| Forum Index > General Games |
Development ended, game appears to be dead. https://forums.artillery.com/discussion/911/end-of-development -Jinro | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 27 2016 00:59 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's not as binary though, locking gameplay elements is. Huge letdown already tbh There is only one valve that can give away entire games for free and then figure out how to make money on them later. | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey394 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 27 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote: There is only one valve that can give away entire games for free and then figure out how to make money on them later. Sure i get that it's a decision which was probably required. But i still hate the decision because it's objectively bad for the gameplay. No reasoning for WHY it is like it is changes that. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16594 Posts
On August 27 2016 00:56 _Spartak_ wrote: I think this was one of the main problems for SC2 against LoL and DotA 2. adding units fucks balance. no F2P RTS has ever been commercially viable in the genre's 20+ year history. SC2 has come closer to offering "pay as you go elements" than any other RTS title with Nova and that slimey Zerg leader guy for $5. you could also criticize ATVI for not using the WoW model... $15/month and $50 expansions. AAA MOBAs , AAA MMOs , and AAA RTSs have different revenue models. | ||
|
lestye
United States4148 Posts
On August 27 2016 01:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote: adding units fucks balance. no F2P RTS has ever been commercially viable in the genre's 20+ year history. SC2 has come closer to offering "pay as you go elements" than any other RTS title with Nova and that slimey Zerg leader guy for $5. you could also criticize ATVI for not using the WoW model... $15/month and $50 expansions. AAA MOBAs , AAA MMOs , and AAA RTSs have different revenue models. I don't think that's fair to say since F2P has only been part of the market for the last 5 years. I don't think that was his point regardless, his point was that microtransactions gives them to incentive to keep adding stuff to the game, as opposed to holding off implementing features/units to put in the back of the box of an expansion. | ||
|
StarFoxeR
68 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On August 26 2016 23:27 KeksX wrote: @Grumbels: You're not being mocked. It was a serious question since you made a bold statement with little basis which usually indicates a troll or sarcasm. You were the one that insulted me via PM - thanks for that btw - and is now complaining about being the victim. Congrats! But anyway, let's act as if you didn't write that PM. Put it in Spoilers and that will be my last post about that. + Show Spoiler + You're making a very broad statement: "DotA2 and CS:GO players like competitive environments, therefore the two games must share the same audience". You can definitely say that to an extent, but only until you actually meet player preferences. There is something like an FPS fan or an RTS fan, but those are very rough distinctions and are hardly meaningful. Citation needed. Why do FPS players repeatedly buy FPS games? Why do RTS fans continue to look for their "revival of the RTS"? The second paragraph is nothing I disagree with. DotA2 and LoL are variations on the same genre, same as BW and SC2. You can make more "hardcore" differentiations if you put foci points on macro/micro, but in a broader sense they're the same. That does not go for SC2<->LoL or LoL<->CS:GO however, at all. Those 3 are vastly different games with different reasons to be played, different skillsets needed and different playertypes attracted. The fact that one is a (primarily) 1v1 game and the others are teamgames already changes so much in "target audience". Control schemes are a way of dividing players, so that a single-player focused FPS is a more accessible experience for Counterstrike players despite the fact they come from multiplayer gaming. No idea what you want to say here. Obviously if you're used to certain control schemes, having that control scheme in your memory makes a game more accessible. That doesn't mean you'll like the game though. So how does one define target audience? Is it based on age, gender, culture, intelligence, interests, experience, free time? However you define it, I think that any fair definition will have to include DotA and Counterstrike as sharing very similar target audiences. Similar - as in: "Both target audiences are relatively more competitive than other audiences". Yes, definitely. Similar - as in: "Both target audiences consist of the same players because they are more competitive than other audiences". No. There are still many differences between DotA and Counter-Strike that lead to having "similar" audiences, but not the same one. You're here on Team Liquid which has had teams in both scenes, and has forums dedicated to both DotA and CS:GO. Both are primarily played by the same group of competitively minded young men. Again: The groups are similar, but not necessarily the same. Here on Teamliquid you have multiple reasons why the scenes are intermingled such as community feel and "peer pressure"; but going from a "top-down RPG-lite brawler", or however you want to describe any DotA-esque game, to a fast-paced tactical FPS is still quite a leap to be made. And the same argument can be extended towards at least Overwatch and League of Legends, which again are so similar when it comes to these points. I think the audience for Starcraft 2 is often older and the type of gameplay and the control scheme is sufficiently challenging to create more distance, but still there is a lot of overlap. I can agree to an extent here, but only for one reason: All of the games mentioned have been, in one way or another, big gaming events and hypes. These games have been hyped so much to a point where people not even into the genre have tried out the game, even though the very "original" of that game was available before (Overwatch -> TF2, LoL -> DotA). But polish, marketing and hype have elevated these games and made them huge success, naturally "sharing audiences" with other games due to sheer size. But thats not necessarily the *target audience*. I'll give you two games which have completely different target audiences: Bejeweled and Counterstrike. One is a casual game for mobile phone users playable by people of all genders and ages, the other is a hardcore competitive game primarily played by adolescents who like war imagery. To act like games like CS:GO and DotA are so vastly different that you have to mock and insult me for noting the strong similarities really shows that you haven't taken a step back to evaluate these games from a less subjective level. The fact that you boil Counter-Strike down to "competitive game played by adolescents who like war imagery" tells a tale about your understanding of video games. There are more differences between games, other than "competitive" and "casual" - you know that, right? Anyway. This is it for me. Continue to talk down to others, I won't have it. I want to set apart factors that are arbitrary distinctions and focus on the ones that I find meaningful. Some level of comfort with top-down controls versus first person controls is significant and it influences game choice, but one's degree of comfort can often be traced to historical factors like what games were popular when you were young and might therefore be called arbitrary. Many other distinctions are like that, if one game is more popular in one country than another it might tell you something about business models, marketing, system specs, market space, popularity of certain platforms. But I think it would be wrong to attach any real significance to these when it comes to discussing the primary target audiences because all these factors are incidental to the gameplay and the raw appeal of the game. It might be true that a different time and place gives different results, but for the purpose of my argument one has to conceive of the core game in isolation. And I'll say that I'm primarily looking at markers like gender, age, type of personality. To this extent any argument along these lines depends on what one sets out to prove and the definitions one uses for target audience. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to construct target audience as being about the attraction of a game to a universal group of people in a certain idealized situation and then ask who is sorted where, and what fanbases will have overlap and so on. There might be other approaches, but I like mine. In the case of Counterstrike, its war imagery is not coincidental to its success, and to its raw identity as a game. It is also not a coincidence that this war imagery is roughly shared between many other games like Halo, Battlefield etc. nor that it is quite similar in structure to the stylized fantasy war environments provided by Overwatch and the various MOBA's. They are often about dark and light, protagonist and antagonist. This is a backdrop to the competitive environment which pits two forces against one another. By finding this significant I am not saying that all competitive games are alike, but that this is something shared by these games which is non-arbitrary. As far as I know these factors that I singled out are all important. Whether something is team-based or not tells you something about its audience because not everyone enjoys team games to the same extent. The fact that gameplay revolves around these neat, repeatable scenarios, that these are balanced, competitive arenas that are about a combination of team work, strategy and mechanical skill, is also an example of meaningful similarity. I find these more meaningful than noting the camera perspective and control scheme. The fact that the same organizations provide forums and teams and professional scenes for the same games is also not a coincidence, neither is the direct correlation between, say, the success of overwatch or league and the decline of starcraft in various countries. There is obvious evidence for the fact that roughly the same group of people are the primary audience for all these competitive games I mentioned, and this group of people is largely 14-30 year old, male, middle-class, competitively minded etc. It's a particular sort of appeal. If you disagree with me then please give me the archetypal DotA or CS player or whatever in terms of personality background and skills needed and tell me how they are so incredibly different from each other. In my view there is more overlap between any of these competitive games that I mentioned than between any single one of them and something like, say, Rome: Total War or Mass Effect or Cities: Skylines or many other games. Of course you can find differences, but so can any genre fan for any number of subgenres. If you take a step back you can nevertheless see that these are nevertheless not so distant from each other and have much more in common than appears at first glance. Certainly DotA and CS are closer to each other by any reasonable definition than DotA and Dune II. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 27 2016 01:06 The_Red_Viper wrote: Sure i get that it's a decision which was probably required. But i still hate the decision because it's objectively bad for the gameplay. No reasoning for WHY it is like it is changes that. Objectively bad for gameplay is hyperbolic, but I will agree it is a strong limiting factor on game design and a concession that is made for commercial viability. Hopefully the neutral units will remain free and help round out the design to they can avoid the power creep issues. On August 27 2016 01:20 StarFoxeR wrote: now that the games out can people say what design argument day 9 left because of ? Like, maybe he just wanted to do something new? I don't think it was one design issue, people rarely quit over stuff like that. People change jobs. | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey394 Posts
adding units fucks balance. no F2P RTS has ever been commercially viable in the genre's 20+ year history. SC2 has come closer to offering "pay as you go elements" than any other RTS title with Nova and that slimey Zerg leader guy for $5. Did you see the game's model? Of course it won't work for SC2 or other RTS games. I don't see how that's relevant. This is a game where you select a small set of units from a larger pool.On August 27 2016 01:20 StarFoxeR wrote: now that the games out can people say what design argument day 9 left because of ? That was pure speculation. I don't know why people think Day9 would leave a game he spent 3 years on simply because of a design decision. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Especially because the game now needs to balance all sorts of combinations of units that you may own which sounds like a bit of a nightmare. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 27 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote: Objectively bad for gameplay is hyperbolic, but I will agree it is a strong limiting factor on game design and a concession that is made for commercial viability. Hopefully the neutral units will remain free and help round out the design to they can avoid the power creep issues. Like, maybe he just wanted to do something new? I don't think it was one design issue, people rarely quit over stuff like that. People change jobs. If it limits your gameplay it is "bad" no? I am not saying that it's game breaking because i don't know (in lol it's not), but it's still a bad trait in my eyes. Day9 leaving was weird because it's so close to the open alpha, he didn't really tweet anything about it and artillery didn't talk about it either. It seems like there was bad blood tbh. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 27 2016 01:25 Logo wrote: But it gives them an incentive to just keep adding units which is a lot more damaging than having the same thing happen in a MOBA AND even then it's pretty bad in MOBA games (compare LoL and DotA's hero pools along with hero pick rates in tournaments). Especially because the game now needs to balance all sorts of combinations of units that you may own which sounds like a bit of a nightmare. They have limiting factors: Each player has to pick a hero and is limited to that heroes faction and their units. Plus neutral units. It will have the same balance problems that MTG or hearthstone have, though the “deck building” is so much more limited than those games. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 27 2016 01:25 The_Red_Viper wrote: If it limits your gameplay it is "bad" no? I am not saying that it's game breaking because i don't know (in lol it's not), but it's still a bad trait in my eyes. Day9 leaving was weird because it's so close to the open alpha, he didn't really tweet anything about it and artillery didn't talk about it either. It seems like there was bad blood tbh. The word “objectively” is the part that I objected to. Objectively means that it cannot be contested and is not subjective in any way. Like temperature outside or time on a specific location on the planet are objective. If something is “bad” for game design is a matter of opinion and perspective. If we removed commercial viability from the equation, limiting factors might still be considered bad. But limits to a games design can also promote innovation. Most innovation is caused by limitations. Many of the great things about BW were caused by limitations of computers at the time the game was made. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On August 27 2016 01:20 Grumbels wrote: There might be other approaches, but I like mine. For this to work you need to clarify this before your post. Without the clarfying statements and explanations of your approach, your post basically read like: "CS:GO and DotA2 are essentially the same game, whatever". Which to me rings all the trollbells and that is why I initially reacted the way I did - I honestly thought you were being sarcastic. I'm primarily looking at markers like gender, age, type of personality. Your post makes a lot more sense with this in mind. But your initial post was during a completely different discussion with completely different focus (gameplay aspects and game design agnostic about players' age, gender or whatever). For the rest of your post: + Show Spoiler + ----QUOTE----- In the case of Counterstrike, its war imagery is not coincidental to its success, and to its raw identity as a game. It is also not a coincidence that this war imagery is roughly shared between many other games like Halo, Battlefield etc. nor that it is quite similar in structure to the stylized fantasy war environments provided by Overwatch and the various MOBA's. They are often about dark and light, protagonist and antagonist. This is a backdrop to the competitive environment which pits two forces against one another. By finding this significant I am not saying that all competitive games are alike, but that this is something shared by these games which is non-arbitrary. As far as I know these factors that I singled out are all important. Whether something is team-based or not tells you something about its audience because not everyone enjoys team games to the same extent. The fact that gameplay revolves around these neat, repeatable scenarios, that these are balanced, competitive arenas that are about a combination of team work, strategy and mechanical skill, is also an example of meaningful similarity. I find these more meaningful than noting the camera perspective and control scheme. The fact that the same organizations provide forums and teams and professional scenes for the same games is also not a coincidence, neither is the direct correlation between, say, the success of overwatch or league and the decline of starcraft in various countries. There is obvious evidence for the fact that roughly the same group of people are the primary audience for all these competitive games I mentioned, and this group of people is largely 14-30 year old, male, middle-class, competitively minded etc. It's a particular sort of appeal. If you disagree with me then please give me the archetypal DotA or CS player or whatever in terms of personality background and skills needed and tell me how they are so incredibly different from each other. In my view there is more overlap between any of these competitive games that I mentioned than between any single one of them and something like, say, Rome: Total War or Mass Effect or Cities: Skylines or many other games. Of course you can find differences, but so can any genre fan for any number of subgenres. If you take a step back you can nevertheless see that these are nevertheless not so distant from each other and have much more in common than appears at first glance. Certainly DotA and CS are closer to each other by any reasonable definition than DotA and Dune II. -----QUOTE END----- I don't actually disagree with you here (apart from minor nuances like the fact that some games are played the same way these titles are, but they have no real competitive scene or the complete lack of dark vs light in DotA2; but these are interesting discussions to be had in other topics). I can see your point of view now. The main misunderstanding was that you were bringing up the point of similarity/sameness in a discussion about specific game design, while you actually were talking about player personality and the likes. So I agree, players that play CS:GO for the competitive aspect aren't that far away from players that play SC2 or LoL for the competitive aspect. But keep in mind - not all StarCraft players are there for the competitive aspect. Same with LoL and same with all the other titles mentioned. I know people that play StarCraft because they like to build stuff, and StarCraft happens to be the only game of the "bigger ones" where they can do that. We should probably stop derailing the thread with this now. I am sorry for calling you a troll instead of asking properly. My apologies. Guardians of Atlas is live! So lets talk about that!  | ||
|
lestye
United States4148 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 27 2016 01:43 lestye wrote: Is anyone watching the dev stream? yeah right now, first had to download the game ^^ | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On August 27 2016 01:43 lestye wrote: Is anyone watching the dev stream? Yes. So far art style is really underwhelming. Really lacks personality. | ||
|
lestye
United States4148 Posts
Also the stream was really boring, the game lasted 40 minutes. That can't be typical, right? | ||
|
Erik.TheRed
United States1655 Posts
On August 27 2016 01:33 Grumbels wrote: It could also be that Day[9] had some sort of contract for X years and that he didn't want to extend it for a year just so that he could witness the release, but I'll agree it is a bit odd. afaik Normally these things don't happen, if only for appearances sake. What does happen often is that someone leaves for a different project because his contributions are no longer essential. You would see that often with Blizzard, that core employees like Rob Pardo would have primary influence during the concept phase of a game and less afterwards. But Day[9] just quit, so that argument doesn't work. It really is super odd. Based on the design videos he shared during closed alpha, it really seemed like he was deeply passionate about the development of Atlas. So for him to just bail right before launch looks really bad... even if he felt like the game wasn't going to succeed, I don't think it would have been a huge stain on him or his brand (it's not like they swindled a bunch of people out of money while breaking promises). And in the event that the game does succeed, he has effectively relinquished credit and diminished his association with the product. I also can't imagine that the company would be willing to get rid of him easily. Just imagine the benefits of having day9 stream a new RTS on launch day. It really makes you wonder what the hell is going on, because at first glance the game itself doesn't seem bad for alpha. I hate to speculate because it's quite possible that this is all due to personal issue(s), but I just hope the game doesn't suffer in the end. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Spring Champion…
herO vs Classic
Clem vs TBD
Zoun vs MaxPax
AllThingsProtoss
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL Season 20
izu vs Sterling
Tech vs Napoleon
Replay Cast
SOOP
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaNa
ByuN vs Classic
Afreeca Starleague
ZerO vs BeSt
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
