The next Star Trek MMORPG: Another Epic Fail?

[grumbler]

I don't think we are negative, just reasonably skeptical.

It seems "really negative" to you because despite your protestations, your "objectivity" is pretty much non-existent.

Actual objectivity always looks weird to the non-objective.

No shit!  It actually is quite funny, looking at it from the outside.

I don't blame BB for being excited, but that he thinks that his reaction is the objective one is... well, I will be kind and say "cute." 

[crazy canuck]

But Habs and Berkut seem really negative about this game.  I'm not sure why...

I don't think we are negative, just reasonably skeptical.

GF made a post that he is concerned something might happen but that he might be wrong and then you responded he was not wrong - unreasonably confirming that his concerns would in fact occur.

GF's post was reasonably skeptical.  Yours are dogmatically negative.

[Barrister]

I don't think we are negative, just reasonably skeptical.

It seems "really negative" to you because despite your protestations, your "objectivity" is pretty much non-existent.

Actual objectivity always looks weird to the non-objective.

No shit!  It actually is quite funny, looking at it from the outside.

I don't blame BB for being excited, but that he thinks that his reaction is the objective one is... well, I will be kind and say "cute." 

Not at all.  I acknowledge my bias.  I said I am "trying to" remain objective.  It is an ideal I doubt I have reached.

But what I find funny is for Berkut to turn around and claim he is the objective one.

[Syt]

Just playing around with the char generator. I guess I'll go with a "standard" race, though. And lower details; my laptop doesn't like this at full.

[Grey Fox]

If you put it at maximum, go to advanced & disable post processing. That will lag even the best set up out there.

[Berkut]

But Habs and Berkut seem really negative about this game.  I'm not sure why...

I don't think we are negative, just reasonably skeptical.

GF made a post that he is concerned something might happen but that he might be wrong and then you responded he was not wrong - unreasonably confirming that his concerns would in fact occur.

GF's post was reasonably skeptical.  Yours are dogmatically negative.

What is dogmatically negative about pre-ordering a game that I want to play? If I was dogmatically negative, I would simply ignore this - lord knows I ignore plenty of MMOs I don't care about at all.

And it is not at all unreasonable to conclude that upper tier content is not done yet - quite the opposite in fact, since pretty much every MMO ever released has had that problem, as I explained. It is the nature of the beast.

Pointing out that this one will likely be the same is not negative at all, if anything, it is putting a positive spin on the issue.

[Caliga]

I have played the beta for a grand total of 2-3 hours so far (did finish the tutorial), and so far I neither love nor hate the game.

[Berkut]

I don't think we are negative, just reasonably skeptical.

It seems "really negative" to you because despite your protestations, your "objectivity" is pretty much non-existent.

Actual objectivity always looks weird to the non-objective.

No shit!  It actually is quite funny, looking at it from the outside.

I don't blame BB for being excited, but that he thinks that his reaction is the objective one is... well, I will be kind and say "cute." 

Not at all.  I acknowledge my bias.  I said I am "trying to" remain objective.  It is an ideal I doubt I have reached.

But what I find funny is for Berkut to turn around and claim he is the objective one.

So you think I have some kind of axe to grind? What in the world would my motivation be for a game I personally hope is as good as you are convinced it must be because you want it to be?

That makes no sense at all beebs - I have nothing to gain by the game being crap, and I certainly hope it is NOT crap. being able and willing to dispassionately discuss its potential problems does not make one un-objective - quite the opposite in fact. It is the very definition of being objective.

Rationally, there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical - hell, that is true from a purely statiscitcan standpoint - most MMOs are failures. I was as jazzed abut WHO, for example, as anyone, and even that in the long run turned out to be a dissapointment.

The list of failed MMOs is long, and the list of successful ones very short. I hope STO falls into the latter, but so far the data is pretty mixed.

[Berkut]

I have played the beta for a grand total of 2-3 hours so far (did finish the tutorial), and so far I neither love nor hate the game.

I've played it for zero hours, and so far remain neutral on it. I've heard some things that make me more optimisitc, and I've heard some things that make me less. Overall, I think it is likely that the game will be cool and fun for a while, but only because of the franchise, and that won't last.

[Caliga]

Well, it's certainly an excellent IP to be building an MMO on, that's for sure.  I think it has a reasonable chance of being another second-tier MMO like LOTRO, but it certainly won't be a WoW-killer (not that anyone predicted it would be, but still).

[Berkut]

Well, it's certainly an excellent IP to be building an MMO on, that's for sure.  I think it has a reasonable chance of being another second-tier MMO like LOTRO, but it certainly won't be a WoW-killer (not that anyone predicted it would be, but still).

I am using my own personal definition of success - something good enough, deep enough, and interesting enough to keep me playing beyond the honeymoon period.

So far, the total MMOs that have done that are:

Everquest
Anarchy Online
EVE Online
World of Warcraft
LOTRO

Really though EQ and AO probably don't belong, since in the case of EQ there wasn't really any other choice, and I played AO because I was sick of EQ - ditched both for EQ2 when that came out, and ditched that for WoW.

So really, you could argue that my list is just WoW, EVE, and LOTRO.

[Caliga]

My list consists of:

World of Warcraft
LOTRO

Anyway, I'll be beta testing Star Trek more tonight.  Ironically, at the same time I will be deploying a functional change to production for work (which I signed off on the QA for yesterday) 

[grumbler]

Well, it's certainly an excellent IP to be building an MMO on, that's for sure.  I think it has a reasonable chance of being another second-tier MMO like LOTRO, but it certainly won't be a WoW-killer (not that anyone predicted it would be, but still).

I should think that, as a player, you wouldn't want this to be another WoW.  You'd want it to be limited in appeal to people who are most like you, so the numbers and ganking don't get out of hand, but still appeal to enough people to support upgrades.

[Caliga]

I should think that, as a player, you wouldn't want this to be another WoW.  You'd want it to be limited in appeal to people who are most like you, so the numbers and ganking don't get out of hand, but still appeal to enough people to support upgrades.

You're absolutely right that I don't want it to be another WoW.

[Berkut]

Well, it's certainly an excellent IP to be building an MMO on, that's for sure.  I think it has a reasonable chance of being another second-tier MMO like LOTRO, but it certainly won't be a WoW-killer (not that anyone predicted it would be, but still).

I should think that, as a player, you wouldn't want this to be another WoW.  You'd want it to be limited in appeal to people who are most like you, so the numbers and ganking don't get out of hand, but still appeal to enough people to support upgrades.

This is actually the root of my earlier alarm over comments about "tank/healer/dps" - the concern that the game was going to try hard to be WoW In Space! rather than an actual Star Trek game, so as to appeal to as many as possible, even if that appeal is rather shallow.