Originally posted by thefrayl

 

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. :)

 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?

Originally posted by AG-Vuk

Originally posted by Krelian

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!

 

 The hilarious part of all this is people are raging about the Re-review lowering the score of a totally fluff re-review. LOL . http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/352/view/reviews/load/124/page/1

The original release rating was 6.9 or something close. Michael Bitton authored I believe.

 

I did not review Star Trek Online. Patrick Gerard did, as the teaser of the article you linked clearly states. :)

Originally posted by MortisRex

Originally posted by thefrayl

 

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. :)

 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.

 

 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............................

Originally posted by Everitt_Cage
This thread is pretty funny. The truth is, no game is all good or bad, and anyone who says otherwise is simply blinded by their own bias. I\'m not going to be a fanboy and pretend the game is perfect, and I\'m also not going to be a hater and pretend nothing is good about it. Are there problems? Of course; just like in every other game I have ever played. I also have fun.

Originally posted by Shodanas

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. 

 

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.

---

Originally posted by Elikal


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!

---

Originally posted by MikeB

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.

 

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? 

Originally posted by AG-Vuk

This explains the raging Fanboi'sm that affecting this thread . So much rage by the LTS'ers.

http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=221255

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.