| Forum Index > General Games |
Development ended, game appears to be dead. https://forums.artillery.com/discussion/911/end-of-development -Jinro | ||
|
207aicila
1237 Posts
On August 24 2016 05:27 Motiva wrote: It's the closest to a competitive RTS we're gonna see before BWHD, lol. If the "closest to a competitive RTS" we have these days doesn't even have base building then lol indeed, the genre might as well be dead. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On August 24 2016 17:06 207aicila wrote: If the "closest to a competitive RTS" we have these days doesn't even have base building then lol indeed, the genre might as well be dead. I certainly didn't say it was the closest we have, or will have... if the implications of my statement were not clear, I was simply saying that, to my knowledge, there is not another competitive RTS even in development. If you want to qualify the life of a genre by the number of worthwhile games released in the genre per year, well then yea no shit, it's been dead for many years... What's your point? Or if the quality of a game is largely defined by how much base-building and macroing needs to be done well then there are only like 3 competitive (or even competent?) games in the genre? If that?! 2? Can we even call that a genre? I share your disappointment that this is the reality of something we love. Yet, I'm not going to project all my expectations and desires onto some company. Sure, they simultaneously said they were going to create a competitive RTS and experiment wildly. It didn't work out in base building's favor  May the macro gods have mercy on their souls. Now time to enjoy Atlas for what it is? | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On August 24 2016 17:06 207aicila wrote: If the "closest to a competitive RTS" we have these days doesn't even have base building then lol indeed, the genre might as well be dead. I don't understand the dislike towards base building, what person doesn't enjoy carefully aligning buildings to make a wall or setting up new production facilities etc. ? In my opinion even Starcraft 2 suffers from a distrust of macro mechanics in the broader sense. If you look at the new units added over expansions and such, exactly what base mechanics were added to improve on base design? Something like the supply depot which can be raised or lowered to me adds a lot of charm to the game and it stands out as an improvement over brood war depots. What evidence is there that something like this is on David Kim's radar like at all? I've never seen him talk about how to improve base management and make it more fun. | ||
|
nighcol
298 Posts
On August 24 2016 17:36 Motiva wrote: I certainly didn't say it was the closest we have, or will have... if the implications of my statement were not clear, I was simply saying that, to my knowledge, there is not another competitive RTS even in development. How about Dawn of War 3? We don't know much about their multiplayer yet but in this day and age it seems pretty likely they're thinking about esports too. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
building management is such a cool part of broodwar because you can totally change how a choke works just by changing where you put your gates and forge... the variable "pixel size" being different for each side of a building led to such cool mechanics... but alas, that's too "complicated" for new players.. personally i don't see the point of going for moba players if you're going to gut 75% of the fun and rewarding mechanics from rts out, but i guess $$$ rules all dawn of war 3 looks okay, although like you said we don't know anything about it yet.. at least it has base building so if nothing else it might be cool to play around in like DoW1 was | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
I know it feels like shit but basically thats how the game industry works. If your playerbase is of working age 30+ with kids, you're not going to make a lot of money (so targeting BW audience = not a good idea). You need to target a younger audience, and if that younger audience hates what you do, you have to adjust. This does not mean you get a complete LoL-clone though. It also just doesn't mean you get BW2. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On August 24 2016 19:30 KeksX wrote: The reality is Enydmion that as a BW fan you're probably part of a very small hardcore-playerbase that sees things this way. The majority disagrees with you and thinks caring about buildings is tedious and annoying. There's a reason RTS is dying and MOBAs are not. I know it feels like shit but basically thats how the game industry works. If your playerbase is of working age 30+ with kids, you're not going to make a lot of money (so targeting BW audience = not a good idea). You need to target a younger audience, and if that younger audience hates what you do, you have to adjust. This does not mean you get a complete LoL-clone though. It also just doesn't mean you get BW2. It also means we the people coming to TL who are 30+ with kids are going to shit on this game all the time and it should be expected as it does not have RTS features we want. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
edit~ also i have heard the same thing leveled at old school quake players wanting quake champions to be a good extension of quake 3's core fundamentals instead of copying overwatch/cod, and people saying "get over it no one wants old quake gameplay," when in reality i think modern FPS players, both PC and console, would totally love quake if it was presented to them correctly | ||
|
Klowney
Sweden277 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
There is a difference between modern remake of an old game, like 2016 Doom or new Quake, and regurgitating the old game to please hardcore fans. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
Yet it obviously can't be the case that the only games with potential for success will be team games. Historically both have been successful. And if you ask MOBA players what they dislike about the game, it's also having to interact with all the abusive, psychotic teenagers that run rampart in the matchmaking, insulting everyone every time they make one mistake. And those are your team mates! I think it's easier to create safe environment if the only abuse can come from your opponent. I played online chess a fair amount, at least before my internet connection became so unstable to the point I couldn't play any online game anymore, but a nice feature there is the ability to do rematch if you liked your opponent, and you can analyze the game together after playing. I don't make much use of them, but they're nice to have and in my opinion, if Blizzard had mainstreamed (and added facilities for) practice partners, rematching, shared replay (or active game) watching, practice channels etc., then the competitive environment would have been much friendlier. But instead they add like a channel which nobody visits and called it a day. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6343 Posts
On August 24 2016 19:30 KeksX wrote: The reality is Enydmion that as a BW fan you're probably part of a very small hardcore-playerbase that sees things this way. The majority disagrees with you and thinks caring about buildings is tedious and annoying. There's a reason RTS is dying and MOBAs are not. I know it feels like shit but basically thats how the game industry works. If your playerbase is of working age 30+ with kids, you're not going to make a lot of money (so targeting BW audience = not a good idea). You need to target a younger audience, and if that younger audience hates what you do, you have to adjust. This does not mean you get a complete LoL-clone though. It also just doesn't mean you get BW2. If you make a good game, a really good game.... people will play it regardless of what genre they think they like. Making a game just because everyone else is making that type is a one way ticket to fail street. Take Blizzard for instance, they saw Valve and Riot making millions and following your logic made the dumbed down but extremely easy and assessable HotS. And it failed horribly. On the other hand Hearthstone became a runaway hit because there just wasn't an established mega-popular alternative, in this case simplifying things worked because (most) people had never played an online card game. People thought dota was too hard to get into so they made LoL, but icefrog went ahead with Valve and made a 1:1 (or close enough) clone and it worked out just fine. Atlus had a really good thing going but compromised the entire project because statistics said it would be better to make something else. Day 9 is a guru at understanding RTS games, but looking at this game, then this tweet from ten days ago: Makes me seriously wonder how much input he had in this game. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On August 24 2016 20:28 zeo wrote: If you make a good game, a really good game.... people will play it regardless of what genre they think they like. Making a game just because everyone else is making that type is a one way ticket to fail street. Take Blizzard for instance, they saw Valve and Riot making millions and following your logic made the dumbed down but extremely easy and assessable HotS. And it failed horribly. If making good games was all there is to having success, the game industry would be completely different. BW is an objectively great game and still is to this day, yet the success outside of korea is more than meh. And if you consider HotS, it still is an extremely good game. It has all the blizzard polish, new ideas and mechanics that cater to a more casual audience. But for some reason it didn't attract a huge amount of that audience for a long time. There's just so many factors for a game's success, including but not limited to luck, timing and context. On the other hand Hearthstone became a runaway hit because there just wasn't an established mega-popular alternative, in this case simplifying things worked because (most) people had never played an online card game. People thought dota was too hard to get into so they made LoL, but icefrog went ahead with Valve and made a 1:1 (or close enough) clone and it worked out just fine. See exactly my point. A huge reason for Hearthstone's success is timing and novelty. Coupled with clever features (collectables, stories, multi-platform) and a rich, established universe Hearthstone could've sucked(and it does to many TCG fans) and still have massive success. Atlus had a really good thing going but compromised the entire project because statistics said it would be better to make something else. Day 9 is a guru at understanding RTS games, but looking at this game, then this tweet from ten days ago: https://twitter.com/day9tv/status/764978122164887552 Makes me seriously wonder how much input he had in this game. You said it yourself: Day9 is a guru understanding RTS games - does he understand how to compromise them for a larger audience? We don't know. We should instead of having this discussion focus on what Atlas is right now and how that can be improved imho. The list of "what could have been" is endless and there's little point in discussing that. For example, people in this thread still complain about it not being 1v1. Although it is quite obvious that 1v1 games are simply too harsh for a large audience. You have to be very specific type of player to enjoy 1v1 games, and those kind of players are extremely rare. If you like to watch replays and analyse your play, congrats you're part of an even smaller minority. You probably belong to <1% of the gaming audience. Designing games for these players is bound to fail - especially if they already have a game they love and compare everything to it, and hate everything thats not close to that. See -Archangel-. Making him happy requires copying his favourite game that already failed on the current market. | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey459 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
Atlus had a really good thing going but compromised the entire project because statistics said it would be better to make something else. Day 9 is a guru at understanding RTS games, but looking at this game, then this tweet from ten days ago: Atlas has been a MOBA/RTS hybrid for years. Pretty sure it had had any real type of basebuilding or difficult macroskills. It was never like any type of "classical" RTS game. So I don't know about how you could possibly claim they had something good once but don't have that anymore. Surely heroes weren't there from day one, but heroes are probably more comparable to a strong spellcaster. Heroes are really not what makes this a MOBA/NOT a moba. The defining characteristica of an RTS is that it is based around controling multiple units. And Atlas is that, just like Wc3 is. Seriosuly, the amount of people speculating without having any clue about anything is mindblowing. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On August 24 2016 20:54 _Spartak_ wrote: If you are making a traditional RTS, it is hard to see how it can succeed and retain a playerbase in today's climate. At that point, you are simply making an inferior StarCraft 2 and why would anyone play your game instead of SC2? Any marginal benefits a new traditional RTS might have will be insignificant compared to the polish and the big community a Blizzard game can offer. I think SC2 is as good as it gets for the traditional RTS formula for the foreseeable future. If a new RTS is going to succeed, it has to innovate. I don't know if GoA is that game but it at least HAS a chance because it is trying something new. One thing to note is that SC2 is not at all what people consider a traditional RTS. StarCraft always has been the weirdo when it comes to RTS. Look at C&C, AoE and you see what people define as traditional. Thats probably why it's the only survivor atm, because it innovated in a stagnating genre. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
For example, people in this thread still complain about it not being 1v1. Although it is quite obvious that 1v1 games are simply too harsh for a large audience. You have to be very specific type of player to enjoy 1v1 games, and those kind of players are extremely rare. That's a theory. I never believed it as I always argued that there were lots of other issues preventing people from playing Starcraft (such as knowledge and mechanical requirements). And then Heartstone came and prooved my theory correct so not sure why you keep repeating that theory as if it was true despite the fact that it was always just a theory and empirical evidence points to the contrary. | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey459 Posts
On August 24 2016 21:00 KeksX wrote: One thing to note is that SC2 is not at all what people consider a traditional RTS. StarCraft always has been the weirdo when it comes to RTS. Look at C&C, AoE and you see what people define as traditional. Thats probably why it's the only survivor atm, because it innovated in a stagnating genre. Oh, StarCarft 1 was innovative for sure. I was talking about SC2 exclusively and when I say traditional RTS, I mean you collect reaources with workers, build a base etc. | ||
|
207aicila
1237 Posts
On August 24 2016 20:28 zeo wrote: If you make a good game, a really good game.... people will play it regardless of what genre they think they like. While I think KeksX's post was laughably misguided and narrow-minded... I can't agree with this. I've seen far too many excellent games throughout the years that never got the attention they deserved, usually because of poor marketing or poor release timing and though it sounds bitter of me to say, usually a worse game with better marketing and accessibility would take their spotlight. Many of the best games ever made were sleeper hits or cult classics until they hit GOG and/or Steam in recent years (see: System Shock, Planescape Torment, Strife, even Deus Ex to some extent, etc.). Take it from someone who's been in love with RTS and proper FPS since the early 90s. A game being fantastic is far from enough. And very rarely do we see a true success in faithfully revitalizing an old franchise in a way that also brings hundreds of thousands if not millions of new players. Games like Fallout: New Vegas, Civilization V, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, DOOM 2016, they are more the exception rather than the rule, and they have two main things in common: 1. They were developed and published by large companies who could afford to give them the level of polish necessary to make them accessible to newer crowds, as well as the marketing and pedigree necessary to hype people up. Not to mention being sequels in old school franchises with many older fans who would no doubt return if the game turned out to be any good. 2. But more importantly... they're single-player focused. The barrier for entry to a new genre and old school sensibilities is a lot lower if you can explore it at your own pace, rather than have to compete against people who have been playing similar games for 10+ years and know the ins and outs of such a deep and complex game. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
And people find direct player vs player interactions (such as micro) fun. Hence if you make a game that has fun and lots of microinteractions you have a solid base. On top of that you also need to have some type of strategic depth and reward decisionmaking. Thus you add lots of different types of units/heroes/styles/openings you can use where each one has disadvantages and advantages. Arguing that a good game is about basebuilding because you personally enjoy basebuilding is nonsense. If basebuilding was so insanely fun for a lot of people, then Sim City would be more popular. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that players building bases in their own little world while not interacting with the opponent is what a large amount of people would find fun. If you think so, that's fine, but don't try to make that type of mechanic out as if it is some type of "objective good game" mechanic. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
