Star Trek Online?

Foxtrot

Spaceman
ChrisReid said:
Are you stuck in 2004 (when this thread was last replied to)? There are some great Star Trek games in the works right now. Bethesda has the primary license these days, and they're putting in a great deal of effort and support for it. The next batch of Star Trek games look really fantastic. The best one is ST Legacy, which comes out in just a few weeks. https://www.wcnews.com/news/update/7156
mate he was talking about the studios creating the game and not the game itself. while i do have high hopes for legacy and tactical assault i really have not hard much about bethesda. i miss the old days when there was activision along with another reputable company ( eg - raven, ritual, tatally games.............) at the helm of the game. but then again who can say this might be the start of a new chapter in trek gaming.
also i cant immagine why people say STgames have always been mideocre at most meaning have they played any of the games released this mellinium ? the elite force & armada series, bridge commander, the fallen & away team, these were good-great games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nchrisb

Spaceman
ChrisReid said:
This seems pretty contradictory. You can't justify $15 a month.. but then you also can't stand how the game occupies so much of your time. All good games are "time sinks." And why would it bother you that "at least one" of the new Star Trek games was an MMO? There's other new Star Trek games coming out, and you don't have to play this one if it bothers you so much.

Are you stuck in 2004 (when this thread was last replied to)? There are some great Star Trek games in the works right now. Bethesda has the primary license these days, and they're putting in a great deal of effort and support for it. The next batch of Star Trek games look really fantastic. The best one is ST Legacy, which comes out in just a few weeks. https://www.wcnews.com/news/update/7156

Good point. Let me clarify. I am also guilty of playing SimCity 3000 for hours, because I could build a city that, beyond replacing things like water pumps on a regular basis, pretty much ran itself. (I've tried SimCity 4 and don't like it because it has 50% more complexity.) With Bridge Commander, Armada 2, and say Wing Commander 4, each gave a sense of completion when I finished them. Because I haven't much patience with honing my skills in games to succeed at higher skill levels, I am afraid of having to put in tremendous effort to get to a high skill level in an MMO. (In other words, I want to experience the story line a few times more than becoming precise.)

Sometimes I think I'm stuck in 2004. ~~~ Seriously, yes, I agree that Bethesda has a good chance of putting out very good stuff. I guess I stick to my other point: I want to play games, but 1) I have other things that require my attention, partly because 2) I'm sort of burned out on Star Trek, at least for now....

I hope this post doesn't sound whiney or anything. Sorry if it came out that way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Foxtrot said:
while i do have high hopes for legacy and tactical assault i really have not hard much about bethesda.

Bethesda is getting to be a fairly major publisher now. They're behind the Elder Scrolls Morrowind/Oblivion games, and they're also working on the new Fallout game.
 

Ace Rimmer

Spaceman
Very few Star Trek games were better than mediocre, some outright awful. I'd be surprised if that one was better.

I beg to differ, “Deep Space Nine: The Fallen” on PC and “Deep Space Nine: Crossroads of Time” for Super NES were awesome for their times. I know most Star Trek games aren’t all that but there are some good ones out there.
 

nchrisb

Spaceman
This seems pretty contradictory. You can't justify $15 a month.. but then you also can't stand how the game occupies so much of your time. All good games are "time sinks." And why would it bother you that "at least one" of the new Star Trek games was an MMO? There's other new Star Trek games coming out, and you don't have to play this one if it bothers you so much.

I can understand how I would get solid hours of enjoyment out of some games (Wing Commander 4, Duke Nukem 3D, and SimCity 3000, for instance), but my ex-roommate seemed to have a near-addiction to playing World of Warcraft. (From my perspective, it looked like WoW had taken over or run his life.) I realize that the media exaggerate to make money, yet their reports that people starve themselves to keep playing EverQuest intimidate me. I am also personally uncomfortable with what feels like paying a utility bill to play a game(!). For these reasons I am afraid of playing "Online" despite still enjoying its Star Trek elements. So I will take your advice and not bother with ST:O.
 

nchrisb

Spaceman
Bethesda is getting to be a fairly major publisher now. They're behind the Elder Scrolls Morrowind/Oblivion games, and they're also working on the new Fallout game.

Good for Bethesda! I had hoped that, eventually, Activision wouldn't be the only game in town (pun not intended). What type of game is "Fallout"?
 

Lt.Death100

Spaceman
Good for Bethesda! I had hoped that, eventually, Activision wouldn't be the only game in town (pun not intended). What type of game is "Fallout"?
Fallout 1 and 2 (not developed by Beth) were top-down post-apocalyptic RPGs. The new one (Fallout 3) will probably be using an engine similar to Oblivions.
 

nchrisb

Spaceman
Fallout 1 and 2 (not developed by Beth) were top-down post-apocalyptic RPGs. The new one (Fallout 3) will probably be using an engine similar to Oblivions.

You know, maybe my terminology is way off. Aren't RPG's and MMO's almost the same thing? It's the idea of spending lots of time (and money) building up your character in an RPG that turns me off, not the idea of playing the game itself.

Looking it up on wikipedia, an MMORPG is one type of MMO. Coming from what I said in this thread, that still doesn't change my discomfort with playing it, though. *sigh*
 

Mav23

Swabbie
Banned
It all boils down into how "hardcore" you want to be about an MMO game I suppose. I had a friend who had to quit cold turkey on "W.O.W." 'cause it got to the point that he didn't have any time for real world relationships. This isn't the games fault, it's his. He joined a clan and everyone had to do certain things at certain times every week to make progress and collect items. He decided that he would rather have friends and succeed in school than get mystical gauntlets. (He didn't decide this however until after he maxed out his character level.)

And yes he had a similar experience before with EverQuest, so I can see how one may see MMORPGs as "addictions".
 

nchrisb

Spaceman
It all boils down into how "hardcore" you want to be about an MMO game I suppose. I had a friend who had to quit cold turkey on "W.O.W." 'cause it got to the point that he didn't have any time for real world relationships. This isn't the games fault, it's his. He joined a clan and everyone had to do certain things at certain times every week to make progress and collect items. He decided that he would rather have friends and succeed in school than get mystical gauntlets. (He didn't decide this however until after he maxed out his character level.)

And yes he had a similar experience before with EverQuest, so I can see how one may see MMORPGs as "addictions".

Yeah, "maxing out" your character is one issue in this type of game (and SimCity 3000 is guilty of the same level of involvement, for different reasons). However, I don't see MMORPGs as "addictions;" rather, I see them as "addictive," hence the reason that it's tough to let go of Star Trek: Online.

I am also independent enough that I don't like the responsibilities that come with being in a clan, or with participating in online gaming. I know that from playing Counter-Strike: Source, Star Trek: Bridge Commander, and Star Trek Armada 2 online.

P.S. Also, I'm just messing with the font & font size here... that's why it looks kinda funny.
 
Top