Jeez there really is no pleasing or explaining to some people.

Why in the world does the first 2nd thrid or any number of previous reviews matter to this reviewer?

A reviewer joins a game, plays it for howecer long they have to get their impressions, and then publish the review in a timely manner. No matter how many others have done it or what they said or what may BE coming down the line. They can (if they are at all honest) give you THEIR opinion of the game at the time they played it.

Thats it, their opinion, at that time. And i for one sure as heck do not want them taking into account anyone elses opinions. Otherwise exactly what the heck is the point? If you want them to base the reviews off of other reviews.. that is just nuts:)

Now , if you have looked at this reviewers past work and do not agree, fine and dandy. But please, stop the nonsense about comparing this with ANY other reviews. Defeats the whole point of having multiple people/reviewers review games, if you expect them to go off of past reviews or even worse, OTHER peoples past reviews.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Just a quick click on the front page shows the Free Realms re-review and it dropped from an 8.x to a 6.5.  Reviews are subjective.  Just saying, there is a front page re-review and the score was lowered.  I guess that answers the question, even though Im not Bill Murphy. I just thought Id throw some independent research out there for you.

Ok, that is 1 example. What about the last few before that? When did this new system start? This is a review site so they shouldnt be hard to locate. What were the last 3 reviews before Free Realms, and did they go down with this new system like Bill said they probably would?

The new system began with Free-Realms (though not fully implemented yet), and was completely instituted with STO.  All reviews, and re-reviews, going forward will adhere to this new scoring system.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

The review isn't a waste of my time.  I've followed this game for a while and have considered playing but, after LotRO and AoC, IP driven mmos have really failed to deliver for me.  This review will be a good contrast for me when the next review comes around.  I would actually like to see the next re-review by the same person to see how they feel the update has changed their opinion one way or another.

I realize if you're a fan of a game it's hard to hear that your game isn't scoring high, but your "journalist buddy" anecdote only really illustrates your biased agenda in feeding back your criticism of the review process.  You want your game to get a better score and feel the upcoming content update will deliver that.  Maybe it will, and another review will reflect that if it's true.

I too would like to see better game reviews within a more well defined framework and maybe we'll see that.  This review certainly seemed to score more reasonably than many I've seen in the past.  I feel that launch reviews, this game included, just scored the games too high.  In all I think this was a decent review and an honest 6.4 score is pretty decent.  I would rather play a game with an honest middling score than try a game with an 8.x score and be very disappointed at the over-hype.

 Yes, I play the game but I am not a raving fanboi of it, nor am I biased. I came back to it recently after a 4-month hiatus. STO is a very casual mmo, one that can be played at your own pace. Granted that's not everyone's playstyle so I'm sure you know the drill - keep looking until you find one that does suit your style.

As for the review being a waste of time, I stand by my comment. The review was done with incomplete information which made the end score faulty. It has been stated earlier that the review was in progress long before Season 4 was set to go live. Nonetheless it was decided to upload the review as is. As for my 'journalist buddy' it wasn't bias at all - just one of the rules of reporting - make sure you have ALL the facts.  If the review would have been held off until Season 4 went live, and the reviewer tested it and ended up giving the game an even lower score, I would have accepted it without question.  I just think it was lazy to release the re-review in its current state without any sort of disclaimer...wait...wait...well, will you look at that? A disclaimer at the start of the review. Guess my buddy was right after all.

***********

"Editor's Note: Lori's review was written before the Season 4 upgrade of the ground combat system. As such we will be revisiting the game for an Impressions article after Season 4 hits, and we will as always re-evaluate our review in 6-12 months. "  :)

I think the review that counts is the number of people who bought the game at release and just left because it was trash and because Cryptic pulled stunts like lying about what features would be in the game, lied about unique items being available for lifetime subs, implied that tLTS were going to be a one-time pre-release offer, and then when there were so many problems, told us that we don't "get it".

Those people leaving probably speaks louder to me about whether spending money with Cryptic is going give me something that I value in the future.

Not a review by professional staff, and certainly not all the feel-good comments from the 40 people still playing the game.

Originally posted by BillMurphy

Hey all, just stepping in for some updates.

Firstly, we stand by Lori's score.  It may not be fair to everyone, but reviews are equal parts opinion and objective criticism.  In that much, Lori did very well.

Secondly, we are indeed instituting a new review process, and it has its share of growing pains.  Namely, in terms of "Re-Reviews" we're also changing our process there.  In short, going forward our Re-Reviews will basically be evaluations based upon the previous review.  We'll still cover the game in the listed categories in this review, and as such our scores are generally going to skew lower than before.  But, we'll try our damnedest next time to both a.) time the review better and b.) make sure we communicate why a score goes down or up.

Thanks for your patience and feedback.  It's all being heard.

I note that her scores are almost spot-on with the 400ish people who have reviewed the game with the "ratings" feature.

Which to me means that in spite of any improvements that have been made to the game, it's still the same junk product. I think your new process nailed it.

I'm interested to see re-reviews of games that I've played or am actively playing, looking forward to it!

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by J4ck_5p4rr0w

Originally posted by Everitt_Cage

Originally posted by BillMurphy

Yep, well aware that it\'s going to cause some noise, but we\'re not above hearing it.  My goal as editor is to make sure our reviews objectively rate each of what we consider the core tennants of the MMO.  The 7 categories within Lori\'s review reflect that.  And they\'ll be scored in every review from here on out.

 

I think you missed my question so I ask again, what other games have you scored down recently? And do you plan on making each \"re-review\" a featured news article like you did with this one?

 

I would like to hear the answer to this question as well.

Just a quick click on the front page shows the Free Realms re-review and it dropped from an 8.x to a 6.5.  Reviews are subjective.  Just saying, there is a front page re-review and the score was lowered.  I guess that answers the question, even though I'm not Bill Murphy. I just thought I'd throw some independent research out there for you.

 

You may not be Bill Murphy, but he sure wrote out a nice full response within less than 2 mins of your post... I think he might be stalking you!!!

Originally posted by Adamaicryptic studios have never really been too hot at makeing mmo's in the first place and sto oozes similarity with many of cryptics other titles. like city of heroes.

City of Heroes/Villains - Cryptic's 1st MMO

Champions Online - Cryptic's 2nd MMO

Star Trek Online - Cryptic's 3rd MMO

Fun fact: STO is built on the Champions Online game engine.  They literally took the Champions Online engine and used it to build STO.

Stunning graphics ?

STO has increased since release in most part for C-Store stuff and federation players content. The Klingons and their players have been kicked to the ground by the developers time and again with failed promises for content and additions. The through the casual bone or lied promise at the KDF players base while hidden developing even more goodies and incentives for the Feds. So sorry, but the game IMO deserves an even worse rating.

Thanks for the honest review. Appreciate it.

The "new score" was right..

The old was flawed and to high..

But I guess this game is alright if you are a Star Trek fan, and that is all that reallly means something ..right ?

The games iright if one want to play  federation. It's Bridge Commander made online with a monthly fee.

The Devs do not even pretend to favour faction equality as they had more the a year to bring the KDF on par with the Federation. They should have renamed or rereleased the game as FEDERATION ONLINE a long time ago.

Originally posted by BillMurphy

But, we'll try our damnedest next time to both a.) time the review better and b.) make sure we communicate why a score goes down or up.

Thanks for your patience and feedback.  It's all being heard.

 Both good ideas.

On a different but kinda relevant point, I'd really like to see a re-review of WoW done using this new system. I've always found it odd that this site & members seem to hold WoW in such low regard when so many people actually play it, arguably the most played western mmo currently.

Hey Lori May!

you have been too kind in your review score. Star Trek Online is so buggy it is unplayable with  64BIT Win 7 install. The tech support for this game is non exsistant, I contacted support 14 times and not once did I receive a reply,. Oh! and it wasn't just me whom had the same problems, thousands of other wannie be players suffer the same fate. "Fatal file error!" The game just exits. (And I downloaded & reinstalled 3 times)

Really really annoying, I just gave uop and delted this waste of HD space rubbish.

Any time I got to play for 5 mins though the ground combat seemed ok, but space combat was dismal, I was expecting a star wars galaxies type experience in space, how let down I was.

FINAL SCORE: 1

Total Crap!

Go Black Prophecy ---It is better and it's free

Really is bad timing, you've could've kept Lori's work and just amended references/scores relative to the ground combat update in two weeks, rather than put this up now.

For the people who think the score should have went up instead of down are forgetting the first review was way too high.  It should have been a 4.5 - 5. So in that sense, it went up.