| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (28)

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 9:14AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I knew you guys couldn't go a day without a Cryptic-related article :)

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 9:21AM Snichy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Much like Cryptic in general: good idea, poorly implemented.

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 9:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Will they just stop already... Cryptic really has shown they have no idea what they are doing..

So they hire some third party Social Networking Firm to find these Council members. They could even be bothered themselfs to put in the time to find fans for there own game to get feedback from. Just another way from them to lay blame at the feet of another company if this goes bad.

"Q: So people who don't give feedback in the forums are going to talk to one of four strangers about it?
A: Star Trek fans who feel overwhelmed by the forums and disinclined to post there may prefer speaking with other Star Trek fans in different venues, yes."

I don't see that happening much if any at all. If the person can't be bothered to provide feedback via ingame or on the forums do they really think the person is going to walk up-to some stranger on a venue and start giving out feedback. Heck the council member at the venue more then likely has a lot more on there mind then taking down feedback from some fan.

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 10:02AM Ringu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
See now, you're the reason this council was created. The reason you don't see it having much value is precisely the point: who doesn't know that if they post on the forums, people like you will jump all over them?

Heaven forbid that anyone should have something positive to say, and these days even negative opinions that attempt to be constructive are still flamed to death.

Having council members that won't deride you or call you a n00b or a fanboi is a great idea; but people like you can't understand because you're the problem they were created to solve.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 9:33AM Thac0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All this drama over STOked is much ado about nothing.

The more I play this game the more i realize its not Cryptic who's bad but that its all just mass hysteria by the players for little to no reason. It seems that MMO gamers opinions are like a forest fire; one spark seems to set the entire forest ablaze in a self propagating cycle of destruction.

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 10:51AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
If that's the case, then why does Cryptic get so much flack and no one else?

It's not that they make one bad decision, it's the multitude of poor ideas that they implement without consulting the majority, find out that, whoops, they made a mistake, and then set it back to the way it was or to how people wanted it, all the while claiming they're "listening to the community" when what theyre really listening to is the blowback. If they'd listened to the community in the first place, people wouldn't discuss them with such vitriol.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 11:01AM Thac0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What are the multiple bad ideas they have run with in STO that they have gone against the communities wishes and how do we know what the community wants?


Bottom line is consumers vote with wallets and we don't know what their revenue is despite what rabid forums warriors would lead us to think. Cryptic only needs to listen to IFG shareholders at the end of the day.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 1:06PM Teh Jer said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
"If that's the case, then why does Cryptic get so much flack and no one else?"

SOE? FunCom? Yeah, enjoying the shelter as Cryptic is the lightning rod of choice these days. Serves Cryptic right for releasing new games and hogging all the attention that goes with it.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 9:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think if Cryptic had approached as more of a voted on council where the community could view the initial canditates and vote on the council instead of being "told" hey here's your council things would of gone over smoother.

Making the players "active" in the decision also makes it a game element since Cryptic could of approached like an in game live sort of event.

There's so many ways they could of approached this to get players who don't communicate on the official boards that would of made it about everyone but they went for the quickest and hence once again the community loud mouth aggro bots are crying. They should just realize this is how it will always be. Cryptic will make a controversial decision a huge up roar / rage event will happen and boom they waffle and try to fix it.

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 10:10AM Ringu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I understand your desire to feel part of the selection process, but I honestly don't think you've really thought your alternative through, or at least, maybe you just haven't explained it enough here?

Let's say that they did exactly as you say.

How would you nominate someone for a vote? Would you choose someone whose attitudes reflected your own? How would you know that was the case? The most 'public' players are those on the forums, and it would be so much simpler to find out what those players stood for that it would be difficult for a non-forum 'personality' to achieve the same level of campaigning.

And that's the whole problem: the council needs to be non-forum members to get an alternative point of view across.

Any kind of public election would pretty much guarantee that wouldn't happen.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 11:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ian

If I were playing STO, which is to presume there is a Bizzaro World, I would probably choose a forum personality that took it upon themselves to compile and organize a sensible list of suggestions and feedback. Like a sticky author.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 12:29PM Ringu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kdolo:

Sure, but Cryptic's reasoning is that they already have the forums, and can already find out what forum users want from the game.

If they'd created a council with forum personalities, everyone would be up in arms about why only a small group of them gets chosen and how it would mean Cryptic are ignoring the majority of forum users: there's really no way at all for Cryptic to implement it that wouldn't turn out bad (in my opinion, the forum users mostly think they can't do anything right as it is, regardless of what they try).

Attempting to get feedback from non-forum users is tricky, but important.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 10:21AM KorbenDallas said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I played a Klingon when STO first came out, and it was very evident over the course of my first month of play that they (Cryptic) have little insight into development of a mmorpg, but perhaps are better at making single-player games. The list of what's lacking from this game, and it's inherent mmo design flaws is a bit lengthy for this post, but the community has already spoken.

Yea, the community has already spoken with their action of un-subscribing to this game. I've always found it odd how idiots with educations (the devs) enter into this trance of denial about how horribly designed their game is, and then believe by allowing the remaining people who are subscribing to provide input, can cure the disease state or stop the bleeding. Truth is, Cryptic failed to listen to it's community during beta and re-skinned Champions Online with a spaceship. There isn't anything Cryptic can do to turn this game around.

Oh, and way to go mmorpg.com with the 7.5 score on this single-player game;

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 11:37AM Snichy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You appear to be implying that you have only played the Klingon side of the game - if this is the case then you are not qualified to judge the whole game based on only the PvP faction.

When calling the developers "idiots" just for making mistakes in making a game is not a mature or valid argument - they clearly did not intend to make a bad game and insulting people to get your point across shows a lack of intelligence. Argumentum ad hominem.

The game obviously is not what people want but at least Cryptic are trying to put things right (with this admittedly ill-conceived and poorly implemented Council and content patches etc).
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 11:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Super Healer
I think calling the developers "idiots" for making mistakes in developing a game valid, if not mature. Maybe they didn't intend to make a bad game, but calling the team idiots because they didn't flesh out the game before it was released is not an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem would be "You must be wrong because you're an idiot." What Korben is saying, "They were wrong because of this. That makes them idiots"

Agree or disagree, but it's totally valid. Personally, I would have used much sharper language :)
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 11:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ian I didn't think it through really? So what about EvE thats how their panel works. Please Research and Come Again dude.

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 12:33PM Ringu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Load of Idiots:

You mean the CSM that is composed entirely of very active players from the forums?

Fail comprehension test, dude.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 12:51PM Krag said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dude this is nothing like EVE's CSM. You're the one who needs to get his facts straight. If it were more like that and created like that I think people would be happier.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 11:54AM Harley Dude said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wonder why they think the vast majority of players that can't be bothered with providing feedback through official channels (forums) will go to fansites to do so...

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 6:56PM Graill440 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The "vast" majority of whom you speak have already communicated with their wallets, as it should be.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW