Galaxy class starship. Note that they are very particular about the paintjob. YOu have to get the details right.

In this respect, it is more important that your galaxy class starship looks right, then the RPG mechanics around it.

And in the end, wha tis a good RPG? Some may argue that it is not just the rules, and programming, but the atmosphere too. And STO certainly provides a good Star Trek atmosphere. They even get many famous trek characters to "guest star".

Originally posted by Arclan

 

---

Originally posted by Cecropia
STO (at least when I played during beta/launch) doesn't work that way. The original developer (Perpetual Entertainment) had plans on having bridges with multiple players, though.

 

I do remember many people on the forums had huge issues with the concept. What if the player at the helm has to use the bathroom/walk the dog? Or how fun would it actually be to be the communication officer?

It was a cool concept that I think would compliment a Star Trek MMO in a big way. Oh well, what's done is done I guess.

 

---

 

Pirates of the burning sea suffered the same mentality. Initially players were to be part of a crew on a ship. Then the suits had the bright idea that oh nos can't do that; everyone will want to be the captain. Perhaps (most likely) they never played sports and learned that being part of a team is what counts.

 

 

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon
...this STO is successful enough to have more content added.

---

 

If they ever get rid of the sanctioned gambling (lock boxes), I might download the game.

Actually i doubt manning a ship, or a space ship counts as a sport. Would you want to just pull rope all day, or "turn a level so the star ship go warp 3"?

And think about the whole logistic. Do you notice that sports is not a popular MMO setting?

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Quirhid

 

I heard one of the few "captain simulator" type games set in Star Trek universe was quite good. Haven't tested it myself though. But I don't care much about the setting or milieu anyway. The paint job doesn't make your car go faster if you get my meaning.

However, i would still want some "paint" on my games. I can live with probably 2005 and onwards graphics, but really don't want to play the really old games because the graphics was so bad that it is distracting.

I'm sorry. By "paint job" I mean the setting. Star Trek, Star Wars, Nexus Jupiter Incident, Eve Online, Freelancer, Darkstar One, Homeworld... They all have their fiction. I'm much more interested about the game, I don't care what fiction is wrapped around it. I don't care if I don't get a good Forgotten Realms RPG, I only care if I get a good RPG.

I felt the need to comment this, for I am completely opposite! Give me a good Warhammer(any of them)/LoTR/Star Trek game and I'll be Happy for really extended periods of time. Am not so picky about mechanics when the game is set within the IP that I favour. Otherwise, I'll be anal.

And to the comment about Trekkies and Galaxy class-why would I want Galaxy class(pfttt so old!) when I could have brand new Sovereign class? ;) ;)

Originally posted by Gorwe

 

I felt the need to comment this, for I am completely opposite! Give me a good Warhammer(any of them)/LoTR/Star Trek game and I'll be Happy for really extended periods of time. Am not so picky about mechanics when the game is set within the IP that I favour. Otherwise, I'll be anal.

And to the comment about Trekkies and Galaxy class-why would I want Galaxy class(pfttt so old!) when I could have brand new Sovereign class? ;) ;)

And i guess i am in-between. Some good mechanics and the right setting makes the game.

Galaxy Glass .. because it is the one i have spent time with the most on TV? In fact, i got a HUGE kick out of just getting the old Constitution (movie refit) class in STO.

Tho, tbh, I'd Like following ship classes and in the following order:

1. Intrepid(74656 yay!)

2. Sovereign(stylish, modern and big! What's not to like?)

3. Defiant(yay for the small Defiant!)

Other classes that I value: Norway(don't ask me why!), Akira and Nebula(it's Like saucer section of Galaxy class fitted between the Warp Nacelles. Just weird.) and, of course, Galaxy.

D1ng! Trekkie detected :D ;) It's time for the procedure 47(get it?)...