Surface Reflection wrote:Flatfingers wrote:An important second reason for giving starships some serious depth is that many of those who'll be drawn to a game like ST:O will, I think, be the kind of people who find complex systems more interesting (read: more fun) than trivially simple objects.
Baaaaad idea.
This is why it didnt work, although it was really a good try and would be a great thing to see in such or similar games. Its a mass market audience. Of course they want things to be as simple as possible, streamlined into singularity of good taste and quality.
I think you may be confusing depth with complexity.
We've also seen what happens when developers aim low. Baaaaad idea.
I do understand what you mean; I've commented on mass market gameplay tastes myself. They aren't wrong, but they are about clarity in knowing what one is "supposed" to do and exactly how to get it done as quickly as possible. It does take thoughtful design to support that style of play as well as deeper play for those looking for gameplay that's less about excitement or achievement and more about exploration. But I think it can be done, and my notes in the link above were a first step in that direction.
I also think the Star Trek franchise in particular needed that depth. And I was disappointed, but not surprised, when Cryptic revealed that STO was pretty much a reskin of Champions Online. That was presumably to kick it out the door in just two years, but it caused STO not to have much more than a surface rendering of what Star Trek IMO is actually about.
Whether that simplicity has made STO as successful as it might have been is an open question.