What is BAD with STonLine

[sirNemanjapro]

Hi,

I would like to offer my congrats on the whole team of people that are creating this beautiful web site, I know it took some time to get where they\we are now.

When I saw the trailer I saw the first of mine fears. LIGHT
Everything is so illuminated that it looks like a lit up Christmas tree. You know, space, is a DARK place. You cant see ships that are lighted all over. You have this in some documentary, when they created the first USS Enterprise back in TOS. You know why the vessel has that front light? Because other way you cant see it in space, and to show its designation, but that came latter.

So like in Legacy (boy, was that a crap peace of software) you can see ships that are bright and shiny.

Another thing, the surrounding's? And is this time of NEXT GEN games or are we going back to Commodore64? Those textures? Dear God!

I for once chose not to play this game until the time developers started to think about Star Trek like it is, not how they would like to display it.

I strongly suggest that you look back on some older games, WAY older and learn something about them.

[sirNemanjapro]

KidBang how do you picture the space? I would realy like to hear that one.

For once, Im not saying it should be pitch dark, or like Doom3, just go easy on the light.

[LordDave]

Ahh such angry people. This is what I live for:


First of all, and you really need to know this, the ship battles? Inside a gas cloud. A gas cloud inside a star system. So they are lit up in the same way that an airplane is lit while flying. Check out the screenshots of the orbital stations. It's not so lit. Though they do use a fair amount of glow textures, I like it.

Secondly: The 3rd person bridge fight textures did look kinda basic. But my assumption is that the game is... wait for it.... NOT DONE!
I know, surprising right? You'd think that a pre-alpha teaser trailer would have all the art in it done, finalized, and what-not. But I guess we'll just have to wait...

[Omega1]

Hi,

I would like to offer my congrats on the whole team of people that are creating this beautiful web site, I know it took some time to get where they\we are now.

When I saw the trailer I saw the first of mine fears. LIGHT
Everything is so illuminated that it looks like a lit up Christmas tree. You know, space, is a DARK place. You cant see ships that are lighted all over. You have this in some documentary, when they created the first USS Enterprise back in TOS. You know why the vessel has that front light? Because other way you cant see it in space, and to show its designation, but that came latter.

So like in Legacy (boy, was that a crap peace of software) you can see ships that are bright and shiny.

Another thing, the surrounding's? And is this time of NEXT GEN games or are we going back to Commodore64? Those textures? Dear God!

I for once chose not to play this game until the time developers started to think about Star Trek like it is, not how they would like to display it.

I strongly suggest that you look back on some older games, WAY older and learn something about them.


You know your right, this game looks rubbish.....i'm never going to play it now...well unless they improve it in the time they have until release....which is what, 1 or 2 years, lol :p

[sirNemanjapro]

I hope they do.

[sirNemanjapro]

^Are you a developer of the game?

Its not a Graphiic sucks! post its a change something post. which I hope they will.

If we go, as you say, do I know this or that. Were you ever in space? No. So?

[CinC-UFPForces-Cardassia]

Hi,

I would like to offer my congrats on the whole team of people that are creating this beautiful web site, I know it took some time to get where they\we are now.

When I saw the trailer I saw the first of mine fears. LIGHT
Everything is so illuminated that it looks like a lit up Christmas tree. You know, space, is a DARK place. You cant see ships that are lighted all over. You have this in some documentary, when they created the first USS Enterprise back in TOS. You know why the vessel has that front light? Because other way you cant see it in space, and to show its designation, but that came latter.

So like in Legacy (boy, was that a crap peace of software) you can see ships that are bright and shiny.

Another thing, the surrounding's? And is this time of NEXT GEN games or are we going back to Commodore64? Those textures? Dear God!

I for once chose not to play this game until the time developers started to think about Star Trek like it is, not how they would like to display it.

I strongly suggest that you look back on some older games, WAY older and learn something about them.

There's currently an active graphics thread - entitled, appropriately, "The Graphics Thread" - that might be a more appropriate place to participate in the discussion of the textures.

With regard to the in-game lighting - well, I'm not 100% sure whether you're saying that starships are too brightly lit, or not sufficiently lit; that the lighting is too much, or too little. If the argument is that they're too brightly lit, well - I think it's probably necessary for us to be able to see our starships. It's one of those concessions that's just going to have to be accepted for effective gameplay - if it's a concession at all. I don't know that it is.

In fact, I'd argue that the starship models in the television series are lit far less realistically than what's presented in the ST:O trailer.

[Angelphoenix12]

I reallt think the game has the right amount of lighting.

[Cryptic_Fan_101]

Were you ever in space?

Were you?

Personally, no, I've never left lower Earth's atmosphere. But I have had the privilege to view the night's sky under optimal conditions (total absence of light pollution, cloud cover, etc.). If you've seen what I've seen, I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be having this discussion. In short, space isn't quite as dark as you've been led to believe.

But that's neither here nor there, as if you've ever watched the tv shows, the fiction isn't particularly dark either.

[walltar]

I dont know why but is isnt good to have too much real vision in space. I can see real space on NASA photos. I just want to see my oponent on my monitor. And why we need spaceships if we cant see them ? :cool:

[Quarion]

I've gone through and deleted all of the inappropriate posts in this thread.

Please keep the insults and name-calling to yourselves.

#1 rule of any forum community: If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, its best not to add anything at all.

Thanks for your cooperation!
-Quarion

[IanD967]

When I saw the trailer I saw the first of mine fears. LIGHT
Everything is so illuminated that it looks like a lit up Christmas tree. You know, space, is a DARK place. You cant see ships that are lighted all over.

the reason most things are really bright is because of the fleet battle taking place near a sun :) it has got dynamic lighting and the game looks pretty dark from the other shots we have seen (Fleet approaching a planet, Borg sphere battle, Sov. class doinga fly-by of a planet)

and welcome! :D

[Catamount]

Yeah I don't think the presence of well lit objects in space necessarily means that space itself will look unrealistically bight. It's possible to have bright objects against a dark background. HDR lighting is going to be an absolute must in this game for this reason. Of course, it'd be somewhat shameful to have a post-2008 game without HDR lighting anyways so I'm not worried. As for the textures... well I have to be honest I haven't seen anything in the videos or screenshots that look particularly bad. In fact, looking at the textures in Cryptic's screenshots (which curiously omit the ready room screenshot we've seen in the past) I see nothing but clear textures that look pretty sharp to me (and I'm pretty dang nitpicky about graphics, mind you). Am I totally blown away with the visuals in this game? Of course not, I've played Crysis. NO MMO is going to impress me after that game. That said, Cryptic is doing a fine job on the graphics in my opinion and I'm really excited about this game.

[TheMasterpiece]

well first of all, if everything was just black and empty that wouldnt be much fun would it? who wants to stare at a black screen?

the textures look fine as do the graphics

[thefreshjedi]

I see a lot of people arguing over lighting in space. Remember light is relative to the distance it travels from it's source in a vacuum. It is possible to experience total darkness, even in space, based on your perspective, and what, if anything is blocking the available light source.

Star fields in the background will still generate light, but that is because their light is continuing to travel through space to reach your eyes. The only light relative to your perspective will be the light generated by the nearby star, and that light can be distorted by any object that comes between it and your field of view.

If you really want to get technical, Star Trek is completely wrong in one other aspect: there is no sound in space. You could not truly hear anything in a vacuum. So if you really want to nit-pick it, you would have to look at real physics and apply those to Star Trek, but as we all know from canon, movies, etc., there was plenty of sound in space, made by the starships they rode in, explosions, phaser blasts, etc.

Speaking of explosions...there wouldn't really be true "explosions" in space either....it would actually be more of an implosion, as the gas inside the ship tried to expel itself quicker to reach the outside, the internal structure of the ship would collapse inwards...

Just some thoughts.

-Avery

[TheMasterpiece]

sigh, again, the only thing that matters is that this is a game. we cant travel at greater than light speeds either so do you want to take warp out of the game? impulse should go as well, phasers, transporters, photon torpedos, and so much more. Its a game, its for fun, lets enjoy it :)

[ExAstris]

Actually, the surface of Earth (assumedly where you live) is less lit than the immediate surrounding space. Some of the light bounces off the atmosphere before it gets here.

Otherwise, the lux factor of local space is inversely proportional to the distance from the local star and directly proportional to the total intensity of star. Effectively the apparent magnitude of the sum of the relevant stars is all that matters for how well lit something is. However, being near a star does lead to more unilateral shading than we generally see in the series, its a forgivable error for the sake of seeing our pretty ship models :)

Other problems you run into with more realistic lighting schemes is how to adjust for deep space. You're eyes automatically adjust to various lighting levels... so how much of that should the game do? Also, being nearer to a star in real life makes things blindingly bright (its also many thousands of degrees C). So without compensations built into the game, you'd end up with something like was seen in Sunshine, the light would be so intense it would litterally cook you to dust.

My 2 cents. The lighting needs to let us see what is happening easily above all else. And it would be cool if we had some cool lighting/shading effects to boot, but they aren't required.

If anyone wants to see rediculously good lighting effects, play Crysis on a high end machine... sometimes I have trouble playing that game... partly because the gameplay is mediocre, but moreso because the graphics are distractingly good.

[V_GER]

(( Realistic lighting would make for a pretty dull game if your ship was not lit from a light source, that said, the sound effects would be gone as well seeing as though there are no sounds in space - lol.

...besides, have you seen pictures from the hubble telescope, there are bright beautiful glorious nebula all over the place. In short our imagination can't do justice to what is truely out there. ))

[TheMasterpiece]

indeed, all of you should look at the astronomy picture of the day website (google it) and youll see some fascinating things. not to mention very colorful nebula

[Duras]

What is BAD with S T O ?

err... The wait of course.

[thefreshjedi]

sigh, again, the only thing that matters is that this is a game. we cant travel at greater than light speeds either so do you want to take warp out of the game? impulse should go as well, phasers, transporters, photon torpedos, and so much more. Its a game, its for fun, lets enjoy it :)

;) That's my point, exactly.

-Avery

[RandomRedshirt]

I'm sorry but these just weren't serious concerns, anymore than they were reasons to give up on the game.

So what you are saying is any concerns about immersion factor, RP elements and the non-combat functions within STO simply aren't important?

I'm not buying it.

The guy had a point. His point was everything we have seen and heard and read up to this point suggests that this game will be more closely related to a console space shooter than a Trek MMORPG. I'd say that for those of us who were hoping for a game that would give us the true Trek experience, we have sufficient reason for alarm, ESPECIALLY since we have 4 years of this behind us now days.

[Dustnite]

The guy had a point. His point was everything we have seen and heard and read up to this point suggests that this game will be more closely related to a console space shooter than a Trek MMORPG. I'd say that for those of us who were hoping for a game that would give us the true Trek experience, we have sufficient reason for alarm, ESPECIALLY since we have 4 years of this behind us now days.

Um, I believe his complaints were all about graphics, lighting and textures. Didn't see anything about it being co developed on a console (as if that mattered anyways).

This isn't PE's game anyways. PE made vaporware it's a dead idea that would be a monster to develop. I thought Star Trek could use a game to boost it's dying IP rather than drift endlessly in production...

[RandomRedshirt]

Um, I believe his complaints were all about graphics, lighting and textures. Didn't see anything about it being co developed on a console (as if that mattered anyways).

This isn't PE's game anyways. PE made vaporware it's a dead idea that would be a monster to develop. I thought Star Trek could use a game to boost it's dying IP rather than drift endlessly in production...


Firstly, we were just discussing another thread which is now locked. Not about the OP.

Secondly, Star Trek COULD use a game too boost the franchise. But not another space shooter. Those have been done already. What it needs is another game that is true to the Trek ideals, and really gives the player the feeling of being a part of the universe, not a blast'em up shoot everything bang bang game.

I fully admit, I may be wrong about my impression of what STO is shaping up to be, but generally my gut feeling doesn't let me down too often, and right now my gut feeling is that STO will just be another space shooter. That it is being developed for consoles too suggests that it will be very over-simplified, because consoles simply can't handle complex games with complex controls like a PC with a keyboard and mouse can.

[Catamount]

Well, he was saying the concerns the other guy had about STO were meaningless, and those concerns were about basically everything OTHER than combat, touching on Immersion factor, RP elements and non-combat.

So yes, that's kind of what he was getting at.

Don't get me wrong, that particular thread did erupt in flames, but I feel that the guy's concerns were genuine, and now there can't be anymore discussion about it because of the flamers who shut that thread down.

I have never said I don't have immersion concerns with ST:O. I for one am an advocate of having things like rules to ship naming, I just don't express those concerns by self-righteously parading around saying "oh look at me, I'm such a good Star Trek fan for giving up on this game long before it even enters closed beta because I somehow know everything about what is going to be right and wrong with it at this early stage". As I said, it's hard to say that his concerns had meaning when they were either A.) Flat Wrong or B.) based on an assumption of something that is currently unknown. I'm not saying concerns over depth and immersion aren't valid, I'm just saying THOSE concerns about depth and immersion weren't. At least not at this point.

[RandomRedshirt]

Everything you see is only 2 months old, that's why were asking you to step back for a second and really look at all we have. Let's take some good things from what we've heard. We know that combat is going to be in depth, which I love because that was one of my major complaints with EvE. We know that we have an engine in place and the game is happening. We know that there will sometimes be alternatives to fighting as been stated in past threads (too lazy to find actual post.)

Really, we have 2 months of info and little tidbits and not even past the 3rd Ask Cryptic. It's really early to be judging a game that's especially this alpha. Personally, I never thought a good trek game could ever exist because it required to be too mired in canon but I'm liking how Cryptic is going with it.

We may only have 2 months of information, but this game has been in production longer than just 2 months. And I'm not talking about PE. I'm talking about Cryptic. It's obvious they have been working on this since around January.

And I don't put alot of stock into those Ask Cryptic things, because they tend to sidestep the hard questions about real issues and only answer fluff questions about information that has already been revealed.

People said for a long time after the PE debacle (and I was an advocate of this idea too) that in order to regain the trust and enthusiasm of the fans, and to try and make up for the issues with PE and the state the game was left in, total transparency by Cryptic was necessary. No, I'm not saying they need to tell us every minute detail, but we do need to know that our voices are heard and our concerns are addressed. After all, Cryptic expects us to PAY for this thing, so I'd hope they were truly interested in building what people WANT to PAY for, not something they simply think they can GET people to pay for.

[Catamount]

At the same time, I would challenge you, and everyone else, to really look at everything that we have seen, heard and read. 90% of what has been covered is combat. So given that, how can anyone NOT have the impression that STO will be nothing more than a space shooter?

I'm not trying to be contentious here, but honestly, everything I see is combat, and since I was never interested in STO for combat, why shouldn't I be skeptical?

I'm not sure precisely what else you'd like them to talk about. Do you want them to talk about exploration? Here's what everyone (including the devs) knows at this point. There's a universe. It's big. There's not really much else to say at this point. I'm sure when they start getting real progress on various planets and such that we'll hear more about that but right now the game is really in its infancy. I'm also not sure what kind of game you're looking for here. Peace, and exploration and holding hands singing Kumbaya may be great for a television series like Star Trek, but it just doesn't suit a video game well. I'm a fan of Star Trek for many things beyond the fact that quantum torpedos make pretty explosions, and yet we want combat to be the center of a video game. That way the game has a venue for competition.

I certainly hope you haven't forgotten that the whole point of games (especially multiplayer computer games) is to compete and/or to overcome obstacles. Running around a planet with nothing to do but take tri-corder readings would be really fun for about 10 minutes, but after that I'll be the first to admit that my first inclination is going to be going out and finding something to shoot. It has to be remembered that we're gamers first and Star Trek fans second. Plenty of gamers who are indifferent about Trek will like this game, but no Trekkie who doesn't play or like video games is going to be part of it. With that in mind, it's as a GAMER that I'm really excited about combat. I'm all for lectures on peace and cooperation and a non-competitive activity in which to "enrich" myself as Picard says, but if I'm looking for that, I'll go read the New York Times. I'm coming here because of the exciting prospect of seeing the Star Trek world first hand, and then using my favorite ships to blow people into space dust.

Oh, and of course Cryptic side steps hard questions on the game, they don't have particularly hard data to answer them with. A lot is going to change from now until release, and they wouldn't want to say anything that turns out to not be true 10 months down the road.

[doam]

Firstly, we were just discussing another thread which is now locked. Not about the OP.

Secondly, Star Trek COULD use a game too boost the franchise. But not another space shooter. Those have been done already. What it needs is another game that is true to the Trek ideals, and really gives the player the feeling of being a part of the universe, not a blast'em up shoot everything bang bang game.

I fully admit, I may be wrong about my impression of what STO is shaping up to be, but generally my gut feeling doesn't let me down too often, and right now my gut feeling is that STO will just be another space shooter. That it is being developed for consoles too suggests that it will be very over-simplified, because consoles simply can't handle complex games with complex controls like a PC with a keyboard and mouse can.


Weren't you one of the eternal sunshine boys, back under the PE flag? Why so negitive now? Don't let PE's lies corrupt you. Every time someone said "They can't do that, it'd be impossible to release a game like that..." (and it was said, often) and then PE came out and said "Hai gaiz wer gunna do dat!" well, guess why? Because they weren't going to do that. At all.

Your gut was wrong about PE, and I say it's wrong here too.

[Catamount]

I also have to wonder about the gross cynicism I'm seeing. It's nothing new to me on forums, but I still don't understand it.

[RandomRedshirt]

I'm not sure precisely what else you'd like them to talk about. Do you want them to talk about exploration? Here's what everyone (including the devs) knows at this point. There's a universe. It's big. There's not really much else to say at this point. I'm sure when they start getting real progress on various planets and such that we'll hear more about that but right now the game is really in its infancy. I'm also not sure what kind of game you're looking for here. Peace, and exploration and holding hands singing Kumbaya may be great for a television series like Star Trek, but it just doesn't suit a video game well. I'm a fan of Star Trek for many things beyond the fact that quantum torpedos make pretty explosions, and yet we want combat to be the center of a video game. That way the game has a venue for competition.

I certainly hope you haven't forgotten that the whole point of games (especially multiplayer computer games) is to compete and/or to overcome obstacles. Running around a planet with nothing to do but take tri-corder readings would be really fun for about 10 minutes, but after that I'll be the first to admit that my first inclination is going to be going out and finding something to shoot. It has to be remembered that we're gamers first and Star Trek fans second. Plenty of gamers who are indifferent about Trek will like this game, but no Trekkie who doesn't play or like video games is going to be part of it. With that in mind, it's as a GAMER that I'm really excited about combat. I'm all for lectures on peace and cooperation and a non-competitive activity in which to "enrich" myself as Picard says, but if I'm looking for that, I'll go read the New York Times. I'm coming here because of the exciting prospect of seeing the Star Trek world first hand, and then using my favorite ships to blow people into space dust.

Oh, and of course Cryptic side steps hard questions on the game, they don't have particularly hard data to answer them with. A lot is going to change from now until release, and they wouldn't want to say anything that turns out to not be true 10 months down the road.

Maybe I'm hoping they will come out and say they are building an STO where exploration is the primary function, where making first contact is something to enjoy and not just something you have to do in order to get levels/experience. Maybe I'm hoping they'll say that combat will be the last resort, and that just like in Starfleet, there is consequences.

While we are all gamers, that does not mean that the Trek franchise should be twisted and turned to fit a game mold. Outside of the Dominion War in DS9, combat is not the norm in Starfleet. Exploration and science is their mission.

I have always questioned if it was even a good idea to make an MMO based on Trek. More and more I believe I was right to question it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, perhaps I'm the only one that feels this way, but I don't think that combat should be the center of this game. It does not reflect what Trek is supposed to be about, and if this game turns out to be combat centric as I have a feeling that it will, I won't be playing it either.

If I want Trek combat, I can play Bridge Commander, Legacy or Elite Force.

[doam]

We may only have 2 months of information, but this game has been in production longer than just 2 months. And I'm not talking about PE. I'm talking about Cryptic. It's obvious they have been working on this since around January.

And I don't put alot of stock into those Ask Cryptic things, because they tend to sidestep the hard questions about real issues and only answer fluff questions about information that has already been revealed.

People said for a long time after the PE debacle (and I was an advocate of this idea too) that in order to regain the trust and enthusiasm of the fans, and to try and make up for the issues with PE and the state the game was left in, total transparency by Cryptic was necessary. No, I'm not saying they need to tell us every minute detail, but we do need to know that our voices are heard and our concerns are addressed. After all, Cryptic expects us to PAY for this thing, so I'd hope they were truly interested in building what people WANT to PAY for, not something they simply think they can GET people to pay for.


Well heck, I can do that for them!

http://www.champions-online.com/dev_blog/evolution_of_game_design_rethinking_archetypes


Despite all of the complications and dependencies, at the end of the day it's the user experience that matters. A gamer typically doesn't really care how or why a game gets created: they care about if a game is fun. "Fun" is a highly subjective term, but most game designers get into the industry because they like games and want to create a fun game experience for other gamers. In short, a game designer wants to provide the most fun game experience for the most players.

That's why listening to a game community is very important for game designers – especially during game implementation prior to launch. MMORPGs in particular are social games – they're all about playing a game for a considerable length of time while interacting with other gamers. It's part of a game designer's responsibility to listen to community feedback with regards to game design and consider the aggregate of their ideas when discussing revisions to the initial game design while staying true to the vision goals of the project.

Let's talk about archetypes with regards to evolving game designs in Champions Online. Earlier on in the design of Champions Online we discussed how archetypes such as Brick, Energy Projector, etc., filled certain roles in the Champions universe and how each archetype gained bonuses to powers typical of their role. Power selection wasn't restricted by archetype – archetypes just provided bonuses to certain types of powers. The idea was to break the "class" mold prevalent in so many other MMOs while still providing some guidance for players who were new to the superhero genre or new to gaming. However, when we discussed this briefly in one of the Cryptic Q&A sessions, the prevailing reaction by the community was strongly against any type of archetype bonuses whatsoever, no matter how small. Many people pointed to the "total customization" experience touted for Champions Online, and how making archetype distinctions effectively restricted power choice by creating optimum and non-optimum groupings of powers.

Collectively, the Champions Online community made us re-evaluate our initial game design with regards to archetypes. Considering our open power selection system, did we really need archetype bonuses? One of our vision goals was to provide a very flexible powers system to players that they can play with to their heart's content – why put impediments to this goal by adding in archetypes? We took the community feedback to heart and went back to the drawing board. We asked ourselves, would it be possible to create an open character creation system that still solved the same problems that character classes did? You'll need to stay tuned for the results!

In short: thank you for all your feedback to our game design articles. This is ultimately your game and we want to make sure we meet any reasonable expectations you might have. While it's impossible to please everyone, we'll do our best to review all your ideas and evolve the game design where we can.



Differant game... same company, same business practice. But don't, don't, DON'T expect them to gush at the mouth with info for you. They are Cryptic, they are cryptic.

[Dustnite]

People said for a long time after the PE debacle (and I was an advocate of this idea too) that in order to regain the trust and enthusiasm of the fans, and to try and make up for the issues with PE and the state the game was left in, total transparency by Cryptic was necessary. No, I'm not saying they need to tell us every minute detail, but we do need to know that our voices are heard and our concerns are addressed. After all, Cryptic expects us to PAY for this thing, so I'd hope they were truly interested in building what people WANT to PAY for, not something they simply think they can GET people to pay for.

Wow, don't know where to start here.

I know Cryptic isn't going to be transparent on a game thats in alpha development simply for the reaction we're seeing now. Once you state your going to do something you want to deliver it or the players will eat you alive for it. Case and point, when Enhancement Diversification rolled out in CoH and we see Jack stating "We will have no more major nerfs" and then he rolls out the Global Defense Nerf to compensate for ED's arrival.

So, they're going to be careful on what they give us especially since they aren't going to know exactly the game's entire makeup by now. They might have a general idea but that's all speculation by us.

I'm speaking personally from just interacting with devs in other MMOs I've played, it's never ever a good idea to give too much information away especially this early. So, yes they are going to dodge questions, it's the way this is played...

[Catamount]

You know, all of you people complaining about the focus on combat should give some attention to DOAM's signature. The Zero Punctuation review of EVE Online that he links (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/208-Eve-Online) is exactly the kind of thing that reminds me of why I'm optimistic about Cryptic's current direction for this game.

[doam]

You know, all of you people complaining about the focus on combat should give some attention to DOAM's signature. The Zero Puntcuation review of EVE Online that he links (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/208-Eve-Online) is exactly the kind of thing that reminds me of why I'm optimistic about Cryptic's current direction for this game.

Chook Chook Chook is better...

[RandomRedshirt]

Weren't you one of the eternal sunshine boys, back under the PE flag? Why so negitive now? Don't let PE's lies corrupt you. Every time someone said "They can't do that, it'd be impossible to release a game like that..." (and it was said, often) and then PE came out and said "Hai gaiz wer gunna do dat!" well, guess why? Because they weren't going to do that. At all.

Your gut was wrong about PE, and I say it's wrong here too.

ME? I was one of PE's sunshine boys?

I think you have me mistaken for someone else. If anything, I was rather impartial. I didn't subscribe to PE's vision, so I created my own, in the hopes that PE might pick up some of those ideas and run with them. Some of the things PE was looking at (or telling us they were looking at) were good ideas. But when I saw bad ideas, I was just as critical as anyone.

But I will say that I didn't go on there every day and call PE names and bash them every day. That wasn't my style. It's not my style here either. It's one thing to question the direction of this game and it's another to come out and say PE SUXXORS or CARTOON STUDIOS! I don't do that. But I do seriously debate my concerns, and my concern right now is that PE couldn't deliver on this, and Cryptic won't be able to either. Sure, they will roll out a STO, but it won't be an STO I'm interested in.

[Galv]

Maybe I'm hoping they will come out and say they are building an STO where exploration is the primary function, where making first contact is something to enjoy and not just something you have to do in order to get levels/experience. Maybe I'm hoping they'll say that combat will be the last resort, and that just like in Starfleet, there is consequences.

While we are all gamers, that does not mean that the Trek franchise should be twisted and turned to fit a game mold. Outside of the Dominion War in DS9, combat is not the norm in Starfleet. Exploration and science is their mission.

I have always questioned if it was even a good idea to make an MMO based on Trek. More and more I believe I was right to question it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, perhaps I'm the only one that feels this way, but I don't think that combat should be the center of this game. It does not reflect what Trek is supposed to be about, and if this game turns out to be combat centric as I have a feeling that it will, I won't be playing it either.

If I want Trek combat, I can play Bridge Commander, Legacy or Elite Force.

You don't have to play it, there'll be plenty of people that will. Cryptic can't please everyone it's impossible all they can do is try and make this the best Star Trek game possible an appeal to as many gamers and Trek fans they can. Sure some aren't going to like it (and i'm sure it won't be many) but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Catamount]

While we are all gamers, that does not mean that the Trek franchise should be twisted and turned to fit a game mold.
.

Why? It's worked well before, this time they're just going to throw a little more depth into it. As for your comments about how Starfleet is a peaceful organization with a fuzzy and warm inside made of puppies and adorable little children and cotton candy, I may hope this is mankind's future, but I'm not crusading against a video game because I feel that this perception of Star Trek will somehow be altered in my mind by playing a game. If other wrongly get the impression that Star Trek is about military encounters from playing then it just means they aren't trekkies and never would have been anyways, so nothing lost.

If I want Trek combat, I can play Bridge Commander, Legacy or Elite Force

It's good to see we're on the same page. Too bad I've already beaten all of those games.

[Cormoran]

Hi,

I would like to offer my congrats on the whole team of people that are creating this beautiful web site, I know it took some time to get where they\we are now.

When I saw the trailer I saw the first of mine fears. LIGHT
Everything is so illuminated that it looks like a lit up Christmas tree. You know, space, is a DARK place. You cant see ships that are lighted all over. You have this in some documentary, when they created the first USS Enterprise back in TOS. You know why the vessel has that front light? Because other way you cant see it in space, and to show its designation, but that came latter.

So like in Legacy (boy, was that a crap peace of software) you can see ships that are bright and shiny.



I agree with this, but it's something easily avoided ingame, simply turn down the ingame gamma settings. i'm not sure it'll have any, i'm just going on options that are available in 99% of other games.

Another thing, the surrounding's? And is this time of NEXT GEN games or are we going back to Commodore64? Those textures? Dear God!

You are, ofcourse, free to prove that a commodore 64 is able to play the game when it comes out, i'd love to see that.

I for once chose not to play this game until the time developers started to think about Star Trek like it is, not how they would like to display it.

I strongly suggest that you look back on some older games, WAY older and learn something about them.

Wait wait wait, your whole rant is on graphics then you tell cryptic to look at old games? ... i honestly don't get it.

And star trek is about many things to many people, however, i must admit, star trek being about the graphics is a new one to me.

[thefreshjedi]

I already stated this once here: http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=194041#post194041

But I'll re-copy it here, because I get a little hot under the collar when people bash PE.

From the above forum:

Um.. Perpetual Entertainment was not a "horrible" company.... they were doomed from the start simply for no-other reason than they picked financial backing that was not very sound to begin with. They were being financed by a company named "Gravity" which was a foreign company whose only successful release was a game (which also failed miserably) Ragnarok Online.

This was Gravity's most recent 20-F report to the SEC: 20-F (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1313310/000114554908001180/h02250e20vf.htm). Right at the begining of the quarterly report, Gravity summarized the problems they've had:

"...Ragnarok Online has been in the market for nearly six years and has reached maturity in most of our principal markets. Our failure to maintain, improve, update or enhance Ragnarok Online in a timely manner or successfully introduce it in attractive new markets such as the Middle East, CIS countries (the Commonwealth of Independent States, the association of former Soviet republics) and South America could lead to a continual decline in Ragnorak Online’s user base and the subscription revenues and royalties from this user base. This could lead to a continual decline in our overall revenues, which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations..."

It's all there in the report, black and white. They've essentially failed with the one successful game they've had, but are hopeful that they will be able to turn their company around, if you read the rest of the report...their stocks are in the crapper, and they are not doing very well at all. Like Perpetual, they had hoped that the release of ST:O would have turned their misfortune around, but they just couldn't afford the overhead for the production of a new game. Perpetual couldn't afford to keep its programmers hired because Gravity couldn't afford to pay them, and many of them worked for free for months, without salary to try to keep the production of ST:O up and running, and sadly they could not secure alternative funding.

So while you sit behind your screen pounding out obscenities on these forums, eating well and drinking well, many of the Perpetual staff were quite literally slaving themselves away to attempt to produce this game, before the well dried up, and finally PE had to close it's doors. The only "horrible" thing PE did was secure funding from the wrong company, and why? Because they failed to do a little market research before shaking hands with Gravity, and looking at the big picture. But that happens anytime you have engineers and programmers attempting to do business, when they should have just stuck to programming.

Fortunately for us, the patient, we now have Cryptic picking up the slack and finalizing this, and our hope is in them to release something wonderful, which is all that PE was trying to do initially.

-Avery

PE didn't fail...the floor fell out from underneath them. They tried very hard to to do something that no-one else could, and like so many other fresh starting companies these days, they took a chance, and they didn't really do their market research ahead of time especially with regard to their financial backers. And when they couldn't get additional financial support, they had no choice but to fold up shop.

-Avery

[RandomRedshirt]

You don't have to play it, there'll be plenty of people that will. Cryptic can't please everyone it's impossible all they can do is try and make this the best Star Trek game possible an appeal to as many as gamers and Trek fans they can. Sure some aren't going to like it (and sure it won't be many) but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Very true. And I hope they make the best Star Trek game possible too.

But centering a Trek MMO around combat I don't think will accomplish making the best Trek game ever.

That's what so many people on these boards seem to be missing in these arguments about Trek games. The "centered on combat" model has been done. Alot. Now, given that, I would ask the question, does the Trek gaming franchise have a good name? I would say they don't. Ask anyone in the industry, ask the fans, ask the gamers. With the exception of a few games, there hasn't been many good Trek games over the last 10-15 years.

And that's why I hold the stance that I hold and fight the fight that I do. Because it's time for a change. It's time for a Trek game that holds true to the original Trek vision, not the warlike vision that was adopted after Gene passed.

It's very possible that STO will end up just another combat game. In that case, then my mission failed, and I'll simply have to wait for the next game to come out to pick up my mission again. And someday, if I win the lottery, and a true to the vision Trek game hasn't been made, then I'll invest in it, and dedicate it to all those people who waited on it and fought for it just like me.

:)

[Dustnite]

That's what so many people on these boards seem to be missing in these arguments about Trek games. The "centered on combat" model has been done. Alot. Now, given that, I would ask the question, does the Trek gaming franchise have a good name? I would say they don't. Ask anyone in the industry, ask the fans, ask the gamers. With the exception of a few games, there hasn't been many good Trek games over the last 10-15 years.

And that's why I hold the stance that I hold and fight the fight that I do. Because it's time for a change. It's time for a Trek game that holds true to the original Trek vision, not the warlike vision that was adopted after Gene passed.


There hasn't been a good space MMO based on combat at all! EvE Online's combat system was an autofire and set your distance mechanic, that was it. Earth and Beyond went a little bit better going more Freelancer esque but again that game didn't last long due to other issues.

I mean if anything we're still waiting on a good space combat MMO to come out and Star Trek is a great IP to go with given the type of combat you get to see in the show and/or movies. What's not different is dooming people to mine ore for hours until they can get their next upgrades, etc.

What would be different is if the combat they had was refreshing and tactical, without promoting too many grind factors and timesinks into the game.

[Catamount]

Very true. And I hope they make the best Star Trek game possible too.

But centering a Trek MMO around combat I don't think will accomplish making the best Trek game ever.

That's what so many people on these boards seem to be missing in these arguments about Trek games. The "centered on combat" model has been done. Alot. Now, given that, I would ask the question, does the Trek gaming franchise have a good name? I would say they don't. Ask anyone in the industry, ask the fans, ask the gamers. With the exception of a few games, there hasn't been many good Trek games over the last 10-15 years.

And that's why I hold the stance that I hold and fight the fight that I do. Because it's time for a change. It's time for a Trek game that holds true to the original Trek vision, not the warlike vision that was adopted after Gene passed.

It's very possible that STO will end up just another combat game. In that case, then my mission failed, and I'll simply have to wait for the next game to come out to pick up my mission again. And someday, if I win the lottery, and a true to the vision Trek game hasn't been made, then I'll invest in it, and dedicate it to all those people who waited on it and fought for it just like me.

:)

You seem to be under the impression that the reason Star Trek games have failed in the market place is because they're combat centric (like just about every other game I might add). In truth they failed just because they weren't good games. Star Wars games have been about nothing but combat ever since X-Wing started shipping on 5 floppy discs so we could all fly around on our 486 machines. Those games have worked utterly brilliantly. Star Trek just needs to make a game that balances the reality of the universe (which I do hope they do since I don't want to spend ALL of my time flying around pewpewing by any means) with the classic and proven game formula of pitting players against either each other or their environment and doing it well.

[Tabletop]

Very true. And I hope they make the best Star Trek game possible too.

But centering a Trek MMO around combat I don't think will accomplish making the best Trek game ever.

That's what so many people on these boards seem to be missing in these arguments about Trek games. The "centered on combat" model has been done. Alot. Now, given that, I would ask the question, does the Trek gaming franchise have a good name? I would say they don't. Ask anyone in the industry, ask the fans, ask the gamers. With the exception of a few games, there hasn't been many good Trek games over the last 10-15 years.

And that's why I hold the stance that I hold and fight the fight that I do. Because it's time for a change. It's time for a Trek game that holds true to the original Trek vision, not the warlike vision that was adopted after Gene passed.

It's very possible that STO will end up just another combat game. In that case, then my mission failed, and I'll simply have to wait for the next game to come out to pick up my mission again. And someday, if I win the lottery, and a true to the vision Trek game hasn't been made, then I'll invest in it, and dedicate it to all those people who waited on it and fought for it just like me.

:)

I am sorry this game wasn't for you. Good news I did find the perfect game for you. There isn't alot of combat and it is more of a mystery/explorer game. Good Luck in all your future endeavors!

http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/207/Star+Trek+-+The+Promethean+Prophecy.html

[Catamount]

The other thing Star Trek has to do to get it's games out of the gutter is to stop relying on Activision and Mad Doc to make their games. These 2 companies just seem incapable of producing a decent star trek title.

[Dustnite]

I am sorry this game wasn't for you. Good news I did find the perfect game for you. There isn't alot of combat and it is more of a mystery/explorer game. Good Luck in all your future endeavors!

http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/207/Star+Trek+-+The+Promethean+Prophecy.html

Lol, its funny but that best Space game I ever played was a MOO. Think it was called GalaxyWeb: Stellar Epoch.

Had PC crews, fully customizable races, ship upgrades, space combat. All in text baby!

[Catamount]

I am sorry this game wasn't for you. Good news I did find the perfect game for you. There isn't alot of combat and it is more of a mystery/explorer game. Good Luck in all your future endeavors!

http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/207/Star+Trek+-+The+Promethean+Prophecy.html

NIIIIIIIIIICE :D:D:D:D

[Galv]

Very true. And I hope they make the best Star Trek game possible too.

But centering a Trek MMO around combat I don't think will accomplish making the best Trek game ever.

That's what so many people on these boards seem to be missing in these arguments about Trek games. The "centered on combat" model has been done. Alot. Now, given that, I would ask the question, does the Trek gaming franchise have a good name? I would say they don't. Ask anyone in the industry, ask the fans, ask the gamers. With the exception of a few games, there hasn't been many good Trek games over the last 10-15 years.

And that's why I hold the stance that I hold and fight the fight that I do. Because it's time for a change. It's time for a Trek game that holds true to the original Trek vision, not the warlike vision that was adopted after Gene passed.

It's very possible that STO will end up just another combat game. In that case, then my mission failed, and I'll simply have to wait for the next game to come out to pick up my mission again. And someday, if I win the lottery, and a true to the vision Trek game hasn't been made, then I'll invest in it, and dedicate it to all those people who waited on it and fought for it just like me.

:)

I agree combat isn't the main focus for me either, i'm just as much looking forward to exploration and first contact missions as most treks are, but i don't get the impression that the game will be centred on combat, it's just part of it.

[Catamount]

I agree combat isn't the main focus for me either, i'm just as much looking forward to exploration and first contact missions as most treks are, but i don't get the impression that the game will be centred on combat, it's just part of it.

I tend to agree. It'll be a big, well thought out part of it, but by no means anywhere close the entire game. It really just comes down to HOW big of a part that plays. If Cryptic really does manage to make a truly engaging game just out of the exploration/first contact type elements, then more power to them. I'll just be happy with an MMO setting, RPG style growth, a Star Trek setting, and good ships with interesting combat. Anything beyond that is just icing on the cake. That said, however, cakes aren't generally very good without icing so I hope that they really do pour a lot of effort into all sorts of different aspects of the game.

[RandomRedshirt]

You seem to be under the impression that the reason Star Trek games have failed in the market place is because they're combat centric (like just about every other game I might add). In truth they failed just because they weren't good games. Star Wars games have been about nothing but combat ever since X-Wing started shipping on 5 floppy discs so we could all fly around on our 486 machines. Those games have worked utterly brilliantly. Star Trek just needs to make a game that balances the reality of the universe (which I do hope they do since I don't want to spend ALL of my time flying around pewpewing by any means) with the classic and proven game formula of pitting players against either each other or their environment and doing it well.

Yes, Star Wars games centered on combat do well. But then again, combat is EXPECTED in Star WARS, since combat is at the central core of Star Wars.

However, combat is not the central core of Star Trek, and never has been.

So if anything, the argument here is the argument I made with myself the very first day I found out there would be a Star Trek MMO, back in the PE days.

"How in the heck do they make a Star Trek MMO that is faithful to the franchise?"

I'll leave it at that.

[Dustnite]

"How in the heck do they make a Star Trek MMO that is faithful to the franchise?"
I'll leave it at that.

Hire Cryptic Studios. :)

[jla1987]

Hire Cryptic Studios. :)

QFT!

Why are people already complaining about the game when it's so far from release? Geez

[KypFisto]

Hire Cryptic Studios. :)

God, I hope you're right. If this game turns out to be another cookie cutter MMO or just generally poor Star Trek game I know I and many others will be severely disappointed. Let's all hope we're banking on the right people.

QFT!

Why are people already complaining about the game when it's so far from release? Geez

I don't mean to complain, and I don't think I have been, but I'm going to be skeptical about this every step of the way. As both a Star Trek fan and a vet of quite a few MMOs, I've had more than a few bad brushes with game designers who didn't know what their customers wanted and screwed up things royally (ie. SWG, Legacy, Shattered Universe)

[KypFisto]

*doublepost*

[KO_Gilligan]

Yes, Star Wars games centered on combat do well. But then again, combat is EXPECTED in Star WARS, since combat is at the central core of Star Wars.

However, combat is not the central core of Star Trek, and never has been.

So if anything, the argument here is the argument I made with myself the very first day I found out there would be a Star Trek MMO, back in the PE days.

"How in the heck do they make a Star Trek MMO that is faithful to the franchise?"

I'll leave it at that.
I'm hoping for a "game"

"Faithful to the franchise" means different things to different people. But several FPS games could never live up to your ideas, sounds like anything with a Spaceship in it that they have made so far don't do it for you. Not Starship Creator, Trivia games, Pinball, or anything with battle in it.

Is there a Star Trek "game" that you do like?

[doam]

ME? I was one of PE's sunshine boys?

I think you have me mistaken for someone else. If anything, I was rather impartial. I didn't subscribe to PE's vision, so I created my own, in the hopes that PE might pick up some of those ideas and run with them. Some of the things PE was looking at (or telling us they were looking at) were good ideas. But when I saw bad ideas, I was just as critical as anyone.

But I will say that I didn't go on there every day and call PE names and bash them every day. That wasn't my style. It's not my style here either. It's one thing to question the direction of this game and it's another to come out and say PE SUXXORS or CARTOON STUDIOS! I don't do that. But I do seriously debate my concerns, and my concern right now is that PE couldn't deliver on this, and Cryptic won't be able to either. Sure, they will roll out a STO, but it won't be an STO I'm interested in.


Nope, it was you. You stated as much in this very post... you just don't realise it. You see, back in the PE days you believed what they said, for better or for worse:

Some of the things PE was looking at (or telling us they were looking at) were good ideas. But when I saw bad ideas, I was just as critical as anyone.


I also remember you often saying to trust what PE was saying, until proven otherwise, whenever someone would doubt PE's claims.


Well, guess what? You're doing that to Cryptic. They've SAID exploring will be a big part. They've SAID they don't want a cookie cutter MMO with a star trek skin. They've SAID how big of a star trek nerd they are. They've SAID this isn't going to be just another MMO.



But you chose not to believe them. You have decided that they are lieing to you.



Why?

[ElbyStarfire]

Light? Im legally blind in real life, with poor low-light vision, so I can really appreciate having things illuminated. From a tech standpoint, starship sensors make it so we can see everything clearly. Just my 2 cents. :)

[Catamount]

Light? Im legally blind in real life, with poor low-light vision, so I can really appreciate having things illuminated. From a tech standpoint, starship sensors make it so we can see everything clearly. Just my 2 cents. :)

Not only that, but it stands to reason that anything shown on a view screen is light-enhanced by a computer if it's too dark to see anyways.

[theexplorer1]

Well actually from what we know about gameplay i believe sto is heading on the right direction.As the devs said they dont want another grind fest but a real time combat game where actuall skill matters.AOC was among the first with real time combat games and so what you will the gameplay(while ti last through) is second to none.)Also another good direction is that the world will span on all levels meaning there will be ships interiors,space station interiors and planet surfaces.Also they said that there althrough everybody will be a captain you will be able to fly along friends and place multiple ships on orbit and have a away missions with friends.So still you will have fun with your friends.
Where the game goes all the way to hell through is on BAD,ABYSMALL,OUTDATED GRAPHICS
Sto engine is an ancient at at the present time seriously outdated engine...And for those who will mention that sto uses the champions engine ,that engine is the v2 of the coh engine an engine that has been around for over 5 years...
There are no shader effects,no hdr lighting,no depth of field effects and no fully implemented bloom effects yet.....
The above effects are standard for single player games for the last 5 years at least
And as of lately mmo games like AOC,(and upcoming INFINITY QUEST FOR EARTH) actually use them...

Hell even abysmal games like legacy had 10 times better graphics......

And for those of you that love space operas remember EARTH AND BEYOND?
that game looked better 5 years ago.....

[Garrion]

Starfleet is indeed a "peaceful" organization... but let's not forget there's a lot more to Star Trek than Starfleet. Klingons are very aggressive... and being members of the Federation hasn't necessarily curbed their aggression. The Borg aren't interested in treaties, merely assimilation. Need I go on? Diplomacy will always be the primary path taken by the Federation... but you cannot possibly expect that everyone will follow the rules laid out by the Federation.

[TJBTrek]

indeed, all of you should look at the astronomy picture of the day website (google it) and youll see some fascinating things. not to mention very colorful nebula
There is no need to google it it is: http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

[Mr.Scott]

Who gives if the ships are all shiny? Its cool. Its fantasy.

[ToKev]

OK ppl, game graphics, give Cryptic a break here. Anyone watch the development video on the Civ4 dvd? The first parts of developing a game are MECHANICS. Get the game working, as bug free as possible. Represent a starship with a friggin green dot, who cares? Once that green dot can fly, shoot, turn, land, whistle dixie and not crash the game, THEN replace the dot with a finished model.

[Bladedge]

Hi,

When I saw the trailer I saw the first of mine fears. LIGHT
Everything is so illuminated that it looks like a lit up Christmas tree. You know, space, is a DARK place. You cant see ships that are lighted all over. You have this in some documentary, when they created the first USS Enterprise back in TOS. You know why the vessel has that front light? Because other way you cant see it in space, and to show its designation, but that came latter.

Space is not dark go to a place where there is no light pollution and the night sky will be lit up like a xmas tree. I would also like to see the ships and all its glory and not a few dots of light.

So like in Legacy (boy, was that a crap peace of software) you can see ships that are bright and shiny.

Another thing, the surrounding's? And is this time of NEXT GEN games or are we going back to Commodore64? Those textures? Dear God!

Game is in Alpha stage of development

I for once chose not to play this game until the time developers started to think about Star Trek like it is, not how they would like to display it.

Game is still in its alpha stage the last thing they should be worrying about is how the graphics loook and focus more on game play or we world are going to have another AoC which all eye candy and no substance. When games are being develop the last thing developers start working on are graphics because the underlying wireframes designs go through constant changes before they are finalize.

I strongly suggest that you look back on some older games, WAY older and learn something about them.

I would suggest you learn something about MMOs and how they are designed. MMOs can not be develop in the same way was a offline single player game or a game that allows only a handful of people to connect and play.



Seems you are the type of player that prefers graphics over gameplay. You seem also the type that will give a game a perfect score based solely on how it looks.

[Tremere]

You know your right, this game looks rubbish.....i'm never going to play it now...well unless they improve it in the time they have until release....which is what, 1 or 2 years, lol :p

Well thats not the final product so Im sure the graphics are going to be way better, If thier going to be using Direct x10. Think about it in 3 yrs when the game goes live it would have to be. I hope so at least..

[Tremere]

Seems you are the type of player that prefers graphics over gameplay. You seem also the type that will give a game a perfect score based solely on how it looks.

Well being a gamer I want both and there is not reason why we cant have both. Everyone know that graphics in this day in age are important to any MMO. Its part of the competition of the gaming indrusty.

The quality of a MMO and game play is both important. Not just one or the other. And Ive been playing video games since 1979 and that was Pong.

Talk about how far we've come. It can only get better. So ill say again theres no reason why we cant have both. :)

[terranova3y2]

So far from the screens and trailer I can say I think it looks really good imo, one thing though that could make or break this game for me is the controls. I can only speak for myself but I felt that EvE was crap because of its control system and how slow it felt and I seriously hope Cryptic don't go the same way.

I'm hoping to be able to control the ship itself (WASD) and not just point and click with the mouse.