In entertainment venues, the words "You Can't" are not a good recipie for success. This is the core of why I think STO is going to be a huge dissappointment for many fans. Because of the genre we are dealing with, people are going to come into the game with  expectations to be able to do certain things.... when they find out this is not supported, there is going to be a huge let down factor.

To illustrate, imagine this hypothetical conversation between Cryptic and a potential fan.

Fan - "I'm so stoked, I'm finaly going to be able to play an MMO where I can be the Chief Engineer aboard a starship in the Trek universe".

Cyptic - "I'm sorry but you can't play the Chief Engineer, you MUST be the Captain of your ship."

Fan - "What about my freind Bob, we played the FASA rpg...and he liked to play the Captain and I liked playing the Engineer. If I have to be Captain what does he play aboard our ship?"

Cryptic - "You can't play aboard the same ship with Bob, every ship is crewed by only a single player who MUST be Captain...all other positions MUST be filled by NPC's".

Fan - "That stinks. Well can I at least invite Bob aboard to show him all the tinkering I've done with the engines down in Engineering?"

Cryptic - "Sorry but you can't. Players can't beam over to other players ships. The only Player that can be aboard your ship is. You."

Fan - " So I can't be the Chief Engineer and I can't invite anyone aboard my ship. So what do I do when I tinker with stuff down in Engineering. Do I have to take screenshots to send them to other players to show off Engineering aboard my ship."

Cryptic - "I'm sorry but there IS no Engineering aboard your ship....or rather I should say it's not represented in game.... none of the interior areas aboard your ship are represented....so you can't go there, show them to anyone or tinker with any of the equipment there."

FAN - "So what happens in a fight when my front shield goes down and I do a half-loop to put my aft shields to the enemy. If cant goto Engineering, how do I get my front shield-back online? Does my NPC Engineer do it for me automaticaly?"

Cryptic - "Uhm...you can't do a half-loop in this game... we only support WASD movement and an elevator function.... there is no pitch or roll control"

FAN - "So what happens when I loose my front shield facing? How can I quickly manuver my ship so that I'm not exposing a weakend shield."

Cryptic - "Oh Don't worry about that.... shield facings are irrelevant... you can instantly transfer power to any shield facing you want by pressing a button on your hot-bar."

FAN - "Shield facings are irrelevant....and I'm limited in the control of movement and positioning of my ship. So what determines victory in Space Combat?"

Cryptic - "Ah well, if you do more damage to your opponent then they have hit points...er, I mean shield energy and structural points. Then you win!"

FAN - "Uhm.....so where do tactics come into play?"

Cryptic - "Oh that's easy... Depending upon your class... and upon the Pets...er I mean Bridge Crew you have equiped during the fight....you have certain specials on your hot-bar that buff you or debuff your enemies or let you do more powerfull attacks.... just like in WOW.... for instance there is a Photon Torpedoes of Doom special attack you can get that lets you fire 40 torpedoes all at once!"

FAN - "Photon Torpedos of Doom.... specials....this is SCIENCE Fiction we are talking about, not Magic right??? Don't torpedo tubes have a certain built in rate of fire.... how can you explain how stuff like that is supposed to work?? "

Cryptic - "Oh....easy.... we don't"
 

Cryptic - do you understand what i'm talking about?

Fan - blah, blah blah, will it be fun?

Cryptic -  yes

Fans - :)

LOL.........the basic absence of any 3d movement in a space MMO is rediculous as any good space RTS game has this.

I forsee not a lot of people playing this.

man, it's "star trek" build it, and they will come.....

 This game is gunna fail just like SGW did. Both of the 2 biggest hits on TV can't make a good MMO. Just utter failure.

Yup. Tons of can't = lots of won't.

Are all the MMO devs in competition to see who can screw up an IP the worst? Because it's clear they aren't trying to do them justice.

ah come on, you don't think if SGW would have been done as a sandbox skill based system, with some planets disignated as full loot pvp planets and planets that could be faction controlled to get guild bonus, crafting requiring resources from all over the galaxy to have a chance to craft best items...you don't think this would have been fun, of course this wasn't what they were makin, but the potential is there.... and to even group "star trek" with sgw is an injustice to their fans,,,man trekkies are fanatics, just give them their own bridge to sit in, it doesn't even need to be able to leave starport, they will sub :)

Originally posted by yavozerb

man, it's "star trek" build it, and they will come.....

I'm betting that's just what the makers of Matrix Online said.

woah,,that was soe, and we all know they could screw up anything good :)

Originally posted by yavozerb

ah come on, you don't think if SGW would have been done as a sandbox skill based system, with some planets disignated as full loot pvp planets and planets that could be faction controlled to get guild bonus, crafting requiring resources from all over the galaxy to have a chance to craft best items...you don't think this would have been fun, of course this wasn't what they were makin, but the potential is there.... and to even group "star trek" with sgw is an injustice to their fans,,,man trekkies are fanatics, just give them their own bridge to sit in, it doesn't even need to be able to leave starport, they will sub :)

StarGate Worlds problems at this point have little to do with game design decisions.... they have to do with financial mismanagement..... and picking a CEO and upper management staff with questionable business ethics (i.e. being sued by investors for fraud and misappropriation of funds is NOT a good sign.... Of course it should have come as a hint when one of the  chief underlings the guy appointed had already been bared for life from trading in securties in his home state for similar issues in the past.)

STO made (IMO) alot of bad design decisions..... SGW is the legal/financial/business worlds version of an episode of the Jerry Springer show. It's so ugly.....as much as I disilke Cryptics decisions....I wouldn't even mention the two in the same breath.

Originally posted by yavozerb

woah,,that was soe, and we all know they could screw up anything good :)

SOE has enough stuff that you can blame them for without making stuff up. Nice try though.

As for the Star Trek thing, I bring up the argument that hasn't been refuted by the multi-player crew group. How do you make each thing fun to play.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by yavozerb

ah come on, you don't think if SGW would have been done as a sandbox skill based system, with some planets disignated as full loot pvp planets and planets that could be faction controlled to get guild bonus, crafting requiring resources from all over the galaxy to have a chance to craft best items...you don't think this would have been fun, of course this wasn't what they were makin, but the potential is there.... and to even group "star trek" with sgw is an injustice to their fans,,,man trekkies are fanatics, just give them their own bridge to sit in, it doesn't even need to be able to leave starport, they will sub :)

 

StarGate Worlds problems at this point have little to do with game design decisions.... they have to do with financial mismanagement..... and picking a CEO and upper management staff with questionable business ethics (i.e. being sued by investors for fraud and misappropriation of funds is NOT a good sign.... Of course it should have come as a hint when one of the  chief underlings the guy appointed had already been bared for life from trading in securties in his home state for similar issues in the past.)

STO made (IMO) alot of bad design decisions..... SGW is the legal/financial/business worlds version of an episode of the Jerry Springer show. It's so ugly.....as much as I disilke Cryptics decisions....I wouldn't even mention the two in the same breath.

so it sounds like your whole point is SGW could never have been a good ggame because cheyenne mountain ( i think that was their name) was a stupid company.  and i agree they were stupid and even the game they were makin would have been a failure, but if SGW would have been done as a sandbox skill based system, with some planets disignated as full loot pvp planets and planets that could be faction controlled to get guild bonus, crafting requiring resources from all over the galaxy to have a chance to craft best items it would have been a good game,,thats all i'm saying....nothing about company, or ceo's cousin that you may go to school with, i'm just talking about the game......it could have been good.

Originally posted by Keyh

Originally posted by yavozerb

woah,,that was soe, and we all know they could screw up anything good :)

 

SOE has enough stuff that you can blame them for without making stuff up. Nice try though.

 

As for the Star Trek thing, I bring up the argument that hasn't been refuted by the multi-player crew group. How do you make each thing fun to play.

yup, getting back to star trek, man i have no idea how they can be made and still be fun, but hey i will wait and try it before i start saying "its gonna fail" so my whole point is i really think if done right you may not even notice the missing elements...if you are having "fun" in a game its really easy to miss or overlook the "wadda been nice" features of a game. so i say, i will wait till i can play it and check how it scores on my "fun" meter :)

Oh yeah...I think StarGate is an awesome IP for an MMO. In many ways, with the Gate thing and visiting different worlds with a small team of experts....and combat playing a major role...it's the PERFECT setup for an MMO type game.

I don't even think the design decisions that SGW made about the game itself (from what little I know of them) were that bad.... the train wreck there seems to be all on the management side.

The problem with STO....in my opinion stems from the design team sitting down at the outset and rather then saying...

"How do we figure out how to make a game that fits the Star Trek IP."

They said....

"How do we figure out how to make the Star Trek IP fit the type of game we're familiar with making."

Therein lies the problem as far as I see it.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Oh yeah...I think StarGate is an awesome IP for an MMO. In many ways, with the Gate thing and visiting different worlds with a small team of experts....and combat playing a major role...it's the PERFECT setup for an MMO type game.

I don't even think the design decisions that SGW made about the game itself (from what little I know of them) were that bad.... the train wreck there seems to be all on the management side.

The problem with STO....in my opinion stems from the design team sitting down at the outset and rather then saying...

"How do we figure out how to make a game that fits the Star Trek IP."

They said....

"How do we figure out how to make the Star Trek IP fit the type of game we're familiar with making."

 

Therein lies the problem as far as I see it.

heh, i think its more like: hey bill how much to make a really cool star trek game? (bill scribbles a large number down on a piece of paper and slides it across the table) Hmmm, bill how much to take that old fantasy game and make elves now look like federation ships, dwarves will be vulcan ships, and take humans and trolls out for our first expansion, turn trees into comets, rocks into far away stars, and bushes into suns (bill writes another number then slides the papaer again) This is the game we're making!!
 

thus a new mmorpg is born

Originally posted by Keyh

Originally posted by yavozerb

woah,,that was soe, and we all know they could screw up anything good :)

 

SOE has enough stuff that you can blame them for without making stuff up. Nice try though.

 

As for the Star Trek thing, I bring up the argument that hasn't been refuted by the multi-player crew group. How do you make each thing fun to play.

It's already been refuted a thousands times already. Here is the thing "fun" while critical to a games success is a very subjective thing. Every person has a different view of what is fun. While there may, indeed, be no way to make being the Chief Engineer or Ships Doctor fun for YOU..... there are plenty of people who will enjoy that type of play.

I could counter your question by asking "How do you make a game where every play is the Captain of a ship FUN for people who don't like to be in command???"

Here is the thing Commanding a ship dictates a certain function and role and style of play.....and while different ships and different branches might allow for SLIGHTLY different experiences...the core of what you are doing is the same.

It's kinda like having a game where (in standard fantasy MMO terms) RANGED DPS is the only role available to the player. Now a Wizard and a Hunter might be slightly different flavors of that Role and play slightly differently....but thier essentialy filling the same slot...and the style of play they offer has alot of similarties.  For guys who actualy like to play TANKS and Healers....that game is going to be pretty much a non-starter.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by Keyh

Originally posted by yavozerb

woah,,that was soe, and we all know they could screw up anything good :)

 

SOE has enough stuff that you can blame them for without making stuff up. Nice try though.

 

As for the Star Trek thing, I bring up the argument that hasn't been refuted by the multi-player crew group. How do you make each thing fun to play.

 

It's already been refuted a thousands times already. Here is the thing "fun" while critical to a games success is a very subjective thing. Every person has a different view of what is fun. While there may, indeed, be no way to make being the Chief Engineer or Ships Doctor fun for YOU..... there are plenty of people who will enjoy that type of play.

I could counter your question by asking "How do you make a game where every play is the Captain of a ship FUN for people who don't like to be in command???"

Here is the thing Commanding a ship dictates a certain function and role and style of play.....and while different ships and different branches might allow for SLIGHTLY different experiences...the core of what you are doing is the same.

It's kinda like having a game where (in standard fantasy MMO terms) RANGED DPS is the only role available to the player. Now a Wizard and a Hunter might be slightly different flavors of that Role and play slightly differently....but thier essentialy filling the same slot...and the style of play they offer has alot of similarties.  For guys who actualy like to play TANKS and Healers....that game is going to be pretty much a non-starter.

 

 

i bet it was about them sitting around saying we would like to include all those features but then release date would be 2011/12 but save those for a future expansion and release core game in 2010, but the key to this is if they do plan in the future to add it and design game to accept those updates easily later on, if they have no plans to ever add these features then current system would have to be revamped for an expansion...no cost effective

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by Keyh

Originally posted by yavozerb

woah,,that was soe, and we all know they could screw up anything good :)

 

SOE has enough stuff that you can blame them for without making stuff up. Nice try though.

 

As for the Star Trek thing, I bring up the argument that hasn't been refuted by the multi-player crew group. How do you make each thing fun to play.

 

It's already been refuted a thousands times already. Here is the thing "fun" while critical to a games success is a very subjective thing. Every person has a different view of what is fun. While there may, indeed, be no way to make being the Chief Engineer or Ships Doctor fun for YOU..... there are plenty of people who will enjoy that type of play.

I could counter your question by asking "How do you make a game where every play is the Captain of a ship FUN for people who don't like to be in command???"

Here is the thing Commanding a ship dictates a certain function and role and style of play.....and while different ships and different branches might allow for SLIGHTLY different experiences...the core of what you are doing is the same.

It's kinda like having a game where (in standard fantasy MMO terms) RANGED DPS is the only role available to the player. Now a Wizard and a Hunter might be slightly different flavors of that Role and play slightly differently....but thier essentialy filling the same slot...and the style of play they offer has alot of similarties.  For guys who actualy like to play TANKS and Healers....that game is going to be pretty much a non-starter.

 

 

Saying "Other people have a different view of what is fun." is not an argument.  Here, I'll set up a skeleton

What will the Captain do?

What will the helm do?

What will the Engineer do?

What will the Doctor do?

What will the tactical officer do?

I'm sure that sitting around doing nothing for most of the playtime IS fun to a small percentage of people, but good luck selling it.

You can only do so much. Period really.

If they were to make a game EXACTLY like Star Trek, graphics and all... I could only imagine the developement time, the required playtime just to stay at a decent place in the game... etc.

Sure, I'd love to be able to be a crewman on a ship for a guild... but I can see how it'd be difficult to make a game based on that idea. You'd pretty much have to make a game for each department, and even then, there's only so much you can do.  I am sure many would get bored VERY quickly with having only one very specific thing to do.

What  is happening here is people are EXPECTING something from this game. You honestly goot no right to. It's kind of like going on a blind date, and EXPECTING her to have a specific waist size, a certain hair color, nice eyes, a good smile, and if she doesn't then by all the gods she's a monster and how dare this date ever happen.

Just wait for official launch, try it out, and chances are it'll be alright. Additionally, there will surely be expansions and patches and such.

And so long as an MMO has enough subs to pay for the costs of maintaining it, it will not fail. DO NOT think that an MMO has to have millions of players, be ranked #1, and set the standard for all games to follow in order to succeed. The reality is that those MMO days are OVER. A game can have less than a million players and still be just dandy.

I personally look forward to giving STO a try. But then again, I am basing my desire to play based on what has been presented as the game, NOT what I think the game should be.

Originally posted by DanaDark

What  is happening here is people are EXPECTING something from this game. You honestly goot no right to. It's kind of like going on a blind date, and EXPECTING her to have a specific waist size, a certain hair color, nice eyes, a good smile, and if she doesn't then by all the gods she's a monster and how dare this date ever happen.

Wrong. Once they chose to make a Star Trek game, they took on the expectations of the fan base. They use the name to get attention for their game.

It`s not going on a blind date, it`s going on a date with Jessica Alba. You have every right to certain expectations. You don`t expect her to show up in sweats, greasy hair, and wearing no make up.

Okay,  I`d still go out with her -  but she`s JESSICA ALBA!