Maximum PC chats with Craig Zinkievich, executive producer at Cryptic Studios, about making a game for Trekkers and competing with World of Warcraft.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/web_exclusive/star_trek_online_interview

First question asked:

"Maximum PC: It looks like Star Trek Online is focusing more on action, as opposed to boring bits like interstellar diplomacy."

/facepalm, close tab

Yeah, I noticed that too.

Diplomacy is boring now? Its almost like these guys are asking this question just to do Cryptic a favor and make diplomacy sound boring so that Cryptic can blow it off. When in reality they should be asking why Cryptic isn't taking something as central to Star Trek as diplomacy seriously.

 This is why I let my subscriptions to Maximum PC and PC Gamer lapse, if you want decent questions asked you pretty much have to find a way to ask them yourself anymore. Anyone else remember when journalists asked tough questions, even of developers?

Here is an imaginary interview with some Cryptic devs that just took place in my mind:

"Do you hate Star Trek fans" - "Yes"

"Do you hate the Star Trek franchise"  - "Yes, we'd prefer it if Star Trek was all pew pew and literally nothing else, maybe some exploration but you'll be lucky if we pull it off"

 Really, one question that should have been asked after this:

MPC: What about playing as the Klingons

CZ: We’re not ready to reveal too much, but the Klingon gameplay will be drastically different from the Federation. It’ll open up a couple of hours into the game, and will be more PVP focused.

You have to play as Federation to get to the Klingon content?

Besides that some question of the obvious worries from Start Trek fans should have been made.

"Maximum PC: It looks like Star Trek Online is focusing more on action, as opposed to boring bits like interstellar diplomacy."

Well, well, well.  I'm glad that both Cryptic and gaming interviewers are confident enough to state that they clearly know what it is we want in a f****ng game.  Without any polls of any kind before developing the game, mind you!

This question was so set up by Cryptic.  Or Maximum PC was leading Cryptic on because they're in cahoots.

It reeks of the comments made by McIntyre justifying SWG's NGE.

"MPC: What kinds of compromises did you have to make for this to appeal to both MMO players and Star Trek fans who might never have played an MMO?

CZ: There are some compromises we’ve had to make, license-wise, like adding many phaser weapons variations [in addition to the two main types in Star Trek canon]. In terms of gameplay, our goal is to make a really deep MMO that doesn’t scare away someone who has never played an MMO before. For example, the power-level interface has a complex mode where you can move individual power bars, but there’s also a mode where you can use preset power levels for offensive or defensive stances."

Is it me, or did he totally NOT answer the question?  Is that what he thinks we're seriously worried about?  Phaser types? 

A blatant question dodge if I ever saw one.

"MPC: How do you determine the long-term plans for an MMO, given the uncertainty of success?

CZ: We don’t have life spans on our games, and we go into the first year with an expansion and update plan. That being said, though, from our experience, the longer you plan ahead, the more likely the plan is useless, because the subscribers will tell you what they like and dislike, and what they want to see more of. So, even though we put a plan out there, we have to be flexible and listen to our captive audience. Which is kind of the cool part about making MMOs. [Once it’s released], it’s not just us making the game—everyone contributes. "

1.  You already shot yourself in the foot.  People will burn out on this game in less than a year.  It'll be a bigger fanfare and flop than The Matrix Online.

2.  Flexible and listen to your captive audience?  The ones who were really looking forward to playing all aspects of the Star Trek universe, intellgient and immersive game writing, including but NOT limited to war...or by 'captive audience' do you mean the few thousand 12 year old power gamers you've suckered and trapped into believing that this game is going to be good just because it 'looks pretty'?

I highly doubt that very last statement.  'Everybody contributes'.  I seriously doubt the community will have any say in this game with the exception of your 'Yes' Men and Women that volunteer to be community liasons for you.

Don't believe the hype surrounding this game, folks.  If you love Star Trek, and you've really, truly looked past the flashy nonsense (screenshots and video of the game), and you have investigated Cryptic's business model and how they're marketing this game, and if you have played other MMORPGs, and you can say for sure you still think you'll like it then hey...more power to you.

As a veteran MMO player, I can safely say at the onset that this game is going to be a very big disappointment for the fans who are expecting more.

And you know what's sad, I would have waited another two or three years for them to do it right.  Would you have?

 that is an indepth reply and point of view, thanks for sharing.  I have been really looking forward to this game as well as Starwars, globalagenda and jumpgate evolution and these forums i am hoping will help me decide the best one.  But as you said they are very pritty and seems really cool.  We will just have to wait and see, after all making games like this must involve increadable amounts of discussion and compromise to apease the share holder, after all it is their cash that they want a return on.

Originally posted by Raltar

Yeah, I noticed that too.

Diplomacy is boring now? Its almost like these guys are asking this question just to do Cryptic a favor and make diplomacy sound boring so that Cryptic can blow it off. When in reality they should be asking why Cryptic isn't taking something as central to Star Trek as diplomacy seriously.

That's how the franchise has gone of late, especially the last movie (didn't make any sense beyond being a vehicle for pew pewing).  So yeah...

Originally posted by HitechLolife

First question asked:

"Maximum PC: It looks like Star Trek Online is focusing more on action, as opposed to boring bits like interstellar diplomacy."

/facepalm, close tab

I think thats a mere joke, considering that alot of people were turned off by the star trek series. That being said Cryptic is going for a casual feel that appeals to a bigger group of players.  The word "action" attracts the casual player not "Interstellar Diplomacy" Even though that quote most likely describers STO story. But to ignore 'story' or "interstellar diplomacy" would ruin STO. 

Meh, I am iffy on it. The question seemed rather insulting, but has some merit. Diplomacy is usually handled by Politicians, which Star Fleet is not. Granted some episodes involved having ship captains engage in some diplomacy... reality is it wouldn't be wise to have your diplomats be warriors (Sorry Klingons... dont beat me).

Although, seeing missions of escorting a diplomat to certain areas, getting hostages back, etc, would be more relevent. In Vanguard, diplomacy is a card game, which is actually a bit of alright. And I think it'd be rather cool to have expansions focused on being able to do more, such as diplomacy, rather than just go more places and get new loot.

They lost me here

You don’t lose your ship [if it blows up]; you just respawn at the beginning of the map with a little damage done to your systems. But overall, we don’t want you to spend 80 hours getting that Sovereign class vessel, get owned, and then lose that ship.

Another arcade crap, meh
Im not asking for a cartoony version of eve... but you know...

Looking forward to open beta though - i want to see war with meaningless death, rofl

But yeah, people play CO as well... different tastes i guess ;)

Nearly meaningless death isn't my ideal situation either. But seems 90%+ of all MMOs these days have it that way now.

Generally, if the risks arent that high, I prefer the rewards to not be that high either, or at least take a long long time to achieve.

This is a detail I dislike about STO, but I am also totally not surprised given how prevalent it is in MMOs anyway. Now if they said "We'll buff you and blow up all your enemies every time you die!" then I'd be gone.

Every time I hear more about this game, I hate it more and more.  Star Trek is not about war.  A game based on Star Trek should not be this heavily focused on combat.  Star Trek is about politics, it's about diplomacy, it's about cultures...  It's about the freaking mission "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before."  I see nothing Star Trek-like about anything this game has to offer.  Hell, I barely see any MMO in what the game has to offer.

Originally posted by Athcear

Every time I hear more about this game, I hate it more and more.  Star Trek is not about war.  A game based on Star Trek should not be this heavily focused on combat.  Star Trek is about politics, it's about diplomacy, it's about cultures...  It's about the freaking mission "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before."  I see nothing Star Trek-like about anything this game has to offer.  Hell, I barely see any MMO in what the game has to offer.

I'm with you, mate. The more I hear about STO, the less I like it. I almost certainly won't be purchasing this game now, and I'm a big Star Trek fan.

I'm a little bit shocked about the no death penalty. When your ship explodes you just pop back at the beginning of the map? Wow, what a cop out.

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by Raltar

Yeah, I noticed that too.

Diplomacy is boring now? Its almost like these guys are asking this question just to do Cryptic a favor and make diplomacy sound boring so that Cryptic can blow it off. When in reality they should be asking why Cryptic isn't taking something as central to Star Trek as diplomacy seriously.

That's how the franchise has gone of late, especially the last movie (didn't make any sense beyond being a vehicle for pew pewing).  So yeah...

Oh, I so agree.  There seems to be a recent trend, at least the US, to glorify idiocy, to denigrate intelligence and science.  Star Trek used to be about ideas, specifically scientific ideas.  But apparently science, and intellectualism, are loosing their sexiness.

I am not raving excited about the game. I am looking forward to seeing how it is played out and such, so my interest is more in that field, rather than what I think it should be.

Real Star Trek wouldn't make for a very fun game though. I can imagine a ton of scenarios that'd really suck if it was "just" like Star Trek.

It is a Star Trek Game. It is not the Star Trek Universe Come to Fruition via Virtural Reality. I couldn't even imagine the disappointment one must feel when they come to that realization.

I'd say the really bad bit of news in that interview is the part about how Genesis works and exploration. I might be mistaken, but from what I understood the exploration will be instanced... And that would mean you would be isolated from the other players when you're doing exploration and the worlds you discover would not be persistant, no?

I'm really into the exploration side of things in MMOs I play, and I was looking forward to see Genesis at work... but I have to admit this is somewhat disheartening.

From what I have read/watched, it seems the genesis thing is meant more as a developer tool to speed up the process of creating worlds etc and used for the exploration. As well, one will be able to give coordinates to friends so they can visit the same places if they want. I also imagine it'd be possible to explore the same place at the same time if grouped with a friend at the time.

Its really not something small to add to a game and has potential for utter greatness. I'd be willing to buy the game and play a month just to see how they implement it because I really do like procedural developement.

All of what you say seems to be true, but... personally, it's still hard to get over the alarmingly high probability that it's all instanced. Sure, you can invite friends, but if exploration really works like this, it could mean no random player encounters for the dedicated explorer. I'm thinking of being a dedicated explorer, and it's those random encounters that bring the gameworld alive for me, so I'm concerned.

Oh, I too am looking forward to seeing what kind of new worlds the Genesis program comes up with... It's just that it could lose its appeal rather fast if the experience is too boxed-in.

Guess we'll see when the game releases. :)