Talk:Star Trek Online

Reception

There are a couple of users who keep gutting the Reception section. I think it is fine as it is, and is in line with other game articles. It is all cited and NPOV. Raluboon (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, with the exception that the quotes perhaps are unnecessary. All the people coming to this article from the Star Trek forums need to chill out with the verbal diarrhea all over the article. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

While the quotes are not exactly necessary, I don't see anything wrong with them. Most other game articles here also include quotes from the reviews. Raluboon (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just brings up WP:QUOTEFARM issues. But it's not a big deal. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The page kept being reverted before due to the initial additions about the "discount controversy" being biased, inflammatory, and uncited. Player rage isn't appropriate here. The current version has been formatted more appropriately, however, and seems okay to keep. KarmaInferno (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove the negative review quotes, or balance with positive ones: Some people take exception to others listing only the negative reviews. It introduces unnecessary bias into the article and skews it toward editorial. If you *must* quote negative reviews, also quote positive ones to balance it. Or leave the reviews on the review sites where they belong. Poondar (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC) You DO realize as soon as you cut the negative reviews you lose your so precious "neutrality" Theres has been one review Ive seen of this game so far that was positive an that was TTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.139.16 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 Note: This is not a content dispute. The game hasn't even been out for a month....need anything else really be said? Editors need to stop adding unciteworthy references and non-NPOV content or else face warnings and possible temporary blocks. This article doesn't even need a reception section for a while; it doesn't help readers or improve this article, and is only being added as an agenda for those who are evidently disgruntled with the game or game publisher.   Thorncrag  05:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC):::

I agree with CapnZapp below. The idea of neutrality does not mean we have to balance every negative point with a positive one. It means that we have to present the best representation of the truth, no matter how we feel about it. The reviews have been overwhelmingly lukewarm to negative, and the reception section should certainly reflect that fact. Raluboon (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I agree as well. Ignoring the fact that thre WERE negative reviews and you seem biased.

Hi. I was the one initially adding the reception section. I chose two big review sites as I felt their quotes to be representative for the overall reception of the game; and added the Metacritic aggregator for good measure - the additional quotes were not added by me.

Concerning adding positive quotes: Sorry, but all games should not come across as average. Wikipedia should reflect the actual reception of each game, positive or negative.

Concerning "this game hasn't been out a month": I disagree. The major game mags have given their verdict - thus we can summarize their grades. Wikipedia isn't a printed encyclopedia where you only get one shot - we can update as the situation changes. There is no reason to hold off. In fact, I'll argue that as soon as an aggregate site like Metacritic (just an example, feel free to choose another) can compute a score, we can have a Reception section.

Now, I understand the Qoutefarm criticism. I won't make any edits right now as there seem to be edit warring going on, but I support the notion the extra quotes could be cleaned up. We only need a single quote from any one review, for starters.

I don't see any harm in adding a quote from the more positive reviews, by the way. But I do ask of you to keep the general gist of it: the reviews are mediocre, mixed or average (however you want to phrase it) - it should be clear that this game's reviews is decidedly less enthusiastic than for the genre leaders. Anything else ("balanced" quotes, for instance) would be dishonest and a disservice to Wikipedia.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• If there the negative reviews aren't balanced by positive reviews, the solution is to add the positive reviews, not to remove the review section altogether. –xeno^talk 15:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotefarm issues I referred to are specifically the need to add quotes from the other side of the spectrum, which leads to an ever increasing supply of counterbalanced quotes. It would be better to remove them completely from the article and just leave the scores/metacritic; if people want, they can read the entirety of the reviews on their relevant sites. -Falcon8765 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Falcon is 100% correct here. This is textbook WP:UNDUE and if anyone does not understand this, they need to completely re-read the entire WP:NPOV article from start to finish before modifying the article again.   Thorncrag  20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So you would propose an empty reception section with simply a table of scores? No, that's not how we do things. See WP:VG/GL#Essential content. If they are issues with the quotes, then the appropriate response would be to edit, not simply remove, the section. WP:QUOTEFARM is an essay, by the way. –xeno^talk 20:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The current revision seems okay to me. Everyone happy with it? Raluboon (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is arguing against the obvious fact that a well-crafted, balanced, and neutral reception section is the overall long-term goal as it is best for the reader, but when that isn't happening either because of neutrality of editors, lack of reliable sources, or otherwise, the only alternative is to leave out the section until the game has matured a little bit. Reception is always going to be hyperbolic when a game is first released, which fosters neutrality problems and that is a strong reason to let the game mature a bit before including it. For heaven's sake, how about at least 30 days?   Thorncrag  21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. We aren't going to leave a reception section out "for the time being" because someone subjectively thinks it has "too many negative reviews, and surely more positives ones will be forthcoming!". Please see WP:NPOV. If you can find more positive reviews from reliable sources, please do feel free to add them. In any case, tomorrow will make a month and two days later will make 30 days. –xeno^talk 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think nixing the reviews would be a violation of the very policy he is claiming to preserve here. Raluboon (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a "Controversy" section independant of or subheaded to reception? As this whole slew of fiascos seems more a controversy than just part and parcel to the regular flow of a MMO launch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.139.16 (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading the forums between launch and now shows little difference in anger/entitlement/genuine frustration/campaigning (No Skill Cap, Zero Death Penalty, etc.) in comparison. The game had lukewarm reception. The vocal players praise and punish it in equal amounts. Honestly, less is more. I added a review, but after reading this discussion, I'm reverting it. I think KISS applies here. 209.180.155.12 (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there no criticism section on the page? Maybe as a sub to reception. Particuarly visible in the STO forums themselves are large numbers of fans cancelling or threatening to cancel their accounts based on the responses or lack of responses from the Cryptic team. Ranging from the "60 extra free days and $10 off" to the constant crashing from bugs, server failures and lack of customer support with tickets dating back to before the launch. I look at this page and with the amount of negative responses this game is getting from players, i think that Cryptic/Atari has whitewashed it. - 15.195.201.88 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you'll find reliable sources showing this, it could be added to the article. However as I stated above, I don't think anything that happens on a forum is notable unless it's picked up somewhere else. Dayewalker (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This article pretty much sums up what is going on:

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.143.244 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The "article" is an self-proclaimed opinion piece. It needs to be covered by a reliable source, not the opinion of one columnist. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 03:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one: Atari and Cryptic anger the people who bought Star Trek Online at launch Raluboon (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This kind of player outrage almost never is worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. Don't takemy word for it; check out the other MMO articles.

Anyway, I removed the bits without sources. Feel free to add back info on the event if you can find a NPOV source. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles seeing Ataris behaviour as at least problematic are now popping up all over the web. I would think it would be wise to wait some days until including info into the article, but as it is gaining interest worldwide, the info about the critizisms maybe should be included as documentation, as it IS a part of the games history. 93.202.164.2 (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Only if it is covered in multiple reliable sources - if it's blogs and fan forums, we aren't interested as the material cannot be used. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point of view. What would be "reliable" sources by your definition? 93.202.164.2 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are defined by Wikipedia policy. They'd include newspapers, game magazines and respected sites; they wouldn't include fan sites, minor review blogs or forums. --McGeddon (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there have been articles at both Ten Ton Hammer and MMORPG.com, both of which are respected sites. The TTH article is above, and the MMORPG article is here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/352/view/news/read/16347/Star-Trek-Online-Limited-Time-Offer-Triggers-Immense-Backlash.html Raluboon (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Isnt avoiding the issue showing a bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.139.16 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Find what you want reliable, but heres the list of sites I have that are covering the issues: Inc Gamers: http://www.incgamers.com/News/21216/star-trek-online-offer-10-off-60-days-free-added Inc Gamers: http://www.incgamers.com/News/21236/star-trek-online-offer-removed PvPee.com: http://mmorpgs.pvpee.com/star-trek-online-%E2%80%93-pre-order-penalty Ten Ton Hammer: http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/81508 Ten Ton Hammer: http://www.tentonhammer.com/sto/news/atari_removes_60_day_offer MMORPG.com: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/352/view/news/read/16347/Star-Trek-Online-Limited-Time-Offer-Triggers-Immense-Backlash.html Crunchgear: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/03/01/atari-says-screw-you-to-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch/ We The Few: http://www.wethefew.com/?p=256 Headline News: http://www.headlinesnews.net/949/atari-and-cryptic-anger-the-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch Karangoel: http://www.karangoel.in/atari-and-cryptic-anger-the-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch/ Popular Tech News: http://poptechnews.com/atari-and-cryptic-anger-the-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch.html Tekgek: http://tekgek.com/?p=12129 Dintz: http://www.dintz.com/atari-and-cryptic-anger-the-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch/ Sparwaaerhq: http://www.sparwasserhq.org/atari-and-cryptic-anger-the-people-who-bought-star-trek-online-at-launch/2010/03/01/ Massively: http://www.massively.com/2010/03/02/community-upset-causes-cryptic-to-make-a-statement-on-sto-promot/ MMOCrunch: http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/03/01/star-trek-online-pre-order-penalty/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddahcjcc222 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Are none of the above links acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddahcjcc222 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC) so... is verifiable the rule unless its covering controversy about the game, then you just ignore that it happened? What happened to your "it must be verified" hard rule? huh must be nice to make up the rules when you feel like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.139.16 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Early this year, STO was a controversial MMO with a top-flight franchise title. It was (by any measure) rushed onto shelves by Cryptic and "lukewarm" is perhaps the best thing you can say about the reception. Now that some time has gone by, a sober look at the critics and supporters would be helpful to making this article objective and complete. Jusdafax 03:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Massively"

I continually have to remove the "massive" reference in Star Trek Online because the game does not meet the definition of an MMORPG. Star Trek Online is in the same realm as Guild Wars due to the instancing, and you will notice that Guild Wars is also not called a "massively" multiplayed online game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.101.175 (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support this assertion? I note that Guild Wars is in Category:Massively multiplayer online games. IGN called it an MMO [2], as does the publisher [3], and the developer [4]. We go by what the sources say, not what we personally believe. However, if you have a reliable source that discusses this, I think it would be a good addition to the article. Gamespot touched on it [5] but didn't go so far as to revoke it's "massively" status due to the instancing. –xeno^talk 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Xeno to centralize discussion and get more opinions on this. –xeno^talk 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an MMORPG, it's described as an MMORPG, it's sold as an MMORPG, that it's not massive is the IP addresses own opinion and does not seem to be borne out by the rest of the world. Guild Wars is not described as an MMORPG because the developers choose not to describe it in that way, not because it doesn't meet the definition. Star Trek is not different than WoW or any other MMORPG. Yes it uses instancing, but you can still interact with thousands online. Canterbury Tail talk 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

24.14.x.x commented at my talk page that they were unable to find sources to back up the claim so they would stop making the change and comment here if they do find said sources. –xeno^talk 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reliable division is between single-player and multi-player. There does not exist an universally accepted definition of "massively" (such as half a dozen players or a hundred players or tens of thousands of players). So the only good definition of what is an MMO is what the developer calls it (as long as it's not blatantly obvious the dev is lying, in which case it should be easy to find a reliable source to quote on this.) You (and this isn't directed to anyone in particular) might not think there are enough players for it to earn the "massively" title, but such personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia. CapnZapp (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Back when playing multiplayer games involved LAN parties, there was usually a hard limit of 4 (Doom), 8 (Warcraft II) or rarely 16 players. But then MMORPGs came out allowing essentially unlimited numbers of players to connect at a time. In reality, there probably is a cap on the total number of players, but it's not a cap that's meant to be reached. Since then, games have come out that have caps that are much larger than the 16 that was once common, but not "unlimited" in the sense of MMOs. But that doesn't mean that there aren't games that are clearly "massively multiplayer"; there are, and Star Trek Online is clearly among them. Powers ^T 13:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

30 Years after Nemesis?

I'm presently doing research on it, but I beleive that 30 years after nemesis in the tag was the original goal of the game before the release on J.J. Abram's Star Trek as there is definately in the game a design pattern based off of that enterprise and Vulcan is completely destroyed in this game.

This MMORPG is based in the alternate timeline put forward by that movie.

Lucky Foot (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No the game is set in the mainstream Star Trek universe, not the new alternative one. And Vulcan isn't destroyed, you can go visit it and walk around on it. Romulus is destroyed, as is correct for the mainstream universe, it wouldn't be destroyed in the alternative one. The Enterprise design in the game is very obviously based off the standard Enterprise design from Star Trek I-VI, not the new movie.

If still in doubt, see this page, and this one. Canterbury Tail talk 11:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding (pre-order buyer here) that the Universe was placed 30 years in to the future of the Alternate timeline. I'm pretty sure that's what the little booklet that came with it said; I'll check when I get home. Would I need to upload pics or something validate my claim? 64.244.102.2 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's very definitely in the original timeline. Romulus has been destroyed, as per the original timeline, and its destruction plays a big part of the storyline. Also you can go and walk around Vulcan if you like. There is no evidence in the game to suggest it's the alternative timeline. The ships are original timeline, the history everything. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I made mention of the original timeline in the Gameplay section to leave no doubt among readers. I also added a lot of content ("Be bold") in gameplay to describe it more accurately post-Season 2. I play a lot, but I don't have all the 100% correct information in front of me. (Editing Wikipedia at work.) So, feel free to prune/correct as you all see fit. 209.180.155.12 (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated

I updated the page, specifically the table on Seasons. Because of this I removed the infobox stating that the page was out of date.

I also added a section on The Foundry, a new gameplay feature that's on the test server, and I cleaned up some minor mistakes and typos. Seanr451 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am editing the Foundry Portion due to me being an active player and KNOWING that the foundry has went live on Holodeck Lordchaotic (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is correct. The Foundry went to the live server (Holodeck) on March 28th, 2011. And because I just know that someone will delete all of this because we haven't cited a source [6] There's a source. Seanr451 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Season 4?

Can someone provide some info re the season 4 release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.216.49.250 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Dan Stahl, STO's Executive Producer, "Season 4 is going to be somewhere between June-July." Seanr451 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And I just updated the Season chart with the info that they're shooting for a July 7th release of Season 4. Seanr451 (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sold to Perfect World

Someone should add information on the sale of Cryptic and thus STO to the chinese company that owns the Perfect World chinese mmo. -2s1m