|
|
On August 21 2016 01:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:they promised a browser-based game building platform and never delivered. this impacts their credibility. they went far and wide yelling at the top of their lungs how they were going to make the console obsolete with a browser platform that never got made even though they said it was coming in a few months. Blizzard promised PvP in D3 for years and never delivered. this impacts their credibility. Fortunately, BLizzard delivers in so many other areas their reputation can easily withstand this 1 mis-step. Artillery has delivered nothing and has no reputation to fall back on. I advise keeping one's expectations low for this game. Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 19:44 TaShadan wrote:On August 20 2016 16:56 Endymion wrote:On August 20 2016 16:17 TaShadan wrote:
No RTS anymore? Too bad. I guess i stick with Total Annihilation Zero... this is pretty ironic given how old total annihilation is Original TA is old yes. But Zero is a total conversion mod with all new graphics and interface. Having up to date controls. Also the mod is not that old either. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIGJ_Jt1C7W0MU5RHn2h10wI personally prefer good rts games even if they are older to new games with modern graphics but shit gameplay or balance. plus who cares how old the game is any way? my sports game of choice is EA NHL '94. i try other sports games but they're just not as fun so i keep going back to old reliable. do you think there will be active Madden17 competitive leagues in 2040? 
Who cares? They are holding an open alpha is less than a week so anyone who is interested can try the game out for themselves.
Tbh I'm glad it's not gunna be a browser only based game as that would have likely put major restrictions on what is possible, especially in a game that is clearly focused on the multi-player aspect.
In the end I'd rather a game dev change their initial vision to make the best game possible then to stand by some boastful claim they made early in development.
I could understand your concern if they were planning a paid alpha version or something, but anyone who is interested will be able to try the game risk free in a short period of time.
Personally I have no idea if this will be a game I enjoy, but I'm kinda hyped to finally learn more about it and get to play around with it myself.
|
The browser idea was how they started, and they had enough of a finished product to get their initial round of funding. But when day9 hopped aboard, they were focused on making games, and making a good game first.
They said initially that they would not sacrifice game quality for the sake of a browser engine. There's not really much point in arguing it, it's been their stance from the start. They invested a lot in to the browser engine, got a decent product, but decided it wasn't ready for their first release. No big deal.
As far as the actual game goes, I've had invites for all of the testing so far but haven't been able to play so I can't comment on the gameplay.
But really, there's no reason to complain. Venture capitalists take calculated risks on companies like this to grow. They aren't cheating anyone out of anything unless they release a garbage game. They've earned their initial rounds of funding just like thousands of other start ups. No reason to be hostile.
|
On August 21 2016 02:11 ahw wrote:
The browser idea was how they started, and they had enough of a finished product to get their initial round of funding. But when day9 hopped aboard, they were focused on making games, and making a good game first.
They said initially that they would not sacrifice game quality for the sake of a browser engine. There's not really much point in arguing it, it's been their stance from the start. They invested a lot in to the browser engine, got a decent product, but decided it wasn't ready for their first release. No big deal.
As far as the actual game goes, I've had invites for all of the testing so far but haven't been able to play so I can't comment on the gameplay.
But really, there's no reason to complain. Venture capitalists take calculated risks on companies like this to grow. They aren't cheating anyone out of anything unless they release a garbage game. They've earned their initial rounds of funding just like thousands of other start ups. No reason to be hostile.
I guess the browser tech is kind of like the holy grail, looming elusively out of reach as you quest for it. If Artillery had delivered on their conception of providing a competitor of sorts to Starcraft playable as a browser game then the company would all have become millionaires, they would have changed the face of gaming for years to come and Day[9] would be the hippest new celebrity game designer. I'd definitely say to miss out on that promise is a big deal, all the parties involved have to feel a little disappointed they did not succeed in their bid to conquer the world.
On August 15 2016 06:33 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 06:08 Endymion wrote:On August 15 2016 05:05 KeksX wrote:On August 15 2016 03:09 Endymion wrote:On August 15 2016 02:03 KeksX wrote:On August 15 2016 01:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 15 2016 00:49 KeksX wrote:On August 14 2016 16:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i have a better question.
Who in this company has made an actual, authentic, real, verified, commercial game?
They still have Day9's name plastered all over their twitter, web and facebook stuff. Whatever guys. You can read about that yourself: https://www.artillery.com/teamYou guys act as if Day9 was the only competent guy in there. That's delusional. Day9 might have had an impact, but you are being completely unfair to the rest of the team to the point where it's just being an ass. There are multiple guys in there that have more experience in gamedev than Day9 will probably ever have. I love Day9 as much as the next guy in here, but cut the guys some slack. Day9 has never made a commercial game before either. So the headcount of commercial game makers with a track record is unaltered by Day9's exit. Day9 is a game design critic with zero track record as a game designer. No one knows if Day9 is a competent game designer so there is nothing to say if Day9 was a "competent guy" in his role. Thats... basically my point. They have guys in the Atlas team that are clearly experienced. But with Day9 leaving people act as if the game is doomed to fail now. well the thing about making good RTS is you need to actually know what you're doing because of how incredibly intricate the genre is.. having a good bw player who dedicated like 10 years of his life to rts gave a lot of faith to the vision of the project, because of anyone who knows how rts works you would expect an A level foreigner to do know, specifically day9 with all his early dailies and analytics... however, without day9, it's just another dev team and we all know how that usually goes with rts You're making too many assumptions imho. A good player != a good designer and vice versa. Thats a common fallacy. "Not having played BW" != "no idea about how to design RTS games." (And if you look at their page, some of them have played BW) RTS isn't the only intricate game genre to design. Day9 definitely is a competent guy when it comes to knowledge about RTS. That doesn't say us much about his expertise in designing them though, and we also don't know much about the Atlas guys. But part of the team at least has commercial games as part of their portfolio. So I wouldn't be so quick to say that without Day9 this just "another dev team"; they might have(and probably have) the same vision Day9 had. We simply don't really know. Making any kind of judgement of the state of development is pretty much not possible. Also @-Archangel- what the f are you still doing here. Your only purpose in here is to shit on the game. You're not even talking about it, just calling it failed for some reason and insulting the devs. i would disagree and say that it would be rare that a bad rts player could be able to design a good rts game.. just like i think a bad fighting game player would make a bad fighting game dev... not that i know that they're bad, just that they have lost a strong member of the team from my perspective So what about the guys that designed BW? Were they all A-level foreigners? 
Rob Pardo reportedly was a very good player. I think it's interesting that Blizzard handed over the development of their expansion to someone who was essentially only a beta tester, but was nevertheless the strongest in-house player and the most vocal about his vision for the game. If you look at BW you'll see that it doesn't look like a transformative expansion at first, and that it is mainly about balancing the game and filling missing unit roles. I think you can trace that back to Rob Pardo's influence.
David Kim is also a strong player and was involved with the development of SC2 since quite early.
|
they are really going out of their way to avoid using the RTS acronym. check this quote out...
"Guardians of Atlas in 7 words: Real-time 3v3 action-packed army battler"
i guess 3v3 counts as "1 word". as catch phrases and labels go its just LOLz. After years of game development ...did it take them 20 minutes to create this catchphrase?
hopefully , the game is better than the catchphrase.
On August 21 2016 01:53 Tictock wrote:
Who cares? They are holding an open alpha is less than a week so anyone who is interested can try the game out for themselves.
who cares? the people who requested the sources care. the guy who questions if i'm making stuff up cares. that is who cares.
|
On August 21 2016 02:11 ahw wrote:
They said initially that they would not sacrifice game quality for the sake of a browser engine.
They had to have known from the start the limitations of their browser based engine and what they were getting themselves into. According to that logic they should have planned ahead to make the best possible game for the browser platform, not for a stand-alone client.
This only suggests a chaotic development cycle where they never really knew what they wanted to do and just winged it, resulting in lots of core game redo's and massive amounts of time wasted. Reminds me of kickstarters that get a lot more money than they expected and start planning to add this and that without knowing just how long it would take or how complicated it would make the development process.
If they wanted to make the best possible game from the start they never would have mentioned the browser platform.
edit: I was under the impression that this game has base building?
|
i have no idea what a "Real-time 3v3 action-packed army battler" is. i guess it has intense combat with lots of micromanagement and it has big armies. i guess we'll find out in a few days if it has base-building.
i wonder how good the matchmaker and the AI are?
|
On August 22 2016 01:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:they are really going out of their way to avoid using the RTS acronym. check this quote out... "Guardians of Atlas in 7 words: Real-time 3v3 action-packed army battler" i guess 3v3 counts as "1 word". as catch phrases and labels go its just LOLz. After years of game development ...did it take them 20 minutes to create this catchphrase? Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 01:53 Tictock wrote:
Who cares? They are holding an open alpha is less than a week so anyone who is interested can try the game out for themselves.
who cares? the people who requested the sources care. the guy who questions if i'm making stuff up cares. that is who cares.
You're being sort of mean. Even if the game ends up a relative disappointment that's no reason to gloat over other people's misfortunes. These are no faceless hack game developers who don't care about their product, it's a group of young professionals, with many volunteers drawn from the Starcraft community, that tried their best to create something viable. You're judging them based on one or two overly ambitious press releases, but the fact is that for the last few years the game has been in constant development and has supposedly constantly improved. I was invited to the alpha, but tuned out like 18 months ago because of lack of motivation to play, so I can't say anything about the quality of the game though, but nevertheless it's perfectly normal to have to delay a product by one or two years.
|
here's the thing. let's take 2 examples
(a)you announce a giant proejct that will complete in 10 years. 2+ years into this project you decide its not viable and announce an end to the project.
(b)you announce that you will have a time machine built and finished by next week; more than 2 years later you announce its not possible.
case (a) is no big deal. It happens all the time within dozens of R&D firms every year. Artillery is a lot closer to case (b) than to case (a). and case (b) puts into question the credibility of the guys making this announcement of a time machine.
in September 2013 they said beta by the end of 2013 and full product in early 2014. 3 months to beta.. 6 months to launch. Over 2 years later they said "we can't do it".
as far as getting Starcraft volunteers into it... with PR headlines like "spiritual successor to Starcraft" and then when push comes to shove its not even an RTS.... whatever man... whatever... keeping RTS plastered on their home page for 3+ years to keep stringing along with group of RTS volunteer testers... whatever man.
as i've stated in previous posts on several occasions.. if this project goes belly up i feel bad for the volunteers they've been stringing along for years. Indeed the way Day9 exited Artillery ... a case be made that they may have strung him along as well. Day9 has too much class to air his dirty laundry out in public though so we'll never know.
please do not remove a paragraph from the full context and claim that i'm making fun of any unpaid volunteers, i'm not. if this project goes awry i sympathize with their plight and my posts questioning the credibility of the organization are a warning to them.
|
But what organization are you talking about? It's just a small group of programmers from iirc facebook that went into game design with their browser concept, what more is there to it? There is no shadowy organization behind all of this that has gambled with human lives, it's just mostly Day[9] and a handful of other people who put work into this. Now three years later the game is almost done and Day[9] decided he doesn't want to do it anymore, after all it was his first try as a professional game designer and it is perfectly reasonable to quit after more or less finishing his work on the project. The game for the most part is his vision, he had the opportunity to create an RTS design for the company to work on. And when the browser technology didn't work out they continued as a company to finish the game in a different way.
And playing games in browsers is not time machine technology, that's a bit of a weird comparison. I was in the alpha and played the game like that, there were some issues but often it worked and only the programmers of Artillery can tell why exactly the performance wasn't good enough to warrant further development etc. I'm sure it must have been a disappointment to them that it didn't work out, especially after they had put a lot of time into getting the prototype to work.
|
Honestly I don't think it's fair to fault a games/tech startup for taking whatever press they could early-on. They were possibly seeking investment and, like it or not, the general motto for tech startups is 'fake it until you make it'. It's important to take all hype from a startup with a grain of salt, especially when it's just a Techcrunch interview without any tangible details or public demo.
In my opinion, this would have been more scandalous if they had gone after crowdfunding and then done this sort of 180 without communicating well... but as it were, they're just another tech startup and actually did a good job at not setting peoples' expectations for the game after the browser thing failed (just compare with NMS). You've only fooled yourself if you bought into their optimistic day 1 projections and are somehow offended by it years later.
|
i mean they haven't even sold a product... to anyone... i don't see how the hype could even be vilified yet!! it's not like this is no man's sky lol.. they're owned by a megacorp from china btw, they're not indie anymore
|
On August 22 2016 01:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i have no idea what a "Real-time 3v3 action-packed army battler" is. i guess it has intense combat with lots of micromanagement and it has big armies. i guess we'll find out in a few days if it has base-building.
i wonder how good the matchmaker and the AI are?
I don't know how it will be for this game, since i have no clue how the game even works, but if you played Ground control, or more specifically, ground control 2 was a pretty awesome game. Difference is that it was a tactical game tho, so it was action packed by default. A SC-esque RTS 3v3 is offputting if i am not playing with friends.
|
A startup sometimes has to pivot. No need to be so salty about it lol
|
One of my favorite types custom maps for SC2 the micro battles/duel maps. A fleshed out version of that could be a lot of fun.
|
in September 2013 they said beta by the end of 2013 and full product in early 2014. 3 months to beta.. 6 months to launch. Over 2 years later they said "we can't do it".
LOL was also delayed several times as the developers didn't know how long it would take to make.
/End of discussion.
|
Every software project has delay basically :D
|
i'm just hating the landscape of newer development and their promises, projections, and delays. it's completely understandable to be sure, but take something like StarBound for example, shit took like 3+ years for what was widely considered at the time a sort of miniature scam.
of course, there's some bias there, but i'd always joke with my friend that this game would never release. there are many such games and when browsing EA games on steam i always scroll down to the developer QA/FAQ notes at the store pages and read through how they answer the questions. it's usually pretty laughable.
if atlas is anything like their previous alphas, there is slight base building which i hope they've expanded by now, and it is basically a moba with some unit production and lots of abilities.
the whole browser thing raised an eyebrow, and i do not think it would have made them millions. how were they going to monetize that? sure it sparked at interest at the time because it was something new and they sounded confident in their product. day[9] helped in that front as well.
|
You seriously can't conceive how a tech solution to play multiplayer games in the browser can make money ...?
|
Company Start Up has Idea
Company pitches idea and concept to investors
Investors invest to realize said idea and potentially make giant return on investment
Company uses money to pay salaries for a California tech start up over 2-3 years
Original idea, after r&d funded for years, proves unstable. Company direction changed to save investors money.
This is how things get innovated and developed. Things take time and money and risk.
|
On August 22 2016 21:34 ahw wrote:
Company Start Up has Idea
Company pitches idea and concept to investors
Investors invest to realize said idea and potentially make giant return on investment
Company uses money to pay salaries for a California tech start up over 2-3 years
Original idea, after r&d funded for years, proves unstable. Company direction changed to save investors money.
This is how things get innovated and developed. Things take time and money and risk.
The sad truth of it is that the vast majority of video games never make it to being published and are canceled. Even huge AAA games. Metal Gear Solid: Revengeance is a pretty well loved game and it was almost canceled because they couldn’t figure out how to make that sword slicing mechanic into gameplay. It took a second studio digging into it to even make a viable game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
