Yep those review seem to be on par with my impression of the game. I feel there was way to much hype surrounding it around release and now all that excitement has gone away, people can see what this game actually is. Like Dave said, Champions in space.

I personally knew something wasn't quite right when the best things they could say about it on the Bombcast was that the Star Trek sound effects and graphics were great. That might carry a regular retail game that only lasts for eight to twelve hours but not an MMO that will be played for hundreds of hours. Also, while I can understand Cryptic breaking everything down into hundreds of different servers for simplicity it really breaks any feeling of it being an MMO.

" I personally knew something wasn't quite right when the best things they could say about it on the Bombcast was that the Star Trek sound effects and graphics were great. That might carry a regular retail game that only lasts for eight to twelve hours but not an MMO that will be played for hundreds of hours. Also, while I can understand Cryptic breaking everything down into hundreds of different servers for simplicity it really breaks any feeling of it being an MMO. "

While I understand EVE has it's place it is way way way too complex for a populist MMO that something like Star Trek demands. However, Cryptic has obviously gone too far in the other direction. There was a sweet spot in the middle there somewhere that they completely missed.

It's not so much technical hurdles as this is simply Cryptic's style of MMO. City of Heroes/Villains and Champions Online are the same way.

" It's not so much technical hurdles as this is simply Cryptic's style of MMO. City of Heroes/Villains and Champions Online are the same way. "

Possibly but I can't think of any major Western MMO developers who are available for such things. Mythic got folded under Bioware's RPG umbrella and is struggling to keep going with Warhammer Online and Blizzard has no need to do any MMO other than WoW.

Glad I canceled my preorder after the beta.

PC Powerplay in Australia gave the game an 8 out of 10.
They liked the authenticity of the universe and the ship combat. Keep in mind PCPP have bit of a differnt view on things. They love total war games and didn't lke borderlands.
I just picked STO up after watching "set phasers to fun' and reading the PCPP review. It seemed like a fun first MMO that I could solo if Iwanted too, a big factor for me.   
As always with reviews, know which sites and mags have the same tastes as yourself.

It isn't some amazing product, but I think a 5.5 is a little harsh, it works for the most part, and there are much much worse games out there.

I'm not surprised it got those scores. That said, I've always felt scoring an MMO using the traditional scale they use for everything else is stupid, because unlike regular games MMO's change. You can take Halo, or Gears, or God of War, or any other regular game and play it on launch day and beat it and then put it down and boot it up again six months later and play it and it'll be the same game. With any MMO if you pick it up on launch day and play it and then put it down and come back to it six months later IT WILL NOT BE THE SAME GAME and the review that was for the game at launch will be pointless and obsolete. There is a pretty good article that talks about this here.

...it works for the most part, and there are much much worse games out there.

" @Dany said:

" @Fragstoff:  It's their opinion of the game, the reviewers opinion. Assuming that the reviewer and others agree with him is pointless but his opinion is meant to represent the site. Saying a game should get a 7 or an 8 and listing reasons why is so stupid, i'm surprised this type of crap is not on ign review comments. This is not the website where we argue review scores, not should any site do that. Calling out IGN or gamespot and saying that they are idiots for not agreeing with you is one reason why their are idiots who argue over review scores. "

damn.... ya got me,  
your right: "not should any site do that", it is TOTALLY stupid. 
 This forum was started based on the review scores 

I'm not agruing a perfect 10 here or offered a score that this game deserves, I did not say the game should get a 7 or 8 anywhere.
What I did point out was the shovelware CRAP they have given higher scores.  
I stand by what I said...

 Any site that things a game like Just Dance for the Wii deserves the same score as Star Trek Online is either stupid and so inconsistant with their scoring that it becomes meaningless

"

" It isn't some amazing product, but I think a 5.5 is a little harsh, it works for the most part, and there are much much worse games out there. "

@Fragstoff said:

"@Dany said:

" @Fragstoff:  It's their opinion of the game, the reviewers opinion. Assuming that the reviewer and others agree with him is pointless but his opinion is meant to represent the site. Saying a game should get a 7 or an 8 and listing reasons why is so stupid, i'm surprised this type of crap is not on ign review comments. This is not the website where we argue review scores, not should any site do that. Calling out IGN or gamespot and saying that they are idiots for not agreeing with you is one reason why their are idiots who argue over review scores. "

damn.... ya got me,  
your right: "not should any site do that", it is TOTALLY stupid. 
 This forum was started based on the review scores 

I'm not agruing a perfect 10 here or offered a score that this game deserves, I did not say the game should get a 7 or 8 anywhere.
What I did point out was the shovelware CRAP they have given higher scores.  
I stand by what I said...

 Any site that things a game like Just Dance for the Wii deserves the same score as Star Trek Online is either stupid and so inconsistant with their scoring that it becomes meaningless

"

Please leave Giantbomb.  You're presence makes us look bad.

" @Evilsbane said:

...it works for the most part, and there are much much worse games out there.

Geeze, that really doesn't make it sound like it deserves much more than a 5.5 :P "

" @ProfessorEss said:

" @Evilsbane said:

...it works for the most part, and there are much much worse games out there.

Geeze, that really doesn't make it sound like it deserves much more than a 5.5 :P "

Lol I didn't say it was good, but it still a working game, you could do Far Far worse, I just think based of of playing the Beta that its just a solid 7, it isn't great but its a working game with so decent combat mechanics, and if you like ST enough you'll have fun. Scores of 5 and under are for games that just don't work, we both know how people veiw game scores, while 5.5 might say average we both know that people don't view it that way. "

"

5.5 is too low for this game, considering the filth they give 7 and 8s.   
Look at some other games that got scores this low, theres no way STO deserves this, It should not be equated to the likes of James Cameron's Avatar: The Game
 
 But If they insist of reviewing an MMO after release (one thats an unfinished product.... Crytics fault, but still a fact, and the reason Jeff has been smart enough to hold off on a review)...     

All MMOs are shallow and repetative, anyone who denies this is a noob:  
- Fetch This, Kill this boss, Kill these mobs. Maybe covered up with storyline but the gameplay itself is always the same. 

- Star Trek Online just doesn't cover this up well, at all, giving objectives such as: Scan ___ astroids, Defeat ____ Squadrons. You also complete these tasks quickly, adding to the feeling of repetativeness.  
- the settings seem repetitive because of the space setting, and kind of feel like different areas are just a new background, but I don't see how this could really be avoided, its space!
- Other MMOs also tend to have more classes and skills that give it more depth, but they also aren't about having a career in Starfleet, I'm pretty sure necromancers and mages are a pretty small percentage of recruits. I don't think a Starfleet tactical officer and science officer will differ as much as other classes in other games.

  
For me, All MMOs start with character building, turn into a grind to build the character you want to become, but eventually beg you to ask "...and now what". At least what you are actually DOING isn't boring in Star Trek, The space combat is fun! Simple maybe, but how complicated should firing a photon Torpedo really be (would naysayers perfer you having to buy ordinance like some other games?)  

...and the ground combat, although a bit clunky, is stil entertaining for a game in the MMO genre, you have to make it interesting though, utilizing the flanking, weapon switching, and exploit/expose system. (yea, its going to get dull if you just sit there,  lock on, and fire your primary shot while waiting for the secondary to recharge.)  Kits also offer the potential to switch up your playstyle. 
 
PVP in STO has potential too, as soon as they find gameplay modes that sync well with the type of game it is.  

Instancing does have its limitations, but it also gives developers more freedom within those instances, and keeps us all on the same server. 
  - I've played Eve, this game is not Eve, and does not try to be, so comparing it over and over again is a waste of time.
- maybe a sector map that you could travel in a straight line indefinately would cheer these people up, if thats really what they covet in a game. 
 
finally , The whole Star Trek Fan will like this game more agrument.. isn't that

the most fucking obvious observation

anyone could ever make?  
-Sure, the fact that its Star Trek makes it more appealing the fans then it would be if it were a generic space theme.  

And yea maybe people who don't care for Star Trek won't like this game as much, But in a Star Trek game where you do Star Trek things, maybe its not something they would be interested in in the first place. Careers in Starfleet arn't all glamour, sometimes your stuck scanning some anomolies,  
at least I don't have to kill any Orcs.
   

 fuck them, people that review for Gamespot and IGN are douchebags anyway, thats why we are all on Giantbomb.

"

I don't see anything wrong with either one of those reviews.  I'd split the difference and give the game a 6 personally.

"

5.5 is too low for this game, considering the filth they give 7 and 8s.   
Look at some other games that got scores this low, theres no way STO deserves this, It should not be equated to the likes of James Cameron's Avatar: The Game
 
 But If they insist of reviewing an MMO after release (one thats an unfinished product.... Crytics fault, but still a fact, and the reason Jeff has been smart enough to hold off on a review)...     

All MMOs are shallow and repetative, anyone who denies this is a noob:  
- Fetch This, Kill this boss, Kill these mobs. Maybe covered up with storyline but the gameplay itself is always the same. 

- Star Trek Online just doesn't cover this up well, at all, giving objectives such as: Scan ___ astroids, Defeat ____ Squadrons. You also complete these tasks quickly, adding to the feeling of repetativeness.  
- the settings seem repetitive because of the space setting, and kind of feel like different areas are just a new background, but I don't see how this could really be avoided, its space!
- Other MMOs also tend to have more classes and skills that give it more depth, but they also aren't about having a career in Starfleet, I'm pretty sure necromancers and mages are a pretty small percentage of recruits. I don't think a Starfleet tactical officer and science officer will differ as much as other classes in other games.

  
For me, All MMOs start with character building, turn into a grind to build the character you want to become, but eventually beg you to ask "...and now what". At least what you are actually DOING isn't boring in Star Trek, The space combat is fun! Simple maybe, but how complicated should firing a photon Torpedo really be (would naysayers perfer you having to buy ordinance like some other games?)  

...and the ground combat, although a bit clunky, is stil entertaining for a game in the MMO genre, you have to make it interesting though, utilizing the flanking, weapon switching, and exploit/expose system. (yea, its going to get dull if you just sit there,  lock on, and fire your primary shot while waiting for the secondary to recharge.)  Kits also offer the potential to switch up your playstyle. 
 
PVP in STO has potential too, as soon as they find gameplay modes that sync well with the type of game it is.  

Instancing does have its limitations, but it also gives developers more freedom within those instances, and keeps us all on the same server. 
  - I've played Eve, this game is not Eve, and does not try to be, so comparing it over and over again is a waste of time.
- maybe a sector map that you could travel in a straight line indefinately would cheer these people up, if thats really what they covet in a game. 
 
finally , The whole Star Trek Fan will like this game more agrument.. isn't that

the most fucking obvious observation

anyone could ever make?  
-Sure, the fact that its Star Trek makes it more appealing the fans then it would be if it were a generic space theme.  

And yea maybe people who don't care for Star Trek won't like this game as much, But in a Star Trek game where you do Star Trek things, maybe its not something they would be interested in in the first place. Careers in Starfleet arn't all glamour, sometimes your stuck scanning some anomolies,  
at least I don't have to kill any Orcs.
   

 fuck them, people that review for Gamespot and IGN are douchebags anyway, thats why we are all on Giantbomb.

"

STO is garbage, the end.

Gamespy gave it a 40/100. Ouch! 
 
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/startrekonline?q=star%20trek%20online

I've just started playing, but I like it.  Flying ships around is fun and it looks nice.  I'm not going to play it in huge sessions just an hour or two a day. So the repition I hear the game currently suffers from hopefully should not be a problem. Even then I think it is designed as a lighter MMO then your WOW and WAR's (not to mention EVE).   
I had a look at the different reviews on metacritic but those sites dont line up to my personal gaming prefrences, so their score's hold less weight with me. 
If you think a game is garbage good for you, but is there really a need to post every  bad review of a game you dont personally like? 
Everybody is different and likes different things. Reviews are not infalliable just an opinion. Like all the varied posts in this forum.

From what I'm to understand, there are 5-day trials up now, so if you are curious about the game, you can check it out. 
 
I don't really care about it, as I hate Star Trek, but I'm going to at least check it out before I try to bash it.  From what I've SEEN so far, though, it's not much of an MMO...more just a social RPG.

The good news is MMO's can right the ship as more content and tweaking comes down the pipe.  I mean some games even do something crazy like make it free to play or whatever else, there are lots of options. 
 
A early review of an MMO is not a bad thing, but if your interested in the setting and certain ideas of an mmo, I'd suggest keeping an eye on it 6-12 months from now and see whats up before totally dismissing it.

" played the beta and i would give the pre mega patch game a 5.5  This game is a 7 to 8 out of 10  game....if ur going purely on fact and dont use any ideas of "personal taste" it works its functional its a good looking game and doesnt seem to buggy thus far. factor in personal taste and the score can climb or fall 1 or 2 points either way.  also as always said mmo's cant be judged on the first month hell sometimes even the first year. they are not finished games even WOW still isnt "finished" its the whole up and down side to an MMO  one other point with any mmo you either get stuck in and take a risk early on or you shut up watch from the outside and join in months or years down the line  you know what you got your self into when you bought an MMO day one so have no excuse to complain unless its constructive and your still sticking it out "  

STO to me would be like visiting a theme park that had only a few (t for teen) tame rides surrounded by huge privacy fences so the park feels really small but not overcrowded. To get in it requires a one time access pass of 50 dollars, a 15 dollar ticket, and every month I would have to buy a new ticket. They have a few souvenirs you can purchase, and over time they plan on adding new rides but it's not sure if they will charge you extra for special passes to ride them. It was fun to visit for a few weeks, but even if I thought the price of admission was justified, the rides just seem to get old too fast. If you have money and time to burn check it out, but even other independent theme parts like Cedar Point (EVE) are a much better value.

I wouldn't want to be Jeff right now.

The heck!?!
 
5.5!?!
 
When I played the demo, I did not realize it would have gotten that score! I never realized it would be that bad! I had great fun with it!

" @SilenceUK said:

" played the beta and i would give the pre mega patch game a 5.5  This game is a 7 to 8 out of 10  game....if ur going purely on fact and dont use any ideas of "personal taste" it works its functional its a good looking game and doesnt seem to buggy thus far. factor in personal taste and the score can climb or fall 1 or 2 points either way.  also as always said mmo's cant be judged on the first month hell sometimes even the first year. they are not finished games even WOW still isnt "finished" its the whole up and down side to an MMO  one other point with any mmo you either get stuck in and take a risk early on or you shut up watch from the outside and join in months or years down the line  you know what you got your self into when you bought an MMO day one so have no excuse to complain unless its constructive and your still sticking it out "  

 
All this translates into is "hey guys it's beta!", creed of the fanboy. I don't mean to single you out here but you gave a sterling example. One of the only reasons an argument like "you can't judge a mmo based on its first month" ever stands up is because that mmo has enough depth people won't be hitting the end and bored for literally months if not years after release. Releasing shallow rushed products during the end of a recession is retail suicide, plain and simple.  IP loyalty isn't enough, and you also need consumer loyalty. That is why so many are looking forward to the star wars mmo. It has a solid IP, and a reliable company behind it. Like STO, I won't judge it till I've tried it myself but I'm hopeful.
 
The Star Trek franchise is what kept any little shred of hope I had for STO going until even that was gone. Other mmos like Age of Conan and Warhammer also were shallow, relied on popular IPs to prop them up, and had short success/ long term failure launches. You would think Cryptic would get the hint consumers are fed up. People's standards just aren't as naive or shallow as they have been in the past because there is genuine competition now and old arguments like "you know what you're getting into playing a mmo at launch" sound pathetic these days when regurgitated ad nauseum. 
 
If I had to give a review of STO to someone who's never played an mmorpg, online game, or even owned a computer then I would break it down as simple as possible and describe it honestly in real world terms like this.... 
 
 
 

STO to me would be like visiting a theme park that had only a few (t for teen) tame rides surrounded by huge privacy fences so the park feels really small but not overcrowded. To get in it requires a one time access pass of 50 dollars, a 15 dollar ticket, and every month I would have to buy a new ticket. They have a few souvenirs you can purchase, and over time they plan on adding new rides but it's not sure if they will charge you extra for special passes to ride them. It was fun to visit for a few weeks, but even if I thought the price of admission was justified, the rides just seem to get old too fast. If you have money and time to burn check it out, but even other independent theme parts like Cedar Point (EVE) are a much better value.

" 
 

" Yep those review seem to be on par with my impression of the game. I feel there was way to much hype surrounding it around release and now all that excitement has gone away, people can see what this game actually is. Like Dave said, Champions in space. "

I don't think Dave was commenting on the quality of either product as much as he was stating that they both share the same instance based MMO formula.

" @Buzzkill: for someone who hates this game so much, you sure post ALOT in this forum. Don't you have anything better to do? "

Part of me isnt that surprised the game would get a lower score from reviews as the game to many is pretty torn on what many assumed Star Trek Online should or shouldn't be. Personally I'm enjoying the game but also agree to some of the criticisms. Despite it tho, I will still play it and given its an mmo would certainly grow and improve.

IGNs review is pretty spot on, and I can't really recommend the game to anyone looking for a deep mmo experience.
But, even with it being all surface and no substance, I dig it. Jumping in for an hour or two every day or so to fly around and battle in space with all the star trek look, sound and feel is fun as Hell.  
I live in hope that it continues to improve.

I think you're just seeing a backlash against how samey and unambitious MMOs have become to be honest.  Granted, STO isn't much to get excited about, but were Champions or Conan really that much better?  I wouldn't say so - and I think the current subscriber numbers would probably support that claim - yet they both reviewed much higher than 5.5 at launch.

Their reviews were spot-on.
 
Frankly, I don't understand why so many are so quick to give this game a bit more credit than it has earned at this point.
 
Will it improve? Probably. Is it worthy of the low scores it received at this point? Yep.