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.

Originally posted by Turdinator

I liked the "Repititious game play" thing in the "Cons" section.  That is pretty much a given for any MMO you play.

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. 

Originally posted by MikeB

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.

 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.

Originally posted by TarotMage

Originally posted by MikeB

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.

 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.

Originally posted by Harryhausen

And to that I say, good review. Spot on. Wait for season 4? Why is the answer for this game always wait until the next update? Why is the state of the game NOW never discussed honestly by some?

 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.

Originally posted by MikeB

Originally posted by J4ck_5p4rr0w







That makes no sense. The last review was 7.4, and the game has improved since then. Your saying the game has gotten worse since the last review? I guess this websites own reviewers arent even in agreement.

 

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.

 

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.

Originally posted by buegur

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!

 

 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.

Originally posted by MortisRex

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.

 

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.

Originally posted by Solomace

No matter what site reviews STO, you will find Nagus defending it to the hilt.

Originally posted by Divion

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?

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?